CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 11.50 am

The Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, although the Bill has several clauses, its main purpose is to introduce a new provision to provide for an additional ground for deprivation of citizenship and this is contained in the new Article 135(l)(c). The other provisions in the Bill are essentially redrafts of existing provisions, Article 134 and Article 135 of the Constitution. The new additional ground will enable the Government to deprive a person, who is 18 years old or above, of his citizenship, if he has been ordinarily resident abroad for a continuous period of 10 years and has not returned to Singapore during that period on a certificate of status or a travel document issued by the Singapore authorities.

Sir, let me emphasize that this amendment is an empowering provision. There will be no automatic loss of citizenship. The Government will be selective and will not deprive the citizenship of persons who have good reasons to be away. For example, it is not the intention of the Government to act against persons who, by nature of their work or business, find it necessary to travel and remain abroad for long periods.

I should also mention, Sir, that there is a saving provision in Article 135(l)(c)(ii) to cater for persons who are abroad in the service of the Government or of an international organization of which Singapore is a member. The President is empowered to designate other bodies or organizations for this purpose.

Why is this amendment necessary? It is necessary because we have had considerable problems with persons outside Singapore who were away for many years and later alleged that they were born in Singapore. Many of them had left Singapore in the early 1950s and 60s when Singapore was going through difficult times. These persons, for all practical purposes, had migrated with no intention of ever returning to Singapore. They have grown up in an alien environment. They have not contributed anything to our economic development. Claiming to have been born in Singapore, they now want to come back, be recognized as citizens with all the rights and privileges and to enjoy the fruits of the labour of those Singaporeans who remain in Singapore.

Quite clearly, those who have no skills or no family roots here would have problems adjusting to our society and our way of life. More often than not, many seek to return when they are past the age of 18, knowing full well that we do not want to recruit them into National Service at that age.

To give an idea of the size of the problem : In 1984, the Registry of Citizenship received 726 claims to Singapore citizenship. However, in the first six months of this year alone, 729 claims were received, exceeding the figure for the entire of last year.

I might add, Sir, that there is also a serious problem in establishing whether a person who claims to have been born here and who has been away for so many years is indeed the person referred to in the birth certificate relied on, particularly if that person never registered for a Singapore identity card or for National Service. Therefore, the Ministry of Home Affairs has had to reject many claims which were dubious and based on suspect documents.

Matters are further compounded when some of the claimants, whose claims have been rejected, enter Singapore on foreign passports as nationals of foreign countries and subsequently refused to leave. They wilfully overstay, contravening our Immigration laws and we have had to detain them and repatriate them.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the problems I have mentioned are real problems. The most effective way of dealing with them is to amend the Constitution in the manner proposed. However, as I have stated, those who have had good reasons to be away, because of the nature of work or business, will be given special consideration and this amendment is not directed at them.

Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I might point out that Articles 134 and 135 of the Constitution have been redrafted and re-enacted and I should explain the reason. This is because the grounds for deprivation and termination of citizenship in the existing Articles overlap.

To illustrate, both Articles at present refer to the ground of having acquired the citizenship of another country. Another illustration is that both Articles refer to a citizen who has exercised rights of a foreign citizen. There is duplication and this duplication causes confusion. Furthermore, the existing Article 134 does not provide for reference to a Committee of Inquiry. We have therefore redrafted and re-enacted these two Articles, unnecessary duplication is avoided and all cases under both Articles 134 and 135 will be referred to a Committee of Inquiry,

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister has, in his speech, said that the main purpose of this Bill is to introduce yet another reason or ground for depriving Singapore citizens of their nationality, and he assures this House that it is not the intention of the Government to take away citizenship in every case but that it will be used wisely and judiciously. I am glad for that assurance from the Minister for Home Affairs. But may I tell him, as he must know, that nationality and citizenship is a personal right and it is a very valuable right of the individual. He must know that Oppenheim refers to it as one of the rights of mankind and, in the same book, Oppenheim states his view that it would be a very retrogressive step to deprive anybody of their nationality unless there were very good reasons and, particularly, if that step would render the person being stateless. He regards that as very retrogressive and offending against what he calls the rights of mankind. If that is so, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, and I hope the Minister will accept that position, then I would commend to him that it cannot just be left to the intention of the Government.

The reasons for deprivation of citizenship must be spelt out quite clearly and a citizen must be told quite explicitly when and in what circumstances he will stand to lose his citizenship. It is no good telling him, "Don't you worry. We would not do it although we have got the power." That is not going to help the citizen. He must know exactly in what situation he will be deprived of this right of mankind which he shares along with all other people of this world.

