PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Column: 640

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

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

Introduction

Sir, after the General Election (GE) in 2001, the Prime Minister set up a Review Committee to study how the election processes can be streamlined and simplified and how the conduct of elections can be improved, for both candidates and voters. The Review Committee was chaired by the Permanent Secretary (Prime Minister's Office), Mr Eddie Teo and comprised senior officials who were involved in the conduct of past General Elections.

The Committee made a number of recommendations, many of which have been adopted. Members may recall reading about the public officers undergoing election training. This is one of the Review Committee's recommendations which was implemented by the Elections Department as it did not require a legislative change. The amendments contained in this Bill, and in the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill that will be read a Second time after this, are introduced to implement those recommendations that require legislative changes. A number of the amendments to the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill also apply to the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill. The reasons or rationale for the amendments under these two Bills are the same. I will not repeat them afterwards when I speak on the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill.

Sir, there are three main groups of amendments in this Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill. Firstly, there are the amendments which focus on nomination processes. These are meant to reduce the present complexity in

Column: 641

nomination procedures but still ensure responsible candidature to stand for parliamentary elections. The Bill tries to improve accessibility to standing for election to Parliament by reducing or mitigating the existing risk of aspiring candidates failing to be nominated on account of technicalities and errors. We are also taking the opportunity to clarify certain provisions to ensure greater certainty in operation. The second group of amendments relates to post-election processes, namely, post-election reporting of election expenditure. The third and last group of amendments consists of miscellaneous amendments ranging from abolishing obsolete fees connected with voter registration to conferring powers of composition on the Returning Officer or officials in the Elections Department.

I will cover each one of them in turn.

Nomination procedures

Sir, the purpose of any parliamentary elections is to enable the electorate to cast votes to select representatives to Parliament from the various candidates who come forward. However, the best and most suitable individual cannot be elected if he or she does not successfully complete the nomination process. The process by which a person is nominated is therefore as important as the final act of casting a vote. While our nomination process must continue to ensure that only responsible and serious candidates can gain access, the process can afford to be simplified to reduce the risk of aspiring individuals failing to be nominated due to formal errors or non-compliance with procedures. Deserving candidates should not be disqualified from standing because of minor technicalities.

Our nomination proceedings today centre heavily on four sets of documents: the nomination paper, a Statutory Declaration as to qualifications, a political

Column: 642

donations certificate and the relevant Certificate for a Group Representation Constituency (GRC). These documents have to be submitted to the Returning Officer, in a certain manner following certain formalities and within the prescribed time. Nominees or candidates with incomplete or incorrect documents may find their nomination rejected or objected to successfully by their opponents.

In practice, the most common errors in nomination papers are wrong or incorrect register serial numbers of the proposer, seconder or the assentors. To reduce the risk of such errors invalidating nominations, the Government has decided to remove the requirement for register serial numbers in the nomination paper. The nominee and his proposer, seconder and assentors may be identified in the nomination paper by their NRIC numbers. You can see this change in clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill as they amend sections 27 and 27B respectively. The form of the nomination paper will be revised after this Bill is enacted. The new form will also have space for up to eight assentors, instead of the six. The nominees can therefore help themselves by obtaining a higher number of signatories just in case some of them are invalidated on account of errors. This will allow the nominees a margin of error of up to four, ie, an increase of two. However, these changes do not do away with the current legal requirement that every nominee must secure constituent support for his nomination. The proposer, seconder and assentors must all still be electors registered in the constituency for which the nominee is seeking election. To facilitate the checking of the electoral status of these signatories in nomination papers filed by their opponents, the Returning Officer will make available personal computer (PC) facilities loaded with the database of the registers of electors at every Nomination Centre for their use.

Column: 643

Next, clauses 5 and 6 amend sections 27 and 27B by merging the nomination paper with the statutory declaration as to qualifications to stand for election. This will reduce the number of papers to be filed with the Returning Officer on nomination day.

Sir, the manner in which nomination papers are to be delivered to the Returning Officer is also changed. Clause 7 amends section 29 to require nominees to be present at the Nomination Centre in person and accompanied by their proposer, seconder and at least four of their assentors. Besides facilitating corrections of any particulars in the nomination paper, this requirement will also prevent any insertion of particulars or forging of signatures of any registered elector in nomination papers without the elector's knowledge. As our present law already requires nominations to be made by the nominees in person, and accompanied by their proposer and seconder, it should not be difficult for the nominees to comply with the additional requirement of having their assentors to be present during nomination.

Currently, there is little room under the law for some minor errors in nomination papers. Defects in a nomination paper that are potentially rectifiable can be overlooked since they will not invalidate the nomination. Hence, inaccurate names or misnomers, inaccurate descriptions of persons, or inaccurate descriptions of places can be overlooked where despite these inaccuracies or mistakes, the person or place is still identifiable. That is the position under section 103 of the Parliamentary Elections Act. However, blanks and errors in numbers are fatal errors. That is, these cannot be rectified and a nomination paper with any such defect has to be rejected or may be successfully objected to.

