Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mdm Speaker: Minister Chan Chun Sing.

3.03 pm

The Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

The amendments proposed today to the Presidential Elections Act can be grouped into three categories. The first category of amendments gives effect to the amendments made by the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 2016. The second category of amendments improve election procedures during the conduct of Presidential elections. The third category of amendments aligns the Act with provisions of the Parliamentary Elections Act relating to election advertising, publication of election survey results and exit polls.

I will also be making two announcements on the Presidential elections at the end of my speech. These announcements do not require amendments to the law.

Let me begin with the first category of amendments, the category arising from the constitutional amendments made in November last year. The amendment Bill was passed in November after robust debate, putting in place the framework for the changes to the Elected Presidency. The amendments being proposed here today put in place the nuts and bolts of the framework agreed to in November. I will now take Members through the key changes being proposed.

The new section 5A provides that the new Schedule, inserted by clause 22, has effect for the purpose of determining whether an election is reserved under the new Article 19B(1) of the Constitution. The new Schedule sets out the terms of office that are counted and the communities that the Presidents who hold these terms belong to. The first term of office to be counted is the last term of office of President Wee Kim Wee, during which he became the first President to exercise the functions created by the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 1991. The Schedule stipulates that Dr Wee Kim Wee and Mr Ong Teng Cheong belong to the Chinese community; Mr SR Nathan, who served two terms, belongs to the Indian community, Dr Tony Tan belongs to the Chinese community.

The Prime Minister had, in November, announced this during the Second Reading of the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill.

The Returning Officer is responsible for updating the Schedule after every election. For this purpose, if a community certificate was issued to a person, that person is considered to belong to the community stated on the community certificate. If no community certificate was issued to the person, the person is considered not to belong to the Chinese community, the Malay community, nor the Indian or other minority communities.

The new section 5B links the reserved election mechanism in the new Article 19B of the Constitution to writs of election issued under the Act and provides for open elections to be held if a reserved election wholly fails.

In an open election, a person does not have to belong to any of the three communities − Chinese, Malay, Indian or Other Minority communities − to qualify to be elected as President.

Clause 4 amends section 6(3) to require that nomination day must be at least 10 days after the date of the Writ of Election. This is an increase from the current five days. This provides the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) with more time to assess whether potential candidates should be issued a Certificate of Eligibility.

We are also introducing changes to the certification process for the Presidential election. The new Division 2 − consisting of new sections 8 to 8D − relates to the PEC and the application process for a Certificate of Eligibility.

The key changes are as follows. First, the deadline for applying for a Certificate of Eligibility is extended from the current three days to five days after the date of the Writ of Election. The extension of deadline will give prospective candidates more time to prepare their applications. Second, the PEC must be satisfied that the applicant has met the service requirements under new Article 19(2)(g) of the Constitution before it issues the Certificate of Eligibility. Third, persons who wish to contest in the Presidential elections must submit applications to both the PEC and to the Community Committee. PEC must reject an application for a Certificate of Eligibility if the applicant did not submit a community declaration to the Community Committee.

The community declaration is essential to the functioning of the certification process for the reserved election system. I will elaborate on the community declaration next.

The community certification process serves two main purposes. First, to determine the community to which every person elected as President belongs, for the purposes of determining whether a future election is reserved under the new Article 19B(1) of the Constitution. Second, to ensure that, in a reserved election, only persons belonging to the community to which the election is reserved, qualify to stand for election. With your permission, Mdm Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute the first handout?

Mdm Speaker: Yes, please. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

Mr Chan Chun Sing: All prospective candidates in all elections, regardless of a reserved election or open election, have to submit a community declaration. A declaration is essential even in open elections because the hiatus-triggered model requires that the community of each President to be counted, for the purposes of calculating when the next reserved election is.

A person making a community declaration must make one, and only one, of the following four statements as set out in the new section 8F(2)(a)-(d). The four statements are as follows. First, that the person considers himself to be a member of the Chinese community and wishes to apply for a community certificate stating that the person belongs to the Chinese community. Second, that the person considers himself to be a member of the Malay community and wishes to apply for a community certificate stating that the person belongs to the Malay community. Third, that the person considers himself to be a member of the Indian or Other Minority communities and wishes to apply for a community certificate stating that the person belongs to the Indian or Other Minority communities. Fourth, that the person does not consider himself to be a member of the Chinese community, the Malay community, or the Indian or Other Minority communities.

The statements require, where the applicant considers himself to be a member of the three main communities, that is, Chinese, Malay, or Indian and Other Minority communities, to state that he wishes to apply for a community certificate stating that he belongs to that particular community. It should be pointed out that, in open elections, a declarant can still run for elections, even if he does not receive a community certificate, if he meets all other eligibility criteria.

The deadline for submission of the community declaration is five days after the date of the Writ of Election, similar to the deadline to apply for the Certificate of Eligibility to the PEC.

The Community Committee must decline to accept a community declaration if the declarant did not apply to the PEC for a Certificate of Eligibility.

Let me now elaborate on the composition of this new Community Committee. The Community Committee will consist of 16 persons: the Chairman; five members belonging to the Chinese community; five members belonging to the Malay community; and five members belonging to the Indian or Other Minority communities.

The Chairman and members of the Community Committee will be appointed by the Prime Minister on the nomination of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights (PCMR). The PCMR will make its nominations after consulting such organisations of the Chinese, Malay, or Indian and Other Minority communities as the PCMR sees fit.

The five members belonging to the Chinese community who are on the Community Committee make up the Chinese Community sub-committee. The same arrangement applies to the Malay and Indian and Other Minority communities' sub-committees.

In a reserved election, the Community Committee will accept a community declaration only if the declarant considers himself to belong to the community to which the election is reserved. The Community Committee will then refer the declaration to the sub-committee for that community. If the sub-committee is satisfied that the declarant belongs to that community, the Community Committee will issue the declarant with a community certificate to that effect.

In non-reserved elections or open elections, the Community Committee will refer community declarations to the appropriate sub-committee, except where a declarant does not consider himself to be a member of any of the three main communities.

If the sub-committee for a community is satisfied that a declarant belongs to that community, the Community Committee will issue the declarant with a community certificate to that effect.

If the sub-committee is not satisfied, the Community Committee can refuse to issue a community certificate, or can invite the declarant to submit another community declaration.

In the case of a declarant who does not consider himself to be a member of any of the three main communities, the Community Committee can either accept the community declaration, or invite the person to submit another community declaration.

In both instances where the Community Committee may invite the declarant to submit another community declaration, it may only do so once.

The approach of the Community Committee and sub-committees, in assessing whether declarants belong to a particular community, should be that of inclusion. The approach should be to welcome and embrace individuals who identify themselves with a particular community. This would apply, for example, in cases where declarants are of mixed-race parentage and have significant links with the communities of both parents.

The method of certifying race through community committees has worked well for our Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system; it should similarly serve us well in the Presidential elections.

Let me now move on to explain the new items that prospective candidates must submit. Clause 6 amends section 9 to add certain items to the nomination papers that a prospective candidate must submit.

The first item is a statutory declaration in which the prospective candidate declares that he understands the role of the President as set out in the Constitution. This ensures that the prospective candidate is aware of the constitutional powers of the President, and is also aware of the constitutional limits of the Presidential office. It will serve as a declaration to the electorate that the prospective candidate is aware that he should not be drawn into making statements or promises which exceed the constitutionally-prescribed role of the President. As making a false statutory declaration is an offence, a prospective candidate's submission of the declaration signals that the candidate has studied and understood the responsibilities of the office.

The second additional item relates to the community certification process. In a reserved election, a prospective candidate must submit a community certificate stating that he belongs to the community to which the election is reserved.

In open elections, a prospective candidate who applied for a community certificate in his community declaration must submit either: (a) a community certificate; or (b) the Community Committee's written decision rejecting the application.

A prospective candidate who did not apply for a community certificate in his community declaration must submit: (a) the Community Committee's written notification that his declaration is accepted; as well as (b) a statutory declaration stating that he does not consider himself to belong to the Chinese community, the Malay community or the Indian or Other Minority communities.

Clause 19 amends section 71 to provide that an election can be declared void if the elected candidate made a materially false or misleading statement of fact, or omitted to state a material fact, to PEC. This new ground for avoidance is identical to the ground for removing a President in the new Article 22L(3)(e) of the Constitution.

Clause 20 repeals and re-enacts section 73 to further provide that only PEC can apply to void an election on the ground stated in the new section 71(f). This is because the false statement, or the omission of the material fact, is made to PEC, and so it would be the appropriate party to apply to the Election Judge to void an election.

Let me now address the second category of amendments. These amendments are being made to improve the election procedures. I will go through the key amendments.

The Government is making changes to the design of the ballot paper to improve the process of voting, adjudication and counting.

Clause 8 amends section 23 to stipulate that the ballot paper must have a clearly demarcated area for a voter to mark his vote for a candidate. Clause 10 amends section 25 to state that a voter's mark must only be made in the area demarcated on the ballot paper for that purpose. This ties in with the amendments to section 33 on how ballot papers are to be adjudicated and counted. Clause 14 amends section 33 to require the Returning Officer to only consider the marks made by voters in the area demarcated on ballot papers for voters to mark their votes. Under the amended section, if a voter makes a mark outside of this area, the Returning Officer must disregard that mark when determining whether the voter has given his vote to any candidate. In previous elections, disputes have arisen over whether a mark over a candidate's photo or name should count towards a vote for that individual. The changes will provide clarity in dealing with these situations.

Clause 9 inserts a new section 23A to formalise the inclusion of candidates' photographs on ballot papers and to stipulate the conditions that must be satisfied before a candidate's photograph will be included on that ballot paper. Photographs of the candidates on the ballot paper were first introduced in the 2011 Presidential election. This practice has been welcomed by voters, as they were able to more easily identify the candidate they are voting for on the ballot paper.

The amendment Bill also sets out certain actions to deal with contingency situations pertaining to ballot boxes.

Clause 12 amends section 32A to empower the Returning Officer to extend the time for the sealed ballot boxes from overseas polling stations to reach Singapore. The amendments to that section confer a discretion on the Returning Officer to extend the time by another seven days for the overseas ballot boxes to reach Singapore if two conditions are fulfilled. First, the total number of overseas electors is material to the election outcome. Second, the Returning Officer is satisfied that any of the overseas ballot boxes are not likely to reach Singapore within the initial 10-day period.