The Minister would appear to have confused people,who are Singapore citizens and who stand to lose their citizenship as a result of this amendment, with people who, he said, are claiming to be Singapore citizens and whose right to citizenship has not as yet been recognized by the Government of Singapore. I should have thought they were in a different category. If their right to Singapore citizenship has not been recognized, then there is no question of depriving them of their citizenship. It is where a person has the right of Singapore citizenship who stands in danger of being deprived of that citizenship.

He has given us some figures of these people who are claiming to be Singapore citizens, and they come up to more than 1,000 persons, or nearly 1,500. May I ask him, what will be the position of these people who have already made these claims to be Singapore citizens? Are they now going to be told, regardless of any good reason they may have, that they are not Singapore citizens because of this amendment? If their claim is that they were and have been Singapore citizens by birth, then they have a legitimate claim to this right of citizenship.

The Minister is, of course, aware that under the old Citizenship Ordinance, the Singapore Government recognized the right of jus soli so that mere birth in Singapore gave the person the right of citizenship. That was amended in 1968 by a qualification that one of the parents had to be a Singapore citizen before the child acquired Singapore citizenship. So, what about these persons who had citizenship under the old Citizenship Ordinance. If they were citizens, then they remain citizens. I can understand them losing their citizenship if they have taken on a foreign nationality or citizenship of a foreign country. What about those who have not? I know myself cases of persons who have been clamouring to come back, who have not taken up citizenship but who have been kept out by the Immigration Department refusing to issue them with travel documents to return to Singapore. Are they now going to be told, "There, my man, look, you haven't come back for ten years. So you are not going to get your citizenship."? That would be dishonest on the part of this Government because these people have been clamouring to come back. So I hope there will be no blanket application of this amendment, even in those cases where they have not taken up Singapore passports but are now claiming to be Singapore citizens and to be recognized as such.

But I am more concerned, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with persons who are Singapore citizens and who have gone abroad on Singapore passports. Now, the proposed amendment under Article 135, clause (1)(c), as the Minister has pointed out, gives this Government the power to take away their citizenship if they have been out of Singapore for ten years and have not, during that period, entered Singapore on a travel document issued by the Singapore Government. I have a clarification, first of all, to ask of the Minister. Would this travel document include a travel document issued to refugees under the Convention of the 28th July, 1951? 1 should have thought not. But may I ask for an assurance from the Minister that Singapore citizens who travel under these documents will not be caught by this amendment? Because, as the Minister should be aware, travel documents issued under this Convention are not passports and they are not nationals of the countries which issue these travel documents. I would like that assurance.

Coming back to the category of persons who are born in Singapore, who are Singapore citizens, and who travel abroad on Singapore passports and who have no intention at all of giving up their Singapore citizenship, what is the reason, may I ask, for taking away their citizenship if they for good reasons do not return to Singapore for ten years? I think it is not good enough merely to leave it to the good intentions of the Government. The Minister should make clear what the purposes are. How are they considered disloyal to Singapore if they are away from Singapore for more than ten years? Is that an act of disloyalty? Is the Government not aware that they are perhaps contributing to the economy of Singapore - if they earn abroad and are able to remit home monies. They are an asset to Singapore - and to deprive them of their citizenship would be most illogical and retrogressive, particularly if they are rendered stateless if, by that Act, they are no longer eligible to become nationals or to acquire citizenship of any other country. And, of course, if they were born in Singapore and were Singapore citizens by birth and travelled out of Singapore on Singapore passport, they would be stateless if by this amendment their citizenship is taken away.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Articles 134 and 135 are not the only Articles in the Constitution which enable the Government to take away citizenship. There is Article 129 of the Constitution. If I may beg your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in referring to some of these provisions in Article 129. Article 129 applies in the first place only to persons who became citizens by registration or by naturalization. It does not apply to persons who are citizens of Singapore by birth. Under that Article, the Government may deprive persons who are citizens by registration or naturalization for a number of reasons. One of them is if they had made a speech which would appear to be disloyal towards Singapore - I should have said "disloyal towards the Singapore Government" rather than Singapore. But the important thing is this. If one looks at Article 129, clause (7), one finds this safeguard for persons who have become citizens of Singapore by registration or by naturalization, and it is a very important safeguard, Article 129, clause (7) reads as follows, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir:

