PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS BILL

Debate resumed.

Prof. Jayakumar: Then both Dr Lee Siew-Choh and Mr Chiam complained about the number of days, nine days, being too short. I would like to repeat my point about the period of Presidential elections being fairly ascertainable well in advance. Secondly, consider the fact that for all these years, nine days have been shown to be enough for numerous candidates contesting some 79, and later 80, 81, seats in parliamentary elections. For Presidential elections, not only the candidates are likely to be well known, but they are likely not to be too many of them, probably a handful. That is my guess. Thirdly, campaigning is likely to be different from parliamentary elections. You are campaigning to the whole electorate, the entire of Singapore. Whether there will be door to door campaigning, I do not know. I think it is more likely to be appeal through the press, the media, maybe taking advertisements in the papers, and this is something that candidates do not do in a parliamentary election because you are addressing only your constituents. But if your entire electorate is your target, you might want to take advertisement space in the newspapers to publicise your campaign stand. Because of the nature of the elections in the Presidential elections, which is likely to be different, because there are likely to be not as many candidates as in parliamentary elections, and because you are very likely to be able to tell when the elections are to be held, you should in fact be prepared long before. The campaigning of the candidate and the preparation for the candidate must start long before the writ is actually announced.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh raised some other points about ballot boxes being numbered and so on. Perhaps I will take that up when he moves the amendments to the various clauses during the Committee stage.

Mr Chiam raised certain points which had not been raised by Dr Lee Siew-Choh. I believe he felt that there must be a minimum percentage of votes for a Presidential candidate before he is declared elected. His argument was that this would reflect the mandate. And I think he also touched on the question of a single candidate. The point is whether we should depart from the first-past-the-post system. And a related point on this was made by, I think, Mr Chay Wai Chuen as to whether a minimum number of votes is required.

First, on the question of a single candidate. If on an issue so important as the Presidential elections where people are put on notice that an election is going to take place during this period, during a six-month period or a three-month period of a particular year, no other candidate, except one, stands, the question is, what is the point of having a poll? What is the point of requiring a minimum electoral endorsement? And what would that be - 40%, 30%? Mr Chiam says 50%. Supposing in the case of a sole candidate, he does not get that 50%, or whatever percentage we fix today. Then what happens? We go through the whole process again? Then in the second round or repeat elections, he does not get the 50% again, what happens? Or to take Mr Chay's point, there is more than one candidate. If in the first round, candidate A gets, as he said, 45%, another candidate gets 45%, or 46%, or 44%, and 10% spoilt votes, you have another election. You have a different permutation - one candidate gets 43%, another person gets 47% - it may not reach the 50% mark. How often do you proceed? With the second round or third round? It is best to take the approach that instead of having all these complicated provisions, it is far better that we take the Presidential election as a serious election so that whoever is interested (and there should be people who are interested) should come out, indicate their intention to stand, declare their candidature and contest so that there will be a poll.

Then Dr Lee Siew-Choh and I think also Dr Koh Lam Son, touched on the question of election expenses. As I have said in my main speech, we have to bear in mind that the candidate has not only to declare his own personal expenditure but also the expenditure of all those who may be campaigning on his behalf and this includes a political party, if any, because they cannot campaign without authority from the candidate.

Mr Chiam expressed the view about a situation where there is a death of a candidate and there are two or more candidates. His view, as I understand it, is that if there are two or more candidates and one candidate dies, we should not follow the approach in the Parliamentary Elections Act of the poll being countermanded and fresh nominations be invited, except for those who have already been nominated, without having to re-nominate. His view was that if there is a death of a candidate, the remaining candidates should go straightaway to the poll. As I understood his argument, it was that it is unlike the situation under the Parliamentary Elections Act where a political party has fielded a candidate. Here they are standing in their individual capacity. Do not forget, however, that a candidate who dies might have stood for a particular viewpoint on how an Elected President should carry out his functions. He might have had a particular platform or position on how reserves should be managed. Therefore, I think it is right that if he dies, we should see whether any other candidate is desirous of standing for election, so that that particular viewpoint would not be denied to the electorate.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen asked whether we should have a time period for a candidate to declare that he has renounced his links with a political party. The Constitution provides that on the day of the nomination, he must make a declara- tion saying that he is not a member of a political party. I think we should keep that as a legal requirement. It may be that some, as aspirants for the election, may consider it consistent with their philosophy to resign from the political party long before the election period. Some may hold the view that they do not see any inconsistencies, as some Members in this House have expressed that view, and therefore they may want to comply with the requirement only on the day of the nomination. I think we should leave it to them. The important point is that, as the Select Committee recommended, it must be manifestly seen to be so that candidates on nomination day must sever their former party links in the form of resigning their membership from a political party.

