PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Sir, earlier this year, this House enacted the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act which constitutional amendments provided for an Elected President with certain veto powers in three broad areas: first, appointment of key public service appointments; second, protection of accumulated reserves of the Government, key statutory boards and Government companies; third, in matters concerning detentions under the Internal Security Act, CPIB investigations and orders made under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act.

Prior to the enactment of this legislation, we had considerable debate. Members will remember that in July 1988 the first White Paper was published, setting out the principles of the concept of the Elected President. In August 1990, the second White Paper was published, setting out the main features of the proposed legislation. There was a full debate of the first White Paper. In October 1990, there was an extensive Second Reading debate, after which the Bill was sent to a Select Committee which made certain significant changes.

After the Select Committee reported on the Bill, there was a Third Reading in January this year. In view of all these extensive debates, it is not my intention to repeat the rationale for the constitutional amendments or to go over the issues again which have been canvassed in this House.

What this Bill is about

The constitutional amendments state that the provisions relating to the actual conduct of the elections for the President are to be set out in a law made by this House. This Bill is therefore consequent to the new Article 17(2) of the Constitution, which reads:

"The President shall be elected by the citizens of Singapore in accordance with any law made by the Legislature."

The Bill, before the House today, is necessary in order to set out in detail the manner in which the Presidential elections are to be held. The provisions provide for the process of elections from nomination to balloting and to counting of votes.

With a few exceptions, most of the provisions are based on the Parliamentary Elections Act. I would say more than 90% of the provisions are adapted from the Parliamentary Elections Act. That being the case, it is not my intention to deal with each and every clause of the Bill. Instead, I shall highlight the major features of the Bill, especially where the Bill differs from the principles or provisions in the Parliamentary Elections Act.

Compulsory Voting

Let me say, at the outset, as in the case of Parliamentary elections, voting in a Presidential election will be compulsory. An elector who fails to vote at a Presidential election will have his name expunged from the register of electors unless he has good reasons for not voting or if he pays the required fee of $5 to have his name re-instated.

Voting Rights

Also, every person who at the time of any Presidential elections is on a register of electors has a right to vote at these elections.

Role of the Presidential Elections Committee.

Let me now turn to the provisions which may be different from the provisions in the Parliamentary Elections Act. First, I draw your attention to the role of the Presidential Elections Committee and the role, as set out in the Bill, is consistent with Articles 18 and 19 as introduced by the constitutional amendments. The Committee's function is to certify that the Committee is satisfied that the prospective candidate is a person of integrity, good character and reputation; and, secondly, to certify that the Committee is of the opinion that the prospective candidate does have the ability and the experience in managing financial affairs as are necessary for the office of the President. (This will of course apply only to candidates who are not automatically qualified under the Constitution.) Such a certificate will be valid only for the purpose of the particular election in question.

Political Affiliation of Candidates

Next, let me turn to clause 9. Consistent with the constitutional amendments, the Bill provides that a candidate must at the time of nomination declare that he is not a member of any political party. The candidate will therefore not be allotted any symbol which denotes or implies any affiliation with a political party. The candidate will also not be able to wear on his person any badge indicating his affiliation with any political party.

Election Expenses

Let me turn to the question of election expenses. Members of the House will recall that during the Parliamentary debates on these constitutional amendments early this year the Prime Minister agreed that there should be a cap on the election expenses relating to the election of the Elected President. As a Presidential candidate will be campaigning for the votes of all Singaporeans who are eligible to vote, and not as in Parliamentary elections where only those voters within a particular constituency, the Prime Minister suggested that the cap should be less than that prescribed for Parliamentary elections which, prior to the amendment recently, was 50 cents per elector on a register or $6,000, whichever is greater.

Clause 50 of the Bill prescribes such a cap on the amount of election expenses. The maximum amount prescribed is 30 cents per elector on all registers or $600,000, whichever is the greater. To enable flexibility, this amount could subsequently be amended by order in the Gazette.

This cap of $600,000 or 30 cents per voter is reasonable when we take into account two factors. First, the Presidential candidate will have to reach out to all the electors throughout Singapore, not just one constituency, in other words, about 1.6 million or more voters. Secondly, if any political parties campaign on behalf of the candidate (which is permitted) their expenses would have to be declared as part of the candidate's expenses.

Other provisions on offences, filing of returns, etc. are similar to the provisions in the Parliamentary Elections Act.

Deposits on Nomination

Next, I turn to the question of deposits on nomination. Just as there is a requirement for candidates for Parliamentary elections, so also every candidate for Presidential elections must also furnish deposits. To denote the serious nature of Presidential elections, the amount of deposit for a candidate for elections to the Presidency ought to be greater than that for Parliamentary elections. Accordingly, clause 10 provides that the deposit shall be three times the amount payable by a candidate in Parliamentary elections. Following the Parliamentary elections provisions, such deposit will be forfeited where the candidate fails to garner 1/8 of the total votes polled.

