PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have to continually update our election laws to ensure that they remain relevant to our times and changing circumstances. Amendments are now proposed to further improve our election system, so that it becomes more effective and efficient to serve our present day needs.

This Bill proposes the following amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act: (1) Increasing the maximum number of MPs in a Group Representation Constituency (GRC) from four to six;

(2) Providing a minimum number of Single Member Constituency (SMC) at eight;

(3) Allowing the Minister to vary by order in the Gazette the cut-off date for the preparation and revision of any register of electors;

(4) Creating electoral divisions through the redistribution of existing polling districts;

(5) Using the current certified Registers of Electors to prepare Registers for the newly created electoral divisions instead of preparing afresh new Registers;

(6) Limiting the presence of polling agents and counting agents at polling stations and counting places respectively to one per group of GRC candidates;

(7) Allowing the sealing of ballot boxes instead of requiring the boxes to be sealed and locked;

(8) Permitting the counting of votes by polling station or polling stations and setting out the procedure for the decentralised counting of votes;

(9) Providing for the appointment of Principal Election Agents; and

(10) Amending the Third Schedule of the Parliamentary Elections Act to increase the maximum expenses a candidate can incur at an election.

I shall now explain in greater detail the reasons for these amendments.

Increasing the maximum number of MPs to be returned in a GRC

Sir, clauses 2 and 4(a) amend sections 2 and 8(1)(a) of the Act to increase the maximum number of MPs to be returned in a GRC from four to six. The Prime Minister has earlier on, in moving the amendments to the Constitution, explained in great detail the need for this. I will not repeat them here.

Clauses 7 and 8 make consequential amendments to sections 22 and 27A of the Act.

Providing a minimum number of SMCs at eight

There is no intention to eliminate SMCs altogether from our electoral system. The Bill ensures that there will be a minimum of eight SMCs. Clause 4(b) provides for this by creating a new section 8A(1A) in the Act. Eight is roughly 10% of the current number of seats in Parliament. Since this amendment provides for a minimum number of Members to be returned by SMCs, there is no need to provide for a maximum number of MPs to be returned by GRCs. Clause 4(c) therefore proposes to delete the words "or more than three-quarters" from subsection 2 of section 8A of the Act.

Some people might say that the reduced number of SMCs is against the interest of the opposition. There is no reason to feel this way, as the opposition can contest in GRCs. In fact, they did contest in five GRCs in the 1991 general election. If they cannot contest in a GRC, it is because they do not have enough candidates, not because there are fewer SMCs.

Sir, the Prime Minister has asked me to make a clarification of what he said during the closing remarks when he moved the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. He said that, with the proposed changes to the Constitution, there is no reduction in the minimum number of GRCs from six. But actually, there will be a reduction. He has asked me to clarify this. And the reduction will be from six to four. But, as he has also explained, there is no intention of the PAP Government not to field enough minority candidates for the GRCs.

Cut-off date of Registers of Electors

Clause 3 amends section 5 to allow the Minister to vary the cut-off date for the preparation of Registers of Electors by order in the Gazette. In the absence of any such order, the current cut-off date of 1st July applies. Registers of Electors are prepared in different months of the year. Under current law, irrespective of which month any Register is produced, a citizen's name will be put on the Register if he is 21 years old on 1st July of the year when the Registers are certified. For example, if the 1996 Registers of Electors were certified on 1st January 1996, at the time of certification (ie, 1st January 1996), the Registers of Electors will contain the names of electors who will turn 21 years old between January and 1st July 1996. On the other hand, if the Registers of Electors are to be certified on 31st December 1996, then citizens who are 21 years old and above on or after 2nd July 1996 will not have their names included in the Registers of Electors. The amendment is therefore intended to address this anomaly. A new cut-off date will better reflect the number of voters to be included in the Register when it is certified on a date other than 1st July.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

4.54 pm

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Creating electoral divisions by amalgamating polling districts

Under the current provisions, new electoral divisions can be created only by amalgamating whole electoral divisions. Clause 6 introduces a new section 20A to enable the creation of new electoral divisions by the amalgamation of whole polling districts from different electoral divisions.