Column: 644

Two amendments are made to enlarge the scope for corrections to be made. Clause 8 introduces a new section 29A to allow a candidate or nominee to correct his nomination papers before 12 noon on the day of nomination. This facility does not, however, allow the candidate or nominee to substitute another person as candidate or nominee or as proposer, seconder or assentor. In addition to the facility to correct errors, the list of non-fatal errors in section 103 is expanded by clause 15 to provide that a nomination paper may still be accepted, and an objection may be disallowed, notwithstanding any error in numbers or any omission in the nomination paper in relation to the description or any particulars of the candidate or his proposer, seconder or any of his assentors, provided that the place or person can still be identified from the information contained in the nomination paper.

Sir, these changes to allow candidates and nominees to correct their nomination papers prior to final determination if defects are discovered will help the aspiring candidate. However, the responsibility for filling in and verifying the accuracy of their papers remains with the nominees and their supporters. They have to ensure that their papers are in order. The Returning Officer still cannot overlook serious mistakes in nomination papers.

Next, Sir, clause 13 amends section 33 to make the nomination process more efficient. Presently, nomination proceedings last from 11.00 am to 12.30 pm.

Papers must be delivered to the Returning Officer no later than 12 noon. Withdrawals must also be filed before 12 noon. Objections may be lodged at any time from 11.00 am to 12.30 pm. If the recommendation that objections to any nomination for a constituency can only be lodged by persons authorised to be

Column: 645

present at a Nomination Centre and seeking nomination for that same constituency, there will be no basis to prolong proceedings for the additional 30 minutes in instances where only one candidate or group of candidates in a GRC is nominated for a constituency. Thus, if at the close of nominations at 12 noon, only one candidate or group stands nominated for that constituency, the Returning Officer or his delegate may, under the amended section 33, proceed to declare that sole candidate or group duly elected as Members of Parliament.

Sir, in 2001, the law was amended to invalidate multiple nominations. However, it does not deal with the situation of multiple nominations of the same person in the same constituency. This can happen in the present environment where alliances have been formed between political parties. For example, we now have the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) making up of the Singapore People's Party (SPP), the National Solidarity Party (NSP) and the PKMS, etc. An individual belonging to a political party, say, the SPP, may contest in a GRC concurrently as a member of the group from SPP and as a member of the group representing SDA. Who knows, there may be other alliances in future. Multiple nominations of this sort are therefore not hypothetical. To make it clear that this is not allowed, clause 12 amends section 32A to invalidate multiple nominations involving the same person in the same constituency. If, at the close of nomination for an election, a person is nominated to be a candidate in more than one constituency, or a person is nominated to be a candidate in the same constituency more than once, all his nominations will be void.

Finally, Sir, I now come to the amendments which seek to clarify certain provisions in the interests of certainty during nomination proceedings. First,

Column: 646

owing to the shortage of suitable premises, we have always had a single school serving as the Nomination Centre for more than one constituency during a general election. Invariably, candidates of one constituency find objections being filed by candidates of a different constituency as they are all within the same Nomination Centre. Under section 29(4) of the Act, it is clear that only the candidate for a constituency and his/her proposer, seconder, assentors and one other person, if any, appointed, are entitled to examine the nomination papers of the opponent candidate for that same constituency. They have no entitlement to inspect the nomination papers of candidates of other constituencies even if the Nomination Centre is the same. Logically then, only those persons allowed to examine a nomination paper are entitled to lodge an objection to that nomination paper. To avoid further confusion in proceedings on nomination day, clause 9 amends section 30 of the Act to make it clear that only candidates or groups of candidates contesting in a constituency, and their proposers, seconders, assentors and the one other person appointed by each candidate, and that only persons authorised to be present at the Nomination Centre can lodge objections.

Clause 10 repeals and re-enacts section 31 regarding persons entitled to be present at nomination proceedings. The provision now sets out a list of such persons.

Finally, I turn to withdrawal of candidature. Today, a candidate who wishes to withdraw his candidature must do so before 12 noon by a written notice signed by him or her. The law does not require the withdrawal to be done in person, although that has been insisted upon in practice. However, this is good practice. It is vital that the Returning Officer be satisfied that a withdrawal is genuine before he acts on it. For this

Column: 647

reason, clause 11 amends section 32(1) to make it clear that withdrawal of candidature must be done in person. While technology allows for facsimile transmissions of notices of withdrawal, we consider this unacceptable, even if there is a dedicated line to receive such signed withdrawals. We do not wish to encourage deliberate multiple nominations and last-minute withdrawals by candidates and parties, as this can only confuse matters. The electorate deserves the assurance that persons who present themselves for election to Parliament do so in a serious and responsible manner.

