CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT) BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, during the last Parliament sitting, the Second Minister for Finance, Mr Lim Hng Kiang, moved the Second Reading of the Currency (Amendment) Bill. The Currency (Amendment) Bill essentially made legislative amendments to the Currency Act to effect the merger of the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Board of Commissioners of Currency, Singapore.

As Mr Lim mentioned in his speech, the merger of BCCS with MAS would also require amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore. This Bill effects the necessary constitutional amendments to enable past reserves of BCCS to be transferred to MAS as past reserves, and to delete BCCS from the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution. The Bill also includes two other amendments, one concerning the disqualification of Members of Parliament under certain circumstances, and the other to extend the term of Nominated Members of Parliament from two to two-and-a-half years.

Sir, I shall now explain the main amendments in the Bill.

Transfer of Reserves

Clause 2 amends Article 22B of the Constitution to enable a Fifth Schedule statutory board, whose past reserves are subject to the constitutional safeguards, to transfer any of its past reserves either to the Government's past reserves or to another Fifth Schedule statutory board's past reserves, without the transaction being regarded as a draw on past reserves. As BCCS and MAS are both Fifth Schedule statutory boards, this will enable BCCS to transfer all its past reserves to MAS. The transfer will not affect the total amount of past reserves that are subject to the constitutional safeguards.

Next, as BCCS would no longer exist as a separate entity after the merger with MAS, clause 5 proposes the deletion of BCCS from the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution.

The President has been consulted on clause 3 and clause 5 of the Bill, as these two amendments affect the custodial powers of the President. The President has agreed that I should inform the House that these two clauses have his concurrence.

Let me now describe the amendments pertaining to the Members of Parliament and Nominated Members of Parliament. Disqualification of Members of Parliament

Currently, a Member of Parliament is subject to disqualification under certain circumstances. These include becoming bankrupt, declared to be of unsound mind, being convicted of an offence that leads to a jail term of more than one year or a fine of more than $2,000, or being convicted of an offence in connection with elections to Parliament. When this happens, Article 48 of the Constitution gives Parliament a choice of either immediately vacating the MP's seat, or delaying the vacation of the seat to allow the MP to appeal against the Court's ruling. If Parliament chooses the former, it would not be fair to the MP, who ought to be given a reasonable opportunity to appeal against the Court's decision to retain his seat in Parliament. So far, Parliament's practice has always been to give the MP the chance to appeal. But this has given rise to the anomalous situation of a disqualified MP being able to continue sitting and voting in Parliament while his appeal is pending. There is no disincentive for the MP not to drag his feet with the appeal process.

Clause 3 rectifies this, by giving the MP two incentives to expeditiously pursue his avenues of appeal. The first is to disallow him from participating in parliamentary proceedings while his appeal is pending. The second is to give him a reasonable time to exhaust his avenues of appeal.

Clause 3 amends Article 46 of the Constitution to provide that an MP who becomes disqualified by reason of bankruptcy, unsound mind or criminal conviction, shall immediately cease to be entitled to sit or vote in Parliament until the outcome of any appeal against the Court's decision. The MP's seat will, at the very latest, be vacated after 180 days even if the appeal is still pending. An MP who succeeds in his appeal before the expiry of the 180 days will be entitled to resume sitting or voting in Parliament.

We have set the period at 180 days because in vast majority of cases, the appeal process takes less than six months. This is also in line with the UK practice. In the UK, a bankrupt MP is immediately disqualified from participating in the proceedings of Parliament, but he is allowed to retain his seat for six months. If at the end of six months, his appeals to the Court do not result in his bankruptcy being annulled or rescinded, he must vacate his seat in Parliament.

Extension of the Term of Nominated MPs

Clause 4 of the Bill amends the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution to extend the term of NMPs from two years to two-and-a-half years from the date of appointment. In April, the House debated the motion by the Leader of the House to have Nominated MPs during the term of this Parliament. During this debate, the Leader informed Members that the present two-year term of NMPs was not ideal. If Parliament lasts the full five years, then we have to go through the process of selecting NMPs three times. Furthermore, the third time, after Parliament has gone through the whole process of public advertisements, inviting members of the public to send in nominations, interviewing them, and so on, the NMP would serve only for at most one year, before General Elections have to be called. In the last term of Parliament, these NMPs, in fact, served only 17 days and attended three sittings of Parliament. The Leader stated that at an appropriate time, the Government intended to propose a change to this two-year term to stretch it out to two-and-a-half or three years, so that within one parliamentary term of five years, we only need to select NMPs twice. Hence, this amendment to extend the NMPs' term from two to two-and-a-half years.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Sir, I rise in support of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. I should just like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister some questions relating to the proposed changes to Article 46 contained in clause 3 of the Bill. First, the amendment provides for a situation where an MP may, for example, be disqualified due to his being adjudged bankrupt or convicted of an offence for which he is fined more than $2,000 or jailed for more than a year. He is then suspended from parliamentary proceedings even if he appeals. There is nothing wrong with this, and it is practised in many jurisdictions, notably England. However, I would like to ask a question relating to the 180-day limit concerning the appeal, after which a Member of Parliament must vacate his or her seat. What if the appeal had not been heard by then? What if subsequently the appeal is allowed? He would have vacated his seat already and there would be no opportunity for reinstatement. Is this really intended?