Polling districts are distinctive components of an electoral division. Their boundaries are clearly demarcated in the electoral maps and are gazetted. Such being the case, the polling districts, even from different electoral divisions can be grouped together to form an electoral division so long as they are contiguous to one another. This new provision will facilitate the creation of new electoral divisions and save costs and time. A polling district can be taken out of an SMC if the SMC has become too large or be included in a GRC if the GRC has now become too small.

Using the current and certified Registers of Electors for the newly created Electoral Division without the need to produce new Registers of Electors

The new section 20A also allows the Registration Officer to use sections of the latest certified Registers, corresponding to the amalgamated polling districts, to compile the Register for the new electoral division. Since the Registers have been certified, there is no need to prepare afresh new Registers even though an electoral division may have incorporated a polling district or polling districts from another electoral division. This will save time and allow new Registers to be compiled expeditiously. The relevant provisions are in the new section 20A(2), (3) and (4).

Limiting the presence of polling agent and counting agent to one per group of GRC candidates

Under current law, each candidate in a GRC may appoint a polling agent to a polling place and a counting agent to a counting place. If each of the candidates does so in a GRC of four, then there will be at least eight polling agents in one polling place or in a counting place if the GRC is contested by two political parties or groups. If the GRC is contested by three political parties or groups, then there will be 12 polling agents in a polling place. But in a polling station, there is only an average of six staff. The presence of too many polling agents will inconvenience the staff, and may intimidate the voters. Moreover, the role of the polling agent is to observe the voting proceedings. There is no need to have more than one polling agent representing each political party or group of candidates in a polling place to do this. The same also applies to counting agents. They are not in the counting station to do the counting, but only to observe the process. Clauses 9, 13 and 16 therefore amend sections 39, 49 and 72 of the Act to provide for this.

Sealing of ballot boxes

Currently, ballot boxes are to be locked and sealed before the commencement of the poll. They are made of aluminium. These aluminium boxes are secured by sealing so that tampering can be detected if it should occur as the seals will break if they are peeled from the box. At the close of the poll, the slot in the ballot box is closed and also sealed. However, from experience, the current aluminium ballot boxes have several disadvantages. First, the seals affixed onto the aluminium boxes are easily broken because the seals are made of paper and are perforated. Paper seals tend to be inadvertently damaged during the day when the poll is in progress or during delivery of the boxes from the polling stations to the counting centres. They can also be inadvertently damaged when transporting or storing the boxes in the Supreme Court vault at the end of the elections. Second, the aluminium boxes are difficult to store when not in use. Finally, when they are to be used, the boxes need to be thoroughly cleaned to remove any remnants of the used seals.

To remove these disadvantages, it is therefore proposed to replace aluminium boxes with carton boxes made of cardboard. The carton boxes will be sealed by adhesive paper tapes coupled with security self-destruct seals instead of being locked. They are not only fully secure but also cheaper. The present aluminium box costs about $100 each and has to be stored and maintained. There is no need to provide space for storage of carton boxes as they will be burnt together with the ballot papers after they have been kept in the Supreme Court vault for six months. Clause 10 therefore amends section 41 of the Act to provide for this.

Long ago, we used to have wooden boxes. They were replaced by the black tin boxes which were in turn substituted by the aluminium boxes. The aluminium boxes have become obsolete. Now we have to move on to carton boxes for the reasons I just mentioned. However, with carton boxes, the main features of sealing and protecting them with security seals will remain.

We propose to use carton boxes in a Presidential election too. So a related amendment is made by clause 18 of the Bill to the Presidential Elections Act.

Permitting the counting of votes by polling station or stations and setting the procedures in the decentralised counting of votes

Under current law, vote counting is conducted on an electoral division basis. All the ballot papers of an electoral division are brought to one counting place before they can be counted. Clauses 11 and 12 of the Bill will amend sections 48 and 48A to authorise the Returning Officer to count votes by polling station or a combination of polling stations belonging to the same electoral division. The results of the whole electoral division are tallied centrally. This will save some time in the counting process as there will be no need to wait for all the ballot boxes from a electoral division to arrive at one counting place before counting can begin. This is especially so in large constituencies where many polling stations are spread over a large geographical area. With decentralised counting, counting can start as soon as all the ballot boxes of a polling station have arrived at a counting place.