No new register of electors

I should add that as far as registers of electors are concerned, the current registers of electors maintained under the Parliamentary Elections Act shall be the basis for determining whether a person is entitled to vote at Presidential elections. This avoids maintaining separate registers of electors.

The electoral boundaries marked out and the polling districts created under the Parliamentary Elections Act will also be used for the purpose of Presidential elections. This also will reduce the administrative costs of conducting any Presidential elections.

Timing of Elections

As for the timing of elections, like general elections to Parliament, Presidential elections must also be held within a stipulated time period. If the office of President falls vacant prior to the expiration of the term of office of the incumbent, and this could be due to death, resignation, removal and so on, then the poll must be held within six months of such vacation. This is something that is already provided for under Article 22L of the Constitution. If there is no premature vacation of office, and the incumbent's term of office expires in the normal way, then the poll must be held not more than three months before the end of the term of office of the incumbent President. Those are the major provisions which are different from the provisions in the Parliamentary Elections Act.

Nomination

If I may briefly go over the other provisions. As regards nomination, the writ of election will specify the nomination day which shall be not less than five days and not more than one month from the date of the writ. This is similar to the Parliamentary Elections Act. Nomination proceedings are also similar with the exception that the candidate must furnish a statutory declaration stating that he is not a member of any political party as well as the required certificate from the Presidential Elections Committee. Objections may be made to the nomination papers in the same way as objections to nominations in a general election or by-election.

Polling Day As for polling day, it will be not less than nine days and not more than eight weeks after the date of the notice of contested elections. This is provided for in clause 16. It must also fall within the periods which I mentioned just now - six months or three months as the case may be - on the timing of the Presidential elections. The manner of voting is no different from that as provided for in the Parliamentary Elections Act. The results of the poll must be published in the Gazette.

Death of a President-designate

In situations where there is a death of a President-elect or President-designate, clause 34 provides that where a candidate has been declared elected but so happens that he dies before the commencement of his term of office, a new writ will be issued. This is especially necessary since a poll may be held two months before the successful candidate actually assumes office.

Death of a candidate

Now what happens in the case of death of a candidate before the elections? If a candidate dies before polling day, the poll will be countermanded and all proceedings will begin afresh except that no nomination need to be made again in respect of the remaining candidates who stood nominated at the time the poll was countermanded. This follows the Parliamentary Elections model.

Invalidity of Elections

As regards invalidity of elections, the Bill also sets out in clause 71 the grounds upon which the election of a candidate as President may be declared void. If an election is not declared void, the removal will be possible only by Parliament on the grounds and according to the procedures which are set out in the Constitution.

Election Petitions

As far as election petitions are concerned, the grounds on which the election of a candidate as President may be declared void have been set out in clause 71. There are also provisions on election petitions. The court procedure for the bringing of such petitions are to be set out in rules made by the Rules Committee under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.

Corrupt or Illegal Practices

As regards corrupt or illegal practices, the Bill contains provisions similar to those in the Parliamentary Elections Act concerning illegal or corrupt practices in connection with the elections.

Consequential amendments

I might draw attention, Sir, to certain consequential amendments. The Bill also makes consequential amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act, chief of which is an amendment to provide for the striking off from the register of electors any elector who has failed to vote in a Presidential election. The other is a minor amendment providing that any person who has been convicted of any corrupt practice in connection with any Presidential election will be disqualified from acting as an election agent in a general or by-election for seven years.

Commencement

As far as the commencement of this Bill is concerned, it will be brought into operation only after the constitutional amendments establishing the Elected President are brought into force.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Koh Lam Son (Telok Blangah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill, and I would like to comment on some aspects of it.

Since independence, election in Singapore has always been clean and fair. This is recognised by Singaporeans and they have come to expect this of a good Government. I believe one key reason for this is the Government's deliberate effort to keep money politics out by strict regulations and by placing a cap on the election expenditure.

Similar to the Parliamentary Elections Act, the Presidential Elections Bill stipulates the maximum allowable election expenditure of $600,000, or 30 cents per elector on the registers, whichever is the greater. At the last parlia- mentary sitting, Mr Chiam See Tong has correctly referred to the dangers of money politics. However, he is mistaken by suggesting that the Government is encouraging it. Far from it. The Government has consistently placed a strict limit on election expenditure. Look at the present provision. Can 30 cents buy a vote? In fact, the provision of 30 cents per elector is computed on the cost of basic election expenses without trimmings. This is the maximum sum. If Presidential candidates can do with less, good for them. This may well be the case with well-known public figures that Singaporeans have trusted. It is very clear that money politics is not allowed and the offences are specifically spelt out in clauses 39, 41, 42 and 50. In this House Mr Chiam has claimed that he won the last election on a shoe-string budget. I think perhaps this is the best illustration of the absence of money politics in Singapore.