'No person shall be deprived of his citizenship under this Article or under Article 130 unless the Government is satisfied that it is not conducive to the public good that that person should continue to be a citizen of Singapore; and no person shall be deprived of his citizenship under paragraph (b) of clause 2 [that is Article 1291 or under paragraph (a) or (b)(i) of clause (3) [again Article 129] or under clause (4) or (5) or under Article 130 if the Government is satisfied that as a result of the deprivation he would not be a citizen of any country.,

And since reference has been made to Article 130, 1 should perhaps read that. Article 130 applies to the children of citizens who have been deprived of their citizenship under Article 129. That is all that Article 130 does. So in the case of persons who are naturalized or registered, there is a clog on the power of the Government to deprive them of their citizenship. And the clog is that the Government must be satisfied that it is not conducive to the public good that the person should continue to be a citizen of Singapore. And, secondly, he should not be deprived of his citizenship if the result is to render him stateless, "not a citizen of any country".

Now, Articles 134 and 135 in this Bill are not restricted to persons who become citizens of Singapore by naturalization or by registration. It applies to everybody. The proposed Article 134 reads, "The Government may by order deprive a citizen of Singapore. . .". And that includes persons who are citizens by birth or by descent, besides including those by registration or by naturalization.

Likewise, Article 135 says, "The Government may by order deprive a citizen of Singapore of his citizenship". So it catches everybody, not just those two groups. But you do not find any clog on this power of the Government in Articles 134 and 135. So it would appear that whereas the Government may not deprive a citizen, who is registered as a citizen or who became a citizen by naturalization, of a citizenship if he is rendered stateless, the Government may deprive a citizen by birth or descent of his citizenship even if it renders him stateless, and even if the deprivation of his citizenship is not conducive to the public good. May I ask why this favoured treatment for persons who acquire citizenship by registration or naturalization against persons who are born in Singapore and who have a greater claim to Singapore citizenship? It is their inherent right. Perhaps the Minister would like to look at that. As far as I can see, there is no clog on the Government's power under Articles 134 and 135.

Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I sit down, the Minister referred to this Committee which is set up under the Constitution. May I ask the Minister whether he has any figures as to how many persons were deprived of citizenship in the early part of 1977 and were persuaded to give up their right of appeal to this Committee? I know a number of people were deprived of their citizenship and, in a number of their cases, they were not referred to a Committee of Inquiry, and my information is that they were persuaded to give up their right of appeal to this Committee. May I ask the Minister whether he will take steps to see that no one will be persuaded by anybody to give up his right of appeal to the Committee?

Mr Bernard Chen (Clementi): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to give my support to the proposed amendment to the Constitution. All of us Singaporeans are very proud of our citizenship. Many of us were migrants and in the last hundred years we came here, we slogged it out, our forefathers, ourselves. There is therefore no question that citizenship is a very precious thing. But if there are among us people who do not treat this citizenship as precious as others and have chosen to stay away for long periods of time, then we have got to question whether they should continue to enjoy the privileges extended to them as citizens,

As citizens, we enjoy the right to vote, to decide on the future of our country. At the same time, we also have the obligation to work for the survival and the prosperity of the nation and there are many ways in which we are doing it, whether it be economic development, social progress and, most important, security through doing national service ourselves or sending our children to do national service to prepare ourselves for any eventuality. For some of us, it has been painful. We see the demise of loved ones. Is it therefore logical that we, as citizens, perform all these obligations and pass on these benefits to people who have renounced Singapore in their own interest but who, having found that the pasture is not as green on the other side of the fence, decide to come back and exercise their rights? We heard of talks about preservation of rights but never for one moment have we heard talk about obligations,

One Member of the Opposition appears to be a champion of all non-citizens or people who have renounced their total interest in Singapore. He has been known to take up causes for illegal immigrants, work permit holders who have overstayed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, on a point of order. May I ask the Member where, in the speech that I have just made, have I taken up the cause of people who have renounced their citizenship? The Member does not appear to know what he is talking about.

Mr Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order, Mr Jeyaretnam. If you wish to clarify something, you rise on a point of clarification.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Then I rise on a point of clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Carry on, Mr Chen.

Mr Bernard Chen: As I said, if we give free licence to all those people who have given up Singapore for good to come back later on when the times are better, then we are doing a grave injustice to ourselves, to our citizens, who have made all the sacrifices in the past and would do so in the future. I think that is one point that all of us should realize.

The other point relates to whether innocent cases will be unfairly treated. As the Minister stated in his speech, there will be many provisions and safeguards. The amendments state clearly that if a citizen has stayed away for more than 10 years and cannot give good reasons -

Mr Jeyaretnam: Where does it say that?