In practice, each polling station will be counted individually, and each counting centre can accommodate an average of six polling stations. This will speed up the counting process, and enable the results to be made known earlier.

The candidates and their counting agents will be informed in advance, not less than two clear days before Polling Day, of the name of the counting centres, the counting place numbers together with the names of the polling stations where the votes are to be counted, and an announcement will be made to those present on that day before counting commences. A candidate or a group of candidates will be allowed to appoint one counting agent to witness the counting at each counting place. This new procedure is provided for in clause 13 which amends section 49 of the Act. The counting agent will also know the results of each counting. In the Principal Counting Centre where the announcement of the overall results of the constituency is to be made, candidates and their principal election agents are also allowed to be present.

After the counting at each counting place, the Assistant Returning Officer will announce the results of the count to the candidates or the counting agents who are present. When the count and any authorised recount of votes at a particular counting centre are completed, the results will then be conveyed to the Returning Officer at the principal counting place for him to tally the votes of a particular constituency. The Returning Officer will make public the results by electoral division, as well as declare the elected candidate or candidates returned for the said constituency at the principal counting place. This Principal Counting Place will be commonly referred to as the Announcement Centre.

Providing for the Appointment of Principal Election Agents

Clause 14 of the Bill amends section 62 of the Act to provide for the appointment of a Principal Election Agent from among the election agents of GRC candidates.

The amendment to section 49 prescribes that the Principal Election Agent appoints the counting agents for the GRC candidates. Clause 15 amends section 64 to allow the Principal Election Agent to appoint polling agents. The amendment is necessary so that paper-work and other duties required of other election agents, counting agents and polling agents of the GRC candidates can be coordinated by the Principal Election Agent.

Amending the Third Schedule of the Act - Election Expenses

Over the years, the cost of materials and other expenses for election campaigning have gone up. Clause 17 of the Bill proposes to amend the Third Schedule of the Act to increase the maximum expenses each candidate or group of candidates can spend in respect of an election to $2.50 per elector in his or their constituency.

Other Amendments

(a) Changes to Definitions

Clause 2 deletes the definition of "Parliamentary Secretary" which is superfluous in this Act. To reflect existing practice, it also specifies a Register of Electors for an electoral division to comprise sections corresponding to the polling districts of that division.

(b) Restoring names of the voters who failed to vote in a Presidential Election

Even when the Registers of Electors have been certified, persons who failed to vote at an election (commonly known as non-voters) can apply to have their names restored in the Registers of Electors.

Clause 5 amends section 20(2) to make it clear that the restoration of names of non-voters includes those from a Presidential Election also.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we will continue to make adjustments to the procedures for elections from time to time where necessary but transparency will be maintained. Our elections are and will be seen to be conducted in a free and fair manner.

Question proposed.

Dr Vasoo: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to join in the debate.

Sir, the changes to the Parliamentary Elections Act will provide at least a quarter of the elected Members to come from GRCs, which is the minimum guarantee, but it does not prevent it from going up to at least 90% of the elected Members coming from GRCs. With the reassurance and support from the Prime Minister himself, you have heard that the PAP Government will ensure minority representation. This augurs well and, in future, any Government worth its salt must be able to carry the minority groups in the community. This has been the Government's policy and I hope that this will be continued with future governments.

Sir, the maximum cap has been removed. We may ask, what is the rationale for this removal. The opposition may continue to argue that it is not in their favour. I would say that they need to find good and equally capable candidates. There is nothing to prevent them from putting up good candidates for the electorate to elect. Their arguments are therefore not really valid and they will use this as a tag line to argue that it is not in their favour. But I am sure that the electorate would be wise to choose honest and able people to represent them.

Sir, the rationale, as I see, to remove the cap is to allow for flexibility and this is very important because Singapore is a dynamic society. Things change. Singapore is a small place. Therefore, we must make provisions which allow us to respond and to meet changing needs. We can ask ourselves whether such a flexibility is useful. It is very useful to allow us to respond to various changes.