Sir, clause 16(5) stipulates that the election campaign period should not be less than nine days or more than eight weeks. It seems to me that a long Presidential election period is both costly and wasteful to the nation. It would divert resources and attention from development as well as undermine economic confidence. Our past parliamentary elections involving many candidates have had a nine day duration. A Presidential election involving only a handful of candidates would do equally well with a short duration. This is also partly because the Presidential election candidates have already been certified by the Presidential Elections Committee. The short duration is really just meant for campaigning, the necessary preparation should have been carried out before and there are always ample signals for preparation time. The passing of this Bill itself is the signal.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister this question. Since the Presidential Elections Committee is there to certify the Presidential candidate, is it then necessary to provide for a deposit that is three times the amount payable by a candidate in a parliamentary election?

Finally, would the Minister assure the House that all measures have been taken to prevent an accidental breakage of the seals of the ballot boxes by people handling them? For example, will wax seals instead of perforated paper seals be used, since the latter is more liable to accidental breakage?

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, first let me say once again that the Workers' Party is totally opposed to the concept of the Elected President. We believe that the Elected President is unnecessary, and that there are enough safeguards in the present parliamentary system, if only the PAP Government would let Parliament play its proper and rightful role in Government.

We believe that the real aim of the Elected President proposal is not so much to watch over our financial reserves as to watch over political developments in Singapore, to keep opposition parties in check when the occasion demands, and to help maintain PAP rule over Singapore for as long as possible.

Another short observation I would like to make is this. In a democracy, elections should be matters that are discussed with the people, through their representatives or leaders in political parties. This is being done in all democratic countries. In Singapore, however, this has never been the case. Since assuming office in 1959, the PAP has arrogated to itself absolute powers in all matters connected with elections. It has acted as though elections were the concern of only the PAP, the ruling party, as though other political parties did not exist. It has never seen fit, for example, to appoint an Elections Commission which is the norm in almost all civilised countries which practise parliamentary democracy. All this, of course, has made elections under the PAP, contrary to what Dr Koh has said, most unfair and undemocratic.

The Bill before the House seeks to prescribe the procedure for the election of the President. The procedure proposed is not only discriminatory and undemocratic, but also a mockery and farce of the whole principle of a free vote. It is a total and complete violation of the basic right of the voter to elect a person of his choice. In the circumstances, it is no longer a true election. It is a charade.

Behind the facade of democracy, with every person being compelled to vote, the whole procedure proposed is designed to legally rig the election of a former Prime Minister, PAP Minister or trusted loyal PAP supporter, to the high and powerful post of President of Singapore. It is no different, Sir, from elections that used to be held in communist countries, where only Communist Party candidates were allowed to offer themselves for election. The anti-communist PAP now adopts a method which has been abandoned by countries that were once Communist. What irony.

Let me now deal with some of the provisions in the Bill. Clause 8 of the Bill stipulates that every person who desires to be elected to the office of President has to apply to the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) for a certificate of eligibility. And the PEC must be satisfied that (1) that the person is a person of integrity, good character and reputation, and (2) that he is qualified under Article 19(2)(g)(iv) of the Constitution, and having not less than three years' experience in administering and managing financial affairs.

These are conditions that will immediately cut off very large sections of the people, and limit those who are eligible as Presidential candidates to only a very small circle of supermen in the PAP club, representing perhaps less than 0.01% of our Singapore citizens. Excluded are the 99.99% or more of the people, the so-called common herd. Is that fair?

Apart from that, the question then arises: how does the PEC decide whether "a person is a person of integrity, good character and reputation"? Is it by looking at the person and just talking to him? Or by testimonials from other people? Or by hearsay reports? And if he is interviewed by the PEC, will proceedings of the PEC be held in hush-hush secrecy, or will they be open to the public? How the PEC operates is not spelt out in the Bill.

According to Article 18(c) of the Constitution, and as explained by the Prime Minister, the PEC, and I quote, "will work out its own rules and work out its own methods of evaluating candidates." [Hansard, Vol. 56, Col. 749, dated 3rd January 1991]. All this is highly unsatisfactory. The PEC is not a private organisation. The working procedure of the PEC should be clearly spelt out and its proceedings should be open to the public. In fact, in keeping with the new style of its professed open-society and open Government, PEC proceedings should be telecast "live", so that they may be seen to be fair and democratic. Such "live" TV Senate hearings are telecast in the US. This is something which we should emulate in Singapore.

We must not forget that the assessment of whether or not a person is eligible to contest the election as a Presidential candidate depends on a PEC whose members are all nominees or appointees of the PAP Government. What is more, its decision is "final and shall not be subject to appeal or review in any court." Such being the case, can any person not associated with the PAP Government have confidence that he will be assessed fairly and impartially by the PEC? What if anyone should feel aggrieved and dissatisfied with the assessment of the PEC? What if, rightly or wrongly, a person should feel that the PEC has made a wrong decision, or a decision against him, out of malice? What if the PEC is, wittingly or unwittingly, prejudiced against a person because of his political philosophy or past association with certain political parties? In the circumstances, what redress can a person hope to have against the decision of the PEC except through an appeal or review in a court of law? Is he to be denied a right to a fair and just hearing in a court of law?

