IS VOTING A PRIVILEGE OR A RIGHT?

3.37 pm

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I decided to claim the right to speak on this motion after one or two members of the public had asked me what was all this flurry about whether voting is a right or a privilege. But not being a regular reader of the Straits Times, I missed out a lot of what had been going on. So I decided I would raise this in the House. I decided to look at this article that appeared in the Straits Times on 25th April where there was a great piece about whether the vote is a right or privilege. Without being disrespectful to the writer, may I say I thought it was much of a flip-flop.

The flurry arose, as I understand it, from the Minister's statement in this House when debating the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill that the vote is not a right, but a privilege. Having seen the article, again, I said, "Well, that is just symptomatic of the PAP Government's thinking that the citizens of Singapore have no rights and they have only such rights as the Government deems at its pleasure to grant them." I do not know whether the Minister consulted or sought any legal opinion before he made this, may I say, very surprising statement in this House. And the article in the Straits Times did not make it any better. The writer talks about digging deep into the Constitution to see whether there was any such right. May I suggest to the writer that perhaps she was digging deep into the underground looking for it somewhere down far below when it was there right on the top. She missed that, and kept looking down below.

The Minister's statement, with all due respect to the Minister, suffers from one basic flaw. And the flaw is this - a failure to recognise that the marking of a ballot paper is just as much an expression as a writing or an oral utterance. What is more is that it is an expression of a political choice on a matter that is of supreme importance to the country. The marking is an expression, just as a drawing or a picture is an expression of the artist's view of things. So if you accept, and I do not see how you cannot accept, that the marking of a ballot paper is an expression of the voter, the electorate, then it becomes obvious that it is a right and it is not a privilege that is granted by the Government. And what is more is that it is right there in the Constitution. The writer of the article says, "Oh, there are plenty of other rights. But I couldn't find any right to vote." But she misses it. As I said, right at the beginning of Article 14, one finds that every Singapore citizen has the right to freedom of expression. And if, as I said, the marking of the vote is an expression of the citizen's choice of a candidate, then the citizen, the electorate, has a right to express his choice. It is no longer a privilege.

In recognition of that, if you look at section 5 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, what does that say? For the benefit of the Minister, in case he has not read it before coming into Parliament, it says in no uncertain terms that all citizens of Singapore over 21 years of age, resident in Singapore, on the 1st of July in any year, shall be entitled to have their names on the register of electors. What could be clearer - "shall be entitled to have their names on the register". And if they have their names on the register, then they are entitled to vote. No two ways about it.

I did say when I spoke on the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill that I considered leaving out some of our Singapore citizens overseas is a violation of the Constitution, and I repeat that. Every citizen of Singapore, whether he is in Singapore or not, if he had been resident in Singapore on the 1st of July before he went overseas, and, again, if his name is still on the register, whether he is here or not, because there is a presumption, is entitled to vote, and there can be no discrimination between them. And I do question even section 6 in the Parliamentary Elections Act which takes away from prisoners serving sentences the right to vote. That clearly conflicts with section 5, that every citizen of Singapore over 21, resident, shall be entitled to have his name on the register.

Equally, I question the validity of section 43(5) and (8) removing, from the register, non-voters. That, again, seems to me to be a violation of the Constitution. If they are over 21 and they are citizens of Singapore, whether they voted or not, their names have to remain on the register. They cannot be taken out. And this suggestion offered to them, that they can have their names on the register again if they pay $5, is equally another violation of their constitutional right.

So, I hope, without sounding too professorial, that I have cleared the cobwebs in the mind of the Minister and others who seem to think that the vote is not a right but a privilege. As I have said, it is symptomatic of the PAP's thinking. Workers in Singapore have no rights. And we were only told this afternoon that a Singapore citizen, if he wants to fly the Singapore flag, has no right to do that without getting the permission of the Government. He has to make an application for it. Everything, it would appear, in Singapore is a privilege granted at the pleasure of the PAP Government. I said this when I spoke on 28th April 2001 at Yio Chu Kang Stadium and I also said this in Manila, when I attended the conference of all Asian parties, that the society in Singapore is a castrated one. Nobody seems to have any right. All the rights are vested with the Government.