Mr Bernard Chen: In the Minister's speech. And this will be a good ground. There are many cases where with modern communications, there is no reason why a person cannot come back within the 10 years. What excuse has he got to stay away without even setting foot in Singapore except for the reason that he has given up for good. And since he has done so, let us complete the picture for him. I think we need less of people who only make use of Singapore when it is convenient for them, when it is safe for them, when it is good for them. As we build up our nation, we need people who are committed to stay here for better, for worse, for life or death. And I think the Constitution of a country is not only to extend privileges to the citizens but also to safeguard the interest of these citizens who abide by it.

I support fully the Minister's proposed amendment with just one small qualification, ie, in the exercise of these safeguards and provisions, that the officials be given clear instructions to ensure that genuine cases are not mistreated.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. The Constitution is sacred in that it protects the rights of the individual while providing the framework for an orderly society through an honest and efficient government. The fundamental rights of a citizen of the Republic of Singapore are clearly laid down in Articles 9 and 13 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore. Article 9 (1) reads:

'No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.'

Article 13 (1) reads:

'No citizen of Singapore shall be banished or excluded from Singapore.'

It would seem at first glance that the proposed amendments are too harsh. It seems to place a serious obstacle on the full operation of Articles 9 and 13. However, if these rights are viewed within the total context of the nation, they may not appear to be undesirable because personal liberty must have limits, without which parliamentary democracy will eventually lead to anarchy in the name of individual liberty.

Within the Singapore scenario which fabric is the law, necessarily individual liberty must be subservient to the laws of Singapore. The laws of Singapore in turn should be subsumed under the supremacy of national well-being, and it is that that must set the limit to the law. Therefore, individual liberty must resolve within the expanding tenses of law and national interest. Law makers, ie, Parliament with its elected representatives, must never lose sight of national interest, ie, interest of the people who give them the power of legislation in the first place. The moment this is ignored, authoritarianism creeps in which will eventually spell the death of democracy. Laws change as the boundary and constitution of national interest change. Law and national interest interact constantly and incessantly in order to provide a platform for individual liberty without which individual liberty is meaningless. With the law and national interest as platform, individual liberty finds its expression in conformity with the laws of the land which is individual responsibility.

So long as law makers legislate with the interest of the individual as the primary intent, individual liberty will be safeguarded. However, should law makers legislate with the intent towards selfish individualism and self-preservation, individual liberty will be eroded as to its content and meaning. Viewing the proposed amendments objectively, having regard to the wordings used in it, it is my opinion that the interest of the people and therefore the nation is upheld in the proposed amendments.

The amendment to Article 135(l)(c) forces the person who has been away for a long period to re-examine his responsibility to his nation. Ours, as my learned colleague has mentioned, is an immigrant society. In the last 20 years of independence, the Government has tried to imbue a sense of belonging, commitment and loyalty to our nation. Citizenship carries with it privileges but also responsibilities. With our limited resources, we cannot afford to be benevolent with those who turn to us only in good times. We want citizens who are stayers, who will be with us in good times and in not-so-good times.

Why would a person want to be a citizen of Singapore? The main reason must be that he wants to live in Singapore. And why does he want to live in Singapore? Because he must have judged that Singapore will provide him with a good and secure life for himself, his family and a bright future for his children. These are the benefits. The responsibility is to contribute to our peace, progress and prosperity. And in the case of the male Singapore citizen, the man, this means national service.

The amendment will plug the loophole in the law so that those who have been staying overseas through childhood, through adulthood, to escape national service will now have to rethink on their position. Because the loyal Singaporean who stays in Singapore, serves his 2,5 years' national service and approximately one month every year of incamp training, must be convinced also that there is fair play in his sacrifice.

Those who are eligible for national service and yet stay overseas for long periods will be penalized by Article 135(l)(c). But there will be others, of course, who stay away with genuine reasons. They will also be affected by this amendment. It is thus reassuring to hear our Minister's statement that it is not the intention of the Government to act against persons who by nature of their work or business find it necessary to travel and remain abroad for long periods. This is important because this amendment will apply retroactively.

I would like the Minister to consider the practicability of informing citizens, when they go to our overseas missions to renew their passports, of the new laws that will apply to them. In this way, the citizens will be safeguarded from losing their citizenship through ignorance. When they come for their passport renewal, if they are informed of these new amendments, they can then decide as to whether they would like to treasure their Singapore citizenship and come home.