Today, people all over the world demand that they have the right to vote whomsoever they wish. But the provision that the decision of the PEC should be "final and not be subject to appeal or review in any court" deals a coup de grace to this right of the voter. He is first discriminated against and denied the right to be elected. Now, he is also denied the right to elect whomsoever he wishes. What type of PAP, may I quote the Prime Minister, "Singapore style democracy" is that? Already many people feel hampered and cramped by Government controls and restraints. Now the people are to face yet more and more restrictions of their basic rights.

I say to the PAP: Let us put an end to this pretence and humbug of electing a President. Let us call a spade a spade. The whole Bill is designed to allow only persons approved and supported by the PAP to be elected. Why play hide and seek, and have all the hocus-pocus and the sham of going through an election at all?

Let me now touch briefly on a few other clauses in the Bill. Clause 50 allows expenses of the Presidential candidate to be $600,000 or 30 cents per elector, whichever is greater. These clauses make for big money politics, since the amount can at any time be amended and increased. Only rich individuals or rich organizations, like the fabulously rich PAP, will have the means to sponsor a Presidential candidate, and canvass and campaign on his behalf. Individuals who do not have the means will not stand a single chance against these sponsored candidates. The PAP has certainly seen to every detail in order to ensure that the next Elected President will be a PAP President. As is well-known, Sir, and as mentioned by the Minister, the Parliamentary Elections Act, which prescribes the most undemocratic and unfair procedure of election of Members of Parliament in Singapore, is one of the most important instruments by which the PAP has kept itself in power these last 32 years. Most of these undemocratic and unfair provisions have been incorporated into the Bill.

Clause 7 allows the Prime Minister to give a notice of only "4 clear days" from publication of the writ in the Gazette to the day of nomination.

Clause 16 allows an interval of only nine days from nomination day to polling day. It must be remembered that many countries, whether they be parliamentary democracies or military dictatorships, frequently announce election-day many weeks, and even months, in advance. That would allow political parties to prepare and work towards the target date of the election.

It is, however, different in Singapore. Here the PAP has always sprung snap elections on the people. It wants to catch the Opposition by surprise. It hopes that the Opposition parties will not be able to make adequate and timely preparations for the elections. While the PAP has full use of TV, radio and the local press all the year round, Opposition parties will not be allowed to campaign until after nomination day. The PAP invariably allows the Opposition only nine, at most 10, days for electioneering. But today the PAP frequently boasts of political stability. We are entering a new technological age. And the PAP has always said that it likes competition from Opposition parties. Why then the indecent haste to hold elections in a short period of only nine days? Is it not time that all political parties be given adequate time for the electioneering as in other countries that practise parliamentary democracy? What is the PAP afraid of?

Let us not forget, Sir, that those who really benefit with more time for elections are not the Opposition parties, but the voters themselves. Voters need more time to know about the political stand, policies and programmes of the different political parties, and also of the Presidential candidates. They need to vote on the basis of well-informed opinions, and with all the available facts of all political parties and candidates placed before them. That would not be possible if the PAP should spring surprise snap elections of nine days. Candidates and Opposition parties should be given fair and adequate TV air time, and the press should not be completely one-sided.

So let the PAP extend the minimum time period from the issue of writ to polling day, and also let the people know at least a month or two in advance of the actual date of elections. And let Opposition parties be given much more air time on TV and more space in the press. Let there be TV debates between candidates, and between Government and Opposition party leaders. With all the facts placed before them, voters become better informed and so will vote more wisely.

Let me now come to the question of ballot papers and the manner of voting. Clause 23(2) states that:

'Every ballot paper shall ---

(d) have a number printed on the back; and

(e) have attached a counterfoil with the same number printed on the face.' This number on the ballot paper is completely out of tune with the present-day Singapore of the 1990s. It is an anachronism, and must be done away with, as it violates the secrecy of the vote, a most basic principle of democratic elections.

The Report of the 1966 Constitutional Commission recommended that the ballot papers should not be numbered. Paragraph 43 of the Report states, and I quote:

"this provision [that is, of a number on the ballot paper] is inconsistent with the right to secrecy of the vote."

This violation of the secrecy of the vote was admitted by Mr Barker, then Minister for Law and Development, in this very House itself in 1967, and later on by Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself in open court in 1978. And it has been publicly criticised by many people, including Prof. Tommy Koh and Mr David Marshall, both respected members of the public and now of the establishment.

This number on the ballot paper has frightened many people into believing, rightly or wrongly, that the Government might, or would, check on the ballot papers and come to know how they have voted, bringing with it dire consequences for those people who have voted for the Opposition and against the PAP Government. This fear that Government would find out how they have voted is heightened by the manner of voting that is prescribed in clause 25(3).