Returns respecting elections expenses

Let me now move on to explain the changes to post-election reporting of election expenditure.

Currently, the returns must contain details of election expenses incurred by the candidate and "all moneys, securities and other valuable considerations received by or promised to the election agent from or by any €¦ person for the purpose of expenses incurred or to be incurred on account or in respect of the management of the election €¦ whether it is received as contribution, loan deposit or otherwise", regardless of their origins.

Sir, promises are not something that will certainly be fulfilled. Now that we have a clear definition of "donation" in the Political Donations Act (PDA), we should do away with the impractical requirement for promises to be disclosed in the returns respecting election expenses and adopt a consistent language in our election law. Clause 14 amends section 74(1)(e) to dispense with the requirement to disclose promises made to candidates or their election agents as regards election expenses. Candidates and their election agents will in future need to disclose all

Column: 648

donations as defined by the Political Donations Act that have been accepted by the candidate or his election agent.

Next, under the Parliamentary Elections Act, the election agents are required to file with the Returning Officer a return on election expenses with their statutory declaration, together with another statutory declaration from their candidates, within 31 days after the election results are published.

Under the Political Donations Act, the election agents, together with the candidates, must also file a post-election donation report and declaration with the Registrar of Political Donations within 31 days after the election results are published. The Political Donations Act forms only require an ordinary declaration from the candidates and their election agents.

It is administratively inconvenient for candidates and their election agents to make a statutory declaration each to accompany the returns with regard to election expenses. This is because the statutory declaration must be made before a Commissioner for Oaths or Justice of the Peace, and any statutory declaration has to be re-sworn or re-affirmed if the form, which is the subject of the declaration, has to be corrected in any way.

As the Political Donations Act forms do not require a statutory declaration and will be filed with the same Government agency, ie, the Elections Department, there is no strong reason to insist on the returns to be accompanied by a statutory declaration. In any event, the punishment for making a false statutory declaration is the same as that for making a false ordinary declaration. Therefore, abolishing the need for a statutory declaration to accompany the returns with respect to election expenses will be consistent with

Column: 649

the requirement for an ordinary declaration under the Political Donations Act forms. Clause 14 amends section 74(2) of the Parliamentary Elections Act to this effect.

Obsolete stamp fees

Let me now deal with the last group of miscellaneous amendments. Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill concern provisions on objections and appeals as to the inclusion of a name in a register of electors. Following the amendments to the Stamp Duties Act that do away with adhesive stamps, the requirement in the Parliamentary Elections Act for an objection or appeal to bear a stamp of $1 is rendered obsolete. Clause 3 amends section 11 of the Act by abolishing the payment of a stamp fee of $1 for filing an objection. Clause 4 amends section 12 for the same reason by abolishing the payment of a stamp fee of $5 to the Revising Officer for an appeal against any decision of the Registration Officer.

Composition of offences

Let me now turn to the issue on composition of offences. The Returning Officer currently faces a constraint in dealing with technical breaches of the provisions of the Parliamentary Elections Act pertaining to offences such as the illegal display of posters. Offenders are either let off with a light warning or prosecuted. In the latter instance, criminal proceedings are taken only after the election and hence fail to deter repeated breaches during the election period.

Clause 16 inserts a new section 109 to allow the Returning Officer or an authorised officer of the Elections Department to compound appropriate offences. Composition of an offence is a procedure by which an agency that administers a

Column: 650

written law gives a person who is reasonably suspected of committing an offence under that law (the alleged offender) the chance to avoid prosecution and conviction in court by paying a sum of money to the agency. This is done by many Government agencies. On payment of the sum of money by the alleged offender, the agency will not take or will discontinue any criminal proceedings against the alleged offender in respect of the offence and the alleged offender is taken not to have been convicted of the offence. The offences will be those the Minister prescribes by regulations to be compoundable. For example, what we have in mind are offences such as displaying an election poster/banner without affixing to it an official stamp issued by the Returning Officer, damaging authorised posters/banners displayed by other candidates or using a loudspeaker on polling day. The composition sum will be half the amount of the maximum fine that is prescribed for the offence, or a sum not exceeding $500, whichever is lower. Composition will definitely not be a means for the Elections Department to generate revenue. The Elections Department will be drawing up internal mechanisms so that there will be clear and consistent criteria as to when composition can be offered, and in every case that meets these criteria, composition will be offered.

In connection with the amendments on nomination proceedings and post-election reporting of election expenditure, clause 17 amends the First Schedule by deleting Form 10 and Form 21.

The proposals will help candidates standing for elections because they simplify the processes and will cut red tape.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Column: 651

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, the amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act (Chapter 218) are supposed to simplify nomination procedures. As one who has taken part in seven general elections

and one By-Election, I can say that not all the amendments meet this aim, especially the one under clause 7 where section 29 of the principal Act is amended to require all the six signatories in support of the candidate to be present at the nomination centre on nomination day between the hours of 11.00 am and 12 noon.

