DISSOLUTION OF SIXTH PARLIAMENT

Dr Lee Siew-Choh asked the Prime Minister whether there was any compelling reason to dissolve the last Parliament and hold elections for a new Parliament on the 3 September 1988 if it was the intention that this Parliament should not assemble until some four months have elapsed after its election.

The First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Mr Goh Chok Tong) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, Parliament was dissolved on 17th August 1988 because I had decided to hold the General Elections on 3rd September 1988. How soon after that Parliament would meet had nothing to do with the date for the elections. The Constitution requires the new Parliament to meet no later than six months after the last sitting of the previous session. I therefore decided that Parliament should convene in January, after the Chamber was renovated.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: When was the decision to enlarge the seating of the House made? Before or after the elections?

Mr Goh Chok Tong: The decision was made after the General Elections.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: If that was the case, Sir, was the decision taken to prevent Francis T. Seow from taking his seat in Parliament, in the hope that he would be disqualified following his convictions?

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, no. I was aware that Mr Francis Seow had been charged in court with several counts of income tax fraud and evasion and that his case would be heard in December. Indeed, if the Member will recall, the matter of his possible conviction and disqualification was openly discussed in the last General Elections. In view of the gravity of the charges, if he was convicted, he was likely to be disqualified from being a Member of Parliament. I saw no reason, no reason at all, to bring forward the opening of Parliament just to allow Mr Francis Seow to be sworn in as an MP before the court had determined his guilt.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Was the decision to dissolve Parliament on 17th August and to hold fresh elections immediately taken after it was known early in August that the Privy Council would hear the appeal of Mr Jeyaretnam in October?

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, from Mr Seow we have now gone on to Mr Jeyaretnam. I decided on the date of 3rd September without knowing when the Privy Council would hear Mr Jeyaretnam's case. It was totally irrelevant to me.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Were the celebrations held during the National Day month to take advantage of the many treats that would be provided out of public funds during the month?

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, when I had to decide when to hold the General Elections, I considered many factors. And, of course, I considered factors which were favourable to the party. I think there is no sin in that, whether it is during National Day celebration month or whatever month. If the factors are favourable, we will call a General Election. So I decided that 3rd September was a good time to have the General Elections, and I was proven right.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Were treats like Swing Singapore on two occasions and treats in the community centres not part of what he has been saying?

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member is digressing. I have given him a clear answer as to the reason for the date for the General Elections, and the relevance of his second part of the question to the first part. He is now going from Swing Singapore into Sing Singapore. Again, I repeat, the decision to hold the General Elections will be made on facts, and judgment on when will be a favourable date. It has nothing to do with Swing Singapore. Swing Singapore was organized before we decided to call the General Elections.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Were those conditions for the PAP connected with Swing Singapore and other treats?

Mr Speaker: Dr Lee, I think that question has been answered. Do you have any other supplementary questions?

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: No.