Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker: Minister Chan Chun Sing.

3.06 pm

The Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

Mr Speaker, the amendments proposed today to the Constitution can be grouped into two parts. The first part amends Article 45 of the Constitution relating to the disqualification criteria for a Member of Parliament, or, in short, MP. The second part amends Articles 37E and 72 of the Constitution relating to the disqualification criteria for members of the Council of Presidential Advisers, or in short, CPA; and the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, or in short, PCMR. This is to align with the amendments to the disqualification criteria for an MP in the first part.

These proposed amendments arose from the Elections Department's review of our election processes and legislation after the General Election in 2020, or in short, GE2020. This is among other proposals, such as the possible introduction of postal voting for overseas Singaporeans and special arrangements for voters residing in some nursing homes, which I had shared in this House in March this year.

Let me now elaborate on the amendments under the first part.

Currently, under Article 45(1)(e) of the Constitution, a person is disqualified as an MP if he has been convicted by a Court in Singapore or Malaysia and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year, or to a fine of not less than $2,000. The disqualification period is five years from the date the person is released from custody or when the fine is imposed. During this time, the person cannot stand for election as an MP.

The disqualification criteria are to ensure that MPs are persons with integrity and who adhere to high standards of conduct. Clause 3 of the Bill amends the current fine quantum in Article 45(1)(e) of "not less than $2,000" to "not less than $10,000". The current fine quantum of "not less than $2,000" has not been revised since Singapore's Independence.

Members may ask why the fine quantum was not changed earlier and what prompted the need to change this now. As part of the review which the Elections Department, or in short, ELD, undertook after GE2020, ELD noted that the MP disqualification criteria have not been revised since Independence and, thus, initiated a review of the criteria. While there was a related amendment to the Constitution in 2002, the focus of the amendment was to deal only with the anomalous situation of a disqualified MP not being able to continue sitting or voting in Parliament while his appeal was pending and did not cover the MP disqualification criteria per se.

ELD considered two reference points for the revised fine quantum. First, if we were to take into account inflation over the years, $2,000 would amount to about $8,000 today. Second, the revision took into account sentences handed down by our Courts today for committing serious tax evasion and corruption offences, which are relevant to the integrity of a person.

Notwithstanding the proposal to update the fine quantum, Singaporeans should reasonably expect that Members of this House, and those who aspire to be Members of this House, must hold themselves to the highest standards.

Members may also ask if the imprisonment term of one year requires revision. As part of its review, ELD examined the criteria in selected Commonwealth countries, such as Malaysia, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the UK. For these countries, the imprisonment term for MP disqualification is either at least one year or at least two years. ELD's assessment is that Singapore's imprisonment term of one year remains at an appropriate threshold and does not require further revision for now.

Clause 3 also extends the disqualification due to conviction by a court of law beyond Singapore and Malaysia to any foreign court. With more Singaporeans living, travelling and conducting business in other countries, convictions by courts in other countries should be included in the disqualification criteria, since they are relevant in determining the fitness of the person for office. These overseas convictions must be for offences that would have been punishable by a Court in Singapore if they had been committed locally.

Currently, a Singapore Citizen who voluntarily acquires a foreign citizenship will be disqualified as an MP. However, Article 45(3) excludes a Commonwealth country or the Republic of Ireland from the definition of a "foreign country". This exception is historic and is no longer relevant today. Thus, clause 3 also removes the outdated Article 45(3). An MP should be disqualified if he acquires citizenship of another country.

Next, let me elaborate on the amendments under the second part. Clauses 2 and 5 of the Bill to amend Articles 37E and 72 of the Constitution make similar changes to the disqualification criteria for members of CPA and PCMR with respect to the fine quantum and convictions by foreign courts of law. Similar to the amendments under the first part, the fine quantum criterion for disqualification from being a member of CPA and PCMR is proposed to be revised from "not less than $2,000" to "not less than $10,000". For membership to PCMR, clause 5 extends the disqualification due to a foreign conviction by "a court of law in Malaysia" to "any foreign court".

Finally, clause 6 sets out clearly that the amendments proposed today to the Constitution will apply to convictions which meet the new proposed criteria before the amendments come into force. As the disqualification criteria are imposed to ensure fitness of persons for office, prior convictions should be recognised as disqualifying, even if they happened before the date of operation of the amendments. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.14 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is important to bear in mind that the aim of this Bill is relatively narrow and coheres with the current policy underpinning the relevant articles in the Constitution.