Clause 13 repeals and re-enacts section 32B to remove the requirement for a candidate or his counting agent to apply to the Returning Officer for a recount of votes. Currently, the law provides for a candidate or his counting agent to apply for a recount of votes if the criteria for recount is met, that is, if the difference between the number of votes given to the candidate with the most votes and the number of votes given to any other candidate at the election is 2% or less of the total number of votes cast in Singapore, excluding rejected votes and tendered votes, at the election. With the amendment, the Returning Officer must carry out a recount of the votes if the criterion for recount is met. This will avoid unnecessary delays to the recount process.

Clause 15 inserts new sections 36DA and 36DB to deal with the loss or destruction of ballot boxes. If any sealed ballot box containing votes cast at a polling station, whether in Singapore or overseas, is lost or destroyed while it is being transported from a polling station to a counting place, the Returning Officer must, first, abandon the counting of all the votes cast at the affected polling station, and this includes the votes cast at the affected polling station that were not in the lost or destroyed ballot box; and second, re-start the poll for the affected polling station if it will be material to the outcome of the election.

The third category of amendments is being made to the Act to align the Act with certain provisions of the Parliamentary Elections Act relating to election advertising, publication of election survey results and exit polls. Clauses 17 and 18 insert new sections dealing with those issues.

Clause 24 makes consequential amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act in relation to the registration of overseas electors. The consequential amendments are mainly to section 13A of that Act. The time within which an elector has to register as an overseas elector or apply to change the overseas polling station allotted to the elector is being extended to two days after the Writ of Election. This will give overseas voters more time to register or change their allotted polling station.

Madam, that covers all the legislative amendments. As I highlighted earlier, I would also like to make two announcements on the Presidential elections. The first is on campaign methods and the second on the date of the Presidential elections. These two areas will not involve amendments to the law or affect this Bill under consideration.

First, the Government will take up the broad thrust of the Constitutional Commission's recommendation on election campaign methods. In its report, the Constitutional Commission stated, and I quote, "Presidential candidates should be required to conduct their campaigns with rectitude and dignity as befits the office and comports with the unifying role and purpose of the Presidency."

The Government fully agrees with the Commission that campaigning for the Presidential election has to be consistent with the President's position as a symbol of national unity. The Government also agrees with the Commission that there should be a difference in the campaign methods for Presidential elections and Parliamentary elections. As the Commission said, a "Parliamentary election is a contest of ideas and policies, where candidates have to communicate their policies to the electorate and persuade voters as to the strengths of their own proposals as well as the weaknesses of those put forward by other candidates. This clash of ideas and policies makes for a lively but inevitably divisive contest."

The Commission also said, and I quote:

(a) "in contrast, candidates for Presidential elections have no policy agenda to advance";

(b) "the President plays no role in setting the national agenda nor does he make policy decisions as to the course that the nation should chart";

(c) "[t]hose are matters which properly fall within the remit of the elected Government";

(d) "there is little, if any, need for the vigorous contest of ideas that takes place during a Parliamentary election".

The Commission considered that rules could be enacted which prescribed a "white list" of approved campaign methods, such as televised speeches, and explicitly stated that it was not clear if the holding of rallies is either necessary or helpful in dealing with divisiveness.

The Government agrees with the Commission that there should be a clear distinction in campaign methods for Presidential elections and Parliamentary elections. Campaign methods for the Presidential elections must not inflame emotions and must be in keeping with the decorum and dignity of the office of the President, given the important unifying and custodial roles of the President.

The possibility of changes to campaign rules was raised at the end of the debate on the constitutional amendment Bill last November. What was clear is that there is support from both sides of this House that campaigning for Singapore's Presidency should be depoliticised and fundamentally different from campaigning during Parliamentary elections. The Government agrees with the Members of this House on our shared goal to differentiate the campaigning methods of the Presidential Elections from that of the General Elections.

As Presidential elections are contested on a national level and not on a local constituency level, we will encourage the use of platforms and channels that reach out to voters at a national level. Television enables candidates to have wide national reach, and to broadcast their messages more effectively to the entire nation. At the last Presidential Election 2011, there were individual campaign broadcasts and a televised forum. To help candidates reach out to voters, the Government will increase the amount of television airtime for candidates and study different options to achieve this.

Candidates can also use the wide array of social media platforms to reach voters. They can also hold indoor private sessions to engage specific groups of voters. The format of such indoor private sessions is up to the candidates themselves.

The Government will no longer designate any rally sites during Presidential elections. This is in line with the Government's and Constitutional Commission's position not to encourage rallies, which, by their nature and format, may be divisive and not congruent with the unifying role of the Elected Presidency.

Nevertheless, candidates who wish to hold rallies may still do so. They will have to apply to Police for a permit. Police will assess the application based on public order and security considerations. As there will not be any designated and pre-security assessed rally sites, Police may require slightly more time to evaluate applications to hold rallies. Even though this can be announced closer to the start of the application process, the Government is announcing it early for transparency and prospective candidates' early awareness.

My second announcement has to do with the election period for the Presidential elections. With your permission, Mdm Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute the second handout?

Mdm Speaker: Yes, please. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

Mr Chan Chun Sing: The current President's term of office expires on 31 August 2017. In the past, polling day typically fell on the last week of August. In 2011, the writ was issued in the first week of August. Campaigning began after National Day and was conducted during the month-long National Day celebrations. Given the slightly longer time required for the new process and to avoid holding Presidential election campaigns during the National Day celebrations period, we will adjust the timing of the polls for the forthcoming elections.

The Government will issue the writ for the election later in August, before President Tony Tan's term expires on 31 August 2017 so that if the election is contested, polling day will take place in September instead of August. This resets the clock, so that, in future, Presidential elections campaigning will take place outside of the National Day period, assuming Presidents serve their full six-year terms.

We have been advised by the Attorney-General that there can be an interval between the expiry of the incumbent's term and the assumption of office by the new President. If a new President is not elected by the time President Tony Tan's term expires on 31 August 2017, Article 22N of the Constitution provides for an acting President until a new President is elected and assumes office. The Constitution provides for the Chairman of the Council of Presidential Advisers or, if he is unavailable, the Speaker, to be the acting President. The acting President, it should be made clear, cannot exercise the functions of the President under Article 22N indefinitely. We have sought the Attorney-General’s Chamber’s (AGC) advice on this proposal to adjust the timing of the polls for the Presidential elections this year. AGC has confirmed that this can be done under the current laws.

Some Members might ask why the Government cannot simply extend the current President's term to deal with the adjustment to the campaigning period. According to Article 20 of the Constitution, the new President shall hold office for a term of six years from the date on which he assumes office. We cannot extend President Tan's term beyond six years unless we amend the Constitution.

The period during which the acting President shall exercise the functions of the office of President should not exceed one month, from 1 September 2017 to the date of assumption of office by the person declared elected as President.

Madam, let me now say a few words in Malay and Mandarin.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Over the past year, we have received a range of useful feedback from the Malay community and other Singaporeans on the amendments to the elected Presidency. I am pleased that society, as a whole, understands the objectives and rationale behind the proposed amendments.

We want to maintain and protect our multiracial society because this is what makes Singapore unique. We want to preserve meritocracy because it is a crucial concept to Singapore. Singapore is a country where anyone can fulfil their potential due to their own hard work and abilities, and not because of their ancestry, their connections, their race or their religion. Therefore, this system that we want to establish will carefully balance two factors − meritocracy and multiracialism. The same high standards will be imposed on all candidates regardless of race.

The upcoming Presidential election has been reserved for Malay candidates and, should there be a contest, Polling Day will be held in September. This step is taken so that the Presidential election campaign will take place outside the period of National Day celebrations. I hope that eligible Malay candidates will step forward to contest to become a Head of State that can unite our people and provide inspiration to all of us.

As a young nation, we must be bold enough to constantly adapt our institutions according to our needs. This is the spirit of our Pioneer Generation and that same spirit must always be present in future generations.

I will now continue my speech in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Last November, Parliament passed the Constitution Amendment Bill after three days of intense debate. Since then, the Government has received feedback from various sectors of society. Many Singaporeans are very concerned about how we balance meritocracy and multiracialism.

The Government is heartened to see that the Chinese community, as the majority race, has exercised maturity and showed support for the change. It demonstrated that our Chinese community uphold the values of multiracialism and inclusiveness. These values are very important to Singapore. I would like to thank the Chinese community and the community leaders for playing a critical role in this issue.

It is obviously not easy. Singapore is a young nation and our institutions and systems must be adaptable and flexible according to our needs. We should follow the example of our forefathers and do this for the future generations.

The Government agrees with the Constitutional Commission's view that the campaign for Presidential elections must be in line with the unifying role of the President. All sides of this House support that the campaigning for the Presidential election should not be politicised and should be different from the campaigning during the General Election.

In order to clearly differentiate these two elections, the Government will no longer designate any rally site during Presidential elections. Nevertheless, if candidates still wish to hold rallies, they must apply to the Police for a permit.

The Government will increase the television campaigning time during the elections. Candidates can also use social media to reach the voters. Just as before, they can also hold indoor sessions to engage specific groups of voters.

In the past, the Polling Day of the Presidential elections typically fell in the last week of August. Campaigning was conducted in August, coinciding with National Day and the National Day celebrations.

The Government feels that these two should happen separately. To prevent the clash of timings, this year's Polling Day will be in September. Our laws allow us to do this and our Government institutions are also able to handle this transition period smoothly.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, the amendments I have described today are either consequential to the constitutional amendments made in November, or to improve the processes during elections.

We are drawing closer to our first reserved elections for our President. The changes to the system have taken more than a year to be discussed and fleshed out since they were first publicly mooted. The time taken, along with the range of people that were consulted in the process, signals the Government's intent in refining the system and ensuring that the office of President is held by a person with the necessary qualities and experience to exercise the powers and duties of the highest office in the country; that the office of the President continues to reflect the multiracial nature of Singapore; and that this office continues to be a unifying symbol for all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language or religion. Madam, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.

3.41 pm

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mdm Speaker, I speak in support of the Bill. In November last year, following the report of the Constitutional Commission headed by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, we passed landmark amendments to our Constitution in relation to the elected Presidency.

One of the major changes was accepting the Commission's recommendation of the concept of a "reserved election" in the event a particular race had not had the chance to hold the office of President after five terms. This was to ensure that all the major communities would be represented in the office of elected President.

While there were differences of opinion on whether or not such a "reserved" election was appropriate, almost everyone agreed with the principle that every major community ought to be able to represent the country as President. Indeed, the critics mainly argued that such a system was unnecessary because Singaporeans were unlikely to vote along racial lines and there is no reason to institute such a system.

