PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 1.20 pm

The Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The provisions of this Bill fall into three categories. First, there are the provisions which are purely consequential to the amendments enacted earlier this year to the Constitution relating to the Office of Elected President.

Secondly, the Bill makes amendments to the provisions concerning Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs). Thirdly, the Bill amends the provisions relating to the maximum amount of election expenses which can be incurred by a candidate in an election or his election agent.

Let me deal with each of these three categories of amendments.

First, the amendments which are consequential to the constitutional amendments enacted earlier this year. The amendments which we enacted earlier this year in this House on the Elected President provide for various aspects of the Office of Elected President. This includes the provision that a person will be disqualified from being elected as President if he is subject to the disqualifications for Members of Parliament in Article 45 of the Constitution.

Article 45 disqualifies a person from being elected to Parliament, inter alia, if the person is found guilty of any offence in connection with Parliamentary elections, or if the person has failed to file the return of election expenses on time and in the manner required by law. The Parliamentary Elections Act also spells out these disqualifications. Consequential amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act are therefore necessary to provide that any person who is disqualified from being elected to Parliament by reason of having been found guilty of any offence, or having failed to file returns regarding his election expenses, in connection with any Parliamentary election will also be disqualified from being elected to the Office of President.

The second category is NCMPs. In 1984, the Constitution was amended to provide for a maximum of six Non-Constituency MPs. Section 52 of the Parliamentary Elections Act currently fixes the maximum number of NCMPs at three, that is to say, three less the total number of Opposition Members who are elected under our first-past-the-post system.

Sir, during the debate in the Committee of Supply earlier this year, the NCMP, Dr Lee Siew-Choh, noted that there was only one NCMP. He asked the Government to state its policy on NCMPs. To this, the Prime Minister replied that the Government intended to have more NCMPs after thenext elections, at least four and perhaps six.

In order to achieve this objective, the Parliamentary Elections Act has to be amended. The Bill therefore amends section 52 of the Act to enable the President, by Order in the Gazette, to increase (to a number not exceeding six) the number of NCMPs to be declared elected for the purpose of any general election. Any such Order must be made between the time of dissolution of Parliament and Nomination Day. Such Order will lapse at the following dissolution of Parliament. If no Order is made or no Order is in force, the number of NCMPs will remain as currently prescribed, ie, three less the total number of Opposition MPs elected.

The basic trigger mechanism for deciding how many NCMPs will in fact be declared elected is not changed, ie, Parliament will have to see first the number of Opposition MPs returned. Thus, if the maximum specified in the Order is five NCMPs, then the actual number of NCMPs will be five less the total number of Opposition MPs returned in the general election, that means successful candidates.

For the next general election, Government's intention is that the provision should be made for four NCMPs.

I come now to the third category of amendments. Section 69 of the Parliamentary Elections Act presently prohibits candidates in a general election or a by-election and their election agents from incurring expenses in respect of the conduct or management of the election in excess of $6,000 or 50 cents per elector on a register of electors, whichever is the greater.

This maximum amount was fixed in 1954 and has not been revised since. In view of the depreciation in the value of money over time and rising costs, this limit should be reviewed. It is therefore proposed to raise the maximum amount a candidate or his election agent can incur in respect of the conduct or management of an election to $12,000 or $1 per elector on a register, whichever is the greater. Although the maximum permissible amount on election expenses is a matter of detail, at present it can only be amended by an Act of Parliament. It is proposed to set out the new maximum amounts in a new Third Schedule which can be amended subsequently by order in the Gazette by the Minister responsible for the Parliamentary Elections Act. No order to amend the Schedule can be made during the period between the issue of a writ of election and nomination day. If the electionis contested, no order can be made between the issue of a writ of election and polling day. This is to prevent changes to the amounts during an election.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the amendments.

Elected President

Sir, the amendments relating to the Elected President bring into line the conditions for disqualification to be in line with that of all Members of Parliament. It is indeed right that such a prestigious and important office as the President will also be subjected to the same conditions for disqualification.