The amendment will not result in automatic loss of citizenship. As the Minister has mentioned, it is an enabling Act giving discretion to the Minister. As I have mentioned, my concern is for cases affected by the retroactive application of the law. It is my sincere hope that the Minister will consider each case sympathetically as I can foresee that there may be some who are staying overseas for personal reasons, reasons other than for work or business.

Dr Aline K. Wong (Changkat): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the amendment Bill. But I would like to ask the Minister one question. Why is the woman singled out for mention in Article 134(b) and not the man? Why should the woman be considered a separate case where she has acquired citizenship by registration and may lose it if she acquires another kind of citizenship?

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank you for giving me the chance to speak.

I think the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law has made out a case in moving the amendment to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill, particularly Articles 134 and 135. As I see in the explanatory statement, these are very explicit, Therefore, I would like to refer my remarks to what was said by the Member for Anson. The first point that he made was on nationality and citizenship which, he said, is a very personal right. I would have thought that nationality and citizenship are two different things. In the case of nationality, a nation can be made of one kind of people. The same goes with citizenship. But when he mentioned deprivation as a retrogressive step, I do not think I can accept that kind of argument. How could deprivation be a retrogressive step? In this particular case, today [Interruption]. I am not a student of law.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: I am not a lawyer, I do not represent any case, except to mention this. Probably for the amusement of this House, he mentioned "1977", a time when he was not in this House. He said he knew of a number of cases of people who were persuaded to give up the right of appeal. As is his usual way of trying to distort and confuse the situation, he has chosen to bring in issues on refugees not having the intention of giving up citizenship: what good reasons to deprive them?

I would like to reiterate, in today's debate, that Articles 134 and 135 have been redrafted and re-enacted, as the Hon. Minister has pointed out, to avoid duplication. And here, I must congratulate the Government for its assurance that this amendment, being an empowering one, that in its implementation the Government would be very selective with regard to the deprivation of citizenship. So I agree with what my good friend, the Member for Clementi, has said, that the Member for Anson has been the champion of non-citizens or of taking up questions of citizenship. I tried to dig up Hansard, and I found the questions very similar in March 1982,1983 and 1984, Sir. So I am not at all surprised. But I thought I ought to point out that when the voters of Anson voted him in, their interests should be looked after, and not the interests of non-citizens.

There is a stake for all those who are in Singapore today as citizens. As has been rightly pointed out by the Second Minister for Law, why do these people - 726 in 1984 and 729 for the first six months of this year - file claims of citizenship now? I am surprised why his Ministry is considering their claims. It must have cost taxpayers some money. If we go through the reasons thereto in the clauses, these claims could be rejected outright. So I would like to seek enlightenment from the Hon. Minister: who are these cases, and why were these people who claim to have been born in Singapore choose to come back now? Of course, I have taken note of what he has explained in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. But I thought I ought to make a few points along the way because, when I heard the Member for Anson trying to make out a case, I said, "Here we go again, as he has always been seen to be." Are we for or against Singapore? On that note, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of clarification. Would the last Member, as I asked his colleague on the other side there, point out in which part of my speech I spoke about non-citizens? And if he cannot, will he withdraw his baseless allegation?

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, if we were to play back -

An hon. Member: Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: He sits in the Chair, I can call him "Mr Speaker," Sir, just out of respect. He mentioned refugees and the convention.

Mr Jeyaretnam: They are Singapore citizens I am talking about. You do not understand.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: That is what he says, to be Singapore citizens, Mr Speaker, Sir. And I think that is the point I am trying to make.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You do not understand.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill which has been put forward by the Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law. We have heard the moving arguments by both the Members for Clementi and Fengshan and I do not wish to enlarge them any further. But it always strikes me as very strange, Sir, that while we are here on a barren piece of rock without any form of natural resources, there are many people, including a number in my own Constituency, who wish to be Singapore citizens. After all, I think, as Singapore citizens we do not lead an easy life. There is no oil under our feet; there is no gold in our backyard, and even our welfare assistance payments are very minimal. They cannot keep body and soul together.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Hear! hear!

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: That is not the intention. The intention is for us to work hard, to achieve our prosperity and our success, and to continue to work hard to maintain that level of success. So for those people who have chosen to stay away from our shores for a long time and who only want to come back when the going is rough in other places; or where life is better here that they wish to come back to enjoy the fruits of other people's labour, it is right that their citizenship be deprived. We should care for the people who remain here with us through thick and thin, good or bad, people who will eventually be the sons of the soil that will make Singapore a successful place. In this regard, I think what is considered the fundamental concept of birth right, as a fundamental right to citizenship, is not something that is universal.Only in countries,like the United States, where they are rich, full of resources, bountiful and perhaps because of this, more charitable to others than small barren countries like us, do they enshrine the right of birth as a fundamental right to citizenship.

