PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of State for Law (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill will insert a new section 8A into the Presidential Elections Act to protect the Presidential Elections Committee or PEC from law suits which may be brought in respect of statements made by the Committee in discharge of its functions.

The PEC was established under Article 18 of the Constitution. The Committee serves two functions. First, it has to certify that it is satisfied that a prospective candidate is a person of integrity, good character and reputation. Second, in the case of a prospective candidate who does not automatically qualify under Article 19(2)(g)(i) to (iii) of the Constitution, the Committee has to certify that it is of the opinion that the prospective candidate has such experience and ability in managing financial affairs as are necessary for the office of the President. This is an important committee performing an important task. It should be protected in its work.

In performing its functions, the PEC may have to decline issuing certificates of integrity, good character and reputation or certificates of adequate ability and experience, no doubt after careful consideration. Such decisions may potentially lead to legal proceedings against the Committee's members by aggrieved prospective candidates.

To facilitate the proper discharge by the Presidential Elections Committee of its duties and functions, the Committee should be immune from legal proceedings in respect of statements and documents which it makes and publishes in discharge of its functions. The immunity will apply only to statements and documents made and published by the Committee in discharging its functions under the Constitution. It will not apply to other statements and documents. The immunity will apply so long as there is no malice on the part of the Presidential Elections Committee.

Sir, I am sure that even with this provision, the Committee will be as diligent as it has been in assessing all applications. And also this provision is not an unusual one. There are also other laws which confer immunity of such a nature. Auditors enjoy immunity from defamation suits under the Companies Act, Futures Trading Act and Commodity Futures Act. Likewise, the Securities Industry Council and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) enjoy immunity from defamation suits under the Companies Act and MAS Act respectively. So, what more the PEC.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Simon S C Tay (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I quite agree with the Minister of State that this is an important job, especially with the coming elections for the Elected President. Good men and good women must be free to do their job which includes assessing the possible candidates. As the Minister of State has told us, there is a degree of subjectivity in this test to assess possible candidates in terms of integrity, character and good reputation, as well as for ability and experience. And in this subjectivity, people may reasonably disagree, even reasonable people. There is, as such, a possibility of defamation. I think the Minister of State is correct in saying that this should be covered for the sake of the PEC doing its full job free from any hesitation or fear.

I want to point out, however, that this is, therefore, a creation by this House of an exception to normal defamation laws. It is this House recognising that in certain circumstances, there is a need for full and free comment and that this need prevails even where someone makes a negligent mistake, even if the PEC would by error of fact say something wrong. The exception we are creating will save them from such mistakes unless there is actual malice. That is my understanding of this Bill. But I concur with this need. And I believe, as I spoke on the motion to look at defamation laws again, that increasingly this House must face the need to provide a full scrutiny of those who seek elected office and allow exceptions for that job to be done. This is despite the fact that, of course, with the Elected President, we wish the best men and women to come forward to serve this country in this important post.

With that, I support the Bill.

Mr Shriniwas Rai (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this amendment. As a result of the Elected President, we have this piece of legislation and the rationale behind this amendment is indeed worthy of support of this House. It is not a blanket immunity, as the Minister pointed out. If there is malice, the members have to face the consequences. And I think it is important that the Committee which deals with a very important post in the land should be free to assess the suitability of the candidates. I am glad, and I am sure, the Government will do it again. The most important thing is to appoint suitable people, people of integrity who will examine the suitability of the candidates, because there is a provision in the Constitution. There may be candidates who may not automatically qualify but who have to be certified by this body, and in this case I rise to support the amendment. I was rather taken aback why this was not included earlier when the Act was first enacted. But I see that since 1991, there have been various amendments and I think the House should unanimously support the move by the Minister. Because, if we have to have a committee that must function within the constitutional framework, it is very important that the Committee must be free to come to a decision. As I have said earlier, the Committee has got certain limitation. With this, I support the Bill.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank both Mr Rai and Mr Tay for supporting the Bill.

Indeed, I think the key, as Mr Rai has pointed out, is to select the right people for the job, and this is provided for in the Constitution where the Chairman is the Chairman of the Public Service Commission and the members are the Chairman of the Public Accountants Board and a member nominated by the Chairman of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. So that is the key. Once you have the right people with the right experience and the right standing to make the assessment, no doubt there will be some element of subjectivity, but it will be a considered judgement of all three members looking at facts which are essentially furnished in the form by the applicant. So the point, Sir, is that this clause will further help the Committee in exercising considered judgement.

Mr Tay is right in that it is an exception to the law of defamation. But, as I have pointed out, this is not the first time we are doing it. There are also other laws, although the laws are more narrow in confining only to defamation. In this case, yes, the clause is wide enough to cover situations, like negligent mis-statements. If you look at the functions of the Committee, the possibility of it being liable or being caught in a situation where it has given a negligent statement is quite unlikely. So the main thrust, as I see it, will be the possibility of defamation suits which, in any case, because the Committee will continue to exercise considered judgement, will again be not likely.

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. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee].

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