During my speech on the constitutional amendments, I had supported the concept of the reserved election because I believed it was a self-correcting safety net. If the critics were right that race was irrelevant, and members of each of the races were able to prevail in an open election, then this safety net would never be triggered. On the other hand, if there was no President of a certain community after five terms, then it would be triggered, and hopefully, a person of that community would come forward. In the long run, as Singaporeans get used to having Presidents of different communities, hopefully, race will matter less and minority candidates would start winning open elections, making the reserved election mechanism redundant.

This Bill before Parliament makes the consequential changes to the Presidential Elections Act to implement, among other things, the concept of the reserved election. In my speech, I will focus on these amendments, and given they are unique to Singapore, seek clarification on some of the areas that may be open to interpretation.

This Bill creates a new committee called the "Community Committee", a committee that is made up of three sub-committees, with five members from each of the Chinese, Malay and Indian and Other Minority committees. It also creates a Chairman for this Committee. The language used in the proposed section 8E of the Bill is that this committee is to be appointed by the Prime Minister on the nomination of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. For each of the committees, the Presidential Council for Minority Rights is required to consult such community organisations as it sees fit.

This is slightly unusual drafting because the typical constitutional convention is for the President to act on the advice of the Prime Minister, whereas this particular provision requires the Prime Minister to appoint based on the nomination of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights.

One clarification I wish to seek from the Minister is whether this is a decision in which it is intended that the Prime Minister is to exercise discretion, in which case it is expected that the Presidential Council for Minority Rights would put forward more than one nominee for the post as Chairman, from which the Prime Minister will select one, and more than five individuals for each of the five sub-committees from which the Prime Minister will select five. On the other hand, if the intention is to leave this decision to the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, then they may only nominate one person for the position of Chairman, and five for each of the sub-committees, in which case it appears the Prime Minister will have no discretion on this matter.

Next, let me move to a new section 8F which sets out the mechanism by which the race of a candidate is to be determined. The mechanism starts with the candidate self-declaring the community to which he considers himself to be a member. The appropriate sub-committee then decides if it agrees with the declaration. Thereafter, there is also a mechanism permitting the Committee to ask the candidate to re-apply if it is of a different opinion.

Naturally, the mechanism is left flexible to deal with the complexity of race. It is part ethnicity and part identity. Thus, a Chinese person adopted at infancy by an Indian family may grow up identifying themselves as part of the Indian community, despite their ethnicity − indeed, interracial adoptions were common, particularly during the baby boom years when parents were unable to take care of all their children.

Another issue is people of mixed descent. People of mixed descent may face more challenges and as interracial marriages get more common. Indeed, I understand the number has doubled from the last decade. This may become a more controversial issue. Would it be possible, for example, for a person of mixed heritage, say Indian-Malay, to believe they belong to more than one community? Indeed, this would be the aspiration from the perspective of racial integration and permitting dual-ethnicities is logical if the person is able to identify with both communities and is accepted by both communities, but this may mean that dual-identities may then need to be recorded.

The Bill, as currently drafted, permits a person to identify with only one community but a person who identifies with more than one community may then have to make a decision and would this person then be able to change decision if, say, the reserved election were for different community in a subsequent term? This is a problem that, perhaps, may not be faced in the immediate future because we have several terms before the next reserved election. But it is one that we should prepare for.

The reserved election for Indians and Other Minority communities, in particular, may create issues in this regard. There is a common belief that this category includes everyone who does not fit into the other categories. Thus, everyone of mixed descent might feel they belong in this category based on ethnicity, whether or not they identify with a particular community.

However, I understand the original legislative intent when this category was created for the purposes of the GRC scheme was for this category to be based around minority communities that were established in Singapore and not based purely on ethnicity. This appears to be the intention of this Bill as well since section 8F(2)(d) allows the person to declare he does not identify with any of the communities above. Thus, I believe the category "Other Minority" communities refers to a community that is established in Singapore.

This would also mean, for example, we have, say, a foreign chief executive officer from a country with no community here who gets Singapore citizenship subsequently and decides he wants to apply, he would not qualify as a member of the "Other Minority" communities' category for purposes of a reserved election, but would still be able to apply in an open election under section 8F(2)(d). I think this is fair because the purpose of this reserved election is to ensure that all of our main communities feel represented in the highest office and, if a person is not part of a particular community, then they should contest in the open election.

What this means is that the definition of "Other Minority" communities is potentially a prickly matter. What would be the factors to be taken into account in determining whether a particular community is one of the "Other Minority" communities for purposes of section 8F(2)(c) of the amendment?

I would, therefore, be grateful for the Minister's clarification that the definition of "Other Minority" communities, as a provision, is not intended to be a "catch-all" for people who do not fit into the other categories by ethnicity, but is intended to be only for those who are part of the established minority communities in Singapore. If the Minister is also able to identify, of course, without limiting which groups may fall into the category of such communities at this point in time, that may also be helpful guidance as to what considerations need to be taken into account in determining whether a person is part of one of the "Other Minority" communities.

Mdm Speaker, I am just concluding my section in English. Race is never a pleasant topic because we all like to believe that we live in a place where race does not matter. However, minorities experience disadvantages all the time and it is heartening to know that active steps are being taken to ensure minority representation is possible at all levels, including the office of President.

It is my hope that we will one day reach a stage when a member of any race can contest and win the Presidential election without the need for a reserve election, but until we get there, this is a helpful way to ensure that members of each community get a chance to prove themselves in the highest office and help us move towards that ideal. Mdm Speaker, I will say a few words in Tamil.

(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, I will say a few words in Tamil on this Bill.

This Bill marks the consequential legislative amendments to implement the Constitutional changes to the elected Presidency. One of the important features is the mechanism to ensure that all the major racial groups in Singapore will have a chance to hold this office.

While being a minority in any country has its challenges, in Singapore, steps are taken to confront the challenges wherever possible to ensure that we have proper representation. Tamil is one of the four official languages, and Singapore is one of the few places where Tamil can be used in Parliament. In Parliament, the GRC system has ensured that Malays, Indians and other minority groups have always had a place and a position to speak up.

These new changes now ensure that even at the office of President, Indians and other minorities will have a good chance to be represented. It may be some 25 years before the reserved election for Indians comes up, and it may be that if an Indian gets elected as President before that, we may not even need the reserved election, but it is good to know that we have a system in place, should it ever be necessary.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

3.52 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, in November last year, Parliament debated the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill which provided for the Presidency to continue to be an elected office and for Presidential elections to be reserved for ethnic communities. The Workers' Party rejects both these concepts and thus opposed the Bill then.

As this Bill today seeks to entrench these further, we oppose this Bill.

Lest we be misunderstood or misconstrued, I should state once again that we wish to see multiracial representation in the office of our Head of State. However, such multi-racial representation should be achieved not by way of reserved elections but by the former system of appointing Presidents. We have canvassed our arguments during the debate on the Constitution amendments and we do not intend to rehash them today.

Let me move specifically to two aspects of this Bill which are very problematic. First, how to count reserved elections and, secondly, the eligibility criteria of candidates from the private sector.

First, how to count reserved elections. Clause 3 introduces a new section 5A that to determine whether an election is reserved under Article 19B of the Constitution, one has to refer to the new Schedule. The Schedule sets out a table showing President Wee Kim Wee as the first President to be counted. Together with the subsequent presidential terms of President Ong Teng Cheong, two terms of President SR Nathan and one term of President Tony Tan, these formed five terms where a non-Malay President was in office. Thus, the Government reaches the conclusion that this year's Presidential election will be reserved for Malays.

Madam, this is a conclusion that has left Singaporeans bewildered and suspicious. To recap, during the November debate, the Prime Minister told the House for the first time that the Government had received advice from AGC on how to apply the hiatus-triggered mechanism for reserved elections, that is, which President's term to count from. We were told that the advice was that counting should begin from President Wee Kim Wee, who was the first President to exercise the powers of an Elected President. This advice was surprising and illogical to many Singaporeans, given that President Wee Kim Wee was never elected to office. When I asked Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean then whether the Government would publish the AGC's advice for Singaporeans to better understand the reasoning, the Government appeared reluctant to do so and even asked me whether I was suggesting that the Prime Minister was not being truthful.

There has been a lot of public reaction to the announcement that this year's Presidential election would be reserved for Malay candidates. After the last Presidential elections six years ago, Singaporeans are right to be sceptical about the Government's motives now. In 2011, Dr Tony Tan was the Government's preferred choice but had to fight off three other candidates, scrapping through to victory with a mere 35.2% of the popular vote and a razor-thin margin of 0.35%. For the next Presidential election, we hear a sudden announcement by the Government that it would be reserved for Malay candidates based on reasoning which is totally unconvincing. How many people really believe that the Presidential election this year is reserved for Malays to ensure minority representation and why now?

Madam, three months have passed since that debate. I have been reflecting on the decision to use President Wee as a reference point. I realise that this decision to count from President Wee was not a matter of getting legal advice to interpret any existing laws. If one looks at this Bill and the Schedule, the Government is asking Parliament to simply make it the law that President Wee is the first one to be counted. Why not count from the first Elected President, Mr Ong Teng Cheong? Is it because if President Ong was the first one to be counted, we would have to go through this year's elections as an open election and risk the contest by Chinese or Indian candidates who may not be to the Government's liking? Is the decision to count from President Wee not an arbitrary and deliberate decision of the Government to achieve a desired outcome?

Next, eligibility criteria for private sector candidates. Clause 3 also introduces a new section 5C which deals with the eligibility criteria for Presidential candidates from the private sector. Section 5C touches on the definitions of shareholders' equity, profit after tax and insolvency events. These definitions are needed due to the new requirement for candidates to have run companies of shareholders' equity of at least $500 million which have been profitable. But what does section 5C provide? Basically, nothing but to say that Parliament is delegating its legislative authority to the Minister to make regulations.

Madam, as a general principle, Parliament can delegate its legislative power to a Minister to make rules, and regularly does so for matters of a technical or more operational nature. But what disturbs me is that these definitions are not just technical or operational. These definitions would determine who gets to run for President. More importantly, if one refers back to the Constitution (Amendment) Bill passed in November, it was provided in the new Article 19(6) that it is the Legislature that is supposed to specify how the PEC is to determine the value of shareholders' equity and profit after tax, and it is the Legislature that is supposed to specify what constitutes an insolvency event. Since the Constitution entrusts these specific matters to the Legislature to deal with, it is not right for Parliament to simply delegate this responsibility to the Minister to do so. Parliament should not abdicate its responsibility and give a blank cheque to the Government to draw up these definitions.