So I hope that the Minister will now tell us, if he can, why he says that the vote is a privilege and not a right. Where does he get that authority from? In any democratic country, it is the citizens who decide who the legislature shall consist of. And so it is provided in our own Constitution. It is the electorate who elect the Members to this legislature. So they are given a right to choose their representatives to this House. But, in Singapore, apparently according to the Minister and the PAP Government, they can take away from the citizens this right to vote to elect their own Members into Parliament. No wonder we have had all these amendments about introducing Nominated Members of Parliament when Parliament should only consist of elected Members, elected by the electorate.

An hon. Member: What about yourself?

Mr Jeyaretnam: What about myself? I was elected, my dear man, under a different provision, like you have the proportional representation system in other countries. So do not be under any fallacy.

So, may I know from the Minister and, if you will permit, Sir, I would like to reply to the Minister when he gives an answer.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, actually, I am quite flummoxed by this. I would say that this speech by Mr Jeyaretnam is quite symptomatic of his conduct in the House - to borrow his word "symptomatic" - and let me explain that later.

Unfortunately, the whole basis of his statement is based on some comments he read in the Straits Times, and that is his source of authority of what I said.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Then you have got it wrong.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: How did I get it wrong?

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Straits Times article is not the authority for what I have said in this House.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: What the hon. Member said was that he read this article. He was not actually quite interested in this until there was this flurry of comments in the Straits Times and people complained to him and he wondered what this flurry of comments was really about and he referred to this article on 25th April in the Straits Times which was headlined something like whether voting is a right or a privilege and has ascribed to me saying that "voting is a privilege", and Mr Simon Tay saying that voting is a right. Let me get it clear.

Mr Jeyaretnam: He said that.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I must say that Mr Jeyaretnam is just as confused as the writer who wrote that article and who started this debate on whether voting is a right or a privilege. She said she was confused "by the apparently self-conflicting statements" made between Mr Simon Tay and myself. Indeed, by her article, she confused others, including a person like Mr Jeyaretnam.

Here are the two Hansard records of 19th and 20th April containing the speeches made by me in the two days of sitting of Parliament. I would like anyone, including Mr Jeyaretnam, to point out to me where in the two speeches I have made that I have said that "voting is a privilege". And if I did indeed say so, I will apologise to him. But if I did not, then I think they should do what is necessary.

He is not the only one who was misled by this article. I would have expected academics, who are supposed to do their research, thorough in their work and finding out what is actually in the primary source of information, eg, documents, to check and confirm before they actually express a view. So we have an academic who says he now feels very diminished because his right to vote has been converted into a privilege.

An hon. Member: By whom?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: This academic is Mr Chua Beng Huat. I do not want to name names, but I think it is there in the newspapers.

I think, amongst the letters published in the papers, only Mr Simon Tay seemed to have argued rationally what is the position in the law. When I said Mr Jeyaretnam's speech just now is symptomatic of his conduct in this House, I am referring to the times when we gave replies to his comments and he was not around to listen. Or, when we made statements and speeches, he did not listen, just as when the answers were given this afternoon by my Minister of State to the various questions he raised. He kept repeating the same questions over and over again. It is a pity. He should have used the time properly and then he would have been able to make more constructive contributions to the House. But he raises the same issues over and over again.

Apart from his earlier comments attributing to me saying that "voting is a privilege", all his points about what is in the law, I agree with them. This is one of the very rare occasions that I agree with him. Let me put in my way what the position is in our law.

Right now, the only expressed reference to voting by a citizen is in the Parliamentary Elections Act. Section 38 states that the register of electors is the conclusive evidence of a person's entitlement to vote. So, if a person's name is not in the register, he is not entitled to vote. Section 5 says that the qualifications for that entitlement are that he must be a citizen, he must be 21 years old and above, and that he must be ordinarily resident in Singapore. So, if a citizen whose name is not in the register or if he is not ordinarily resident in Singapore, then he cannot vote. That is quite clear in section 5 of the Parliamentary Elections Act. Section 43 of the Act, which Mr Jeyaretnam also referred to, says that voting is compulsory. So we have a duty to vote.

