PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

11.15 am

The First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill contains two amendments to section 28 of the Parliamentary Elections Act. They are to simplify the method and procedure for fixing the deposit to be made by a candidate for parliamentary elections. Under the Act, the Minister may vary the amount of the deposit provided that it does not exceed 10% of the total allowances paid to a Member of Parliament in each year. He can do so by a notification in the Gazette.

The purpose of the first amendment in this Bill is to provide a formula for varying the amount of the election deposit. This formula specifies that the deposit will be equal to 8% of the total allowances payable to a Member of Parliament in the preceding calendar year, rounded to the nearest $500. 8% of the total yearly allowances is roughly equivalent to one month's allowance which was the basis for fixing the quantum of earlier deposits. When the deposit was fixed at $500 in 1954, the monthly allowance of a Legislative Assemblyman was $500. The deposit was raised to $1,200 in 1973 and $1,500 in 1978 when the monthly allowance of a Member of Parliament in 1973 and 1978 was $1,136 and $1,483 respectively.

With this amendment, the amount of the deposit will automatically change when the MP's allowance is varied. There will be no need for periodic reviews.

The second amendment in this Bill provides for the Returning Officer to specify the amount of deposit at the appropriate time, which is when he gives notice of a writ of election. This will replace the existing provision in the Act which requires the Minister to notify in the Gazette any variation in the amount of the deposit.

Both amendments are aimed at simplifying the procedure for determining the amount of deposit required of each election candidate. They are purely administrative.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is really no necessity to vary the amount of $1,500 to $4,000. This amount has been left untouched since 1978 and I do not see why we should disturb this amount at this juncture. I say that this increase of the candidate's deposit from $1,500 to $4,000 is unjustified, discriminatory and unfair. There is really not a good reason given by the First Deputy Prime Minister - simplify procedure. I think this is not a valid reason. If there were good reasons I would certainly support this Bill. I will have to oppose it. The opposition has always been accused of opposing but, on this particular occasion, I think it is my bounden duty to oppose this Bill and it is the reason why we have opposition in Singapore - to prevent such unfair Bills from being passed. It would appear that I am going to be the only speaker on this particular Bill other than the First Deputy Prime Minister.

I say this Bill is bad, bad for the nation. If we really believe in democracy and if we want the institutions of democracy to survive and to improve in Singapore, then we should not have bad laws to curb this process of the growth of democracy in Singapore. I am referring to the institution of opposition in Parliament. If we do not have opposition in Parliament, how can we say that we have democracy in Singapore?

As I see it, there is really one reason or one purpose why this election deposit amount has been increased and, that is, of course, to keep out the opposition. It is a big increase from $1,500 to $4,000, a jump of $2,500. As we are all aware of the purpose of a deposit of candidates at every election, the deposit is essentially to keep out the frivolous and the not-so-serious candidates. This amount of $1,500 will serve its purpose, more than serve its purpose.

Like in England not so long ago, the Thatcher government had to increase the amount because over there, for every one constituency at every general election, I believe there are at least 100 candidates vying for it or a huge number in any event. They get all kinds of people with all kinds of issues wanting to stand as a candidate in a general election. Some of them may just go in for the fun of it.

But this is not the case in Singapore. We are just the exact opposite. In fact, there is a dearth of candidates. So if the Government is sincere in wanting to have the democratic process to get greater participation in our electoral processes, they should not put obstacles in the way of all those people who want to take part, especially working people who want to take part. As you know, I think more than 50% of our workers earn less than $900 a month. So you want him to put a deposit of over one month's salary.

If the Government is really sincere in wanting to increase democracy in Singapore then it should reduce and not increase the candidate's deposit so that we get more people coming to take part in the general elections. We just look at the last general election in 1984. On Nomination Day, there were 30 uncontested seats. It proves beyond a doubt the scarcity of people wanting to take part in the general elections. Out of the 49 seats that were contested, every constituency had only two candidates except for two constituencies - Pasir Panjang and Chua Chu Kang where there were three-cornered fights. Other than that, it was a straight fight, one to one. We do not have five or six candidates coming to fight in one constituency.

In fact, if you look back at previous general elections, the pattern is the same. So the number of people taking part in general elections is, in fact, not increasing. So why the necessity to increase all of a sudden this $1,500 to $4,000? There is no rationale at all. The Minister says he wants to simplify procedure. I do not think it is a way to simplify procedure. The election officer can just announce the amount on the day of the issue of the writ of election and everybody will know it. What is so difficult about reading the papers and finding out and the best procedure is not to increase it, keep it just like that. Then we do not have to go and calculate how much I have to pay - whether it is $4,000 or $4,500.