Second, there is still a reference, I find, to Malaysian courts in the proposed Article 46(4)(c) where an MP may be disqualified if convicted of an offence by a Malaysian court. This is a historical issue. Why have we not taken the opportunity to take away this reference to Malaysia?

Third, Article 45(2) refers to the removal of disqualification after, for instance, an MP has been sentenced and served his custodial sentence, and he is released. He is no longer disqualified five years after his release. He can stand for re-election. Sir, the question is, if an MP has been convicted of a serious offence or, for that matter, successfully sued in the civil court, for example, for breach of trust or such conduct which was manifestly dishonest and dishonourable, should he not be disqualified for a longer period or, in some really serious offences, permanently disqualified?

Finally, Sir, the amendment may be seen by some in this House as well as outside that this was motivated by the treatment of the Non-Constituency MP in the previous Parliament, Mr J B Jeyaretnam, during his bankruptcy proceedings when he was allowed to participate in Parliament during the appeal. I am sure that this is not so and that, on the whole, the amendments to the Constitution are important in preserving the honour and integrity of Parliament.

Sir, I give it fullest support.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to touch on clause 3 of the proposed amendment which concerns Members of the House. A Member of the House adjudged or otherwise declared a bankrupt (Article 46(4)(a)) should have the same opportunities as any other citizens and be able to pursue avenues of compromise or settlement without any additional added pressure. This is particularly so in view of the high incidence of politicians being sued for defamation in Singapore.

The Courts in Singapore are reasonably efficient, and there are procedures in our legal system to ensure that matters are dealt with expeditiously. In the circumstances, the proposed amendment to force a said Member to vacate his seat after 180 days, despite pending appeals open to the Member, makes a mockery of the legal system.

Furthermore, Sir, when all attempts to appeal have failed, and the said Member is so disqualified from his seat, then the said vacant seat should immediately be put up for contest in a by-election. This should be done irregardless of whether the vacant seat is in a single constituency or GRC. After all, the constituents are citizens and taxpayers and they should be fairly treated and not stayed on as orphaned electorates, and especially not with step-MPs from other constituencies assigned to look after them. The choice of the constituents should be respected and every opportunity given to elect a new representative.

Thus, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not support the Bill in its current state.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no objection to the amendment relating to the transfer of past reserves between the statutory boards concerned. Concerning the disqualification of Members of Parliament, I believe the immediate suspension of a Member's rights, following the courts disqualifying the Member, is in line with the practice of other countries. I also have no objection to this. But my concern, like Prof. Chin, is about the 180-day cut-off where a Member is appealing against a conviction or his bankruptcy. If 180 days have passed without the appeal being decided, the Member will lose his seat. This will be irreversible even if his appeal is eventually successful and he is acquitted.

Such a cut-off point for appeal may be necessary in countries where the court processes take a long time, and there may be a worry that the MP may be out of action for too long. However, do we have the same problem in Singapore? According to the Supreme Court's Annual Report 2001, the average waiting time for appeals against bankruptcy is 1.8 weeks whereas the average waiting time for appeals against a criminal conviction in the Subordinate Courts is about 6.1 weeks. We also know that the courts are nowadays very strict on postponement of cases. As what DPM has mentioned, we are efficient in our court system. So, if any case is postponed for more than 180 days, there must be a very good reason.

Sir, currently, in Singapore, it appears that the Chief Justice is the only Judge hearing criminal appeals from the Subordinate Courts. I understand that sometime in 1998, the Chief Justice was on medical leave as he went abroad for treatment. This resulted in Magistrates' appeals not being heard for several weeks. If this happens again, would it be fair to the Member if the period of 180 days has expired because the Chief Justice is on medical leave?