Mr Chay has raised quite an interesting point about the symbols and whether a photograph can be placed on the ballot paper. Some candidates may consider the photograph to be an advantage, some may not. But I can see his point. In the Parliamentary elections, it will be very difficult to do because there are so many candidates. But in a Presidential election, where there are likely to be a few candidates and just one constituency of the entire nation, and bearing in mind they cannot use their established party symbols, I think I will give his point careful consideration. It can be put to the Elections Department and, if it is feasible, we will adopt it. But its adoption may not require an amendment to the legislation because the ballot paper is to be in a form that is prescribed and, if it is workable, we can so prescribe. But it is a good suggestion.

Dr Koh Lam Son raised the question of seals. He felt that the seals which are used now are rather fragile and he asked whether we could adopt the wax seal. This is a question which can be put to the Elections Department. I do not have the answer to it. If it is indeed a problem, then the Elections Department can consider how it can be overcome.

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. Jayakumar].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 -

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 4, line 12, to leave out "4" and insert "30".

Sir, I have also other amendments (Cols. 291 - 294) to clauses 8, 9, 16, 22, 23, 25, 31 and 36. All my amendments are related to the process of election of the President, though on different aspects. Perhaps it might be convenient to consider all of them here. I propose that my amendments be dealt with in two groups. The first group concerns times for certain acts to be done and are my amendments to clauses 7, 8, 9 and 16. The second group concerns ballot papers. amendments - PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS BILL (Cols. 291 - 294)

The Chairman: All right. That would be convenient. You may proceed, Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Sir, concerning clause 7, notice of the election, we must remember that the PAP Government likes to spring surprises on the Opposition and they are likely to be snap elections. All these years since 1963, the PAP has been springing snap elections on the Opposition. In this particular case, although the Minister has explained that one should be prepared long before, nevertheless, the time is still too short. As already touched on by Mr Chiam, from the time of writ to the time of nomination, there are lots of things which we have got to do. We have to rush and do them, all in only four days. It is going to be a mad rush, and it is going to be very difficult for anybody who is not supported by the PAP Government. Mistakes could be made. I want to stress that in other countries, the notification is given well in advance - three weeks, four weeks, one or two months. I believe that this is intended to allow those who oppose the Government's proposed candidates adequate time to prepare so that they may work towards the target date. They must know exactly when the election is to be, so that they can slowly prepare towards that particular target date. And if you did that, then all the people who contest against the Government candidates, or the Government nominees, will at least have a better chance of a fair and democratic election. We are not thinking of a completely level playing field, Sir. But do not forget, we are now in the 1990s and we have to play according to new rules, not the rules of 1963.

The PAP has a lot of in-built advantages. I do not think it should fear competition from anybody. And if it allows a fair contest against the PAP candidates in a fair and democratic election, the person proposed by the PAP, if elected, will get a better name. There is also the possibility that a person who is not proposed by the PAP being rejected as a candidate. If the time is too short, then there may not be enough time to get a substitute. It is not that easy to have substitutes standing by to contest against the PAP candidates. Therefore, reasonable time should be given to anybody to contest elections against the PAP, or its proposed candidates. And, of course, Sir, I must also remind the PAP that all this is not just to please the Opposition. It is to make sure that there is a fair and democratic election, whether it is for the President, or for other Parliamentary candidates. 4.15 pm

Concerning the issue of review in court in clause 8, I just want to emphasise that the PEC could make mistakes and that there could be bitter complaints of unfairness. Therefore, although it is not so laid down in the Constitution, candidates who have complaints should be allowed a chance to appeal to a court of law so that justice may be seen to be done.

Concerning clause 16, Sir, I think everybody knows that the electioneering period of nine days is definitely too short. The PAP has a lot of time to make propaganda, and it has TV, radio and the press - all doing its propaganda work day in day out, all the year round. But other people will not have the same facilities. People who support Opposition candidates will find that they have hardly any time at all for this. The Minister says that they can always buy advertisements in the newspapers. That is very expensive. As I have said, such things can only be done by very rich political parties or by very rich persons, and that is not going to lead to a fair and democratic election if the PAP insists on those conditions. Of course, we realise that everybody should be prepared long beforehand. But is that realistic? Opposition people have to work. They are not full time politicians like the Ministers with fat salaries sitting there who can do whatever they like with their time. We have to earn our living. Under those circumstances, we are not as well placed as Government Ministers or those who are supported by the PAP Government.

Moreover, we must remember that if the ruling party should support any prospective or aspiring candidate, it will have ample funds, is well prepared in every way and will not have to be concerned with the fear in the minds of many voters. We have to deal with all that. To be fair, the election time should therefore be extended. As I have said, Sir, the extension of election time is not just to benefit the Opposition party or candidate who contests against a PAP-proposed candidate, but the people, the voters themselves. They need the time to know more of what the PAP or its candidate has proposed. They need time to digest the programmes and policies which may be placed before them. That will take some time. It is not that easy as the Minister says. So all this is very important. Because if the people are not given the chance and the time to go through all this, then they will not be well informed, and not be able, under those circumstances, to elect on the basis of informed opinions.