Election expenses

Sir, this change is timely. It was in 1954 that the expenditure during the general election or by election was set at the limit of $6,000 or 50 cents per elector, whichever is the greater. It is obvious that this is insufficient at today's prices. Indeed, it is my observation that many of the volunteers and party supporters have spent money out of their own pocket during election campaign, for example, in relation to meals. To them, we owe a vote of thanks for their commitment to democracy, be they in the PAP or Opposition parties. The proposal to double this expenditure limit to $12,000 or $1 per elector is realistic but not excessive. Sir, in our meetings with parliamentarians from overseas, they have often remarked on the low cost of electioneering in Singapore and applauded us for having the foresight to introduce this legislation. I believe that the new limits will be sufficient yet still not allow money to be a barrier to any potential election candidate. It will at the same time not be excessive to allow for unnecessary expenditure. NCMPs

Sir, in 1984, the Constitution was amended to provide for a maximum of six NCMPs. Section 52 of the Parliamentary Elections Act currently fixes that maximum number of NCMPs at three, that is, three less the total number of Opposition Members elected under the first-past-the-post system. The Prime Minister has said that he intends to have at least four to six after the next general election. The present amendment before us proposes to enable the President to increase the number of NCMPs through an Order made between the time of dissolution of Parliament and nomination day. Each order will lapse at the next dissolution of Parliament.

Sir, I would like to seek clarification as to what are the guiding principles for fixing this number. I agree that for the number to be set between the dissolution of Parliament and nomination day is an appropriate time and is fair play. However, I believe that there must be some set criteria by which the number is fixed. If it is the intention to err on the side of caution, then we should at this time categorically state this to be the reason. Alternatively, the number could be increased by one NCMP per general election over the subsequent general elections till the maximum number of six is reached, and then review the success or otherwise or relevancy of the NCMP system at that time.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not agree with the Member for Fengshan who said that the money allowed at 50 cents per elector or $6,000, whichever is greater, is not enough. From my experience, the amount allotted at the present rate is more than enough. In fact, there is really no justification to increase the expenses for a parliamentary candidate. I have been involved altogether in five parliamentary elections - four of them in general elections and one in a by-election. I have not only taken part in those elections with the amount allotted and campaigned not only in those elections but also campaigned them successfully with the amount at the present rate. In fact, in all of the elections, I have not spent more than half of the amount allowed. My constituency comprised about 18,000 voters and I have never spent near to the $9,000 allowed. In three of them, it was about a quarter, for the fourth, it was about half, and for the last election, it was about 80% of the amount allowed. Therefore, it proves that the amount is really sufficient.

In fact, this Government has always prided itself that the politics in Singapore is not money politics. It has often said that anyone, not necessarily a rich man or a millionaire, could take part in a parliamentary election. Why not keep it that way? I think that is the best way to maintain democracy and not make politics into a rich man's game or to be supported by interest groups like in other European countries.

Why do we need to increase the amount allotted for each candidate to spend? Is the PAP now short of volunteer workers? Do they have to rely now on money to carry out their campaigns? Do they want more money for advertisements on TV? Or do they want to employ professional advertisers to carry out the campaigns for them? If not, why do they need this extra money? As it is, each candidate already has to pay something like $4,000 deposit in an election. And of course everybody knows that the PAP is a rich political party whereas the Opposition has to live and work with volunteers.

What the Member for Fengshan said is perfectly correct. In fact, many of the Opposition volunteers who have helped in the election campaign have to pay for their own meals, provide their own vehicles and pay for the petrol to run their vehicles. Why not? If they have a cause to fight, I do not think they will begrudge the amount. As regards the NCMPs, at this juncture, where there is a very basic political change in Singapore, I really do not think that this amendment to the NCMPs will have effect. I think the Government is very presumptuous that they will win nearly all the seats again. But I can tell this House that the situation in Singapore has really changed, and it really makes no difference, whether you are going to allow four or five NCMPs. It does not make a difference because we do not need them, and we will see that there is no need for NCMPs at the next general election.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Minister has said, the Bill serves to provide -

(i) for more NCMPs if the PAP so wishes;

(ii) for increased spending by candidates in the elections; and

(iii) for legislation for the election of a President in Singapore.