I also understand that the practice in Australia is to wait for the outcome of the appeal, as it would be jumping the gun to make the seat vacant if there is an appeal pending conviction. Furthermore, such an amendment is tantamount to presuming the Member is guilty if the appeal to the Court is being delayed for more than 180 days. Sir, I am not convinced that this amendment is necessary. It can also lead to unjust results, if the delay is due to circumstances beyond the Member's control.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I address the points, first, on amendments to Article 46, particularly the 180-day rule which Prof. Chin, Mr Steve Chia and also Mr Low Thia Khiang have raised. The situation which they have described is not likely to happen because six months should be enough time for an MP to complete his appeal. According to the statistics, more than 80% of appeal cases are disposed of within six months. If an MP in question expeditiously pursues his appeal, there is no reason why it should not be completed within that period. Knowing that the MP has got this six-month deadline, the courts will no doubt accommodate the MP's schedule and fix an appeal for hearing as early as possible. It is only when the MP drags out his appeal that there is any chance of the process exceeding six months, in which case he only has himself to blame. We have to set a hard time limit because we have to avoid an MP deliberately dragging his case out and then repeatedly asking for an extension of time at the last minute, prolonging the entire process indefinitely. However, the six months is not an absolute limit. If, for extraordinary reasons, the appeal has not been resolved at the end of 180 days, the MP could raise a question under Article 48 on whether he has vacated his seat, and it is still possible for Parliament to invoke the proviso to Article 48 to postpone a decision on the vacation of the MP's seat.

The main point of this amendment is to suspend the right of an MP to sit and vote while the appeal is in progress and to set a structured timeline for the MP to follow. And this is to put him on notice that, should he fail to meet the 180-day grace period, he should expect very little sympathy from Parliament, except under exceptional circumstances. In other words, the proviso to Article 48 will really be invoked for cases where the 180-day timeline applies. But if there is merit, it is available.

Next, Prof. Chin asked about decisions in Malaysian courts. Why do we still need this? Prof. Chin is actually referring to Article 45(1)(e) of the present Constitution which is not the subject of any direct amendment in the Bill. But, nevertheless, the reason the Article exists is as follows. Given the close ties and links between Singapore and Malaysia, it is not realistic for us to ignore criminal convictions sustained in Malaysia. Many Singaporeans travel up to Malaysia for business and recreation frequently. Many of our citizens are either former Malaysians who have lived or worked for a period in Malaysia. And this uniquely close relationship between Singapore and Malaysia is not matched by Singapore's ties with any other country.

The penal laws of Singapore and Malaysia are very similar. What is a crime is most likely a crime there, and this similarity is again unique. There is a similar situation, in fact, in the United Kingdom where the Representation of the People Act provides for disqualification for imprisonment in either the UK or the Republic of Ireland. So there is reason for this. Of course, I should add that the conviction which is outside of Singapore and Malaysia is not entirely without consequence because Parliament can still suspend the MP for dishonourable conduct under section 20 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.

The third point raised by Prof. Chin is why disqualification after a custodial sentence is only for five years. This is Article 45(2). Again, this is not subject to any amendment in this Bill. But the purpose of the five-year disqualification is not to impose a further punishment on the MP beyond that period. It is de-linked from the severity of the offence committed. The five years starts after the release from prison. So, in fact, it is the period in prison plus five years. This is to impose a reasonable rehabilitative period between the release from prison and the resumption of his qualification to run for Parliament, so as to protect the integrity and image of the parliamentary election process.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there was one last point from Mr Steve Chia on holding by-election for a seat vacated immediately should a Member be disqualified. Seats can be vacated for any number of reasons - disqualification is one of them, the Member may resign or pass away. I think that is a completely separate question which is not addressed in this Constitutional Amendment.

Mr Speaker: The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

A Division will be taken to ascertain that the Second Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected Members of Parliament, which is 56 Members, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution. Ring the Division Bells.