In the past 40 years, in all the 11 General Elections, the proposer, the seconder and the four assentors were never required to be present personally at the nomination centre on nomination day. That practice was time-tested and proven to be efficient. Why is there a sudden need to change? I think this new requirement is purely political. It has nothing to do with the simplification of nomination procedures. In fact, it is just the opposite. It puts more difficulties in the way of the Opposition parties and their candidates, especially their new candidates.

The membership of Opposition parties does not cover the whole of Singapore. When an Opposition party wishes to file a candidate or candidates in a constituency where there are no party members there, the party will have to look for non-party members to sign the nomination form. Those people roped in to sign the nomination paper may be total strangers to the party. Especially for a new or unknown candidate, he usually finds it difficult to persuade six strangers to sign his nomination form. Because in Singapore, even up till today, the element of fear still exists. People are afraid to be seen to be helping the Opposition. In past elections, people who wanted to help the Opposition had only to put down their names and sign the election form. That

Column: 652

act needed plenty of courage. Now, with the amendment, these Singaporeans have not only to append their names and sign the nomination form, but they are also called upon to attend personally at the nomination centre. That is really asking too much of those volunteers. Why do the proposers, seconders and assentors need to attend personally at the nomination centre? Is there evidence of any fraud?

Over the last 40 years, I have not heard of reported cases of dishonest practice as far as the nomination forms are concerned. These days, one can make various applications to the authorities through the Internet. The application to take part in an election should also be one of such applications. Instead, the Government is seen to turn the clock backwards, completely ignorant of the advancement of technology, and opting for outdated practice by forcing applicants to attend personally at the nomination centre. Why make things so difficult, especially for the Opposition parties?

The other difficulty of making six people attend personally at the nomination centre on nomination day is that nomination day, unlike polling day, is not a declared public holiday. In these days of high unemployment, workers find it difficult to get leave from their employers. Worst of all, the date of the nomination day for election is a closely guarded secret, and workers who wish to help in the election process are not able to ask for leave in advance. There are also sudden illnesses. The proposer or seconder may suddenly fall sick on nomination day and be hospitalised. Their absence will constitute a fatal omission on the part of the candidate under the new section 29, and his nomination shall be declared null and void. If the Government is really sincere in wanting to simplify the election procedures, then it should not have this amendment.

Column: 653

I would like now to speak on the amendments to section 27, in particular section 27(2)(d), where a person to be nominated as an election candidate must make a statutory declaration that he is qualified to be elected. Since the purpose of this Bill is to simplify election procedures, why not just require the candidate to make an ordinary declaration? In that way, the candidate need not take the trouble to appear before a Commissioner for Oaths or a Justice of the Peace, which may prove quite time-consuming and inconvenient. In any event, if a candidate is disqualified under the provisions of the Constitution, I do not think that he would dare declare under an ordinary declaration that he is fit to contest an election. He knows that should he subsequently be found out, he shall forthwith be debarred from taking part in future parliamentary elections. And should he win the election, his seat in Parliament shall be declared null and void. His name shall also be tarnished and his credibility shall be lost forever. Further, he shall also suffer criminal charges for making a false declaration. I do not think that any person in his right mind would ever commit an election offence, as the price is too high. I think that section 27(2)(d) and section 27B(2)(d) which cover GRCs in the amendment should be deleted. Candidates should only be required to make an ordinary declaration, not a statutory one.

The other comment I would like to make is on new section 29A which states that the Returning Officer is given the discretion to correct errors and omissions on a nomination form. This amendment appears sensible, for in the past a candidate can be disqualified if he makes a small clerical or typographical error on his nomination form. That law seems unreasonable, but it existed. The present law under the new section definitely makes more sense, although I hasten to say that this amendment benefits the

Column: 654

ruling Party more than the Opposition. The ruling Party always takes part in election in every constituency, be it a single constituency or a GRC. By its sheer number, the possibility of the ruling Party making a mistake is greater than that of the Opposition. Also, I think the Opposition at this point in time can afford to have one of its GRCs disqualified, but the ruling Party certainly cannot afford to have even one GRC disqualified due to an error or omission under the current law. If that happens, it can cause a domino effect, with the possible final result of the loss of the PAP at the polls. Yes, I do think that the new section 29A has great advantages for the ruling Party.

Before I sit down, Sir, I would like the Minister to make certain clarifications in regard to the words "the one other person", as mentioned in new sections 30(1A)(c) and 31(c). I would like to ask the Minister the following questions:

(1) What is the purpose for the candidate to appoint the "other person"?

(2) What are the criteria for appointing the "other person"?

(3) Whether any person, including a foreigner, can be appointed as the "other person"?

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to participate in this debate.