First, on the increase in the number of NCMPs. In 1984, amending the Constitution and the Parliamentary Elections Act, the Senior Minister, then Prime Minister, had assured the House that there would be at least three Opposition Members of Parliament, and that the number of NCMPs could be increased to six. Though only two Opposition MPs were elected in 1984, the Government nevertheless did not increase the number of Opposition Members to "at least three", as the then Prime Minister had categorically assured the House. This really came as no surprise, as the PAP could rarely be depended on to keep its word on important issues.

This time, the Bill is to enable the President to vary the number of NCMPs from four, as explained by the Minister, to at most six. Excepting for the possibility of the President being able to vary the number of NCMPs, there is practically no difference between the position following the present amendment and the original position before the amendment. Of course, as Mr Chiam has emphasised, there may be no further occasion for NCMPs in future. If there should be occasion for NCMPs again in the next elections, we shall then have to see how the PAP lives up to its word this time.

However, the question again arises. Why does the PAP institute the system of NCMPs, and incidentally also NMPs?

NCMPs were introduced following Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam's victory in the Anson by-election in 1981 and the subsequent feverish attack unleashed by the PAP against the then lone Opposition MP. When the attack against the lone MP brought in its trail adverse publicity for the PAP, and it was severely criticised for its intolerance to fair and legitimate criticism, the PAP came outwith the answer of the NCMP. It was clearly an attempt to assuage and appease popular discontent, and an attempt to show that the PAP was not intolerant to opposition and criticism; that it would indeed like to have an Opposition in Parliament; and that it was even willing and ready to initiate the NCMP system to give the Opposition an opportunity to have its own representatives to ventilate its viewpoints in Parliament. But there are also criticisms against the NCMP system. Some people have called the NCMP a second-class MP, and I do not blame them for saying so.

Such being the case, Sir, my suggestion is that, if the PAP feels that there should be more Opposition Members to voice non-Government viewpoints, then the correct and proper thing to do is, as I have stated on another occasion, to institute the system of proportional representation in Singapore.

As is well-known, Sir, the present electoral system of first-past-the-post winner is a most undemocratic and unfair electoral system. It brings about unfair and unequal representation of the true wishes of the voters. Elections in Singapore and the unequal representation in the Singapore Parliament are concrete examples of such unfair and undemocratic elections par excellence.

Is the PAP willing to forgo the present unfair electoral system for one which the people of Singapore may have fair representation in Parliament? In view of the Prime Minister's call for an open, democratic and consultative government, is the Governmentwilling to appoint a special committee to look into the desirability or otherwise of proportional representation in Singapore? Dare the PAP take up the challenge to find out the views of the people of Singapore?

On the question of raising the maximum amount a candidate may spend in the conduct of an election, it would seem that the Government is opening the door for Singapore parties to plunge into the realm of money politics. The PAP is of course fabulously rich, and it hopes to benefit from such money politics in Singapore. But we must ask: Is it a wise thing to do? Hitherto, a candidate gets elected because (i) the policies of his or her party, supported by its organisation and propaganda apparatus, gain popular support; and (ii) the candidate is seen as the most capable and most able to represent and ventilate the views of electors in Parliament. And since 1963, and especially over recent years, the PAP, with its control over the mass organisations and its monopoly of the mass media, has overwhelming advantages over Opposition parties. Nevertheless, with the rising political consciousness of the people, it has lost ground.

Votes for the PAP have declined, and votes for the Opposition have increased. In fact, Opposition votes accounted for nearly 40% of total popular votes in the 1988 election. Come 1992 or 1993, who knows how many more votes the PAP will lose to the Opposition and how many the Opposition will gain?