Here in Singapore, I think we should look at birth as an entry point. It gives you the right to be a citizen at the entry point, but thereafter I think everyone of us must continue to work to keep that right and to earn that right. The right is not something that, once you have it, you can have it for the rest of your life regardless of what you do.

In this respect, Sir,l support the Amendment Bill, but I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that he will consider the case of those persons who are currently abroad and who may be affected by the enactment of this Amendment Bill - that these people who may be caught by the change of events be given a period in which they can rectify their status so as not to be caught in a position whereby their citizenship can be deprived.

On that note, Sir, I support the amendment to the Bill. 12.43 pm

Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I join in the debate. I rise to support the Bill.

Citizenship is not just a right, it is more than that. Especially for those who are naturalized citizens, citizenship is an expression of loyalty, of commitment, of dedication to the Constitution of Singapore and to the Republic of Singapore. When a person says that he is a Singaporean, what does he really mean? It is not just the legal status of being a citizen. It is also the emotional attachment to the country, to the Republic. When we say that Singapore is our homeland, there is an emotional attachment to think Singaporean.

The Member for Anson confines himself to the question of rights, but here we are talking about provisions for deprivation of citizens who have for all practical purposes given up their rights. They have given up their rights because they have exercised the rights of nationals abroad, because they have stayed away for more than 10 years.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there are various reasons why people want to leave Singapore. So be it. But for these people Singapore cannot be a convenient place for them to return when they face adversities abroad. I know of a particular family from Singapore who migrated to Canada. When they faced adversity, they went to Australia, and just recently they have expressed a desire to come back to Singapore. Certainly, although they were born in Singapore, we cannot ever consider returning citizenship to such exSingaporeans. Our only resource is manpower and aside from other qualities of the manpower we have, in my view what is most important is loyalty, commitment and total dedication.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, under the provision, citizens who have stayed abroad for more than 10 years may be deprived of their citizenship. Here,l would like to put to the Minister that Singaporeans abroad must be given every opportunity to be warned of this provision, especially in terms of opportunities to renew their citizenship or travel documents. There are many Singaporeans who are staying abroad. They may have difficulties trying to renew their passports or whatever travel documents they have. So I hope that the Minister will ensure that every means is made available for these Singaporeans to maintain their citizenship status.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the Members who have spoken in support of the Bill; in particular, they have saved me considerable time in replying to the points made by the Member for Anson because the Members who have spoken have put the matter in correct perspective. In other words, when we talk of constitutional rights and of citizenship rights, let us also talk of duties and responsibilities, and that is the context in which we should view this measure.

Let me take up one or two specific points mentioned by various Members. The Member for Changkat asked why is there a discrimination against women in Article 134(l)(b). First, let me say that this is not a new amendment. This is a re-enactment of an existing provision in the Constitution which we have had for a long time. Secondly, she has misunderstood the provision. If she looks at Article 134(1) (b), it is not deprivation of citizenship of a woman who marries a non-citizen. It is deprivation of citizenship of a woman who, in the first place, becomes a Singapore citizen by having married a Singaporean and thereafter marries a non-citizen, say, after divorce. So the original link which was the basis for granting a citizenship through marriage is non-existent, and if she marries a foreign citizen then only Article 134(l)(b) comes into play.

Sir, the Member for Fengshan has brought up a useful suggestion and my Ministry will take it up with my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, as to whether overseas missions and consulates could implement the idea which he advocated of advising those who come to renew their passports from time to time.

As to the suggestions made by the other Members expressing concern on the implementation of this amendment, I have already, in my Second Reading speech, given the assurance that there will be no automatic or blanket implementation of this empowering provision and, secondly, we will be very careful in implementing the provision so as to distinguish cases where there are genuine and good reasons for the person's absence abroad.

When we come to the Member for Anson's points, as I have said, many of his criticisms have been answered by preceding speakers. I think we must come back to see the parameters of this provision. What are they? Does the amendment give us arbitrary powers to deprive any citizen on any grounds? Let us recall the principal feature of Article 135(i)(c). It is concerned with citizens who have been continuously abroad, ordinarily resident, for 10 years or more. That is the first ingredient. The second ingredient is that during this period of 10 years he has not even once come back to Singapore on a travel document issued by the Singapore authorities or on a certificate of status. That is the parameter of Article 135(l)(c). So, in reply to the question posed by the Member for Anson as to why we are doing this, the correct question has been posed by the Member for Clementi, ie, let us ask: how do these persons who stayed away for 10 years or more and never returned to Singapore once on a Singapore passport or travel document justify their continued citizenship to be recognized? That is the question. I have also spelt out the problems that we have which must be tackled in this amendment.