The minor amendment to clause 22, Sir, is to remind the authorities that those employed in the polling stations as presiding officers or police officers need not have to go through the bother and inconvenience of getting certificates from the Returning Officer in order to go to vote. If these people could be allotted work in the vicinity of their polling stations, then that clause may not be really necessary. This is a very minor amendment, but since I have put up an amendment I want to touch on it as well.

I have also proposed two new sub-clauses to clause 8. We feel that the PEC's work is of the utmost importance. Examination of the aspiring candidate in public would fit in well with the Prime Minister's new style of an open government. It is important that the public can see how the PEC works, and how it is satisfied that the person is a person of integrity, good character and reputation. The Minister quotes an example of somebody not wanting his name to be divulged unless he was nominated. This is proof that the fear exists even among the very top of the better classes in Singapore. It shows that what we have been saying about ballot paper numbers and so on is not far-fetched. It is true. The fear is there all the time. We also feel that reasons for its decisions should be given by the PEC so that their reasons may serve as precedents to indicate to future aspiring candidates and the people what standards they may go by. If they do not reach up to those particular standards, as explained by the PEC, then they would not need to try to take part in the election.

There is a very minor amendment to clause 9(6). It is only intended to ensure that the Returning Officer does not have the option or discretion of whether or not to supply the nomination form to a registered elector requiring the form. That is why I propose that the word "may" should be changed to "shall". It means that the Returning Officer does not have any option. It is mandatory for him to supply that form.

These form the first part of the amendments.

Question proposed.

Mr Chiam See Tong: May I just have my say, Sir. It is very short.

Sir, I would support the amendment to clause 7 in regard to the extension of time to more than four days. I think the reasons given by the Minister are not very convincing. Even if the whole population of Singapore knows exactly when the Presidential election is to be held, I think the time should be still more than four days. The issue is not whether people know or do not know when the elections would be held. But I think the issue is whether or not reasonable time is given. For all events, they must always be given a reasonable time. Even if you are invited to somebody's dinner, they will give you a reasonable time. They do not just give you one hour's notice and say, "come along". There is no such thing. Even to pay up your licence fee, they will give you a reasonable time, a month, to pay up. Even a notice to quit, they will give you a reasonable time to pack up things and go. Everything that we know of, there must be a reasonable time. If you want to sack an employee, you cannot sack him all of a sudden, unless of course you pay him money in lieu. Why? Because you have not given him reasonable time.

Take a poll here, and if you are reasonable people, you will see that we will get a majority vote that four days are definitely not reasonable for the election of the President of Singapore. I am convinced of that. I know I am right and all of you know that I am right but you still would not say so. I am not asking for an unreasonable time. I am saying "14 days", which is very reasonable. If this is a reasonable House, you will certainly make this reasonable amendment.

The other small matter that I would like to mention is the election time of nine days. This again is definitely not reasonable in the case of a Presidential election. There is the inherent unfairness. In a parliamentary election, the party has the machinery and could still carry out work in between the elections. But for a single person who has got no party affiliations, it will definitely be a disadvantage to him. Besides, if he is a man, such as a banker or a judge, who has got no political career to give him that publicity, his exposure will not be as good as that of a political figure, say, a Minister. You can see the inherent injustice there. Whereas a Minister or a politician will get the constant exposure of the media. But for some other person who qualifies, say, a judge, a businessman or a banker, he does not get the same sort of exposure. So if you are going to limit him to only nine days, and not a slightly longer period, he would not even get to start off the ground. Nine days may only be the beginning. Before he can even make himself known, polling day is already at hand. Therefore, I say that for this particular election, where very few people are involved, and it is possible that they may not have such great exposure, I think it is very reasonable to amend it to three weeks.

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, Dr Lee Siew-Choh in his main speech had in fact already in a way spoken or argued on points which are reflected in his notice of amendments and to which I have in fact also replied. So instead of giving a detailed reply, may I summarise what I had already said, this time in respect of each of the amendments.

His amendments to clauses 7 and 8 are related also to his amendments to clause 16(5) in so far as the period of four days is concerned, in clause 7, the period of 2 clear days in clause 8, and the period of a minimum of nine days and not more than eight weeks in clause 16(5) relate to his criticisms as to the shortness of the period of notice or, as the case may be, of the period of minimum campaign period. To recapitulate, I pointed out that these provisions are identical to the Parliamentary elections where for many more candidates in many more constituencies, it has worked satisfactorily. Secondly, here the candidate is appealing to an entire electorate, there are likely to be fewer candidates and the nature of the campaigning is likely to be different. Again, I pointed out that it is far more predictable than Parliamentary elections as to when the period of election is going to be. For example, if the constitutional amendments are brought into force during the term of office of the present President, Mr Wee Kim Wee, he would exercise the functions as spelt out in the constitutional provisions. And the Constitution provides that his term of office will expire on a particular date. We know that it expires on 31st August 1993. If it expires in the normal course of events, if he does not resign, then the election must be held three months prior to that.