While the Constitution does not contain an expressed declaration of the right to vote, I have been advised by the Attorney General, even before today, that the right to vote at parliamentary and presidential elections is implied within the structure of our Constitution. We have a parliamentary form of government. The Constitution provides for regular general elections to make up Parliament and establishes representative democracy in Singapore. So the right to vote is fundamental to a representative democracy, which we are, and that is why we have the Parliamentary Elections Act to give effect to this right.

But I must also add that, as is the case in most countries of the world, the right to vote is not absolute but is usually subject to some conditions. Singapore, therefore, is no different. The most common of these conditions is age - in our case, 21 and above. All democracies allow voting only for citizens above a certain age. Another common condition is residence in the country where elections are held for regional representation. In our case, this is reflected as the need for a citizen to be ordinarily resident in Singapore to be able to vote. Residency is also a requirement for voters in, for example, New Zealand, Canada, Germany, Ireland, and South Korea.

So, let me reiterate and emphasise again that the recent amendments did not change or affect our citizens' right to vote. Rather, they have relaxed the definition of being "ordinarily resident" in the Singapore context to facilitate overseas voting. Any overseas Singaporean who fulfils the criteria as a registered overseas voter, can register at the nearest mission, whether or not he lives in the country where the mission is located, or he can come home to vote.

Some of the comments also referred to equality or protection in Article 12 of the Constitution. The recent amendments to the Act are also not in contravention of Article 12, which I think Mr Simon Tay referred to in his earlier statement. They do not remove anyone's existing voting entitlement. Neither do they make it more difficult for anyone to vote.

In replying to some of the Members' questions at the last sitting, I have explained why not every overseas citizen can be qualified to vote so long as parliamentary elections continue to be run on a constituency representation basis, and there also remains the threat of plural voting.

The residency requirement is necessary to allocate the voter to a constituency. This is necessary in an election based on constituency representation and to prevent plural voting. The recent amendments expand the definition of "residency" to include groups of citizens who are away from Singapore for non-permanent reasons and hence, have sufficient ties to be allocated to vote in a particular constituency.

I cannot help it but to also refer to another article in the Straits Times recently, arising from this debate on the right to vote. Another Straits Times journalist has argued that being Singaporean adds up to a Singapore minus experience. It is a pity that she feels this way. Among other things, she wrote about several issues like detention without trial, X-rated movies, banning of chewing gums and mandatory imprisonment for harbouring illegal immigrants.

Singaporeans generally agree that the unbridled rights of individuals who run afoul of the law cannot override the rights of the community to be safe from subversives, gangsters, illegal immigrants, or to have clean roads and smooth MRT rides. Likewise, voting as a right comes with the responsibility to exercise it for the best interest of Singapore, one's family and the community at large. If Singaporeans do indeed feel "diminished when their political space and political rights are circumscribed", as she had claimed, then would they still remain in Singapore if their personal safety and security, and that of their family, become a daily concern through the lifting of the same safeguards that were cited? Singapore cannot be such a stifling place if it continues to attract tens of thousands of foreigners who want to work and live here. . Finally, Sir, I would like to reiterate what I said at the last Parliament sitting. We are not doubting the loyalties or emotional links of Singaporeans to Singapore just because they live overseas. We believe that many of them will return to Singapore, that they feel for Singapore, and that they will defend Singapore's interest. The current criteria for overseas voting are not cast in stone, as I said at the last sitting. This is only the first step the Government is taking to provide for it. As the Prime Minister has said recently, the original intention was to implement overseas voting only in the 2007 General Elections, but we decided to bring it forward so that we can do it on a limited scale to gain some experience. We will review after the next Elections to assess the scope for extending overseas voting to more Singaporeans who are overseas.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just say that ---

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Jeyaretnam, under the Standing Orders, you have no right of reply.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I just want to say that if I have done the Minister an injustice, I apologise. But I wish he had reacted to the article in the Straits Times by saying that he never said it.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I was waiting for an opportunity to say this. The Prime Minister and I discussed this. He decided that he would want to say something about it as well. So I waited for this occasion and Mr Jeyaretnam gave me the opportunity.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That Parliament do now adjourn.

Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes past Four o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.