As is commonly known to all those who have taken part in elections, when the number, name and description of the voter is called out in a loud voice by the election official, and the number of the elector is clearly seen by the elector to be marked on the counterfoil by another election official, the effect on the elector can be quite traumatic. He will be frightened and could even be intimidated into voting for the PAP much against his will. However, as a result of education and frequent reassurances from Opposition parties, this fear on the part of the voter has been greatly reduced. The ice was broken by the voters when they voted in J.B. Jeyaretnam in Anson in 1981. And today nearly 40% of electors have cast their votes for the Opposition. But many people still harbour such fears. And though we in the Opposition parties have not spoken on the number on the ballot paper over the last few elections, nevertheless there are people, including professionals, Government officials, teachers and national servicemen, who would still come forth to ask whether or not Government would find out how they have voted. The nagging fear remains. And the Government cannot say that it is not aware of the fear in the minds of Singapore voters that their votes may be known to the Government authorities.

With such fears in the minds of the voters, the elections in Singapore have never been free and fair elections, that is, elections with voters voting freely without fear, according to their true wishes, for candidates of their choice.

Why then does the PAP Government continue to print numbers on ballot papers? Why is it essential to have the number on the ballot paper? What plausible reason is there for the number on the ballot paper? Hitherto, the PAP excuse for having the number on the ballot paper is that it is needed to prevent fraud. But the argument is hardly convincing. In these days of high technology and electronic surveillance, there is no reason why other modern methods cannot be used to prevent fraud. Moreover, as clearly stated in clause 25 and pointed out by Prof. Tommy Koh long ago, and I quote, "Immediately before any ballot paper is delivered to a voter, the ballot paper shall be stamped on the back or perforated with the official mark or initialled by the presiding officer". That makes it impossible for a voter to vote twice or more times. How then could fraud be perpetrated?

The PAP Government has often advocated free and fair elections in Cambodia. Does it also advocate the same in Singapore? If the Government wishes to ensure that there should be free and fair elections in Singapore, then it is absolutely necessary for the Government to do away with the numbering of ballot papers. It is the duty and responsibility of the Government to get rid of this nagging fear implanted in the minds of the voters by the PAP.

Before I close, let me touch lightly on a few other important issues.

In past elections, there had been problems connected with ballot boxes that were transported from polling stations to the counting centres. On one occasion, a ballot box was left behind in the polling station when other boxes were taken to the counting centre. On other occasions, there were complaints that the buses transporting the ballot boxes had taken devious routes. Such lapses or irregularities, whether as a result of oversight or otherwise, could give rise to unnecessary disputes. I have therefore suggested amendments to provide against such happenings again.

I have also suggested amendments to clause 36(3). To prevent fraud, it is imperative that the total number of votes counted on the counting table tally exactly with the total number of votes cast. Candidates must be informed by the presiding officers of the total number of votes that have been cast by voters, at various polling stations at all times, and especially when polling ends. That would allow the candidate to check the total number of votes cast against the total number of votes counted on the counting table.

Clause 26 provides for compulsory voting and anyone who has failed to vote could be imposed a fine of $5.

Clause 63 seeks to punish anyone who attempts to persuade voters from voting.

Both these provisions violate the basic right of a voter to withhold his vote, and his right to persuade others to join him not to cast vote. Therefore, these clauses are archaic and should be done away with.

Similarly, provisions in clauses 65 and 66 are unnecessarily restrictive. For example, what is wrong with students from junior colleges taking part in election activities, since the Government has already encouraged many of the students to take an active interest in politics? Again, what is wrong with an undischarged bankrupt taking part in election activities? Why is it necessary for candidates to submit particulars of all the election helpers to the Returning Officer and the Commissioner of Police?

Then there is clause 66 which seeks to punish five or more persons who together perhaps attend an election meeting and ask questions of speakers.

All these provisions, Sir, are intimidatory, and they could be used by the Government to intimidate voters who do not support the Government.

Finally, let me say once again that the whole procedure prescribed in the Bill is undemocratic and unfair. It will not bring about free and fair elections. In order to have democratic, free and fair elections, Government will have to take appropriate steps to amend or remove certain undemocratic and unfair provisions in the Bill. For example, lifting restrictions placed on the qualifications of Presidential candidates; providing early notice and adequate time for an election; removal of the number on the ballot paper and so getting rid of the fears in the minds of voters; and establishing an independent Elections Commission, would certainly go a long way towards achieving free and fair elections in Singapore. If that should come about, then that would be a most significant big step forward on what the Government calls the next lap. All Singaporeans would rejoice and be justifiably proud.

If, on the other hand, it should continue to ignore constructive and concrete proposals that have been put forward by opposition parties and the people to promote a democratic society in Singapore, then the PAP would stand further exposed as a dictatorial government, which preaches consultative democracy but which in fact refuses even to provide free and fair elections in Singapore.