So anyone who is interested in the elections can work out when the elections will be during the period of the three months. As for the PEC certificate, I have explained that this period has worked well with respect to the certificate issued for the GRC candidates, which is a more difficult task than in the case of qualifications under Article 19.

I have explained that the Constitution, for good reasons, excludes judicial review of the matters to which the PEC certifies, because those matters are, strictly speaking, not legal matters and are not justiciable. As to the amendment to clause 9(6), whether "may" gives the discretion to refuse, I am advised by the Attorney-General's Chambers that "may" here, by interpretation, is that it has an obligation. So "may" here must be read to mean "shall". So there is no need to amend it in taking the normal legal usage of these terms.

I believe we have gone only as far as clause 16.

Mr Speaker: Dr Lee, you may proceed.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: May I say a few words on what the Minister has just said. He has forgotten to mention what I have tried to emphasise, namely, that anybody who wishes to contest elections must have a target date to work towards. They must know the date exactly so that they can take time to prepare towards that particular date. If the Government should announce elections only a short while before the actual election date, that does not give other people sufficient time.

I agree with what Mr Chiam has said, namely, that the time and the notice given should be reasonable. I am prepared to accept 14 days if the Government should accept the 14 days. But knowing what the Government is, I have proposed 30 days to see what the response is. So, Sir, the time is definitely too short. What we want is a fair democratic election, and the Minister has not addressed that issue. Neither has he addressed the issue about the voters needing more time to study and know exactly what the position is all about so that they can vote according to the best information that they have. And the only way to place all the information before voters is to allow more time for the notice as well as for the election itself.

Mr Speaker: Dr Lee, would you like to proceed with the other group of amendments?

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: I refer now to clause 23(2) concerning ballot papers. I think it is clear that this number on the ballot paper has created a lot of fears in the hearts and minds of many voters. We in the Opposition have realised that, and we were also afraid of even mentioning this number on the ballot paper because it might have the effect of making voters fear more. So for the last few elections, Sir, we have not touched on the issue at all. But now that we have this Bill before the House, I think it is appropriate that we should discuss it. This is an issue which is not new. This is an issue which we raised long, long ago in 1963. But this is the first time I have a chance to speak in this House concerning the number on the ballot paper.

The Government has given no good reason to have that number on the ballot paper. And of course the real reason why the Government insists on having that number is to use it to frighten and intimidate voters, to create fears in the minds of the voters. Surely if the Government wants a free and fair election (I see our Foreign Minister nodding his head, that is what he has asked for in Cambodia), would it also allow that in Singapore? The Minister has not countered what the 1966 Constitutional Commission has said. He has not countered what other people have also complained about. In fact, if I remember rightly, Sir, the Straits Times, the New Nation, and many other papers had also attacked the number on the ballot paper. They all had asked why the Government did not want to help remove the fear in the minds of the people. The issue is in fact not just the number itself. The number causes fear. The issue is fear. Do we want to have fears in the minds of voters? Why do we not allow voters a chance to vote freely according to their wishes and without fear? So I stress again and again that this number should be taken off the ballot paper.

Clause 25(3), which explains how the voting is being done, creates more fears in the minds of the voters. And this should be stopped, because when the polling station officers shout and call out the names of the voters in the polling stations, and when the voters see their electoral numbers being marked on the counterfoil, it gives the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the Government would know how they have voted. So why do we not get rid of this fear? Give voters a chance to know that the Government would not know how they have voted. I have never said that the Government tries to find out how people have voted. We know that it has not done so. But the point, I stress again, is not whether the Government tries to find out or not find out. The question is, do we want to remove this fear in the minds of the people? And I believe that we must try and remove this fear.

The Minister was talking about fraud. I do not know, Sir. It is not that easy to commit fraud. You look at the Bill. There are three steps laid down in clause 25(3). The first step is:

"... the ballot paper shall be stamped on the back or perforated with the official mark or initialled by the presiding officer ... (I mentioned this in my speech during the Second Reading)." This procedure should ensure that only the genuine ballot papers are used. No outsider should have possession of the official stamp. Neither should he have the official perforator. And none of them can hope to be able to initial like the presiding officer. Therefore, these steps already tell us that the ballot papers that are given to the voters are genuine ballot papers. There is no fraud possible under those circumstances.