In the main, it serves to update the disqualification criteria concerning criminal convictions for membership of Parliament as set out in Article 45 of the Constitution. In this regard, what is proposed, as mentioned by the hon Minister, is to revise the fine quantum from "not less than $2,000" to "not less than $10,000".

As a consequence, it is proposed that the disqualification criteria for a member of CPA and PCMR, as well as a candidate standing for election as the President be similarly updated.

As stated by the Elections Department in its press release, the proposed revision is to "account for inflation over the years" – the hon Minister said since the year of Independence, it is about $8,000 now – and ensure that the quantum "is commensurate with fines meted out for offences that are relevant to the integrity of the person".

In light of this background, unless an hon Member wishes to advocate a change in the current policy, which has been in place since Independence, the proposed "light touch" amendment to the Constitution should not raise controversy.

It may be useful to appreciate the underpinning of this policy. It is connected to the concept of universal suffrage – the right to vote for a candidate of his or her choice.

John Stuart Mill, a well-known English philosopher, stated as follows in his 1861 essay, "Representative Government": "There ought to be no pariahs in a full-grown and civilised nation; no persons disqualified, except through their own default."

Emeritus Prof Joseph Jaconelli, in his 2020 article entitled "Constitutional Disqualification", stated that whilst John Stuart Mill was addressing the question of the extent of the right to vote, the same point applies to the right to stand for office. He went on to state that: "It applies with greater force, since to provide otherwise would be to limit the range of choices available to the electorate."

In other words, our approach is to leave decisions on the electability of a candidate to an informed electorate unless the candidate has committed a serious offence which attracts a sentence of more than one year or, as proposed in this Bill, a fine of more than $10,000.

Even then, the automatic disqualification ceases after a five-year period, as provided for under Article 45(2) of the Constitution.

The approach in the United Kingdom (UK) and other countries is similar. Under the UK's Representation of the People Act, a person will be ineligible to stand for elections if he has been convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment of one year or more.

For these reasons, I support the Bill. It is fair that the electorate is presented with the widest possible slate of candidates compatible with a minimum level of checks for the integrity of the person. It is also fair that a candidate's previous disqualification be reset after a certain period.

This Bill, however, relates not only to disqualification to enter into an election, but it also has an impact on the qualification to remain as an MP.

Currently, by default, both issues are tagged, in that the same criteria appy to a sitting MP. Hence, notwithstanding my support for the Bill, I feel it is necessary to signpost, for future consideration, the ability of an MP to continue in his or her office upon being convicted of a criminal offence whilst in office.

Just last month, The Guardian reported a case of a UK MP in the House of Commons who was convicted of sexually molesting a 15-year-old. He apparently did not resign immediately, although it has now been reported that he has since resigned. We can ask ourselves – what would be the case if this happened in Singapore? I dare say that a good number of Singaporeans outside this House would assume that the MP would automatically be disqualified from holding office as his conduct would have brought disrepute to the House and, quite frankly, our country, too.

That is not necessarily the case, however, if we look at the current provisions. As I mentioned earlier, the disqualification criteria for a candidate are the same as the disqualification criteria for an MP. This is provided for under Article 46 of the Constitution.

Hence, whether or not a sitting MP convicted of a crime will automatically be disqualified would depend on not just his conviction but his sentence. If the sentence of imprisonment is less than one year, then he is not automatically disqualified.

I did an informal survey of sentences imposed by the Courts in cases reported by the Straits Times between March and April this year. I noted the following cases.

A Singaporean male was convicted and sentenced to one week's jail for possession of obscene videos, including child sexual abuse material. Another Singaporean male who molested a female teenager by touching her soles and toes was sentenced to two weeks and five days' jail. In another case, a Singaporean male was convicted after pleading guilty to five counts of forgery for the purposes of cheating involving $9.7 million. He was sentenced to nine months' jail.

If an MP were to have committed any one of these offences, he would not be automatically disqualified. Of course, his tenure ceases automatically if he resigns from his party or if he "loses his whip", which is the Parliamentary parlance for being expelled from his political party. This latter ground does not affect independent MPs though.