With inflation and increasing cost of printing, costs of conducting an election campaign will certainly go up a little. But Opposition parties with all their disadvantages have managed somehow to keep their election spending to a very small sum. Not the PAP. The PAP spends much more. And the Bill will enable the PAP to spend still more in its campaigns to win votes. If the spending of $1 for each elector on the electoral register is allowed, a candidate would be able to spend $18,000 or $20,000 in a constituency of, say, 18,000 or 20,000 electors. Will spending such a large sum not open the door to abuse of treating and other forms of electoral bribery and corruption?

With the new amendments, political parties like the PAP which can afford to spend freely, could easily change clean healthy election practices into pure money politics. That is to be deplored. And Government should not initiate such electoral provisions simply because it has advantages over Opposition parties and can benefit from such dirty money politics. Hitherto, the present maximum amount of $6,000 allowed per candidate has worked quite well. Mr Chiam has told us of his experience. Similarly, I can say that in the Barisan Sosialis in the old days, and in the Workers' Party today, we do not spend even half the amount that is legally allowed.

Sir, no one from political parties, so far as we know, other than from the PAP itself, has complained that the amount for an election campaign is insufficient. The maximum amount for electoral campaign should therefore be maintained for the time being or, at most, be increased only slightly.

The third item in the Bill is to prepare legislation for the election of the President. Though the amendments appear to be procedural and consequential, as the Minister has said, nevertheless, to the PAP, the amendments are of the utmost importance. Without these amendments to sections 55, 61 and 79 of the Act, it will not be able to proceed with the election of the President. They are to be introduced by the Presidential Elections Bill today. After this, the election of the President may be held when the incumbent President steps down. Or the election of the President may come together with the 1992 or 1993 general elections. Whatever it may be, it will be interesting to know how much a presidential candidate will be allowed to spend in the elections. If there should be a million electors, would the candidate be allowed to spend $1 million in his election campaign? That would be real money politics as we see in the presidential elections of the United States today.

And with the Bill, the PAP has now introduced that into Singapore. All because it has lost confidence in being able to gain the people's support in its rule over Singapore. But that will not stop the downward trend of popular support for the PAP, as mentioned by Mr Chiam, and as already evident since the 1981 Anson by-election, and especially seen over the last two elections in 1984 and 1988. Nor will it be able to stop the upward trend of popular support for Opposition parties, with more and more Opposition members being elected to Parliament.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, in replying to the points which have been raised, first, let me take the points which have been made by Members on the question of NCMPs. Dr Arthur Beng asked about the criteria and whether we can fix it at a particular formula. Mr Chiam, of course, consistent with his Party's position on the question of NCMPs, is opposed to the very idea of NCMPs. And Dr Lee Siew-Choh is in a very odd position of having, in the same breath, to recall his Party's opposition to the NCMPs and yet square this with his recent request to ask for more NCMPs.

Replying to Dr Arthur Beng, Members know that when we introduced the NCMP by constitutional amendments in 1984, we stated that we recognised that this was a novel, unprecedented constitutional device for the airing of different views in this House other than the Government views, or views of the party in power. And we said, at that time, let us see how it works in practice. Opposition parties - Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), Workers' Party (WP) and even Singapore United Front (SUF) - opposed vehemently. In the 1984 elections, there were no takers. It was offered to the highest defeated candidate, Mr M.P.D. Nair, of the Workers' Party. They claimed that it was hypocritical, undermined the whole system of parliamentary democracy and so the WP rejected it. It was then offered to Mr Tan Chee Kien and the SUF also rejected it.

In 1988, the Workers' Party made an about turn. What was the result? The result was that we now have Dr Lee Siew-Choh in this House, a defeated candidate in the elections, but making speeches, expressing viewpoints, often sharply critical of the Government. But there has been movement. It has shown that the NCMP concept does allow an Opposition party's representative, although not successful in the elections, to be in this Chamber to take on the Government. So from a total rejection of the NCMP concept, the NCMP of the Workers' Party here has asked for more NCMPs. Well, fine. It may be that Mr Chiam has a crystal ball and he may be right that we may never need NCMPs, but we said, let us agree to Dr Lee Siew-Choh. But should itbe 4, 5 or 6? Our view is that there should be some flexibility.