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa): It will be announced.

Mr Chiam See Tong: That is the point. If you keep it at $1,500 then you do not bother at all. So it would appear that this is one of the devices put forward by the Government to keep out the Opposition. One of them, of course, was the much-heralded GRC concept. Now we have an increase of the candidate's deposit. We do not know what next. I must say that other parties or Singaporeans generally are not as wealthy as the PAP. You have got beautiful premises, headquarters. I think other parties or up-and-coming parties should be given a fighting chance, and I urge the House to oppose this Bill. You all must, if you really care for the increase of democracy in Singapore.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we all know that elections are coming and therefore we have to make speeches that will win us some votes.

Mr Chiam See Tong: No. I talk sense.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: The Member for Potong Pasir has got to make a distinction between the quantum of deposit and the purpose of the Bill. We could very well not come to this House and increase the deposit to $4,000, then there will be no Bill presented to this House. He has got to understand the purpose of the Bill which, as I explained, was to simplify a procedure which means that there is no need for periodic reviews and there will be no oversight as there was in 1984 when the deposit should have been increased to match the MP's allowance.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, the Bill stipulates 2% of the MP's allowances instead of 8%, and that is roughly equivalent to $1,500. Would the Member for Potong Pasir oppose the Bill? [Pause.] Do you get the point? In other words, I use $1,500 to compute the percentage. Would you then object to the formula?

Dr Augustine Tan: He does not understand the formula.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: We have to make a distinction between the quantum of deposit and the purpose of the Bill, and this Bill will make it unnecessary for the Returning Officer or for the Elections Office to periodically remind itself what should be the correct quantum because that is now pegged to the MP's monthly allowance.

As to why we chose 8%, I have given the reason in my speech and that was to make right an anomaly, and that anomaly was the gap between the deposit and the MP's allowance. As the Member for Potong Pasir himself has just said, we should discourage frivolous candidates in elections. One hundred candidates per constituency in Britain - I do not believe he got the number correct, but that was his figure. And indeed if you drop your deposit to a small sum, we may attract not hundreds but perhaps scores of candidates who think that standing for elections is like buying a lottery. You put in a dollar and if you are lucky you may be returned. Even if you are not returned as an MP, the two weeks' publicity for a lawyer, I think, is worth it.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Nine days.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Or nine days' publicity, or what have you. For some people, I think it will be worth the price. Bear in mind that we are talking of deposits. We are not thinking of a sum which will be given to the Government or forfeited unless of course the candidate cannot obtain one-eighth of the votes cast in a constituency. It is a deposit.

May I ask the Member for Potong Pasir whether he has any difficulty in finding $4,000 in the coming elections? Does it make it more difficult for SDP to find candidates? He is looking for an excuse for his inability to find candidates to field in 81 constituencies.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Much obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think we have to consider the principle involved. We cannot increase an amount just for the sake of adhering to a formula. Who proposed this formula in the first place? The Government can come out with all kinds of formula and they say we have to adhere to the formula. But we have to examine the real effect of this increase. What is really at stake? At stake is the question of democracy in Singapore. Whether or not we want more people to take part in the electoral processes and to make it a real thing rather than just get it over with, as in the past general elections.

There is no question of publicity. I do not think anyone would want to take the trouble to come out for nine days and campaign if he did not really believe in something. If there is no drive in him, I do not think he would really want to take part in elections, especially in Singapore. We have to talk of elections in relation to the context in Singapore. What is the situation in Singapore? What is the reality? The reality is that there are, in fact, not enough candidates. The last time, straightaway, you got 30 seats uncontested. [Interruption.] That is the point. That is the crux of the matter. All the rules are made in favour of the PAP. The PAP probably is a very rich party. So $4,000 per candidate is chicken feed to them. There is no problem. But to the others, there may be a problem. As I have pointed out, the workers of today do not earn more than $900 per month on the average. So $4,000 is a sizeable amount. As I say, the Government should not just pick up from the air a formula and increase the amount. If you really want to simplify the procedure, do not increase it at all.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chiam, I think you are making another speech. Your clarification is long enough.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what the Member for Potong Pasir is quarrelling is, in fact, not the formula but the quantum, that is, the 8%, not the formula itself. I have asked the Member whether the increase in deposit from $1,500 to $4,000 will prevent him from standing in the coming elections. If it does, then I will find a solution for him. Does it? That is the crux of the matter. Does it really cripple anybody who believes strongly in democracy from standing for election? If it does not, I think the Member is just making a speech for the sake of making one.

Question put, and agreed to.

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. - [Mr Goh Chok Tong.]

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.