There is a connected aspect to this issue which I seek to highlight. For professionals, such as doctors, lawyers and engineers, they would not be allowed to practise, so long as they are convicted of offences that involve moral turpitude, irrespective of the actual sentences. Civil servants and uniformed officers convicted of crimes may be dismissed, reduced in rank or otherwise punished, too.

It may be helpful for us, as a heuristic, to think of this as "two keys": the first, a qualification to enter into the profession; and, the second, a qualification to remain.

The question that arises for consideration is: what should be the corresponding standard of conduct dealing with criminal convictions imposed on Singaporean politicians? That is, what should be the strength of the second key for MP?

To me, this is a no-brainer. Whenever we, as MPs enter Parliament, we receive salutes from the uniformed officers on duty. This is meant to be a mark of respect for us as elected representatives of our country. Is it not anomalous that the saluting officer is held to a higher standard, as compared to us? This does not make sense.

Therefore, we might want to consider if we want to impose similar requirements on sitting MPs.

While this may be a simple enough task for this House to consider these issues, to implement a policy solution would require bipartisan support from both sides of the aisle. Without bipartisan support, there will be a serious potential for misinterpretation of the purpose behind the imposition of high standards for Singaporean politicians.

What should be avoided at all costs is a perception that the Bill is an attempt on the part of one political party trying to constrain the public's right to vote for a candidate of their choice.

Also, both sides of the House will need to come to a consensus on how we should deal with politicians who may be convicted for acts of civil obedience or conscience, which are markedly different from criminal behaviour.

Once we have struck a consensus on how to treat criminal convictions of sitting MPs in this House, then, I would imagine that the disqualification criteria for candidates and members of other high constitutional offices may have to be reviewed again.

Mr Speaker, to agree on this Bill is an easy matter. To my mind, it is a simple updating exercise. This Bill does not propose to deal directly with two other important matters: the disqualification criteria of sitting MPs and the parity of standards between sitting MPs and professionals, civil servants and uniformed officers.

This "second key", in my respectful view, appears to be weaker for MPs. These are important matters but we can debate on these in good time, given that any Constitution amendment here should require strong bipartisan support. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

3.23 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the crux of this Bill is to change one of the threshold criteria for the disqualification of MPs, the elected President and Members of the CPA and PCMR.

In essence, the current law of disqualifying a person once he has received a Court fine of at least $2,000 is being amended. The threshold for a disqualifying Court fine is proposed to be raised to $10,000. Sir, our view is that the increase to $10,000 moves us in the right direction. The Workers' Party supports this Bill.

The focus of my speech today will be on the impact of this change on qualifying for Parliamentary office – what Minister Chan Chun Sing earlier referred to as the first part of this Bill.

In its media release on 4 April 2022, the Elections Department highlighted that the disqualification fine amounts had not been revised since Singapore's Independence some 57 years ago.

Sir, given the forces of inflation and also how fines have been raised by Parliament over the decades, it is undeniable that a fine of $2,000 in 1965 would be a much more significant punishment compared to a $2,000 fine today. Based on a rough calculation of the impact of inflation on prices from 1965 to the present, the figure of $10,000 is within reason.

Sir, I should emphasise that, going by this logic, the change brought about by this Bill does not represent a lowering of standards for eligibility for Parliament. Instead, it is an attempt to retain the same standards of eligibility that existed when the law was originally enacted.

Sir, the task of setting disqualifications for Parliamentary office raises questions of national significance. After all, we are dealing with the issue of which Singapore Citizens should be considered unfit for elected public office. This affects the fundamental right of citizens to participate in public life and also the right to continue in office after being duly elected by the people.

Some may wonder why we need to be so concerned since the disqualification based on a Court sentence lasts for only five years, after which, the person can stand for election again. While five years is no doubt just one election cycle, five years in a person's life is not a short time. Nor should we discount how society could lose from the contributions of an otherwise capable citizen banished to the political wilderness, even if temporarily.

Thus, debates concerning the right of individuals to stand for election or to continue in service merit serious consideration.

On the one hand, the current approach of setting the cut-off based on the quantum of punishment via the Courts is imperfect. If one is targeting fitness for office, the current method makes no distinction about the types of offence involved. A fine and/or a short imprisonment term may be imposed by the Courts for many offences with varied moral culpability, ranging from traffic offences to theft. Fines may also be imposed for infractions under some laws which many do not consider criminal in nature.