The second stage of that sub-clause says, and I quote:

"... the number, name and description of the voter, as stated in the copy of the register of electors, shall be called out... ." This confirms that the voter is a genuine voter whose name is already listed in the electoral register, otherwise he would not have been there to get his ballot paper to vote. So what need is there to have the number?

Sub-clause (3) says:

"... and the number of the elector shall be marked on the counterfoil [these are the dangerous words], and a mark shall be placed in the register against the number of the elector to denote that he has received a ballot paper but without showing the particular ballot paper which he has received."

The first two steps that I have mentioned, Sir, already confirm that only a genuine ballot paper is given to a voter. If only a genuine ballot paper is given to a voter, there is no need to fear of fraud. A bogus voter would not be able to go along to claim for a ballot paper. Moreover, a ballot paper that is not stamped or perforated or initialled by the presiding officer will not be accepted as a genuine ballot paper. So the numbering on the ballot paper is unnecessary and superfluous.

But if the electoral number is marked on the counterfoil which also has a number, then it would be possible to identify the voter and know how he has voted, which makes nonsense of the secrecy of the vote. And though we may try to assure the voters that Government will not attempt to find out how they have voted (we have done that, Sir, explaining the Government's position that it will not try to find out), the fact remains that the non-secrecy of the vote has created fears in the minds of the voters. There are safeguards. But, as I have said, they do not explain the importance of the issue, namely, of the fear. And I believe that the Government, having created the fear in the minds of the people, should have the duty and responsibility to remove that fear.

Can anybody stuff a lot of papers into the ballot box? Yes, certainly. But I believe if such things were done, then it would not have been done by the Opposition. They do not have the facilities. Only the Government has. The Government could, if it wanted to. This has happened in many countries. And although such things have happened in other countries, we have at no time said that the Government has done a dirty job like that, at least for the last 10 years, I would say. Before that, it is another story.

Sir, just for the sake of argument, even if a few fraudulent ballot papers should be put into the ballot boxes, they would be very small in number and can be easily detected because they would not have the stamp, the perforation and the initial made by the presiding officer. So what need is there to fear of fraud so long as the Government itself plays clean? The main thing is that, as the Minister himself has stressed, there is a clean government. Yes, let there be a clean government.

But what happens if a future government is not that clean? We have got to provide for and prevent what might happen.

There are also other ways of preventing fraud, Sir. If the Government is really serious about preventing fraud, like preventing voters from voting twice, then the Government could provide for some form of voters' attendance list where the voter goes along, votes and marks his attendance. He gives the I/C number and it is checked against a register, and that register could always be used to check whether a genuine voter has gone along to vote. Or the Government could make the voter go along with the postcard which the Government sends to every voter. The voter's postcard would be kept by the presiding officer and, if necessary, if there should be complaints, it could be used to check whether the person who has voted was a genuine or not a genuine voter.

I have also, Sir, suggested two new sub-sections (4) and (5) to clause 31. Sub-section (4) is necessary because there have been instances, in the past, of ballot boxes not having been collected from the polling stations. This actually happened in the 1980 elections when a ballot box was left in a polling station in Telok Blangah. It was left there for about twenty minutes while the other ballot boxes had been transported to the counting centre. This amendment is intended to prevent a further repetition of such mishaps.

We also feel that the polling agents should be allowed to accompany the boxes from the polling stations to the counting centre. This will prevent any possible suspicion that some of the ballot boxes might have been tampered with while they are being transported from the polling station to the counting centre. If the Government should accept this amendment, it would not lose anything by it.

The third amendment which, I feel, is a very important one, is to clause 36(3). In order to ensure that the election is clean, as I have said in my main speech, the number of ballot papers counted on the counting table must tally with the number of ballot papers cast by the voters. It must tally exactly. If 100 people have voted, then 100 ballot papers must be counted on the counting table. If there is a discrepancy, then something must be wrong.

In the 1963 elections, candidates could inquire from the polling stations' presiding officers the number of votes that had been cast by a certain time. But since 1972, (and there was something very fishy about 1972 but I would not go into that today) the polling stations' presiding officers had been instructed not to divulge the number of votes cast to the candidate who asked for it. I see no reason why the number of votes cast should not be divulged by the presiding officers to the candidates. As I have said, this is to allow the candidate to find out exactly how many votes had been cast and check that number against the number of ballot papers on the counting table. The Government does not lose anything with this amendment as it has been saying that it is a clean Government. Good. I support a clean Government. Make it cleaner still. Make sure that everything is completely above board. If I were to tell you of our experience of 1972, that would take a little while. So I will skip that.

I would also suggest that before the presiding officers in the counting centre start to count the votes, the number of votes cast should be publicly announced and the candidates informed, so that they will be in a better position to check the number of votes cast against the votes counted on the table.