Finally, the Secretary-General of the Party has just asked me to say that the Workers' Party might be compelled to call for a boycott in protest when the time comes.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) has, on record, said it does not agree with the concept of the Elected President. We had said so in the 1988 elections. Now we have the procedures for the election of the Elected President. The Presidential Elections Bill prescribes the procedures for the election of the President. It is modelled, as has been said, about 90% of it, on the Parliamentary Elections Act. The Parliamentary Elections Act is familiar to all of us who have gone through the elections.

As far as the Opposition is concerned, we find that it is definitely not a flat playing field. It is tilted much to the advantage of the PAP. The procedures spelt out in the Parliamentary Elections Act are patently unfair. I would also differ with Dr Koh Lam Son who said that it is fair. I say that it is really unfair to the public at large and, in particular, to the first-timers in an election. Under the procedures set out in the Parliamentary Elections Act, the general elections can be started and completed in a very short space of time. It is about 16 days from start to finish - from day one when the writ for dissolving Parliament is announced until the polling day. The whole process is rushed through, we all know, like the speed of an express train. As has been mentioned by Dr Lee Siew-Choh, even before the public has grasped the significance and implications of the elections and of the issues involved, everything seems to have come and gone.

It would appear that since we have this Bill before us, and the Government is going to make it exactly the same as the Parliamentary Elections Act, it really does not give the seriousness which it really deserves. The whole process of electing the President from day one when the writ is addressed to the Returning Officer until the polling day can also be completed in a quick 16 days. Under the Bill, the Prime Minister will issue a writ and this will be sent to the Returning Officer. The Returning Officer need only to give four clear days of notice before nomination. This is definitely too short a period of time. One lawyer friend has suggested that it should be at least 30 days. From my own experience, to be fair to the Government and the public, I think 14 clear days, at least, that is the minimum, should be given. Why is this necessary? Anyone who had taken part in the elections will know the reasons. There are very many important steps to be taken. Now we are required to take them in only four short days which definitely would not be enough. If any candidate who wants to take part in the Presidential election fails in one of the steps, it would be fatal to him.

Firstly, what has he to do? He or his election agent will have to go and get a nomination form and he has to round up at least six people to sign his nomination form, one as a proposer, one as a seconder and four others. We all know that. All these names must appear in the current electoral register. If you have made a mistake by not entering his name properly, in accordance with the electoral register, the candidate could be disqualified. All these are very technical, especially for new candidates for the Presidential elections. They will need time to go through all these very difficult and technical matters.

After having done that, the second step he has to do, which is peculiar to the Presidential elections, is to appear before the Presidential Elections Committee to obtain a certificate to certify that he is a qualified person to stand for the Presidential elections as spelt out in the Constitution. This is not an easy task. Dr Lee Siew-Choh has dealt with it at length. If within four days, you cannot prove yourself to be a suitable candidate, you have no chance to do it again because you have only four days. I think it should be slightly lengthened to give him at least some time to make an appeal, or to get it corrected, if necessary. Thirdly, the candidate will have to swear a statutory declaration to certify that his qualifications are all in order. Fourthly, he will have to get his deposit ready. The deposit, of course, will have to be either in cash or, an equivalent, in bank draft, or a certified cheque. I suppose for the Presidential candidate this would not be a problem. The last announced deposit was $4,000 for a Parliamentary candidate. If it is going to be three times, then the amount will be $12,000. If the time frame, as the Minister has announced, is to be the same as the Parliamentary Elections Act, then it should be amended. I would recommend that clause 7 of the Bill be amended to show that there are at least 14 clear days.

As regards clause 15, the procedure therein cannot be similar to that of Parliamentary elections. If there is only one candidate in a Presidential election, he cannot be declared the winner and then appointed as the President. I would say that even if there is only one candidate in the election, a poll must be held in the case of Presidential elections. Why is this necessary? Because, in the first place, the whole idea of having an Elected President is to give the President some kind of an electoral mandate, some kind of moral right to act on those serious matters that are listed in the Constitution. So if you have got only one candidate and he is declared the winner, we are not sure whether the people of Singapore want to vote him. There is still an element of doubt. Even if there is only one candidate, the voting should still go on. When he gets 50% or more of the votes, he will be declared the President. If, in the elections, he gets less than 50% of the votes, then there must be another election, because he does not have the confidence of the people of Singapore. I think clause 15 should be amended.