Take, for instance, the recent Court case involving a member of an Opposition party. Shortly before the General Election in 2020, he was fined $5,000 for contempt of Court. This placed him over the $2,000 disqualification threshold for standing for election. When he applied to the High Court for clarification on his status, the judge ruled that so long as the Court fine was of the required amount, it did not matter what the underlying charge was. The Court held that matters considered quasi-criminal, such as the contempt of Court, would suffice for disqualification.

On the other hand, imperfect though it is, the advantage of having a cut-off simply based on the punishment quantum is that it is easy to apply and it is clear to everyone. With the raising of the disqualification fine to $10,000 applied to today's circumstances, there will be a better calibration to target offences of greater seriousness.

Sir, while today's amendment is a step in the right direction, I understand and I stand corrected that, in notable jurisdictions, such as Australia and the United Kingdom, candidates at the national election are, generally, not disqualified if they are merely fined in Court, whatever the amount. Instead, disqualification kicks in only when one is sentenced to imprisonment of a certain duration.

Sir, given the multitude of regulatory laws in today's modern society, there is always a risk that persons engaged in business or certain industries or professions may be fined for some non-compliance.

We may wish to consider in future how relevant the issue of fines is to our disqualification criteria for Parliament and, should we embark on such a further review in the future, careful consideration should be paid to how to balance upholding respect for Parliament as a national institution with having a set of eligibility criteria that are relevant to modern Singapore.

To summarise then, the Workers' Party supports the Bill to raise the threshold fines for disqualification from Parliament to $10,000. I have also raised the suggestion of a possible future review on the issue of disqualifications based on fines to further examine if it is appropriate to either remove fines altogether or to look at further refinements.

Mr Speaker, we want elections to be contested and to be contested, by competent people who are committed and passionate to serve. As an educated electorate, I believe Singaporeans are discerning and will continue to make rational decisions about who should represent them in this august Chamber.

Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

3.30 pm

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, I support the proposed amendments to the various Articles of the Constitution.

Article 45 sets out the criteria for the disqualification of MPs. Article 45(e) states that a person shall not be qualified to be an MPs if he has been convicted of an offence by a Court of law and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year or a fine of not less than $2,000 and has not received a free pardon.

The fine quantum of $2,000 has not been revised since Independence and I agree that it is appropriate to adjust the fine quantum, to ensure that the fine quantum is commensurate with the reasons why a person ought to be disqualified to be an MP.

Take, for example, the sentencing guidelines for traffic offences. They have been enhanced after Parliament amended the Road Traffic Act in 2019. In recent Court cases for careless driving, the Courts came up with a sentencing framework whereby a person charged for careless driving resulting in grievous hurt will face a fine of $2,500 even when his culpability is low.

This means that if a person were to make an error of judgement when driving and his careless driving results in an accident, whereby a victim suffered a serious injury, then that person would be disqualified to be an MP as the fine for careless driving would exceed the sum of $2,000. And this is the current fine quantum for disqualification under Article 45(e) of the Constitution.

Thus, if the Constitution is not amended, any aspiring person who wishes to stand as a candidate to be an MP would not be qualified, and any sitting MP would be disqualified if they have been convicted of a similar kind of traffic offence.

Sir, last year, I advised a client who was charged for careless driving. He had turned left and he hit a motorcycle because he missed a blind spot. The motorcycle rider suffered a fractured arm and my client was fined a total of $4,000. I was thinking to myself: this could happen to anyone of us in the House; anyone of us who was driving and had missed a blind spot would be charged for careless driving and fined more than $2,000 and it would result in us being disqualified.

So, it begs the question as to whether a momentary lapse of judgement whilst driving is the kind of reason that a person ought to be disqualified to serve as an MP. And I would humbly submit that we ought to set a bar in the Constitution that disqualifies a person from being an MP if that person is convicted of an offence that relates to dishonesty, fraud, corruption, bribery or, as Mr Murali Pillai has suggested, sexual misconduct, but not for careless driving.