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, let me deal with the second group of amendments. Again, I do not propose to repeat at length what I have said in my main reply. First, his amendments to clauses 23 and 25 relate to his objections to the numbering. He said that his Party has not raised this over the last several elections. But the Opposition now has to raise it because they fear this. By "Opposition" what does he mean? He cannot speak for the entire Opposition because Mr Chiam has, on record in 1979, as saying [Straits Times, 3rd February 1979]:

'The number on the ballot paper and the secrecy of the votes was not an issue for contention. This issue has been settled. The purpose of the serial number was to prevent cheating and other malpractices during balloting.'

So Dr Lee Siew-Choh can only speak for the Workers' Party. And he said that the Government has created this fear. The Government has not created this fear. It is he who is creating this fear by raising it after a moratorium imposed by them for whatever reasons, and raising it now for totally unjustified reasons. I have explained that this is a provision which the Government did not introduce. It was introduced by the British. There is very good reason for this because, with this provision, anyone who alleges that his vote has been tampered with, this matter can be decided not by the Government, by opening of the ballot boxes, but by a court of law. And the ballot papers, after the counting, are sealed in the ballot boxes. Ballot boxes are sealed and then stored in the Supreme Court vault and can be opened only on permission of the Supreme Court in an election petition. He has said in this House that he is not saying that the PAP Government has ever done such a thing as opening up the boxes. He wants to take care of a future situation, a future government. But, as I have said, if we do not have this provision, and somebody alleges that his vote has been taken out and replaced by another vote, you cannot decisively have the court rule on this matter. In fact, if we do not have this provision, you can have more such allegations and greater fears. Then I pointed out that the United Kingdom has exactly the same provisions and the reference to this is the Representation of the People Act 1983, and I quote:

'Ballot paper shall be delivered to a voter who applies for one and immediately before delivery, the ballot paper shall be stamped with official mark, the number and name of the elector shall be called out, the number of the elector shall be marked on the counterfoil, ...'

So this is a very good precedent. And as I have said, the Secretary-General of his Party has gone on record to say that he accepts the assurance that the Government could not break the law and the only circumstances which the ballot box would be opened would be pursuant to an order of the Court. This is in the Straits Times of 15th November 1978. So much for the ballot papers.

Ballot boxes. He wants an amendment to clause 31. And what he wants is that the ballot boxes shall be numbered and the number of ballot boxes allocated to each polling station is to be announced beforehand. Those in charge of transporting the boxes shall be given in advance the number of ballot boxes and so on. One polling agent of the candidate from each polling station may accompany the ballot boxes to the counting centre. I do not know what he means by "accompanying the ballot boxes to the counting centre". I take it that he means "accompanying in the same vehicle". There is nothing in the Bill to prohibit a candidate or an agent from accompanying the ballot boxes in another vehicle, but he wants him to be in the same vehicle. This is an absurd proposition. Supposing the polling station is for a GRC of four candidates and there are four political parties campaigning there. In other words, 16 polling agents must be crammed into the bus with the election officers and the Police escort and if the election polling agents are highly strung up, you can expect the kind of tension and maybe fisticuffs because some candidates and some election helpers (not those of the PAP) have been known to be rowdy and ill-behaved.

The point is that the existing law already provides a safeguard. Clause 31(2) says:

'The ballot box or boxes unopened shall be secured by the presiding officer and sealed with his seal and with the seals of such of the candidates or their agents as attend and desire to affix their seals, in such manner that the box or boxes cannot be opened and nothing can be inserted therein without breaking the seals.' Therefore, there is a safeguard. The candidates and their agents know the number of ballot boxes issued from the polling station and they can check whether the boxes which arrive at the counting centre are sealed, or whether the seals are intact.

Then he wants an amendment to clause 36. At the moment, clause 36 says that every officer, etc, at a polling station shall maintain secrecy, shall not communicate, before the poll is closed, to any person any information as to the name or number of electors and so on. But the total number of voters who have voted at any polling station at any time before the poll is closed may, in the discretion of the presiding officer, be divulged to the candidates, in other words, the number of people who have voted. What Dr Lee Siew-Choh wants is, instead of the discretion being vested in the presiding officer, he wants it to be mandatory so that each time the candidate or the agent approaches the presiding officer, the presiding officer must give the information. This cannot be workable because you must allow the presiding officer, who may have very busy periods at various times of the polling day, to decide when he can accede to his request.