Madam, as I mentioned at the start of my speech, the Workers' Party opposes the Bill. We will later call for our dissent to be specifically recorded.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Thomas Chua.

3.59 pm

Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng (Nominated Member) (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, the President is the symbol of our country and has to unite all Singaporeans regardless of race, language or religion, working together for the country's prosperity and progress. I have three suggestions with regard to the amendments to the Presidential Elections Bill.

First, regarding the neutrality and fairness of the selection process. New conditions have been included in the eligibility criteria, including the ethnic Chinese, all candidates need to submit a community declaration to a 16-member Community Committee, and they can only be considered eligible for an election after their ethnicity has been confirmed. The 16 individuals are the so-called inspectors during the election process. Hence, the selection of the committee members should be done with great care.

Notwithstanding their ethnicity, these 16 individuals must be equipped with fundamental qualities, such as values, character, capabilities and, especially, good standing in their particular ethnic community. Ideally, they should not belong to any political party; some should have served a long time in community organisations or business chambers. They should be familiar with social matters and have opportunities to interact with people from various backgrounds and have a wealth of experience in community engagement.

They should belong to different age groups and should have young people among them. New media is now predominant, and the presentation and rules of the game vary greatly between the real world and the virtual world. To include in the Committee young people with stable values, who are conversant with Internet technology and have an interest in social issues, will enable their views to wield more influence in every sector of society and in the new media.

As for the other criteria for members of the Committee, I hope the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) will consolidate the feedback from the community at large before deciding on a complete set of criteria.

Second, interracial marriages. Singapore is a multiracial society. Interracial marriages and bringing in new immigrants will bring about ethnic integration. This is a good thing. Winning the respect of the community depends on one's character and behaviour. If there is an outstanding individual who has superlative abilities and is willing to serve the society, even if his or her parents are of different ethnic groups, surely both communities will be proud of him or her. Likewise, if a person has reprehensible character and conduct, no group will find him acceptable. We have to pay attention to the selection process of the Presidential candidates. Besides ethnicity, character and capability are even more important. Thus, should there be any candidates originating from interracial background participating in the next presidential election, I hope the Committee could give careful considerations when confirming the community that they belong to, to avoid losing talents.

The third suggestion is to extend the nomination and campaign period. From our first elected President Mr Wee Kim Wee onwards, none of our five Presidents was a Malay. Hence, the next Presidential election will be reserved for Malay candidates. Being a Chinese, I am not familiar with developments within the Malay community and there are many Chinese voters like myself. During the last Presidential election, I took a taxi to the airport. On the way, the taxi driver said something which has left a deep impression on me. He said, "The President has to represent Singapore to meet leaders of different countries and his photograph will be hanging on the wall for five years. His wife's photograph will also be displayed for five years. Thus, we cannot make a hasty decision. We must elect someone who is pleasing to the eye." While this may sound simplistic, it does reflect the views of the general public towards the Presidential election.

Presidential elections and Parliamentary elections are very different. Many of the candidates who run for General Elections have served in the grassroots for a long time and have had direct interactions with the voters. Some newer candidates have also been mentored by senior Members of Parliament (MPs) and have an all-rounded understanding of the roles, responsibilities and the working process. The number of MPs is large and they are from diverse backgrounds as well, enabling them to get the support from voters of different backgrounds.

However, there is only one President. Moreover, for the coming election, the candidates can only be a Malay. If the election period is short, many may not be interested in the election because they are not familiar with the background of the candidates. Whether the President can command the respect and admiration of all Singaporeans and can unite Singaporeans to forge a better tomorrow, could be a question mark. Hence, I suggest that due to the unique nature of the next Presidential election, the nomination and election period should be extended, allowing more people to understand the background of the candidates. I believe that gold will always shine and talent will always obtain trust. However, as the issue pertains to the population at large, they do need time to understand the candidates.

Mdm Speaker, with regard to the Elected President system, the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCCI), the Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SMCCI) and the Singapore Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SICCI) have arrived at a consensus. We feel that meritocracy and multiracialism are the two pillars of Singapore's success. Singapore's style of government has been tried and tested over the years. The business community is most concerned about social stability and racial harmony; only then can economic growth be ensured. Hence, I support the amendment to the Presidential Elections Bill and hope that it can be refined continuously.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

4.07 pm

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, the Workers' Party opposes this Bill. The Workers' Party believes that Singapore is best served by an appointed President and a system that will allow the Government to appoint a President regardless of race or religion.

One of the most significant aspects of this Bill is the establishment of a Community Committee which ensures that, in a reserved election, only persons who see themselves as belonging to a particular community for which the election is reserved, qualify to stand for the Presidential election.

As the PEC and, by extension, the Community Committee's decisions are not justiciable in a Court of law, Parliament is effectively the last place for Singaporeans to gain an insight into how the Community Committee and sub-committees will operate in practice, and how decisions are made by these committees in reserved elections will be the focus of my speech.

Clause 8(g) is scant on details as to how the relevant Community Committee/sub-committees will assess a potential candidate as to whether he or she is a member of a particular minority community. With the prospect of reserved elections for minorities, it should be reasonable to assume that the Government expects form to follow function. It cannot be the Government's intention that a bare declaration that a candidate considers himself or herself to be part of a particular community as stated in clause 8(f) would carry overwhelming weight for candidature to the highest office in the land.

To this end, clause 8(g)(4) states that the Committee must be guided by the merits of the application by a prospective Presidential candidate. But what defines a meritorious application and on what basis will an application be deemed so? What factors are assessed to determine if an applicant sees himself or herself as a member of particular community?

To begin with, and in step with the Government's decision to institute reserved elections, the Government must concede that language is an important criterion that is intricately tied to race. To that end, does a minority applicant's language abilities in his or her Mother Tongue matter to the relevant community sub-committees the same way it does for Singaporean students through their educational journey? Would an applicant be expected to have passed his or her Mother Tongue at the GCE "O" and "A" levels? For example, should a Presidential candidate who sees himself as part of the Indian community pass muster if he or she can barely get by in Tamil or the other Ministry of Education-recognised Indian languages? Can the Minister confirm if language proficiency is a consideration for the Community Committee and, if it is not, why not?

Secondly, the President's spouse is, for all intents and purposes, a customary but central part of the Presidency, reflected most vividly with the portraits of both the President and First Lady prominently displayed in all Government buildings. Former Speaker of Parliament, Mr Abdullah Tarmugi, put it differently when he told The Straits Times about his possible candidacy in the upcoming reserved Presidential elections, and I quote, "I will be lying if I say that friends have not been asking me about it… If you look at the people who qualify, it is not that big a pool… I have got to think of my own preferences, my life, my family and my privacy. This is not a journey I take myself." The last point is worth repeating and it needs to be stressed: This is not a journey I take myself".

On that note, has the Government deliberated whether the background of an aspiring President's spouse is a factor for the Community Committee's consideration in assessing whether that applicant is a member of a particular community? For example, in the case of an interracial marriage, what if the spouse of the applicant does not see himself or herself to be part of the Indian community whereas the aspiring Presidential candidate does? What if a spouse has converted to Islam in order to marry but does not partake in the practices of the faith?

Mdm Speaker, these questions are central to the symbolic role of the President as a unifier of the country and even more so after the Government has determined that some Presidential elections ought to be reserved for specific races. Should there be residual doubts about how the Community Committee makes its decisions, the presidency could be anything but a unifying office not just for Singaporeans in general but the respective minority race in particular.

A third aspect of the Community Committee I wish to clarify with the Minister is whether the Community Committee would expect an applicant to be active in community work and what this entails. This expectation has also been referred to by one academic who was quoted in the media as saying that if an applicant has not been, and I quote, "in the public eye, and is not active in community work, it is much harder to make the case for seeking election to the highest office of the land." What are the expectations of community service amongst the candidates and, if so, are the expectations the same with regard to all four classes of candidates, namely, public sector, public sector deliberative track, private sector and the private sector deliberative track?

Fourthly, during the recent debate on the Constitution, one People's Action Party (PAP) MP suggested that the presidency ought to be reserved for individuals born in Singapore. The Government did not address this point during the debate but perhaps it can today. Can the Government at least affirm that the PEC shall not issue a certificate of eligibility to any male candidate who has not performed two years of National Service? This would be in line with the reality that National Service brings Singaporeans of all races together towards a common purpose and would serve as an important foundation for the life experience of any future President.

Fifthly, Mdm Speaker, I take the position that because minority candidates are likely to be few to begin with, many candidates are likely to enter Presidential elections through the public sector track or public sector deliberative track rather than the more stringent private sector track with its $500 million threshold. This may render hollow the Government's claims that it is not relaxing the criteria to make it easier for minorities to assume the presidency as a result of the latest constitutional changes. If so, the more accurate statement would be that the stringent private sector requirements simply do not apply for public sector track or public sector deliberative track candidates, minority or otherwise. What this point does reiterate however, is the importance of the Government sharing what criteria would be used by PEC to determine if a public sector deliberative track minority candidate qualifies for candidature as President in the first place.

Finally, the idea of race poses other considerations in certain cases of reserved elections involving public sector track or public sector deliberative track candidates. For example, in the case of Mdm Speaker, should the hon Speaker decide to stand as a candidate, what happens to the very existence of Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC which, by law, requires a Malay MP as one of its political representatives in Parliament? Should it be passed, does this Bill herald a new precedent in marked contrast to the scenario in Jurong GRC some years ago when the late PAP MP Mr Ong Chit Chung passed on?

Does the Bill and the prospect of reserved Presidential elections change the Government's thinking on the question: will a by-election be called in a GRC when the minority member of a GRC steps down to contest in a Presidential election? Can the Government set out its position on this matter in light of the introduction of reserved Presidential elections?

Mdm Speaker: Mr Chen Show Mao.

4.15 pm

Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied): Madam, the Constitution (Amendment) Bill last November effected changes to the Constitution relating to our Elected Presidency. This Bill proposes to put in place nuts and bolts to give effect to these changes and to improve election procedures. Today, I ask about election procedures.

Clause 15 of the Bill proposes to abandon the counting of ballots cast at a polling station if one of the ballot boxes is lost or destroyed in transit from the polling station to a counting centre, and to restart the polling, if necessary. In this connection, I would like the Minister to confirm if the smallest unit to which electors are allotted in our Presidential Election is the ballot box, a unit smaller than the polling station. If so, I would like to make the following points on election procedures.