For other offences that are technical in nature or what we call statutory offences, we ought to review whether such offences ought to result in disqualification to be an MP as well. Take another example – a company director who had gotten a fellow investor who becomes a shareholder and he cannot get his fellow shareholder to hold an Annual General Meeting (AGM). Thus, he fails to file an Annual Return and is convicted in Court. Should the fine imposed by the Court exceed $2,000? Should that Director also be disqualified for such a technical offence, that he had made a mistake in choosing a fellow investor or a shareholder wrongly?

Sir, section 45 of the Charities Act sets out the criteria where a person is disqualified to serve as a director in a charity if the person is convicted of dishonesty, including fraud, corruption, bribery and deception, or offences involving terrorism, terrorism financing or money laundering.

Section 154 of the Companies Act sets out the criteria where a person is disqualified to serve as a director of a company if the person is convicted of any offence, whether in Singapore or elsewhere, involving again, fraud or dishonesty punishable with an imprisonment of three months or more.

These disqualification criteria suggest that the state frowns upon persons who have behaved dishonestly and are disqualified from holding positions where they act as fiduciary to either a charity or a company.

So, I would urge the Government to do likewise – signal the type of dishonest conduct that we wish to guard against and not just by adjusting the quantum of the fine.

Sir, I also wish to ask the Minister to clarify, for persons who are convicted of offences overseas, may I ask the Minister whether the same criteria of referring to the quantum of fine will apply? For example, it was previously reported that in some Scandinavian countries, the fine for traffic offences is pegged to the person's earnings. Thus, if you are a high earner in Singapore and, for some reason, you are caught speeding in a Scandinavian country, the fine for speeding may far exceed the sum of $10,000, which is the proposed new criteria for disqualification. In fact, that fine in that Scandinavian country is supposed to be pegged to your salary. So, is that the intended objective of the amendment to the Constitution?

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had previously said that it will be more difficult to attract quality candidates into politics as potential candidates will have to face negative comments on social media. They have to put up with a greater financial sacrifice from switching careers and also face less certainty of winning in elections.

If we do not find the right people to serve in Parliament, Singapore, as a country, will suffer, because of weaker leadership at the national level.

Thus, we should amend the Constitution to ensure that the type of people who are disqualified from becoming MPs are the ones that we want to exclude and not citizens who have made minor or technical mistakes in their lives.

Mr Speaker: Minister Chan Chun Sing.

3.36 pm

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me, first, thank Members who spoke on this Bill and for their support of the Bill.

Let me first cover the technical clarifications. Then, I will conclude with the spirit behind what we are doing.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked whether the updated fine quantum criterion would apply for persons convicted of offences overseas. The answer is yes. An individual who has been fined by a foreign court the equivalent of at least S$10,000 will be disqualified. However, it must be for an offence which would be punishable by a Court in Singapore if it had been committed locally. This is an existing provision in our Constitution and is based on the principle that committing an offence abroad should have the same consequence on the eligibility to stand for elections.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Murali Pillai and Ms Sylvia Lim noted that this Bill serves, in the main, to update the constitutional disqualification criteria. Ms Sylvia Lim asked if fines should be considered at all, while Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Murali Pillai raised the possibility of further tightening the disqualification criteria in the future, so that we continue to hold our parliamentarians to the highest standards. Specifically, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Murali Pillai suggested identifying the offences that would disqualify an individual as an MP to signal the behaviour or conduct that we want to guard against.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the scope of this Bill is intentionally narrow and focused on updating the disqualification criteria. This is in keeping with the democratic ideal that the rights of individuals to participate in the political process and to stand for public office should be unfettered as far as possible, as pointed out by Mr Murali Pillai. While we need to ensure fitness of individuals to be parliamentarians, the bar cannot be so high that we undermine our parliamentary system which is founded on representative democracy. Keeping the disqualification criteria to a reasonable threshold also allows voters broad discretion to choose whom they wish to represent them.

Indeed, many jurisdictions disqualify elected Members if they have been sentenced to an imprisonment term of one or two years and not by the type of offences. This is because there are inherent challenges in listing the specific offences and then having to frequently amend a basic document like the Constitution, so that the offence list is updated. There is also the issue whether we automatically disqualify every individual convicted of a listed offence even though the actual sentence, whether fine and/or jail sentence, may be quite light. An automatic disqualification based solely on conviction without taking into account the actual sentence is not compatible with the principle of ensuring fitness for the office according to actual conduct.