After three minutes -

Mr Speaker: Before I proceed to start the electronic voting, Members are reminded that they are to press "Present" on their electronic voting unit located at the left armrest before indicating their vote. Those who fail to press "Present" will not have their vote recorded. Voting will be open for 45 seconds from the time "Voting in Progress" is flashed on the display board. Members are reminded to check their names and vote indications posted on the display board after the close of the voting. If a Member is of the opinion that his vote has been taken in error or has been recorded wrongly, he may rise and request the Chair to have his vote taken correctly provided that such request is made before the Chair declares the result of the Division.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Division taken: Ayes, 78; No, Nil; Abstention, Nil. Ayes Abdullah Tarmugi Ahmad Khalis Abdul Ghani Ahmad Mohd Magad Ang Mong Seng Balaji Sadasivan Chan Soo Sen Chay Wai Chuen Chew Heng Ching Chin Tet Yung Chong, Charles Chong Weng Chiew Davinder Singh Fong, Arthur Foo Chee Keng, Cedric Gan Kim Yong Gan Lai Chiang, Andy Goh Chok Tong Halimah Yacob Hawazi Daipi Heng Chee How Ho Geok Choo Ho Peng Kee Inderjit Singh Indranee Rajah Iswaran, S. Khaw Boon Wan Khor Lean Suan, Amy Koo Tsai Kee Lee Boon Yang Lee Hsien Loong Lee Kuan Yew Lee, Warren Lee Yock Suan Leong Horn Kee Lim Boon Heng Lim Hng Kiang Lim Hwee Hua Lim Siang Keat, Raymond Lim Swee Say Loh Meng See Low, Penny Low Seow Chay Low Thia Khiang Mah Bow Tan Mohamad Maidin B P M Mohd Maliki Bin Osman Neo, Lily Ng Eng Hen Ng Phek Hoong, Irene Ong Ah Heng Ong Chit Chung Ong Kian Min Ong Seh Hong Othman Haron Eusofe Phua, Cynthia Ravindran, R. Seng Han Thong Shanmugam, K. Sin Boon Ann Tan Boon Wan Tan Cheng Bock Tan Keng Yam, Tony Tan Soo Khoon Teo Chee Hean Teo Ho Pin Tharman Shanmugaratnam Vivian Balakrishnan Wang Kai Yuen Wee Siew Kim Wong Kan Seng Yaacob Ibrahim Yao Chih, Matthias Yatiman Yusof Yeo Cheow Tong Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Zainudin Nordin Zainul Abidin Rasheed No Nil Abstention Nil

Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, my name did not appear on the display board even though I pressed the button.

Mr Speaker: Did you press "Present"?

Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng: Yes.

Mr Speaker: We will take the vote manually. How did you vote?

Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng: "Aye", Sir.

Mr Speaker: The Second Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected Members of Parliament.

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 Lee Hsien Loong].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker: Third Reading, what day?

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Now, Sir. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Mr Speaker: The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

A Division will be taken to ascertain that Third Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected Members of Parliament, which is 56 Members, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution. Ring the Division Bells.

After three minutes -

Mr Speaker: May I remind Members to press "Present" on their electronic voting unit before indicating their vote.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Division taken: Ayes, 78; No, Nil; Abstention, Nil. Ayes Abdullah Tarmugi Ahmad Khalis Abdul Ghani Ahmad Mohd Magad Ang Mong Seng Balaji Sadasivan Chan Soo Sen Chay Wai Chuen Chew Heng Ching Chin Tet Yung Chong, Charles Chong Weng Chiew Davinder Singh Fong, Arthur Foo Chee Keng, Cedric Gan Kim Yong Gan Lai Chiang, Andy Goh Chok Tong Halimah Yacob Hawazi Daipi Heng Chee How Ho Geok Choo Ho Peng Kee Inderjit Singh Indranee Rajah Iswaran, S. Khaw Boon Wan Khor Lean Suan, Amy Koo Tsai Kee Lee Boon Yang Lee Hsien Loong Lee Kuan Yew Lee, Warren Lee Yock Suan Leong Horn Kee Lim Boon Heng Lim Hng Kiang Lim Hwee Hua Lim Chun Leng, Michael Lim Siang Keat, Raymond Lim Swee Say Loh Meng See Low, Penny Low Seow Chay Low Thia Khiang Mah Bow Tan Mohamad Maidin B P M Mohd Maliki Bin Osman Neo, Lily Ng Eng Hen Ng Phek Hoong, Irene Ong Ah Heng Ong Chit Chung Ong Kian Min Ong Seh Hong Othman Haron Eusofe Phua, Cynthia Ravindran, R. Seng Han Thong Shanmugam, K. Sin Boon Ann Tan Boon Wan Tan Cheng Bock Tan Keng Yam, Tony Tan Soo Khoon Teo Chee Hean Teo Ho Pin Tharman Shanmugaratnam Vivian Balakrishnan Wang Kai Yuen Wee Siew Kim Wong Kan Seng Yaacob Ibrahim Yao Chih, Matthias Yatiman Yusof Yeo Cheow Tong Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Zainudin Nordin Zainul Abidin Rasheed No Nil Abstention Nil

Mr Speaker: The Third Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected Members of Parliament.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.