Sir, every time the Parliamentary Elections Bill comes up for reading, the media and everyone politically interested will start speculating that the General Election is round the corner. I will then receive lots of calls from the journalists or the public asking when is the likely date for the upcoming General Election. It is as if the media and the public assume that I have privileged information as to the date of the election. Alas, this is not the case. I can only speculate, like everyone else, as to what is the likely date, month

Column: 655

or year that our Prime Minister sets forth or sees as the most favourable date to his party's advantage.

Sir, if the date of the Presidential elections can be fixed as a full five-year term - so as to give clarity and certainty for its citizens - why then is our Government so reluctant to fix the date of any GE, at least way in advance? Is it because the incumbent Government wants to " bao jia ", ie, to have its cake and eat it too? I hope this message helps to remind our Government that if they genuinely want to have a more genuine "open and inclusive" society, then it should learn to play fairly with its worthy opponents. Respect is earned, not demanded. To be respected as a fair and equitable Government, having the people's trust and mandate, the governing party needs to earn it in a fair fight with its contenders and competitors. So, I hope the Government will make it mandatory in the Parliamentary Elections Bill to have at least four months' notice before a General Election is being called.

Next, I like to talk about the election deposit. Election deposit of $500 was fixed for each candidate for 24 years from 1948 till 1972. Since then, it has escalated to our current $12,000. Sir, this $12,000 deposit is peanuts for an elected incumbent MP - which is just one month of his MP's allowance, but it is a big hefty sum for any non-incumbent candidate to fork out for his interest to stand as an election candidate. After forking out this large amount of $12,000 as a deposit, there is not much cash left for the candidate to run an effective electoral campaign for the purpose of the election.

Unless it is the governing party's hidden agenda to limit the number and ability of its competitors to run an

Column: 656

effective campaign, I hope the Government will amend this Bill to reduce the size of the election deposit to half or less than half a month of an MP's allowance, instead of a full month as is the current practice. This act will immediately help to inspire more citizens who want to serve the country (through a non-governing party, ie, a non-PAP party) to consider taking up the duty of being a competitor to an incumbent PAP MP, so as to better serve the interest of the people in that constituency.

Third, I like to talk about giving more citizens the chance to exercise their voting rights as a citizen in an election. Sir, it is a fact that the Opposition in Singapore is very weak, and almost to the point of non-existent. I know, Sir, because I am from the Opposition. Unless it is the governing party's desire to wipe out its able competitors, and only allowing for a semblance to exist - for its public showcase - I think the Government can do a lot by introducing back more single-member constituencies and smaller-sized GRCs.

In the 1997 and 2001 General Elections, nine out of nine single-member constituencies were contested, making it a 100% contest. But this is not the case for the GRCs. By crowding itself in super-sized GRCs, the Government is giving the public an impression that its Ministers and MPs are afraid of a genuine contest. They hide behind the size in numbers, knowing full well that their position and strength are secured by the weakness of the Opposition to contest in any kind of large GRC.

Again, if the Prime Minister's word of a more "open and inclusive" society is to be believed, then he will do well to heed the public's aspiration - to give them more chances to cast their votes in a General Election. By making 50% of the 84 parliamentary seats

back to single

Column: 657

constituencies, the Government will effectively and immediately give 50% of the population the chance to express their wishes in an election.

Sir, please do not allow the Government or its Ministers to blame the Opposition, to blame us for our failure to field candidates to fight the elections. Until the Opposition in Singapore is given a genuine opportunity to establish itself as a viable, credible alternative political institution, all this blame-laying is just an excuse for the governing party to retain its power and control - at the expense of a genuine democracy.

Fourth, again, to be a genuine open democracy with free and fair competition, the Government needs to put this Parliamentary Elections Act under the jurisdiction of an Independent Elections Commission. I have talked much about it previously. I do not want to belabour it. But I just want the Government to seriously consider it again for the greater benefit of our society.

Lastly, Sir, I refer to clause 7 of the amendment to section 29. Like Mr Chiam before me, I read with concern that the Bill is amended such that the candidate must submit his nomination papers "accompanied by his proposer, seconder and at least four assentors" in person at the nomination centre. Sir, this amendment will greatly inconvenience the non-incumbent candidate's proposer, seconder and his four assentors. Already, it is tough for non-governing parties to find candidates to contest in an election. For those people who are interested to contest as an Opposition candidate, it is even tougher still for them as somebody new to politics to find residents living in that constituency willing to put their names down as proposer, seconder and assentors for the Opposition candidates that are challenging the PAP incumbent. Sir, there is great fear in putting one's name down for anything not PAP - talk

Column: 658

about putting one's name to support a challenger to the PAP!

Now, the Government wants to make it even tougher for the non-PAP candidates by requiring that the proposer, seconder and assentors must be physically present on nomindation day at the nomination centre between 11.00 am and 12.00 noon. It is akin to asking these concerned citizens to be physically identified by the PAP and its grassroots activities in that constituency for target practice. There are only a few garang and brave souls willing to do that. And chances are that a non-incumbent new candidate asked by the Opposition will not know who they are or where they are from.