Various factors would obviously have to be taken into account, for example, how many Nominated MPs will there be in the Chamber? If there are no Nominated MPs, then perhaps the case can be made up for a greater number of NCMPs. Also what is the stand of other political parties? If others, like the WP, accept the NCMP concept, maybe then again, there would be a case for increasing the number to more than four. But for the time being, as I have said, the Government intends to increase it gradually and the intention is for four NCMPs for the next elections.

If I may turn now to the question of election expenses. Mr Chiam is trying to make the point that there is no need for this amendment because he and the other Opposition parties have managed to work within the limit. That is fine too. But in narrating the expenses that he has achieved over the different elections, he was first able to confine his expenses to half the limit, then it increased. In the last election, he reached 80% of the limit which shows that in the next election, it may be 90% or 99%. The reasons for this amendment are as I have given in my speech.

But both Mr Chiam and Dr Lee Siew-Choh have bandied the phrase "money politics" without defining "money politics". How is this amendment going to bring about money politics? What do they mean by "money politics"? My understanding of the term "money politics" is that someabuse it as people entering politics for purposes of enriching themselves. How does this amendment entitle that? Some may also want to use it. To me, money politics is, in a sense, bribery, treating or other illegal practices. How does this amendment permit that? There are very strict provisions in the Parliamentary Elections Act on election offences, unauthorised activities and corrupt offences for the purposes of the elections, which include carefully defined offences on bribery, treating and illegal election activities; all of which are not affected by this amendment at all. So I would like to hear from them as to how this amendment brings about money politics. All it does is that it revises the figure which was introduced in 1954.

If I may just touch on another point on NCMPs. Dr Lee Siew-Choh started off his speech by saying that the Government went back on its word when it introduced the amendments in 1984. True, the Prime Minister said, when he moved the amendments, that the Constitution provided for a maximum of six NCMPs and the Parliamentary Elections Act, to start with, provided for three NCMPs. Dr Lee Siew-Choh said we went back on our word because we have not brought about three NCMPs. But he has misunderstood the concept of NCMPs. It does not mean that, regardless of the result of the elections, there will always be three NCMPs because if there is one member who is returned successfully, like Mr Chiam in the first-past-the-post system, then there is only provision for two NCMPs. Or if, as happened in one case, there were two who were returned after the general election - Mr Jeyaretnam and Mr Chiam - there would be scope only for one. In other words, whatever number, whether it is three or four or six, as prescribed by the Parliamentary Elections Act, it is that number less the number of successfully returned Opposition candidates. So there is no going back on its word by the Government in this regard.

As for the points raised by Dr Lee Siew-Choh on the Elected President, I think it is more appropriate to raise these pointsunder the debate on the Presidential Elections Bill that we will have at the next sitting.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I believe the Minister wants an explanation of the meaning of "money politics". I think money politics can best be seen in America where they have to spend vast amounts to win an election campaign. How do they do it and why do they need large sums of money? Because they want to buy air time on television. I do not know whether this Government is going to change the rules in regard to electioneering in Singapore. If they are going to allow advertisements in regard to election campaigns in Singapore, then that is where money politics will come in, where you can advertise and you can put your message into every living room in Singapore.

For a four-Member constituency, or even a three-Member GRC, there would be enough money to do this kind of campaigning, because if you have three, I believe it is about 30,000 to 35,000 voters in each of the GRCs. If you have four, you add another $20,000, it is $50,000. That is quite a lot of money. But where do they get this money from? From, of course, interested parties, business people, people who have an interest and they want certain Members to get in to voice their own interests. And this is where money politics comes into play. So I hope Singapore's politics will not degenerate into that kind of politics. I think we have been doing very well, spending just enough money to campaign and using a lot of willing helpers and volunteers who believe in a cause and not with a money sign in them to come into politics. I hope this amendment will not degenerate into having bigger amounts allowed for each parliamentary candidate.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Let me also say a few words about money politics, Sir. I have said in my speech that the Bill will open the door to abuse, ie, it has not come about yet in actual fact, but who knows. At the present moment, already $4.2 million has been given to the PAP Community Foundation. Is this not one of the ways to influence the voters to vote for the PAP? Is this not part of money politics and using Government money on top of that?