If we take the amendment by Dr Lee Siew-Choh, it means that it is mandatory. Every time the candidate, or his agent, approaches the presiding officer at intervals of, say, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, or 20 minutes, he has to stop work and attend to his request. This is not reasonable. In any case, let us not forget that the candidate will have his polling agents at the polling station. And we know that, in practice, what happens is that each candidate has his polling agents to keep track because when a number of the elector is called up, he will delete it from his copy of the electoral register. What actually happens in practice is that the candidate will check with his polling agents, or the election agent will check with his polling agents, to know how many voters have voted. To make it mandatory, I think, is to place an intolerable burden on those who are charged with carrying out the business of conducting the elections.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Sir, the Minister has not touched on some of the issues which I have raised and his excuse is that he does not propose to repeat them. He has not repeated anything. The issues which I want him to answer, he has not answered. He brings in the excuse that Mr Chiam and Mr Jeyaretnam have both accepted the number on the ballot paper.

Sir, this issue is not a new issue. This issue was brought up long before Mr Jeyaretnam, or Mr Chiam, came on to the political scene. We brought it up long, long ago. Later on, we discovered to our dismay that because we brought it up, we actually did make people more frightened. And because of that, we tried to reassure the people saying that the vote was secret and that everything was all right. Nevertheless, the Minister has not answered the complaint of the 1966 Constitutional Commission. Neither has he answered what Mr Barker said in this House, nor what Mr Lee Kuan Yew admitted in court, namely, that the vote is not secret. I do not raise this issue of fear only now. This is the only chance I have to speak of this issue in Parliament. All along we had been making the complaint outside Parliament, and you know what the press is. The press publishes only what the Government says, not what the Opposition says. Do we have a fair press? No. Right from the very first days in 1963.

Sir, whether you agree or not, it is not we who raise the fears. The fear is an objective fact. Subjectively, we might wish to say that it does not exist. But it is an objective fact which exists. We do not raise the question of the number on the ballot paper. The voters themselves come along to us. Even a psychologist in the army quoted, as an example, of what had happened to some national servicemen. They were fearful, not just kiasu. They were scared that if they did not vote for the PAP, they would be penalized and that something unpleasant might happen to them. These fears are things which you cannot just whiff away. This amendment is not a wish-list that we want to put in. It is something which every reasonable man wants to see in Singapore, namely, that the number should not be in the ballot paper.

The Minister quotes the example of UK and other countries. Well, there are so many things which they are doing in UK. Why does Government not practise them? Follow the same practices. I challenge the Minister to say yes. Would he dare? He smiles. He would not dare. Because the PAP selectively implement only provisions which help to give all the best advantages to the PAP Government today. The ballot paper number would be used in an underhand way, with a whispering campaign. Their RCs or whatever would go along and tell the people, "Careful, there is a number on the back of the ballot paper." So many people are scared. We do not raise the issue. We do not want to raise it. We would want to hush it up. But these are objective facts, Sir, which cannot be wished away.

As a responsible Government, I think it is only right that the Government should get rid of this number so that nobody need have fears. Then voters can really vote freely. Whether fairly or not is another matter, but at least freely, meaning that they do not have to worry about what might happen to them and things like that.

I quoted those excerpts of the three stages of voting. The Minister has not answered them. Has he? He has not. Because he knows that what I say is true. Many prominent lawyers have said that this voting procedure renders fraud impossible. Why can we not accept that? Prof. Tommy Koh is a very respectable person who, everybody acknowledges, seeks the truth. He has said that that number is intimidatory and should be removed from the ballot paper. He has also pointed out that if the perforation or marks should be made, or the initials made on the ballot paper by the presiding officer, then there would be no possibility of fraud. I have also suggested a few other possibilities by which the Government could prevent fraud. But he has not touched on them, he has not answered them. He just said, "I do not propose to repeat". What has he repeated? Nothing. He has not said anything in reply. He has not answered. How could he repeat?

On the point about going on the same vehicle, he has given the scenario of so many polling officers and polling agents being in the same bus, but the bus is big enough. If they are there, it would not do the Government any harm. What is there to fear? At least, it will be reassuring, and nobody can say that the Government has tampered with those ballot boxes. He mentioned a little while ago that the ballot boxes are sealed, you sign on the seals and the boxes are supposed to be opened in front of the candidates. But I can assure you, Sir, that such things may never be done. In some places, they were done, but not in all places. Sir, there was one occasion, before I arrived, when all the ballot boxes were already on the table. How could you check? It is impossible to check. Yet he is telling me all the stories to indicate that you could check. Those are not real safeguards, Sir. And they are not really workable.

I believe that what I have suggested are all very reasonable amendments, none of which the Government cannot accept, that is, if the Government should really allow free and fair elections in Singapore.

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, it is a bit tedious. I pointed out that if we do not have this provision we cannot decisively deal with the allegation where a voter says that the ballot paper that he put in was taken out and substituted with another ballot paper. The other steps that he mentioned will not enable that allegation to be successfully dealt with by a court of law. He says that it is an empirical fact that there is fear. Well, he says he does not fear, others have come to him with a fear. If that is so, why does he not take the opportunity now to reassure the voters? I am sure SBC will telecast his assurance, just like his Secretary-General sometime ago in one election also went around assuring the people that the vote is secret. If there is a fear, how is it that some 36% of the electorate voted against the PAP? How is it that Mr Jeyaretnam had been elected?