Sir, why is the PAP Government doing this? Either it is out of ignorance, which I do not think so, or they know full well the power of creating fear in their opponents or those who wish to have opponents. If it is out of ignorance, I do hope that this amendment will be immediately amended to make it non-mandatory. But if it is out of genuine intention to create fear among concerned citizens wanting to support their constituencies for a genuine electoral contest, then I will say it bluntly that this action is most despicable of the governing party. I really hope that they will reflect on this and remove this amended clause. Allow the proposer, seconder and assentors the option to sign the nomination paper in the privacy of their homes and no need to take urgent leave from work on the nomination day to be physically present at the nomination centre, if they so choose. Leave the proposer, seconder and the assentors this important option.

Sir, to conclude, as Minister Wong Kan Seng said previously in this House and I quote, "It is not the duty of the Government to grow the Opposition," I would like to take this opportunity to

Column: 659

reiterate and remind the Government that it is also not the duty of the Government nor in its interest to wipe out the non-governing parties too. For Singapore to come out stronger in the next lap of our journey, the governing and non-governing parties must all work together for the interest of Singapore in a fair and democratic manner. Go beyond party politics and focus on the concerns of a fair and democratic society.

Sir, overall, the proposed amendments in all the other sections are good, and I support them. But I have to reject the amendments to this Bill because of the proposed clause 7 affecting section 29(2). It is my and every Singaporean's hope that every Minister and MP will not just walk into Parliament without a political contest and retire from political service as a virgin Minister too, without any experience of a political contest.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, generally speaking, I am of the view that the amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act are positive. I think they are an improvement to the Act and also to the election system. However, I do share some concerns and one of which was mentioned by Mr Chiam and Mr Steve Chia on clause 7 of the Bill. But I am not as pessimistic as what Mr Steve Chia thinks. There are enough courageous Singaporean voters who will be prepared to go to the nomination centre with the Opposition candidates, though I understand there might be some hesitation, which is a fact. If the voters in a particular constituency are so fearful of going to the nomination centre with the Opposition candidates, then forget about it. We do not contest. They cannot vote. They cannot exercise their rights of voting. Because in a parliamentary democracy system of voting, exercising your right is not the sole business of the

Column: 660

Opposition party. The voters also play a part. So I would expect them to do their part. If they are not even prepared to go with us to the nomination centre, then they do not get to vote. I am sorry.

Sir, my concern is why do you need to inconvenience the people of going to the nomination centre. Why is there such a need? As others have mentioned, nomination day is not a holiday. So people may have to specially take leave. Why is there a need for you to inconvenience people? Is there any other way in which you could verify the identity of the proposer, seconder and assentors, without having them present themselves at the nomination centre? For instance, you may request for their identity cards to be presented to the Returning Officer by the candidate.

Sir, the next comment I have is on clause 8 on the new section 29A. What is good is that it gives the opportunity for any error on the nomination paper to be corrected before the 12.00 noon deadline as long as you do not change the candidate, the proposer, seconder or assentors. But the section is worded to give discretion to the Returning Officer to decide whether to give the candidate a chance to correct any error. Sir, in the interest of political participation, I would like to suggest that it should be worded in such a way that the Returning Officer must allow the candidate a chance to correct any error so long as it is done by the 12.00 noon deadline. This will clarify the situation for all concerned and take away any pressure on the Returning Officer having to decide and exercise the discretion.

Lastly, Sir, I have a clarification on clause 10 of the Bill, that is, the re-enactment of section 31, in which it says that, "any other person with the written permission of the Returning Officer to be present at those proceedings" at the

Column: 661

nomination centre. I would like to know what does it mean by "any other person with the written permission". This person, I presume, is not there to assist because new section 31(d) says that the Returning Officer and such other persons authorised by the Returning Officer assist him in such proceedings. So if this other person is not going to assist him, why is he there for? Who are these people likely to be allowed in the nomination centre?

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, I just want to have a point of clarification in my speech. I mentioned wrongly that the election deposit is $12,000. I just want to correct it as $13,000.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I thank the Members for their comments and their questions on the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill. I note in particular that there is this question which requires the appearance of the proposer, seconder and assentors at the nomination centre. I am also very cheered that Mr Low has taken such a sensible and mature approach with regard to the voters having to play a part and not afraid to turn up at the nomination centre and that he does not see that requiring the proposer, seconder and assentors to be present is an obstacle. He is quite optimistic that there will be enough Singaporeans who feel that they want to participate in this process and support the Opposition, and they will turn up together with the candidate.