On the abandonment of counting, the Bill provides that in the event a ballot box is lost or destroyed in transit, the counting of all the votes cast at the affected polling station, including the votes cast that were not in the lost or destroyed ballot box, would be abandoned. The voting for the affected polling station would be restarted if the difference in the vote count of the two leading Presidential candidates, without counting the votes cast at the affected polling station, is less than the sum of: (a) the total number of electors allotted to the affected polling station and entitled to vote in the election; and (b) the total number of overseas electors entitled to vote in the election.

If electors are allotted to the level of ballot boxes, should we not provide that any re-vote would take place only if the total number of electors affected by the lost or destroyed ballot box, rather than the entire polling station, proved material? In other words, why not limit as much as we can the electoral impact of any lost or destroyed ballot boxes?

In the last Presidential Elections of 2011, the difference between the ballots cast for President Tony Tan and Dr Tan Cheng Bock was just some 7,000 votes. It is not unreasonable to expect that fewer than 4,000 electors allotted to an affected polling station and another 4,000 electors registered to vote overseas, would trigger a re-vote at the polling station in a close election under the proposed amendments. Why give leverage to persons who tamper with the ballot boxes seeking to influence the results of our Presidential Elections? Why amplify their powers to do so in close elections?

The restart of polling. How about the manner in which the polling would be restarted once it has been determined that the affected number of votes is material? Currently, in a different context, our laws provide that polling may be abandoned and restarted on another day in our Presidential or Parliamentary Elections in the case of riot or open violence, storm, flood, fire, fire, health hazard or some other difficulties in the physical conduct of voting. In such cases, our laws provide that the abandonment and the restart of polling must be carried out in the prescribed manner and among other things, only those electors who "have not already voted", shall be entitled to vote when the polling restarts. In contrast, in the Bill before us today, it is not clear to me if electors who have voted at the polling station and whose ballots remain available for counting because they are not in the lost or destroyed ballot box, whether they would also vote again when polling restarts in this case.

Instead, the Bill says, "The Minister may prescribe the manner in which the abandonment of the counting of votes, the restart of polling, or the counting of votes is to be carried out". Does this mean the Minister would have the discretion to decide whether all electors allotted to the affected polling station would vote again upon the restart of polls, or limit the re-vote to only the electors allotted to the lost or destroyed ballot box? And if the Minister indeed has that discretion, is that not too much discretion, especially in a close election?

Mdm Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.

4.20 pm

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mdm Speaker, allow me to begin in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Following the Prime Minister's announcement early last year about the proposal to review the Elected Presidency, a Constitutional Commission was formed to study this matter. This Commission submitted a very detailed Report and suggested several changes. The Report was then studied by the Government, which also produced a White Paper as its response to the Report.

The issue of the review to the Elected Presidency was intensively debated within and outside of Parliament. After three days of debates in Parliament, amendments to the Constitution that made changes to the Elected Presidency were passed.

We have now reached the stage where we amend the Presidential Elections Act. In general, I support this amendment. Nonetheless, I feel that it is important for us to think about the fundamental issues that were raised during the debates on the Elected Presidency. Regardless of any view on this matter, we cannot deny that the discussions that we had together as one people have sparked an awareness about the important things in our lives within a multiracial society. We have not reached the ideal state where everything is perfect, and the efforts to forge interracial relations is a work-in-progress, especially in the context of an ever-changing world. We can see the challenges in other countries, and we need to prepare our people to overcome those challenges.

Here, I would like to take the opportunity to echo what was stated by Minister K Shanmugam recently. During a discussion at the symposium organised by the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), he asked that Singaporeans, as a society, remain committed in protecting our minorities. He also spoke about how minorities should also play their part and not become exclusive. This view is stated in the context of discussing the issue of xenophobia and extremist views.

However, I feel that this message shows how important it is for us to always be sensitive and conscious of the collective responsibility to continue efforts to strengthen interracial relations. This is our shared responsibility. Therefore, although we may have different views on other issues, we can come together and resolve to preserve our identity as a multiracial society.

(In English): Following the Prime Minister's announcement on the proposal to review the Elected Presidency, an independent Constitutional Commission conducted a thorough review which culminated in a very detailed report. This report not only gave me an insight into the diversity of views on the matter, but also a better understanding of the Elected Presidency in Singapore.

In the wake of the Government's White Paper in response to the Constitutional Commission Report, I engaged in numerous discussions with many Singaporeans on the issue in my personal capacity, and as well as an MP. I had shared my reflections and observations during the debates at the Second Reading of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. After a very intensive debate during that Reading, the Bill was passed, and we are already now looking at the specific amendments in the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill.

I stand in support of this Bill. I just have several clarifications and observations which I wish to make.

Firstly, I refer to clauses 8G and 8H, in particular, 8G(4d) and 8H(9). I also note clause 8J. I would like to seek a clarification on whether there will be an opportunity for an applicant to present further facts to the Community Committee or the sub-committee in the event the applicant's application for a community certificate is rejected. In particular, clause 8H(9) appears to suggest that the applicant may not make another community declaration upon rejection except on the invitation of the Community Committee. Can the applicant request for a further invitation?

Secondly, I would like to recap the findings and proposals made by the Constitutional Commission on the rules governing election campaigns for the Presidency. The Commission had, among other things, proposed that there be rules to regulate campaigning methods, with a view to tempering divisiveness of the election process and ensuring that campaigning remains consistent with the role of the President as a symbol of national unity and which preserves the dignity associated with the highest office of the land.

The Commission had also proposed that certain laws be enacted for candidates to make explicit declaration on their understanding of the constitutional role of the President, make it an offence for candidates to make promises or take positions that are incompatible with the office of President and impose a regime of sanctions. I see merit in the proposals made by the Commission to avoid divisive campaigning and giving misinformation about the President's role to the public. I, therefore, welcome and am happy to note the amendments that clause 6, with regard to the statutory declarations required of the candidate, and clause 17 on election advertising. I am also happy to hear that there will be some adjustments made to allow for more national airtime for the Presidential candidates. These are useful measures in the right direction to regulate campaign conduct.

In conclusion, I wish to highlight that in the course of our discussions on the Elected Presidency, there was an awareness that we could do better in maintaining our race relations in Singapore. We are not race-blind, we are not there yet. The discussion on minority representation for the Elected Presidency system has created an openness to talk about something that used to be perceived as a sensitive topic, such as race. It made us a bit uncomfortable to think about the current state of affairs but it had pushed us to think about issues a bit more.

What is heartening for me is that at the core of the discussions is a great desire to see Singapore embrace its multiracial, multicultural and multi-religious identity. There was a firm acknowledgment of our commitment to make Singapore a place for all races, and I think this is worth reflecting on and would be a galvanising force to rally people to decide on what is best for Singapore.

We should continue to take positive steps to work towards our vision of being race-blind. I believe that with the continued effort, we can and will make Singapore a place where the people remain united, regardless of race or religion. Mdm Speaker, I support this Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.45 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.28 pm until 4.45 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.45 pm

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Debate resumed.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.

4.45 pm

Mr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. When I was in London late last year, I had the opportunity to have dinner with some MPs of the United Kingdom (UK) from both the Labour and Conservative parties. Some of them were ex-Ministers. Some have been MPs for decades. We discussed several issues, including why the majority of UK's European Union (EU) Referendum's opinion polls were wrong.

Many reasons were cited, including the following: (a) opinion polls predicted that the majority of UK residents would vote against Brexit to stay in the EU. But these results were skewed as a significant group of the Brexit camp did not voice their true opinions in the surveys. They did not want to be perceived as being anti-EU when the mainstream media and experts were saying otherwise; (b) this lulled the "Remain" camp into a state of complacency and many chose not to vote, thinking it would be a safe result.

In short, opinion polls are very prone to errors. More importantly, the opinion poll results clearly affect the behaviour of the voters before polling day. History repeated itself when the majority of the opinion polls in the United States had predicted a win for Mrs Hillary Clinton but Mr Trump won surprisingly and convincingly.

These are the reasons why I support the insertion of sections 60B and 60C under clause 18 to ban election surveys and exit polls for the period between the issuance of Writ of Election and the close of all the polling stations on the polling day of the election. Election surveys are exciting, newsworthy and lucrative to the companies that conduct the survey but may not be helpful. In fact, it may be harmful. However, the British MPs disagreed with me. The British and Americans are so used to election surveys that it would be hard to ban them.

For Singapore, it is best not to start having election surveys. This is a uniquely Singapore phenomenon, and so is the reserved election.

Next, I would like to move on to the proposed amendments in section 9 of the Bill under clause 6 which proposes that every hopeful Presidential candidate has to declare in his nomination papers that "he understands the President's role under the Constitution, including any particular aspect of the President's role stated in the prescribed form."

I would like to clarify with the Minister: which aspects of the President's role would be stated in the prescribed form, which the candidate is expected to understand? When would the prescribed form be released to the public? Why is there a need for an additional requirement? What would be the consequences if a Presidential candidate, during his or her campaign, says things or makes election promises that contravene certain aspects of the President's role under the Constitution? Would the candidate be disqualified during the campaign or after the campaign when the candidate has already won the election? Or would the candidate be able to get away with a fine only after polling day?

For that matter, I had wanted to ask what would be the changes to the election rules that govern the Presidential Election prior to the Minister's speech during the Second Reading. I am glad that the Minister has made two announcements regarding the Presidential Election, especially the election rules. It is a worthy move that makes it more transparent, upfront and give all stakeholders ample time to clarify, adapt and comply.

Mdm Speaker, please allow me to continue my speech in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, the President holds the highest office in Singapore. Hence, the Presidential elections should be different from local elections. The Presidential candidates need to reach as many Singaporeans as possible within a short period of time, and the best channel is through TV broadcast. Just as I was pondering asking the Minister when the new election regulations would be announced, Minister Chan revealed them at the Second Reading. It came unexpectedly. However, I am glad that he has made the announcement early to make it more transparent and fair. It also allows potential candidates to have ample time to prepare.

I noted that the Minister did not specify the frequency of the TV broadcast. Since TV broadcast will be the main channel by which the candidates can reach the voters, the TV broadcast frequency should at least be doubled, compared to the last Presidential Election. At the same time, there should be at least two live telecast debates among the candidates so as to give Singaporeans enough opportunities to assess the candidates' capabilities and persuasiveness. I hope the Minister can consider this suggestion.

In today's digital age, the candidates can always go online and use various social media platforms to reach the voters. Although TV broadcast and online communications allow the candidates to engage the voters extensively, many Singaporeans would still prefer to see the candidates in person. Certainly, the candidates could go to shopping malls or hawker centres during peak hours to meet and talk to Singaporeans. However, there remain space and environmental constraints. I would like to ask the Minister, under the new regulations, whether the candidates can apply to hold rallies at large sites, such as the Singapore Indoor Stadium, to have face-to-face dialogues with the people. If that is permissible, I hope that the Police can simplify the application procedures.