Mr Murali Pillai noted that there will be candidates or MPs who are convicted of a heinous offence or one involving dishonesty or moral turpitude but received sentences that do not cross the constitutional disqualification threshold and, therefore, will not be disqualified. These disqualification criteria set out the thresholds for disqualification as MPs, based on the severity of the punishment for offences committed.

As the basic document, the Constitution has to establish the suitable balance for Singapore between ensuring wide representation of all sectors of our community in Parliament and ensuring the representatives' fitness for office. The constitutional ineligibility, which is covered by the Bill, simply sets the minimum threshold for individuals to seek office in Parliament, so as to ensure basic fitness for office. No different from the need for minimum age to ensure maturity and personal competence by requiring a certain level of language command in Article 44, the Bill addresses the parliamentarian's minimum moral aptitude. Beyond the disqualification criteria, our political parties must continue to ensure that the candidates they field and MPs from their parties are persons with integrity and who adhere to the highest standards of conduct. Ultimately, our voters will decide, at the ballot box, the fitness of the person seeking to represent them in Parliament.

Nevertheless, I would like to thank all Members for the suggestions. We will keep them in mind in any future reviews.

So, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me conclude by reiterating the intent behind this Bill. The Bill aims to update the disqualification criteria for membership of Parliament and memberships of CPA and PCMR so that they continue to be relevant in ensuring that Members are persons with integrity and who adhere to high standards of conduct. This is to safeguard and protect the standing and dignity of Parliament, as well as the offices of CPA and PCMR.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may conclude with an exposition on the spirit behind this.

As we have heard from Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Ms Sylvia Lim, if we set the bar too high, then we may, inadvertently, rule out many people who might want to participate in the representative democratic process that we have. If we set the bar too low, as Mr Murali Pillai pointed out, then it seems incongruent with what we expect of our public officers and our uniformed officers. So, in amending the Constitution today, we are adhering to the spirit behind what was set out from Independence and updating the criteria, but the spirit remains the same: to find the balancing point between setting the bar too high that may exclude too many and setting the bar too low that will not be congruent with what we expect of parliamentarians. But, having said that, whatever we agree today is but one of the levers that will apply to those who wish to be a Member of this Chamber.

Besides the rules that we have, there are three other important keys, if I may use the words of Mr Murali Pillai, and those three other keys are as follows. First, the standard that the respective political parties hold themselves accountable to. Second, the standards that each and every one of us hold ourselves to. And third, and most importantly, the standards which our public hold us to.

In order for our democracy to function properly, we need all four keys. We need the first key, the set of rules that balance the need for democratic participation with the standards that we expect from those aspiring for public office but, very critically, the other three keys – what political parties expect of the standards from their respective MPs or candidates; how our candidates and MPs hold ourselves accountable to the standards that we expect of ourselves as representatives of our people and our country; and, finally, the strongest safeguard against any degradation of the standards of this House must be our electorate who, ultimately, elect our people into this House.

With that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. I urge all Members on both sides of the House to give your fullest support to the Bill.

3.44 pm

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

Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote is 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 and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, which is 63 Members. Clerk, ring the division bells.

After two minutes –

Mr Speaker: Serjeant‐at‐Arms, lock the doors.

Before I proceed to start the electronic voting, may I remind Members that they are to be seated at their designated seats and should only start to vote when the voting buttons on the armrests start to blink.

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

Mr Speaker: Take a vote. You may now begin to vote. May I remind Members to depress their vote button firmly in order to register their vote in the system. Members are advised to check that their names are registered according to their vote indication when the voting results are shown on the display screens.

Mr Speaker: I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are 87 "Ayes"; 0 "Noes"; 0 "Abstentions". The Second Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency 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 Chan Chun Sing].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker: Third Reading, what day?

Mr Chan Chun Sing: 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." Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote is taken to ascertain that the Third Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, which is 63 Members. Clerk, ring the division bells.

After one minute –

Mr Speaker: Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.

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

Mr Speaker: Take a vote. You may now begin to vote. Again, I remind Members to depress their vote button firmly in order to register their vote in the system. Members are advised to check that their names are registered according to their vote indication when the voting results are shown on the display screens.

Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members who wish to claim that his or her vote has not been displayed or displayed incorrectly on the screens? No?

Mr Speaker: I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are now 88 "Ayes"; 0 "Noes"; 0 "Abstentions". The Third Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.