There are reasons why this particular amendment is put in. Of course, the current law does not require the proposer, seconder and assentors to turn up. The present law allows the proposer and seconder to be present at the nomination centre. In practice, the PAP candidates always brought along their proposers and seconders. There is no secret about this. They would then know what the nomination process was about. I did not

Column: 662

know that some Opposition did not bring along their proposers and seconders, and they would have difficulty bringing along assentors if it is required by the law. But the reason why this was put in is that we want to ensure that there is no fraud in that the candidate will just put somebody's name by copying the name of an elector, his serial no. and forging his signature on the form. It is just a hypothetical situation. I do not have evidence of this. But I am told of a story by a colleague that in one of the elections, and I would not name which particular constituency, when one of the PAP's supporters turned up together with the candidate at the nomination centre, he saw his name on the Opposition candidate's list as an assentor. He was surprised because he did not sign it. So there could be instances where the candidate could not find enough people within the constituency he was contesting to support him because he did not know the ground. He just filled up the form, looked up the register, filled up the names and forged the signatures. So, in order to ensure that there are indeed electors within the constituency that will support the candidate, this requirement is put in to make sure that the candidate comes with the proposer, seconder and assentors.

Right now, the forms only have space for up to six assentors, although the law requires a minimum of four. The forms would be revised to allow spaces for eight assentors and it should not be difficult to find six persons - the proposer, seconder and four assentors - to turn up. After all, at every election, during nomination at the nomination centre, we will see hordes of supporters of candidates, both the PAP and the Opposition, turning up at the nomination centre. Indeed, the people who want an Opposition would turn up and support him. There is no reason why these supporters would be made a target practice, as Mr Steve Chia said.

I think Mr Steve Chia has a wild sense of imagination to dream of this. Let me

Column: 663

assure him that that is not the case. But if there are indeed difficulties in finding assentors to support him, Mr Chia could let me know. I will try to persuade my colleague in the PAP in that constituency where Mr Chia will be contesting to find supporters for him so that they will be present. So, I do not see an obstacle in this here.

Regarding the other comment that supposing a mistake is made and something needs to be corrected and there is no Commissioner for Oaths to help the candidate to affirm the declaration and the whole process would be made difficult and, as a result, the candidate cannot contest, let me assure the Member that, this time round, the Elections Department would be very approachable and helpful. They would make available enough forms so that, if indeed a candidate needs to fill up a fresh set of forms with names from among his supporters who are present and who could be their proposer and seconder, the forms and a Commissioner for Oaths would be made available. So, in the case of Aljunied where the Workers' Party had candidates wanting to contest in the 2001 elections and, unfortunately, the forms were filled without the name of the constituency, the forms were rejected. This time round, I think it would be possible to correct an error like that, if it is done before 12 noon.

So, the Opposition can see that the Government is not making it difficult for them in the election process. It is indeed trying to make it as simple as possible, eg, simplifying forms and making available forms as well as the Commissioner for Oaths and computers with registers of electors, so that the candidates can access and check whether indeed the person who is an assentor, proposer or seconder, or even a candidate of the Opposition is indeed a registered voter.

Column: 664

Mr Chiam asked about the "one other person". What is this "one other person"? Actually, the "one other person" is the one other person who can help the candidate. We have a "one other person" who came along with us - I am telling Mr Chiam a bit of our election preparedness secrets - and that "one other person" is a lawyer. So, in the event we have difficulty understanding some rules, then that "one other person", who is legally-qualified, can browse through the Parliamentary Elections Act and the regulations and help explain to us what they mean. So, there are no difficult criteria to satisfy. So long as that person can understand the Parliamentary Elections Act, that person can be the "one other person".

Can he be a foreigner? I think he needs to fill in the name of the "one other person", and I believe he ought to be a Singaporean because we want Singaporeans to be involved in our political process and not foreigners.

Mr Chia raised other questions too, eg, election deposit. Is the $13,000 too much? Indeed, there were people who turned up and some lost their deposits. But that is not because the election deposit is too much. It is because they just could not get the support of the voters. Election is a serious business. It should not just be one where one can go and tikam-tikam and put $2 and hopefully win. No such thing. Election is serious business and, therefore, the election deposit, being one-eighth of the total parliamentary allowance paid in the year before the election, is not a big sum of money, whether it is to the PAP candidates or to the others. And I am sure that they can find enough people who will support them and loan them the money because, if they get one-eighth of the votes, they will get their money back. So, it should not be difficult in raising that sum of money.

Column: 665

On why does the Government not fix the date of the elections, or at least provide the period for an election to be held and give enough notice, I have explained this before, most recently during the Committee of Supply in March, where I said that this is something we have had for so long, that it works well, and that it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister to decide on when to have an election. That is no reason why four months' notice should be given.

For the Presidental election, that was a practice we put in, and it is in the law that an election should be held within three months before the end of the President's term. Our President's term ends on 1st September. That was when Mr Nathan assumed his presidency. So an election will be held three months before that date.

Next, the size of a GRC is another perennial complaint of Mr Chia. I think that again should not be a difficult issue because, so long as he can find enough people to contest, he should be able to get the voters to support him, if he has worked the ground hard enough.