I understand that it is not possible for the candidates to meet every voter face to face. Nonetheless, I hope that under the new election rules, Presidential candidates could still have the option to access large sites for the purpose of having live interaction with the masses.

We know that the coming Presidential election will be reserved for the Malay community for the first time. If we follow the previous election schedule, polling day may conflict with the Hajj period. This will not be very wise. For this reason, I support the proposal to postpone the polling day of the Presidential election.

I also have some questions regarding the functions and responsibilities of the Acting President. When Dr Tony Tan steps down as the President on 31 August 2017, the Chairman of the Council of Presidential Advisers will assume the role of the Acting President, until the new President is elected in mid or end September. Does the Acting President have the same powers as the Elected President? If so, some critics might have conspiracy theories that the Government will, in this interim period, ask the Acting President to approve the use of the Reserves or make key appointments such as the Police Commissioner or Chief Justice.

To be sensible, there is no need to rush to access Past Reserves or to appoint key Government officials so hastily. So, I hope that the Minister can assure us that the Government will not ask the Acting President to exercise his custodial powers during the September transition period. This is to preempt such rumours from surfacing in the first place.

(In English): In summary, I support the Bill and I applaud the early announcement on the changes to the election rules of the Presidential Election. However, I hope that the Minister can clarify the purpose of asking the Presidential candidate to declare their understanding of the President's role as stated in the Constitution and the implications of the declaration.

At the same time, I hope that the Minister could ensure that Presidential candidates are not denied the opportunity to meet the masses face to face during the campaign period. Lastly, I would like the Minister to assure Singaporeans that the Government would not exploit the potential weakness of the system during the September period before the next Elected President takes office.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

4.54 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, I stand in support this Bill. However, I would like to seek a few clarifications and also offer some suggestions.

I hope that the decision-making process of the Community Committee can be transparent. I trust that the Community Committee will carry out its functions in a fair and equitable manner. Hence, there should be no issues and difficulties in allowing the decisions and processes to be transparent.

In today's liberal social media where opinions and questions are openly raised and disseminated, it would be advisable for the Government to provide answers and clarity, before doubt and misinformation cloud the minds of people. To this end, the Community Committee should be transparent in its processes. May I suggest that the Community Committee inform the declarant as to why the Community Committee concluded that the declarant is not a member of the particular Community that he or she has declared to be of?

I have as well additional reasons for suggesting why the Community Committee should reveal the reasons that guided it to the conclusion to reject a declaration form.

First, the declarant does not appear to have any recourse if he or she believes the decision made by the Community Committee is incorrect or unjustly concluded. As per section 8J(2), the Community Committee's decision is final and not subject to any appeal or review by the Court. Further, the Community Committee is granted very comprehensive immunity as well, subject to the exception of malice, which is a high threshold to satisfy in a procedural or administrative context.

Secondly, unless invited by the Community Committee, the declarant may submit his or her form only once. Hence, it would be considerate to produce the reasons behind the rejection in order to demonstrate that the Community Committee considered the form and relevant documents or evidence rigorously and fairly in an application where the declarant has probably only one chance.

Thirdly, the Community Committee, which is statutorily unencumbered by legal forms or evidence laws as per section 8G(4), appears to be able to make its decision with fewer considerations or constraints. Hence, it would be helpful for the declarant and the public to know of the reasons behind the rejection. This would surely help preserve the credibility of the Community Committee.

Madam, may I also seek clarifications on section 8L of the Bill? I note that the Community Committee may regulate its own procedure. Could the use of this power be clarified and what possible regulations of procedure do we envisage?

Next, I note that a defect in the appointment of any member of the Community Committee would not invalidate "any proceedings of the Community Committee". The phrase "any proceedings" appear to include decisions on accepting or rejecting a declaration form. May I know why a defect in this particular appointment should be tolerated when a strict and stringent approach has always been adopted in election matters?

Madam, ancillary to this Bill is the powers of the PEC. Like how the Community Committee determines if a person is of a particular community, the PEC functions as another gatekeeper. May I propose that PEC also reveal its reasons for rejecting any candidate for not being "a person of integrity, good character and reputation" as per Article 19(2)(e) of the Constitution? As a group of persons who are not democratically elected by the citizens of Singapore, it is only appropriate for the PEC to account to the electorate on the reasons that guided the PEC to limiting the nominees to such persons only.

Madam, I believe that the declarant ought to know the reasons behind being rejected by the Community Committee in a system where he or she probably only has one chance and where the decision is final and not subject to any appeal or judicial review. Madam, the above comments notwithstanding, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Minister Chan Chun Sing.

4.58 pm

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Madam, first, I would like to thank all the Members for speaking up on this Bill. As I emphasised at the start of my speech, this Bill makes amendments to the Presidential Elections Act that operationalise the changes that were made to the Constitution in November last year. The principles underlying the changes were passed by the House last year, and the debate on those changes have passed. This is not the place to reignite those debates. And I hope that the debate would take place on the changes in the Bill today.

With that, let me deal with the specific matters raised by the Members. These can be grouped into two broad sets of issues. The first set of issues relates to the Community Committee provisions. The second set of issues relates to the election processes. If I have time, I will cover some of the queries on the campaigning method and the timing of the election.

Let me begin with the first set of issues: the Community Committee. First, let me thank Ms Rahayu Mahzam for making the points that it is important for us to make efforts to maintain our multiracial and multicultural identity, and that we need to always take care of the rights of minorities. We will continue to work hard to ensure that each Singaporean feels cherished in our society, regardless of which community they are from.

Ms Rahayu also had a question on whether an applicant can request for a further invitation to submit a community declaration upon rejection. As the proposed new section 8H(9) points out, the invitation comes from the Community Committee and is unsolicited. An applicant cannot request for an invitation.

I also thank Mr Thomas Chua for raising two points in his speech relating to the Community Committee.

First, the Government agrees that the Community Committee has to be diverse and each sub-committee has to be representative of the community it represents. The five members who belong to the Chinese community are to be appointed by the Prime Minister on the nomination of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights (PCMR) after consulting such organisations of the Chinese community as the Council sees fit. This will ensure that the views of the Chinese community will be taken into account in the nomination process.

Second, the Government also agrees with Mr Thomas Chua that qualified persons must not face difficulties with applications for community certificates simply because they are of mixed parentage. If a citizen whose parents belong to two different communities decides to run and decides to apply for a community certificate, the relevant community sub-committee should adopt an inclusive attitude towards his application.

I would also like to thank Mr Louis Ng for the two suggestions he made in his speech. First, I agree with Mr Ng that the process should be as transparent as possible. All these are set out in regulations. We are amending this Bill first before setting out the necessary regulations governing how the PEC and the Community Committee will conduct their meetings. The regulations will also set out the process for applying for the certificates and the information to be furnished by the prospective candidates.

However, we will not be making the Community Committee release grounds as to why it decides to accept or not accept the community declaration of a prospective candidate. The Constitutional Commission suggested that we adapt the mechanism for determining a prospective candidate's community from the Parliamentary Elections Act, and the mechanism in the Parliamentary Elections Act does not require the Community Committee to release grounds. This has worked well over the years and we see no need to disturb this.

Second, Mr Louis Ng suggested that the PEC should set out its reasons for rejecting a candidate. Indeed, the Constitutional Commission said that "it would be desirable for the PEC to give reasons when it rejects applications for Certificates of Eligibility", as this will "provide a measure of transparency and accountability to the process."

However, the Commission did not think that the PEC should publicise its reasons for rejecting an application, because that could discourage persons from stepping forward to run for office, for fear of the embarrassment of being rejected in their application for a Certificate of Eligibility and then having the reasons for the rejection made public. The Commission suggested that "a more measured solution would be to require the PEC to furnish to the unsuccessful applicant its reasons for denying the Certificate of Eligibility, and to leave the applicant to decide for himself or herself whether he or she wishes to make those reasons public." The Government broadly agreed with this suggestion in the White Paper; the PEC should set out its grounds when it rejects a prospective candidate's application, but not publicise it. As this is governed by subsidiary legislation, we will proceed to amend the relevant regulations after this Bill is passed.

Mr Vikram Nair made two points in his speech. First, he asked about the Prime Minister's appointment of the members of the Community Committee upon the nomination of the PCMR. The intention under the new section 8E is for the PCMR to nominate one person for the position of Chairman and five for each of the sub-committees, and the Prime Minister will appoint them to the Community Committee accordingly.

This mirrors the approach taken with regard to the nomination of the Chairman and Members of the Malay Community Committee and the Indian and Other Minority Communities Committee by the PCMR and their appointment by the President, as set out in the Parliamentary Elections Act.

Second, Mr Vikram Nair sought a clarification that the "other minority communities" provision is not intended to be a catch-all for people who do not fit into other categories by ethnicity, but is intended to be only for those who are part of the established minority communities in Singapore. He also asked about which groups may fall into the category of such communities at this point in time.

Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean provided an answer to this in the debates on the Constitutional Amendments last November. He made clear then that the "other minority communities" refer to groups that have some degree of history, permanence and established presence in Singapore, such as the Eurasian community.

Ms Sylvia Lim made two points. First, she asked, as she did last November during the debate on the changes to the Constitution, about the advice from AGC to the Government on the counting of terms. At the same debate, Deputy Prime Minister Teo had confirmed to Ms Lim that the advice referred to by the Prime Minister in his speech was, indeed, AGC's advice, and invited Ms Lim to challenge it judicially if she thought that it was not correct advice. Ms Lim then suggested that there might be something controversial or confidential that the Government was unwilling to publish.

The Government is confident of the advice rendered by the Attorney-General. We proceeded on that basis during the debates on the constitutional changes in this House. Prime Minister Lee explained to all why we needed the hiatus-triggered mechanism, and we passed the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. We are here today to put the nuts and bolts in place for a decision made clear by the Prime Minister during the debates in November. And we will not go through this again.

Ms Sylvia Lim spoke about being bewildered. I have also gone round to solicit feedback from the public. I am rather bewildered that Ms Lim is bewildered, because I did not receive the sentiments that Ms Lim said she got. The feedback that I have received has not been like that. And if I may just make two points.