The other clause is clause 16(7) where a candidate dies before nomination day. If a nominated candidate dies before nomination day, according to this clause, the whole election is called off and you can have fresh nominations. But for those who have already been nominated, they will not have to file in a fresh set of papers. Again, I think this is not right. If there is more than one candidate, the election must go through. Because we are telling the people of Singapore that the election of the President is above party politics. He does not represent any political party. He is the best man to be the Elected President for the whole of Singapore. Under this clause, if a nominated candidate dies, fresh candidates will have to be nominated, and if that candidate is, in fact, a nominee of a group, whether it be a political party or a group interest, this group will be unhappy, and they will say, "Now our candidate is dead, we must nominate another candidate." In a way, this should not be the case because there is already a Committee to select the candidates and they are the best, most suitable, most honest and most qualified to stand as candidates. Having gone through the process, why should we reject that candidate who has already been nominated? He should be allowed to go through the election and not give a group, or a political party, another chance to select another candidate. So again clause 16(7) should be amended to show that if there is a death and there is more than one candidate, the elections should go on.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate. I would like to speak in support of the Bill.

Sir, the Presidential Elections Bill follows quite closely on the Parliamentary Elections Act. However, because there are definite differences between the elections of the President and Members of Parliament, I wish to point out certain issues which the Minister may wish to address.

Basically, there are three points. First, Sir, clause 9(4)(b) of the Bill requires that a candidate should make a statutory declaration that on nomination day, he or she is not a member of a political party. Would the Minister consider specifying a minimum time period during which he is required to cease to be a member of a political party? In this way, it lessens the perception of the public of any partisan connection of the election and of the candidate.

The second point, Sir, concerns clause 32(8) of the Bill which specifies that the candidate with the greatest number of votes is given to be elected. Unlike Parliamentary elections which elect a party to govern, the Presidential elections basically centre on the candidate. Considerable power is held by the Elected President. We go to a great extent in specifying the qualifications of the Presidential candidate. I feel that it is only logical that we should also ensure that the choice of the people is absolutely clear cut. The present provision allows only a candidate with a simple majority to be declared the Elected President. This may not be reflective of the people's choice. For example, if there are three candidates standing for the election and the results of the highest-polled candidate is 35% of the votes while the others are 30% and 25%, respectively, with a 10% spoilt votes, under the present provisions, the candidate with 35% of the votes would be elected by a simple majority. Yet he has only 35% of the people's votes. Will the Minister consider requiring a second round election of the two highest-polled candidates to determine the winner?

The third point I would like to point out is that, under the present provisions, clauses 16(5) and 23(2)(a) allow for symbols to be allotted to the candidates. In Parliamentary elections, the party symbol identifies very clearly the candidate. Many people will vote on the ballot papers, matching the candidate with the party symbol which they are already familiar with. For example, the PAP lightning or the Workers' Party hammer and so on. However, for the Presidential election, people may not be too familiar with matching the symbol with the candidate. So I am just suggesting that perhaps the Minister might consider alternatives such as having a picture of the candidate next to the name of the candidate on the ballot papers. Another alternative might be to print the names of the candidates in four languages so that non-English speaking Singaporeans, especially the older folks, can also vote correctly.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.40 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.17 pm until 3.40 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.40 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I touch on the points which have been raised by the Members who have spoken during the Second Reading?

First, can I take up some of the points by Dr Lee Siew-Choh? His first point, which is also shared by Mr Chiam, concerns what he considers to be a very short period between the notice of the issue of the writ and the date of the nomination, and also what he considers to be a very short period for obtaining a certificate from the Presidential Elections Committee. Dr Lee Siew-Choh suggests raising it to 30 days. I think Mr Chiam suggested amending clause 7 to increase the period to 14 days. The arguments were that the period stated in the notice is very short. There are a lot of things that a candidate will have to do, run around getting six or whatever number of supporters in addition to the proposer and seconder. But their fears are unfounded because we must bear in mind that in the Presidential elections, anyone who is likely to be interested would have a far clearer idea of when the election is going to take place than in the case of parliamentary elections.

In the case of an incumbent President whose term expires in the normal way, shall we say we know the incumbent President's term is going to expire on 31st December of a particular year, because of these provisions, you know that the election must be held during a period of three months before the expiry of the term. Therefore, you know that during that year, three months before 31st December, elections are likely to be held. And if anyone is serious about it, he should start making preparations long before, not just when the writ is announced and scurry around trying to get six persons to support you.

In the case of a vacancy arising in unusual circumstances, such as death or resignation, the Constitution provides that the poll for the Elected President must be held within six months. So in that unusual situation, everybody is put on notice that although it had not been anticipated that there was going to be an election year for the Elected President, because this unusual event has occurred, everyone is put on notice at least that much ahead that there is going to be a poll. In other words, far from the short four days or the short period which they complained about, ample notice is given and everyone is put on notice that there is going to be an election during that period. In fact, it is far more predictable than parliamentary elections. So whoever could be interested, or is interested, or may be interested, should start their preparations ahead of time. I do not know whether Mr Chiam's or Dr Lee Siew-Choh's complaint is based on the fact that they normally wait till the last minute. But I would advise that anyone who is interested or thinks he has a potential to be an Elected Presidential candidate should peruse the provisions of this Bill and he can tell that in two years time, from this period to that period, there will be an election.