On setting up an independent Elections Commission, again, I have dealt with this in March, so I will not belabour the point.

Mr Chia made one interesting point, ie, it is not in Singapore's interest to wipe out the Opposition parties. We never said we will wipe out the Opposition parties. In fact, we encourage more people to come forward, whether to join the PAP or the Opposition, but, eventually, it is the people who will decide who they want. For so many years now, the people have confidence in the PAP and, therefore, they re-elected the PAP to Government term after term. If the Opposition has difficulty attracting people to stand for election, I

Column: 666

think they should do some soul-searching and see how they can reach out further.

Mr Low raised one other point, ie, regarding the correction of errors, in clause 8 to amend section 29. As I have said, the Returning Officer will give as much time as possible, up to 12 noon, to the candidate to correct the errors. And if there is indeed error spotted and the form cannot be accepted, I think it will be pointed out to him so that he can then make the necessary correction. But it is not the job of the Returning Officer or his election officials to correct errors for the candidate. The filling up of the form and filling it correctly are the responsibility of the candidates concerned.

On clause 10 regarding the "one other person", I have explained that already.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I refer to the new section 29(a) which says that the Returning Officer "may"; it is not "must". So the Returning Officer will decide whether or not he will allow you to correct a mistake. Is that what it means? My question is why "may"? Why not "must"?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, that is a drafting language. If he looks at our other laws, I think that is the language being used, that "may" means we let the person do so. It is not just at the discretion of the Returning Officer.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, a further clarification with regard to "one other person". If I am not mistaken, the Minister just now mentioned that the "one other person" should not be a foreigner, and that the Returning Officer would not allow it. But under the new amendment to the Act, it says here that the "one other person" is appointed not by the Returning Officer, but by the candidate.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes.

Column: 667

Mr Chiam See Tong: So, appointed by the candidate, approved by the Returning Officer. Is that the situation?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I said the "one other person", as we practise it, is normally the person who goes into the nomination centre and who will be able to give advice to the candidate. In all the past instances, we have got a legally-qualified person, because that person will then explain to the PAP candidate what was the issue, if the Returning Officer or his official says, "The following things have not been complied with", and then there will be some discussions, and that is the job of our "one other person". As I have said, election is for Singaporeans and, therefore, we would have Singaporeans rather than foreigners.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, the issue is not whether the "one other person" be a qualified lawyer or not. I know that is the PAP's practice, ie, get a lawyer there, and normally a well-known lawyer at that.

An hon. Member: How can you say that?

Mr Chiam See Tong: But what I am concerned is, under the principal Act and under the amendment, there is nothing to say that the "one other person" cannot be a foreigner. Can the Minister please point out where does it say that the "one other person" shall not be a foreigner?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, as I said, while it may not be in the Bill - subject to verification - we would rather not have the foreigner in the nomination centre.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I am not referring to the same "one other person" that Mr Chiam was referring to. I am referring to clause 10, section 31(e), on page 6. Because under the new section 31, it says these are the people who will be allowed into the nomination centre.

Column: 668

That already included "one other person" appointed by the candidate. But besides that, paragraph (e) says "any other person with the written permission of the Returning Officer to be present at those proceedings".

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I think we have to look at the title and read new section 31 of clause 10. It is talking about the people who are entitled to be present, and these include election officials as well who are entitled to be present, and it is up to the Returning Officer to decide who are these persons. As far as the candidates are concerned, they should only concern themselves with the candidates, their proposers, seconders and assentors and one other person. The rest of the people are not the business of the candidate.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I understand that. But what I am interested to know is who else will be allowed to be present at the nomination centre, since these any other persons are not persons, looking at it, to assist the Returning Officer in the proceedings. So, who are these people that are intended to be appointed?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, that "one other person", as I said, is the one that the Returning Officer will allow, and it is up to the Returning Officer to decide who will be this "any other person".

Mr Low Thia Khiang: It can be anyone?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: It can be anyone.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, a point of clarification concerning clause 7. If the only concern of the Government is fraud, then I believe we have sufficient checks in our laws to deal with cases of fraud and for that particular candidate to be dealt with according to the law. Why does the Government need to make it so difficult or

Column: 669

troublesome for the candidates to get the proposer, seconder and assentors to be physically present, that they have to take leave and waste earning their income for that whole process? Could we not have other checks in place to deal with it, if the only concern is fraud, which I do not think it is?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I think there is no other more straightforward way than requiring these people to be present on nomination day at the nomination centre itself. Anything else done is done after the fact, after the nomination paper is accepted. And, as I said, if a candidate is serious, he should not find difficulty in getting people to support him, if he is indeed a serious candidate.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, if the concern of the Government in enacting clause 7 is because there is a possibility of forging signatures, what about, as I have suggested, producing the identity card of the persons for verification?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, it is the same. Identity cards can be given for a myriad of other purposes.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Forging identity cards!

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.