The Member for Anson has raised this matter on the level of international law. He has quoted Oppenheim as authority for the proposition that what we are seeking to do is retrogressive and he has implied that this is somehow inconsistent with international law. I think if he wants to quote Oppenheim or any other known works of international law, he should also tell this House that the cardinal principle in public international law is, as far as nationality and citizenship are concerned, that questions of nationality and citizenship under international law are within the sovereign right of each country to decide.

Mr Jeyaretnam: We know that.

Prof. Jayakumar: Why did the Member for Anson not say so?

Mr Jeyaretnam: What is the point?

Prof. Jayakumar: There is no international law which proscribes the right of countries and carry out the measure such as that which we are seeking to do.

Sir, the Member for Anson also asks whether I could clarify if the phrase "travel document or certificate of status issued by the competent authority of Singapore" does or does not include a travel document issued under the United Nations Convention on Refugees. Of course, it does not. The plain meaning of the words must be clear even to a non-lawyer - a certificate of status or travel document issued by the competent authorities in Singapore. It does not include any other travel document than that mentioned in this provision.

He also seeks an assurance from me that persons who may possess this travel document issued under the Refugees Convention will not be caught under this provision. I cannot give that assurance because, on the plain reading of this provision, any person who has been away from Singapore for 10 years or more and who fulfils the requirements will come within the ambit of the provision. So I cannot give that assurance.

The Member for Anson talks about statelessness. He talks about Articles 134 and 145 being applicable to all categories of citizens. I should like to point out that Articles 134 and 135, even as they stand under the present Constitution, make no distinction between citizens by birth and other categories. They apply to all categories. In that sense, we have not differed in the approach. Secondly, the present Articles 134 and 135 are not subject to the condition of the persons not being rendered stateless although in the implementation of this provision my Ministry will take into account the question of statelessness as one of the factors in arriving at a decision.

Finally, Sir, he concluded by making a very vague allegation that sometime in 1977, many persons were deprived of their citizenship and, to use his words, they were persuaded to give up the right of appeal to a Committee of Inquiry, The Member, if he really wants to be responsible, ought to give us facts and figures and I give him the assurance that I will investigate these cases. But I think it is wrong for him to come here and say that many persons were deprived of their citizenship without reference to a Committee of Inquiry, because the right to a Committee of Inquiry where prescribed under the Constitution is a right available to the citizen and I do not see how anybody can be persuaded. But if he has substance for any allegation that any wrongdoing has taken place, he should come to this House and substantiate his allegation.

Sir, that is all I have to respond.

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. The Minister first of all, gives an assurance that the travel document issued under this Convention of 28th July 1951 will not be treated as a travel document for the purposes of Article 135(l)(c). I am grateful to him for that assurance. He goes on to say, "But he asks for an assurance that persons who have held this will not be deprived of citizenship. I cannot give him an assurance." I would ask him to be quite explicit and give an assurance that anyone who has held this will not for that reason - I am not talking about Article 135(l)(c) but I am talking about Article 135(l)(b) - will not be deprived of their citizenship solely on the ground that they have travelled under the travel document issued under this Convention of 1951.

Secondly, I am afraid he has really not answered my point about the clog on the Government's power. I referred him to Article 129 where you have a specific clog on the power of the Government in clause (7) of this Article. You have no such clog in Articles 134 and 135. The Minister says, "Of course, we will pay regard to this." But I am saying that is not good enough. Why do you have an entrenched right in the Constitution for persons who become citizens by registration or by naturalization but not for people who are born citizens? Why do they not have this entrenched right? That is my point.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in answering his question concerning Article 135(l)(c), I clarified that a travel document issued under the Convention of Refugees is not a travel document or certificate of status mentioned in Article 135(l)(c). If he now wants to talk about Article 135(l)(b), there again the wording is clear: whoever applies to the authorities of a place outside Singapore for the issue or renewal of a passport, it would include any place, any authority, outside Singapore.