As far as the period for obtaining the certificate from the Presidential Elections Committee is concerned, the two days referred to, at least two clear days before nomination day, that is the absolute latest that a candidate can apply for the certificate.

But of course it does not mean that the candidate should wait till the very last minute because he can, and I think he should, apply for the certificate the day when the writ is issued. So he does not have to wait till the last minute. Let me point out that these periods which are stated in clauses 7 and 8 are based exactly on the same periods as that for the Parliamentary Elections Act with regard to the certificates which are necessary for the Indian or Malay or other minority candidates standing in a GRC. In fact, for that certificate, one can say that even more work is involved because the Committees concerned have to certify that the particular candidate, Malay or Indian, is accepted as a member of the respective community.

Also, I would like to point out that, if you look at Article 19, the very nature of the qualifications required by the Constitution is such that the candidates for Presidential elections are very likely to be well-known people or figures, and whether you agree with their policies or the stand which they represent. In fact, the scheme of the Constitution is that they must be well-known people on the Singapore scene, because of the stringent qualifications. And therefore these two periods referred to should not pose great problems.

Then Dr Lee Siew-Choh raised questions concerning judicial review of the certificate issued by the PEC. But, first, this has been gone into during the debates on the Elected President and the Constitution already provides in Article 18 that there can be no judicial review of the certificate, and there are good reasons for this. Because the matters which Article 19 of the Constitution talks about, whether a person has held "similar or comparable position of seniority and responsibility in any other organisation or department of equivalent size or complexity in the public or private sector which, in the opinion of the Presidential Elections Committee, has given him such experience and ability in administering and managing financial affairs as to enable him to carry out effectively the functions and duties of the office of President", these are matters which the Constitution has entrusted to the judgment of a group of wise men, the Presidential Elections Committee. These are matters which are not strictly legal or justiciable matters by a court of law.

Then he wants the American system of grilling candidates in the public, and whatever dirty linen to be brought up. I am not sure whether it is wise to import into our system these American-style committees grilling individuals in public. Candidates, as I have said, are likely, because of the stringent qualifications, to be established figures on the Singapore scene. If there is such public grilling, would there be candidates coming forth? Even for the Nominated MP, I recall from the Special Select Committee, that one candidate pleaded in the Special Select Committee that his name should not be disclosed, unless the Special Select Committee nominated him.

Next, Dr Lee Siew-Choh raised the question of numbered ballots. It is interesting that he pointed out the Workers' Party has not raised this for several years, and there is good reason. When Mr Jeyaretnam was cross-examined in a defamation case in November 1978, he said on oath, when the question was put to him whether he accepted the assurance from the then Prime Minister that the Government could not break the law, and the only circumstance where the ballot box would be opened will be pursuant to an order of the court, "I accept that assurance." Dr Lee Siew-Choh is resurrecting an old issue. He wants to do away with the numbering of ballot papers. The question is, how would he then disprove allegation of malpractice in votes? How would he disprove an allegation, if an allegation is made, by some voters that after they had voted, their ballots had been taken out and switched with other ballot papers with votes for different candidates? This system that we have in the Parliamentary Elections Act, and which is reflected in the Presidential Elections Bill, is the best way of ensuring that any such allegation can be scrutinised and decisively decided if the matter is raised in a court of law.

The number at the back of the ballot paper, as has been explained many times, is to guarantee that the ballot paper is genuine. The serial number of the voter being entered on the counterfoil is to establish and record that the ballot paper is a genuine one given to the voter. He says there is a great deal of fear. But he forgets to point out the safeguards which exist concerning the secrecy of voting. At the counting centres, all the ballot papers are mixed. He knows that. After the counting, all the ballot papers, which are mixed by now, together with the counterfoils are sealed in ballot boxes and stored in the Supreme Court vault, and they cannot be opened except with the permission of a court which will give such permission only for the purpose of an election petition. He knows that this is not a provision which was introduced in our law by this Government. It was introduced by the British, and we are not alone. The United Kingdom has exactly the same provisions in their law as of today's date. So too have Malaysia and other countries.

Sir, in the ultimate analysis, what is at issue is not the provisions. You can introduce any number of provisions in the Parliamentary Elections Act. But what is really important is to make sure that you have an honest government and people of integrity in the civil service who work the system. It is because we have run the system honestly, and although from time to time Dr Lee Siew-Choh and others have raised this issue of numbered ballots, no one, not even the Opposition party, has alleged that the Government has been dishonest in running the election. Nor has any Opposition party accused the Government of rigging the election. If you reflect on it, because they know that if a serious allegation is made, under these provisions, the court can decisively determine the question whether or not there has been such fraud. I dare say that if we bow down to Dr Lee Siew-Choh's request and we do away with this provision which other countries like UK have, that will open the door for reckless allegations to be made because we cannot disprove these allegations.

Mr Speaker: Order. BG Lee.