Ms Lim once again questioned the Attorney-General's advice. I am a bit bewildered by this. I would like to clarify: (a) is Ms Lim suggesting that the Attorney-General did not give the Government the appropriate advice? Or (b) that the Prime Minister has not been truthful with the Attorney-General's advice? If it is the first, then I think Ms Lim, as suggested by Deputy Prime Minister Teo, can challenge this in the Courts. But if it is the second, then I am afraid it is a very serious issue to cast aspersions on the integrity of our Prime Minister. Ms Lim is a lawyer; I am not a lawyer. You will know that when you get advice, you do not freely publicise your advice and you may have various reasons why you do not publicise all your advice. And as a lawyer, I think Ms Sylvia Lim will know this better than me. So, I think we should not impute motives on this Government or the Prime Minister.

On Ms Lim's second point, the proposed amendments state that the Minister must have regard to, to the extent that they are applicable, the prevailing accounting standards and the general law relating to the insolvency of companies. These are standards set by professionals. The Minister does not have unbridled power. And if you think about it, is this not even better than the Minister setting the rules by himself? We are adhering to the prevailing accounting standards set by the professional bodies and not by someone else outside the profession. So, if you ask me, I think this is an even stronger system than that proposed for the Minister to decide.

To give clarity and certainty, we will provide administrative guidelines to the applicants.

Mr Pritam Singh made several points. First, on language proficiency and other criteria, Mr Singh spoke about how it is up to the Community Committee to look at the prospective candidate holistically, and not home in on one factor. This is not new; it has worked well in the GRC context.

Second, as to whether the President has to be born in Singapore, we should be careful in differentiating between new citizens and those who are born in Singapore. All citizens pledge allegiance to Singapore. They are entitled to exercise their rights and are expected to live up to their responsibilities. The question of whether a new citizen is accepted as a unifying symbol of Singapore is one that should be left to the electorate to decide.

Third, constitutionally, there is no such thing as a First Lady position. There is only the President. If I may refer Members to the Hansard, in 2001, then-Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, in answering a question by Mr JB Jeyaretnam, had stated that "The First Lady is not a position enshrined in the Singapore Constitution. It is a courtesy term that has been customarily used for the wife of the President, including previous Presidents, before the Elected Presidency was created."

Fourth, Mr Pritam Singh asked about the GRC system. Mdm Speaker, I beg your indulgence. This is totally unrelated to the Bill today but, since it was raised, I will deal with it.

When Mr Goh Chok Tong moved the Motion to explain the GRC system to this House, it was done with a very clear intent to achieve two purposes.

One, it was to ensure that this House has sufficient minority Members in the House as a system. Today, we have about one-third of our House with minority Members. That is more than what you would expect proportionally from adding up the percentage of Malays, Indians and Other Minorities. So, that was the first purpose ‒ to make sure that this House has sufficient minority represented. And, over the years, we have achieved this by leaning forward and having more than the minimum that we are expected to have.

The second reason for the GRC system was to make sure that none of the parties will campaign on issues on a race/religion platform, that we will all, regardless of party lines, campaign on the basis that we are all Singaporeans, that we will not use race, language or religion for political reasons.

These were the two very clear reasons why we established the GRC system in this House. The Members of the GRC team who are elected to serve their respective GRCs are expected to serve all their residents, regardless of race, language or religion.

Mr Goh Chok Tong was further asked: if one Member of the GRC team resigns or for whatever medical reason is incapacitated, does the GRC need to hold a by-election? And the answer was given that it is no, because, recalling the two specific reasons that we set up the GRC system: one was to ensure that this House has sufficient minority representation and, given our current circumstances, we have more than what we would expect by a pure proportional representation system; two, the aim was to make sure that no parties campaigned on the issues of race, language or religion; and three, all Members of the GRC team are expected to serve all their residents regardless of race, language and religion.

Madam, I beg your indulgence. This is totally unrelated. But since it was asked, I will put on record our reply. Today, we have 25 minority Members of Parliament out of 89 elected. Even if we have one less, there are 24 out of 89, which is 27% of Parliament.

Fifth, let me talk about public sector candidates which Mr Pritam Singh raised. I do not think the public sector candidates lack experience. Whether it is a public sector candidate or a private sector candidate, they all bring with them their respective suite of experience to the office of the President. They are senior people who have been exposed to a broad range of social, economic and security issues and they would likely have managed and led substantial organisations and regularly made decisions impacting thousands, as the Commission had noted. These officers would have "experienced the contrary pulls and pressures of Government decision-making".

Before I leave this point about the process, I also want to touch on one point which Ms Sylvia Lim raised. Ms Lim, in her speech, seemed to have suggested or imputed that this Government has all sorts of short-term political objectives to amend the Constitution and put in place this new system. Can I put it to the Member that this is not the style of this Government? We are here to build for the long haul. We are here to take care of the country for the long haul. We are but stewards entrusted with the responsibility to take Singapore forward.

The changes that we have made are significant ones. We made it not because there is an immediate issue that we have to address, but we made it with a view to make sure that issues like these do not come about, especially sensitive issues on race, language and religion.

As the debate in November had highlighted, we will be very happy to be proven wrong, that one of these days we are totally race-blind as we all aspire to be; just like you and for me. But we are all concerned for the future of this country. What if we are not and what if we are wrong? Then, it is our responsibility to do what we can to build a mechanism that best allows us to overcome these difficulties should they arise. It is not for short-term political advantage. If it is for short-term political advantage, let me ask the Members of this House, if we are politicians here calculating our short-term political advantage, would we expend political capital to do this?

By any measure, any sensible people whom we can talk to, they would know, that such amendments and the moving of this Bill carry with it high political risk, if not political cost. If this Government led by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is for short-term political advantage, would we do it? Would we expend our political capital to do this? We have no need to do it now because it is not as if we have faced a problem now, but we know the day when we face the problem, we may not have the chance to discuss this calmly as we do now.

So, I would urge Members of this House not to impute perhaps our own motives on why we are doing this. We have gone through this in November and I will repeat this again. We are here for the long haul. We are here to build systems for Singapore for the long haul, not for short-term political advantage, not for the political advantage of any particular parties. We are but stewards for our nation.

Let me continue to talk about the election processes.

I would like to thank Mr Ang Wei Neng for supporting the ban on election surveys and exit polls. To Mr Chen Show Mao, the polling station is the lowest unit because voters can drop their ballot papers in any of the ballot boxes in the polling station. This is why even if one box is destroyed and the number of the voters in the polling station is material to the outcome of the election results, we will restart the polls for the affected polling station.

Let me now touch on campaigning methods.

The third set of questions were on the campaign methods for the Presidential Elections. I thank Mr Ang Wei Neng and Ms Rahayu Mahzam for speaking on this issue. Let me speak on the specific points that the Members raised. The Government believes, like the taxi driver in Mr Thomas Chua's story, that electing a President is an important matter and that voters should be informed and not cavalier in exercising their vote. This is why we have amended the Act to make sure that prospective candidates have to state that they are aware of the limits set by the Constitution on the role of the President, and they will have no excuse if they decide to mislead the electorate on the proper role of the President. The voter must vote in an informed fashion.

It would be appropriate here to discuss Mr Ang Wei Neng's question about the statutory declaration that candidates have to make, stating that they understand the role of the Elected President under the Constitution.

The Constitutional Commission cited one observer as saying that it was "misleading and a great disservice to the electorate" when previous candidates promised to pursue particular policies if they were elected into office, despite such areas not being within the constitutional remit of the President's functions. Ms Rahayu alluded to the Commission's recommendations to deal with this and said that she saw merits in the proposals. What specifically did the Commission propose?

The Commission proposed that laws be enacted, which: (a) require candidates to explicitly declare that they understand the constitutional role of the President before they may be issued a Certificate of Eligibility in the form of a statutory declaration contained within the application form for the Certificate of Eligibility (CoE); (b) make it an offence for candidates to make promises or to take positions that are incompatible with the office of President; and (c) impose a regime of sanctions where a breach of election rules, including a breach of the prohibition in (b), could give rise to a range of possible consequences, including criminal sanctions, applications to an Election Judge for declaratory reliefs, and, in appropriate extreme cases, the revocation of a candidate's Certificate of Eligibility.

Although the Commission suggested criminal sanctions, the Government has decided to take up the first proposal of requiring the statutory declaration. The statutory declaration will ensure that the candidate has applied his mind to the Constitutional limits of the Presidency. It will then be inexcusable if he deliberately chooses to disregard the limits of the Constitution and makes promises or statements exceeding this role.

Let us be very clear about this. We have put this into the rules, and I take it that anyone who runs for the Presidency should understand the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. If someone tries to bypass the letter of the law, by violating the spirit of the law, I think I leave it to the good judgement of our electorate. That means that we have to double our efforts to help all Singaporeans understand the roles prescribed for our Elected Presidency. They are the Singapore Elected Presidency and not the elected presidency of some other countries, with their own unique defined roles.

The Singapore Elected Presidency has two main roles. One, a custodial function for the Reserves and appointments of key appointment holders in the Civil Service. Two, as a unifying symbol for our nation. These are the two cleared roles for the Elected Presidency of Singapore.

We will also step up educational efforts on the importance of the institution of the Elected President. As Mr Thomas Chua and Mr Ang Wei Neng had also rightly pointed out, there are fundamental differences between the Presidential Elections and the Parliamentary Elections. This is also a point made several times in the Constitutional Commission's Report, and attempts to draw parallels between the two can be attributed to persons being ill-informed, or worse, intentionally muddying the waters. Mr Ang Wei Neng asked whether we would be increasing the airtime on national TV for candidates, and suggested two televised debates among candidates.

The Government will increase the overall national TV airtime that candidates will have to allow the candidates a wide platform to share their views with the public. During Presidential Election 2011, there were two presidential campaign broadcasts for each candidate and one TV roundtable session which involved all four candidates.

The Government will discuss the provision of additional airtime for the candidates with Mediacorp. We will consider Mr Ang Wei Neng's suggestion on at least two televised debates when we discuss the format of the additional TV time with Mediacorp. The principle that the Government will adhere to is that we will provide candidates with more TV opportunities, which again, I emphasise, will allow for more effective national outreach.

And if I may add, if you just think about it, this actually facilitates and levels the playing field for those without established mechanisms to organise large outreach for themselves. The details will be made known closer to the elections, and candidates may reach out to voters on a variety of social media platforms, as currently allowed.

Mr Ang Wei Neng asked about whether candidates can continue to meet voters face to face, and if they can organise speeches in places like the indoor stadium. The answer is yes. They can continue to conduct private election meetings at indoor locations.