The concern about minorities has been addressed by the Prime Minister and he has given reassurance that minority representation would not be reduced. With the amendments, I am sure that the minorities in Singapore would see that their representation in Parliament will be continued.

Sir, the changes to the Parliamentary Elections Act do provide more flexibility to deal with changing demographic circumstances faced by various constituencies. For example, in my area, the population has been reduced. People have moved to new towns. Therefore, in older areas with declining population, we need to realign the constituencies and this allows for the realigning of old constituencies to provide for a better representation of Parliamentarians. Whereas in the case of newer areas, the population has increased and some realignment has to be made. Therefore, the amendments provide such a flexibility to meet these changes. The flexible provision is good as it addresses the demographic and other related changes.

Sir, in the final analysis, we must ask ourselves whether the amendments would do good for Singapore. Is it going to build a more cohesive community? Does it strengthen our nation-building efforts? In short, my own appraisal of these changes is that it would bring about a socially healthier and more cohesive Singapore. We should, at all costs, support such an amendment.

For the opposition, the problems will remain because the issue is for them to find honest people to meet the challenges. If they cannot find honest people, then I think they are to blame. Mr Chiam is not here. He cannot find honest people to join him and therefore he is left in a dilemma. He was turfed out of the Central Executive Committee of SDP, because he did not choose the right person. Sir, the crucial issue is that we need to find honest people to participate in the elections and be voted in to help in the nation-building process.

On that note, Sir, I support the amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to comment on clause 4(b) of the Bill which provides that there shall at all times be at least 8 single member constituencies. At present, the law provides that there must be at least one-quarter of the total number of MPs representing single member constituencies. I support the proposed reduction of this minimum number to eight and, if need be, we should further reduce this number in the future.

Singapore is a multi-racial country. But racial biasness is primeval and we should do whatever we can to minimise the chances of it spreading. The GRC system would prevent those political parties which contest in GRCs from engaging in racial politics. The single member constituency system is what we have inherited from the British. It has an inherent racial problem in a multi-racial country. Political parties which contest only in single member constituencies or single independent candidates can exploit racial sentiments to their advantage, but to the detriment of racial harmony of the country. Take, for example, the Australian independent MP, Pauline Hanson. Her speech in the Australian Parliament attacking Asians and criticising the Australian immigration policy has done some damage to the country. She has done that partly because she does not belong to any political party and she, presumably, does not need the votes of Asians. Minimising the number of single member constituencies therefore minimises the chances of such problems.

Sir, clause 4(c) deletes the words "or more than three-quarters" from section 8A, subsection (2) of the Act, not because of what Dr Vasoo said that we want to remove the cap, but because the maximum number of members now to be returned by all GRCs is now determined by the total number of seats minus eight. So that is the cap. The minimum, however, is still stipulated to be not less than one-quarter of the total number of MPs. This figure, I feel, is too low and not too meaningful. Should we not increase this gradually and perhaps, as a first step, to half.

With that, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Cheo Chai Chen: ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, with regard to the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill 1996, I hope the Prime Minister will clarify the following two points.

First, in clause 9 of the Amendment Bill, in a single-member constituency, each candidate is only allowed to have one polling agent to be present at each polling station. I think this is not appropriate, because polling starts early in the morning and goes all the way right to the evening. So if this person were to leave the station either for lunch or to go to the toilet, there will be no one to supervise over the polling. I feel that for single-member constituencies, every candidate should be allowed to have at least two polling agents to supervise over the polling.

The second point I wish to raise is that in the Amendment Bill, counting of votes can be held in several places. If this is the case, then the candidate will not be able to be present at all the counting stations. Will the Government consider retaining the existing system where all the countings are done at one centralised counting station?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Deputy Speaker, I just want to seek some clarification from the Minister regarding the Amendment Bill.

First, you only allow one counting agent per group in a counting centre. That may not be sufficient because in a GRC there would be a lot of people doing the counting work. I believe you need at least three counting agents to satisfy yourself that the votes are properly counted.

Second, the Amendment Bill also proposes to have carton box to replace the existing aluminium box. Can we have the specifications of the box? What is the structure and construction like? Is it secure enough to use as a ballot box? I think the voters as well as the opposition candidates will have to be satisfied that it is secure and no hanky-panky business can be done.