Sir, on the question of statelessness, I have already elaborated and explained the position. In other words, we are following the approach in Articles 134 and 135. The approach in Articles 134 and 135 is the approach which is adopted in this amendment, and there is nothing new.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am sorry, a clarification again.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, could you resume your seat, please? The mover of the motion has given his reply, and I have allowed you to seek clarification. I cannot allow this debate to continue any longer. The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

A Division will be taken to ascertain that the Second Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Members of Parliament, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution. The total number of Members of Parliament is 79 so that the required two-thirds is 53. Ring the Division bells.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Division taken: Ayes, 69; Noes, 2; Abstention, 1. Ayes Ayes (cont.) Abbas Abu Amin Ch'ng Jit Koon Abdullah Tarmugi Chua Sian Chin Ahmad Mattar Dhanabalan, S. Ang Kok Peng Fong Sip Chee Barker, E.W. Goh Chee Wee Beng Kian Lam, Arthur Goh Chok Tong Chai Chong Yii Goh Choon Kang Chandra Das, S. Heng Chiang Meng Chen, Bernard Ho Kah Leong Cheong Yuen Chee, Ho Tat Kin Eric Hu Tsu Tau Chew Heng Ching lbrahim Othman Chin Harn Tong Jayakumar, S. Chng Hee Kok Koh Lam Son Ayes Ayes (cont.) Koh Lip Lin Teh Cheang Wan Lai Tha Chai Teo Chong Tee Lau Ping Sum Toh Chin Chye Lau Teik Soon Vasoo, S. Lee Boon Yang Wan Hussin bin Haji Lee Hsien Loong Zoohri Lee Kuan Yew Wang Kai Yuen Lee Yiok Seng Wong, Aline K. Lee Yock Suan Wong Kan Seng Leong Horn Kee Wong Kwei Cheong Lim Boon Heng Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Ng Kah Ting Yatiman Yusof Ong Pang Boon Yeo Cheow Tong Ong Teng Cheong Yeo Choo Kok Othman bin Haron Yeo Ning Hong Eusofe Yeo Toon Chia Ow Chin Hock Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Phua Bah Lee Zulkifli bin Mohammed Sidek bin Saniff Tan Cheng Bock Noes Tan, Dixie Tan Keng Yam, Tony Chiam See Tong Tan Tee Yong, Philip Jeyaretnam, J.B. Tang Guan Seng Tang See Chim Abstention Tay Eng Soon Tan Soo Khoon

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Second Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Members of Parliament.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. S. Jayakumarl.

Bill considered in Committee and reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr Deputy Speaker: Third Reading, what day?

Prof. Jayakumar: Now, Sir. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Mr Deputy Speaker: The procedure at the Second Reading will again be adopted here. Ring the Division bells.

Division taken: Ayes, 69; Noes, 2; Abstention, 1. Ayes Ayes (cont.) Abbas Abu Amin Chai Chong Yii Abdullah Tarmugi Chandra Das, S. Ahmad Mattar Chen, Bernard Ang Kok Peng Cheong Yuen Chee, Barker, E.W. Eric Beng Kian Lam, Arthur Chew Heng Ching Ayes Ayes (cont.) Chin Harn Tong Tan Cheng Bock Chng Hee Kok Tan, Dixie Ch'ng Jit Koon Tan Keng Yam, Tony Chua Sian Chin Tan Tee Yong, Philip Dhanabalan, S. Tang Guan Seng Fong Sip Chee Tang See Chim Goh Chee Wee Tay Eng Soon Goh Chok Tong Teh Cheang Wan Goh Choon Kang Teo Chong Tee Heng Chiang Meng Toh Chin Chye Ho Kah Leong Vasoo, S. Ho Tat Kin Wan Hussin bin Haji Hu Tsu Tau Zoohri lbrahim Othman Wang Kai Yuen Jayakumar, S. Wong, Aline K. Koh Lam Son Wong Kan Seng Koh Lip Lin Wong Kwei Cheong Lai Tha Chai Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Lau Ping Sum Yatiman Yusof Lau Teik Soon Yeo Cheow Tong Lee Boon Yang Yeo Choo Kok Lee Hsien Loong Yeo Ning Hong Lee Kuan Yew Yeo Toon Chia Lee Yiok Seng Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Lee Yock Suan Zulkifli bin Mohammed Leong Horn Kee Lim Boon Heng Ng Kah Ting Noes Ong Pang Boon Chiam See Tong Ong Teng Cheong Jeyaretnam, J.B. Othman bin Haron Eusofe Ow Chin Hock Phua Bah Lee Abstention Sidek bin Saniff Tan Soo Khoon

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Third Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Members of Parliament.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I now suspend the Sitting and will resume the Chair again at 2.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.17 pm until 2.30 pm Sitting resumed at 2.30 pm