Then he says, apropos the counting of votes, that he had arrived at the counting station and the ballot boxes had been opened up, as if a major breach of the Parliamentary Elections Act had taken place. If he is alleging that a violation of the election rules had taken place, that is a very serious allegation and he should have made it then and there, or shortly thereafter, and brought in an election petition. But I am sure his election agent must have been present. Because if the election agent was not present, he was not present, and the boxes had been opened up, I am sure he would have made a big protest about it because that would have been a violation of the rules.

So, therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, much as I am tempted to prolong this reply, the point is that these procedures in the Parliamentary Elections Act have been there and they contain enough safeguards. He has said in his main speech that the Secretary-General of his Party is contemplating a boycott of the elections. He was not clear whether it is the Presidential elections or the general elections. But since most of his speech today has been an attack on the Parliamentary Elections Act, perhaps we should take it that the boycott that has been planned for is both for the general elections and the Presidential elections.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: One final word, Sir. I can assure the Minister that many violations had been committed in past elections. Do you believe that if we make a protest, it will be published in the newspapers? On one occasion, Sir, I called a press conference and pointed out the discrepancy of the number of votes cast against the number of votes counted on the table. The newspapermen took everything down. But the next morning in the press, "All the votes tallied very nicely". We have a press which is completely controlled by Government. So it is not that easy. Moreover, when things like this happens, do they give us the publicity and allow us to speak on TV so that the people will know about it?

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, it is not a question of the press giving him publicity. The question is, has there been an election irregularity and a violation of the Parliamentary Elections Act? That is the question. Is Dr Lee Siew-Choh alleging that there has been a breach of the Parliamentary Elections Act? If that is so, even if no newspaper gave him publicity, he has the legal redress before a court of law. So the question is: is he alleging that there has been a breach of the Parliamentary Elections Act? If he is not, then he should say so categorically. Is he alleging that the Parliamentary Elections Act has been violated?

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Sir, of course, this is going back to old history. He is asking whether such a thing has happened? I say it has. That was in 1972. But it is no use my going back on what had happened then. In fact, I did consult a lawyer and was thinking of taking up an election petition. But, unfortunately, so many other things happened. Going to court for an election petition means money. We are all poor as church mice. We could not afford it. So we just let it pass. That is how it was.

As regards the other thing about the election boycott, I only mentioned that at the last minute. That is what the Secretary-General asked me to say. That does not mean that I agree with every word. Nevertheless, it has nothing to do with me in saying this.

Prof. Jayakumar: It is interesting to note that he, in not so many words, dissociates himself from the Secretary-General of his political party. I think it is very serious to say that in 1972 there were violations of the Parliamentary Elections Act, but the only reason he did not pursue it was that legal expenses were involved. Elections irregularity is a serious matter. I am sure that if he believes that there were irregularities, he would have brought them before a court of law.

Finally, Sir, I should also point out that he quoted Mr Lee Kuan Yew as saying in the court action in 1978 that the votes were not secret. I do not think Mr Lee Kuan Yew ever said that because he, in fact, in response to a request by Mr Jeyaretnam, gave an assurance that the vote was secret and Mr Jeyaretnam then publicised it in assuring the people that the vote was secret. In fact, as I said, when the question was put to Mr Jeyaretnam whether he accepted the assurance of the Prime Minister, Mr Jeyaretnam said that he did.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Sir, I believe the Prime Minister admitted that under cross-examination in court.

The Senior Minister of State for Education (Dr Tay Eng Soon): Sir, I just want to join in the debate. When I heard the Member who opposed me at Eunos GRC in the 1988 elections say that when he arrived the ballot boxes were already opened and the papers were already poured out for counting, I remember very distinctly that the Member was there throughout, right from the very beginning. Not only was he there, but the members of his team were there. Francis Seow and Mr Babu were there, and his election agents were there. They were hovering around the boxes and looking at everything and scrutinising. When the boxes were poured out they were right there watching. The whole thing was completely above board. He was very relaxed. He expected to win. When he saw the votes coming out in his favour he was very happy. But, in fact, in the end he lost. So I do not know what the Member is alleging. Complete fiction.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Sir, I have made no allegation about Eunos at all. He has made a mistake. I have already said it was 1972.

The Chairman: The Question proposed by Dr Lee Siew-Choh is, "That the figure "4" proposed to be left out, be left out."

Amendment negatived.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 8 to 10 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 -

The Chairman: In page 7, line 3, the word "nominations" should read as "nomination".

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 12 to 85 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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