That aside, the Minister has said that in 1984 there was scope for only one NCMP after two Opposition MPs were elected. True, I mentioned that myself. Since two were elected, how was it that there was no NCMP to become the third Opposition MP? If there were no three Opposition MPs, then surely the Govern- ment had gone back on its word to have "at least three Opposition MPs," whatever the type of Opposition MPs they might have been. Two were elected and therefore one should have been an NCMP, but it was never offered down the line. Therefore, let me remind the Minister, his memory is failing him.

Let me also say that I have not asked for more NCMPs. I have only asked whether the Government will live up to its promise, to what it says. What I have asked for is proportional representation, because that will give equal, fair, representation to the voters in Singapore. The whole world is going towards proportional representation. In Britain itself, the people are asking for proportional representation. In Japan too. And even Prince Charles has put in his word to support proportional representation. If the Government is really keen to have more Opposition MPs, that would be a fair way to go about it. And there will be no need for people to say that the NCMPs are just second class MPs and NMPs are third class MPs. Would the Minister not be happy to have such a situation?

On top of that, he has also mentioned 1988. I cannot say that we have completely turned around. There was the popular demand that there should be more Opposition MPs, whatever the occasion. For me, I feel that we should make use of every available opportunity to voice our party views as well as the viewpoints of the public and give vent to their grievances. Thus more and more people will know what Opposition people think about and say. Hence, the need to have NCMPs if we fail to win in the first-past-the-post election.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I apologise to Dr Lee Siew-Choh for not replying to him on proportional representation because my reply would have been similar to what the Prime Minister stated only a few months ago. Dr Lee Siew-Choh raised this on 13th March 1991 in this House and said exactly what he has said just now. But this question has been effectively replied to by the Prime Minister when he pointed out that proportional representation -

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: He did not convince me.

Prof. Jayakumar: It may not be convincing to Dr Lee Siew-Choh, but the point is, as the Prime Minister said, if you have proportional representation in Singapore, you will in fact be concocting a brew that will blow up our multi-racial harmony, because you will have political parties which are based on race, religion, language. We cannot afford it and he pointed out that no Commonwealth nation has proportional representation. He also pointed out and asked Dr Lee Siew-Choh to look at the dismal experience of those European countries which had proportional representation and the frequent changes and musical chairs which take place there.

On NCMPs, Dr Lee Siew-Choh's memory needs to be jogged. He says that he never asked for more NCMPs. Let me quote what he said on 29th November 1989 [Hansard, Vol. 54, No. 8, col. 752]:

'Presently, we have one elected MP and one, or if you like, two NCMPs. So we have room for another three or four NCMPs. Therefore it would be logical to have more NCMPs as a first step.'

Then on 29th March 1990 [Hansard, Vol. 55, No. 15, col. 1026], he said:

'If the Government feels that there should be more Opposition MPs, all it has got to do is to increase the number of NCMPs, to make up the total number of Opposition MPs to six.'

On the question of election expenses, I agree with Mr Chiam that we should not go the way of the United States. But this amendment that we are making is to increase the 1954 figure to $1, and I do not see how it can make us go the way of the United States.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Clarification, Sir. The Minister has said something about my asking for an increase of NCMPs, from three to six. True, Sir, I said that, but in the context of the Government's proposal to have NMPs. I suggested that if there was a need to have more Opposition Members, surely it would have been better to have elected or near-elected MPs than Nominated MPs. That was why I asked for an increase from three to six. But I did not ask for more NCMPs per se.

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, I understand his predicament and I shall not belabour the point.

As to his earlier point about not offering to the next person on the list, for the record, let me remind him that in 1984 when the Workers' Party's representative turned down the NCMP offer, the offer was made to the next person on the list, Mr Tan Chee Kien of the SUF.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: But it never went further than that.

Prof. Jayakumar: What for?

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. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar].

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