The last clarification I wish to seek from the Minister is that the amendment will have the effect that the counting process can start before all the ballot boxes arrive. My question is: how would the candidates know that all the boxes have arrived and all have been counted? What is the procedure like to ensure that there is no confusion when all the ballot boxes have arrived at a centre and how do we confirm that all the boxes have arrived and have been counted?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: There are only two points for me to answer. Dr John Chen and Dr Vasoo support the Bill and they ask for an increase in the minimum number to be returned by a GRC from a quarter now to more than that. The Prime Minister has already said that we have to study all these changes we are making and in time, when it is necessary, we will review and put these changes into the law. Whether we should reduce the current proposal of eight single-member constituencies to less than that, I think we will have to wait for the future. But right now there is no intention of doing that.

For both Mr Cheo's and Mr Low's question on the polling agent and counting agent, they might not have fully understood the process. No doubt, we say here that there will only be one polling agent per group of GRC candidates. It means that at any one time we can have one polling agent there. If that polling agent wants to take his meal, another polling agent can go there and take his place. So there will still be one polling agent. But the current law provides that if you have a GRC of four, then a GRC candidate can send in one person and the other three can also send in three other polling agents into the same polling station. So in that polling station, you can have four polling agents. This is not necessary. All you need is only one polling agent at a time. So there is no need to worry. You can still find enough place for your polling agents if they want to help, but only one can be present at that polling centre or station at a time.

Similarly for the counting. In the current process, all the votes are counted by the electoral division and there is only one counting agent per candidate.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: One counting agent per candidate.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes, but then they are divided. In this new process, there are many counting places and every polling station can be a counting place. If there are, say, in a single-member constituency, four polling stations, there will be four counting places. And if the counting places are different, there can be four counting agents to observe the process. So that is more than enough. In any case, the counting agent is not there to do the counting. He is there to watch the process. He is not there to do the counting. So long as there is one counting agent watching the process in that particular counting place, that will be adequate. We do not want to have a situation where in the polling and counting place each group of candidates sends in a number of polling or counting agents corresponding to the number of candidates. It would be like a market. We just want to restrict the number so that only one polling agent or counting agent is present in the polling place or counting place.

On carton boxes, certainly they must be secure enough. They must be designed such that there will be no hanky-panky, as Mr Low suggests. As the Member knows, we have conducted elections for more than nine occasions since 1959, and nobody has alleged any hanky-panky business in the counting or voting process. So the Members can be assured that the carton boxes will certainly be secure.

How would the candidates know that all the boxes have arrived? Before counting actually begins, the ARO, who is present there to supervise the counting, will tell the counting agent or the candidate present, "Here, these are the boxes and counting will begin." In other words, an announcement would be made before counting actually takes place. You will know how many boxes there would be and again here you can be assured that there would be no hanky-panky. The whole process is transparent.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: A further clarification, Sir. Where there is one counting centre, for instance, in a GRC, and because all the votes are counted there, if you have only one counting agent plus one candidate present, you may not be able to sufficiently observe the whole counting process. But, of course, in cases where you have different counting centres, I presume the votes counted there will not be many. Therefore, one candidate plus one counting agent are sufficient. That is why I say that in the case where you centralize all the counting in one centre, perhaps you should consider allowing at least three counting agents to be appointed by the group.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Again, Mr Low did not probably quite understand this. When you have a GRC and, say, there are 20 polling stations, there could be 20 counting places.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: 20 counting places?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes, 20 counting places. They will not be centralised. They will all be decentralised. In one centre where they would do the counting, that one centre could accommodate six counting places. For every counting place, the counting agent would be there to make sure that he can observe the counting. So you do not need to have every candidate in a GRC appointing one counting agent, otherwise there will be multiples of counting agents in one counting place.

So let me explain that again. There will be many counting places in a GRC and they will be widely distributed. They would not be centralised as in the old process.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Can I ask the Minister this question? With this new amendment, from this election onwards, will all the counting of ballot papers be decentralised? Is that so?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

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