A meeting is considered private if it is not open to the general public. A private meeting will not require a permit under the Public Order Act. An example of a private meeting is where it is open to only a limited number of persons who are invited by name to attend the meeting. Candidates can hold such private meetings to engage specific groups of voters. No permit from the Police is required for private meetings. Permits from the Police will be required for meetings that are open to the general public. These would include election meetings that are organised on or behalf of a candidate and held during the election period, any time on or after Nomination Day but before the eve of Polling Day.

If a candidate intends to have a meeting that is open to the general public at the Indoor Stadium, he will have to obtain a permit from the Police.

Let me now touch on the timing of the polls that Mr Ang Wei Neng has spoken about.

Mr Ang Wei Neng asked for specifics on the interim period between President Tan stepping down at the end of his term and a new President being sworn into office. During the interim, the acting President will exercise the powers of the President. According to Article 22N of the Constitution, if the office of the President becomes vacant, the Chairman of the Council of Presidential Advisers or, if he is unavailable, the Speaker, shall exercise the functions of the office of the President during the period between the date the office of President becomes vacant and the assumption of the office by the person declared elected as President. The acting President will have the powers of the President.

Mr Ang suggested that the critics of the Government might have conspiracy theories that the Government will, in this interim period, ask the acting President to exercise his custodial powers. Let me quickly put such rumours to bed.

The Government will be observing a convention in relation to the Elected President. Unless absolutely necessary, for example, in a crisis situation that requires the use of the Reserves, the Government will respect that the rationale of the Elected Presidency is for an Elected President to be the second key to the Reserves and to key appointments.

Before I conclude, let me touch on some other points raised by various Members. Mr Vikram Nair talked about people from mixed parentage. Yes, indeed, that is point that Mr Thomas Chua has also mentioned. Should there be such a person, and there would be more, we encourage the Community Committee to adopt an inclusive approach. In fact, actually, by adopting an inclusive approach, we are allowing more people to be identified with a certain community. So, actually, our approach is quite different from the approach as suggested by some other Members who want to be even more clearly defined as to who forms what community.

If I were to take the House a step back. What is the intention? And how do we meet this intent? The intent is simply this. A person identifies himself or herself with that particular community. And that community accepts that this particular person is from that community. Once these two conditions are met, the person identifies himself or herself with the community and the community accepts the person as a member of that community, then, we have pretty much met our intent. In the hiatus-triggered mechanism, it will be counted towards that community.

That community would not need to feel shortchanged because someone from that community did not represent them. Because in the intervening years, if someone has come forward to be associated with that community, and that community has accepted that person, then that community would have deemed that it has its own representative within the hiatus-triggered mechanism. We are going to adopt an inclusive approach rather than trying to define extra lines, if you like, to do this.

On Mr Thomas Chua's point about giving ample notice, and this is the reason why the Government has announced as many of the processes and procedures that we can, as early as possible, for prospective candidates to be familiar with the new processes.

Mdm Speaker, let me conclude. The changes that are being made to the Act, such as those pertaining to the Community Committee, are largely consequential to the amendments made to the Constitution that were passed by this House last November. The Government is putting in place the final pieces of the changes to the Elected Presidency. This set of amendments is the result of the review of the election processes.

Today, we are gathered here to see how best to put in place the nuts and bolts to effect what we have discussed in November. Today is not the occasion for us to reopen the debate. And actually I am a bit confused. I thought the Workers' Party's proposal last November was for a Senate, but today, it was on an Appointed President. But never mind. This is not the occasion for us to do that today. Based on what we have passed in November, this proposed set of changes is to put in place the nuts and bolts for us to effect the changes that we have agreed to in November.

I spoke at the end of my speech about campaigning methods and the timing of the Presidential Election this year. These do not require legislative changes, but the Government is of the view that we should announce them as early as possible to give potential candidates ample notice.

Finally, I am heartened to hear Mr Thomas Chua's speech that the Chinese, Malay and Indian Chambers of Commerce are in agreement that meritocracy and multi-racialism are two important pillars of Singapore's success, and this is what I have spoken about in my Malay and Mandarin speeches.

This Government has never shied away from acting decisively to strengthen the institutions of the state to ensure a better Singapore for our people. We proceed to do so because we consider this to be in the best long-term interest of our country, and we will take time to explain the changes to our people.

The Government believes that the changes to the Elected Presidency will continue to ensure that the office will be held by someone who fulfils the stringent qualification criteria, ensuring meritocracy is not compromised, and will also be held by persons of different communities, reflecting the multiracial nature of Singapore.

Throughout the entire process of consultation and changes to the Elected Presidency, the Government has always kept the end goal in mind: ensuring that the Elected President continues to play an important stabiliser role in our system, making sure that our Reserves and our key positions are not compromised, and making sure that the Presidency is not politicised, and making sure that the President continues to be, as it was from its inception in the person of Mr Yusof Ishak, a symbol of our unity for the country.

With that, Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, and urge all Members to give their support to the Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

5.32 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim: Mdm Speaker, I have four clarifications for the Minister.

The first clarification concerns the eligibility criteria for private sector candidates running for President. I do not think the Minister has addressed my point directly and that is that the Constitution (Amendment) Bill that was passed in November specifically asked Parliament to make these definitions: to define the definition of profit after tax, and also shareholders' equity. The Bill in last November also required Parliament to prescribe what amounts to an insolvency event.

But what we find in the Bill today is that Parliament is passing this job on to the Minister to do and the purported guidelines in section 5C(2) and (3) are too general. They just talked about the Minister having to have regard to the general law, to accounting standards but these definitions are not before the House today. So, I would like the Minister to comment on whether he agrees with me that, actually, Parliament is not doing what the Constitution (Amendment) Bill has asked us to do with regard to these definitions for private sector candidates.

The second clarification concerns the counting of reserved elections. I think in Parliament in November, the Government has already accused me of the things that Minister Chan Chun Sing has just repeated and I have also answered that in November to say that I am not accusing the Government or the Prime Minister of not telling the truth or that the AGC's advice was not given. My point was simply that people find it hard to understand why Wee Kim Wee counts as the first Elected President. And if the advice from the AGC is such, it would be helpful if the Government could consent to publishing it so that people can understand or try to understand the reasoning. That was the point being made.

And the Minister talked about the fact that I am a lawyer and I can understand why clients may want to have confidential communications. But the fact also remains that clients can choose to waive the confidentiality if they find that there is a purpose in publishing it. So, I am just asking for more illumination on why we are counting from President Wee Kim Wee.

The third point which the Minister made was refuting what I had said was perception of Singaporeans, including myself, that the sudden announcement to count the coming election for President as reserved is in view of what happened at the elections in 2011. I thank him for his sermon on how the Government always thinks long term but I would like to put this question which I have received from my residents which I did put in November, but I do not think I received an answer to it, and that is if the Government is not passing these laws for short-term purposes, why does the Government not agree to defer these changes for one Presidential election? Since the Minister said it is not a short-term purpose, why not? I do not recall an answer to that.

The last clarification I would like to ask the Minister is in his opening speech earlier, I think he mentioned that both sides of the House agreed in November that there should be a difference between Presidential elections and Parliamentary elections. I am not sure what he actually meant by that. From what I recall, our position has been that the Head of State, we believe, if you want him to be a unifying figure, making him go through elections is inconsistent with that. I do not think that our Members went on to suggest how the campaign rules of Presidential elections could be refined because we do not believe that the President should go through an election.

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mdm Speaker, Ms Sylvia Lim's first point on eligibility criteria. What Parliament is doing and asking the Minister to do is to make sure that whatever prevailing accountancy rules that are being practised are adhered to. That surely is better than what we here, being not in the profession, were to make a set of rules and then have it updated. I think the accountants among us, the people in the financial industry among us, will know that the conventions, rules and practices in the industry evolve. We are setting ourselves, benchmarking ourselves to these high standards that are agreed to by the professional bodies. That, I think, is an even better and stronger set of measures than us setting something in place and having to update it as regularly as what the accounting professions might be capable of.

On the second point about the reserved election, I am glad that Ms Lim has confirmed that she is not casting any aspirations on Prime Minister Lee's integrity and if that is the case then the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Teo Chee Hean, have explained in November why the counting starts from the second term of President Wee Kim Wee's term. That is because President Wee Kim Wee was the first President to exercise the powers under the new Elected Presidency Act.

On the second related point, Ms Sylvia Lim asked whether clients can choose to waive the advice and I think I have answered her, which is that, as a lawyer, the Member would know that there will be circumstances where you can choose to release the advice and you can choose not to release the advice and what we have done is no different. So, unless she is going back to challenge and casting doubt on the Prime Minister's integrity, the Prime Minister has stated on record in this House that it has taken advice from the Attorney-General. We take the Prime Minister for it and it is the Prime Minister's prerogative as to whether he wishes to release the advice as the Member has said.

On the third point about the claim that this is a sudden announcement, I would just make two points: one, we have had this debate for a very long time, for more than one year. The process was transparent. We set up the Constitutional Commission. We invited the Workers' Party and members of the public to present. The Workers' Party's position was that it would not appear before the Constitutional Commission to present its views, but it will come to this House. Last year, the Workers' Party came to this House with a proposal for a Senate. We have debated that and we have made our own conclusions and we have moved on from there. So, I do not think this is a sudden movement.

The second response to the third point that the Member mentioned, Deputy Prime Minister Teo has also shared with this House why we are making the movement now. As what the Constitutional Commission says, if there is a reason for us to act, then it is the onus of this Government to act in the best interest of this country decisively. That is why we have decided to do it in this term of Government.

On the fourth point about the bipartisan support for us to try to depoliticise this, I would just refer Ms Lim to the Hansard, to the speeches made by Mr Leon Perera and I can show them to the Member afterwards which, in so many words, agreed with us that we want a Presidency that is depoliticised. And we should find ways to do so. And the Government has taken seriously the feedback from this House and the members of the public to see how we can depoliticise the Presidency. Because his role is to serve as a stabiliser, his role is to serve the custodial functions for this country in terms of its Reserves and key appointments. His role is to unite this country.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for going through some of the points I have raised. The Minister mentioned that there would be regulations drawn up to define how the Community Committee would assess the applicants. Correct me if I am wrong in this understanding.

But there are two points that I made which the Minister did not address. One has to do with the National Service requirement and the second is how community work would be assessed. That is the first question.

The second question: I would like to press the Minister on this issue of language in the case of a reserved election. For example, if a Presidential election has been reserved for the Malay community, would it not be difficult for the Government to agree that Malay, as a language, would be an expectation of any candidate who would stand for that election, up to the level expected of students in schools in the education system?

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mdm Speaker, may I respond to the two queries from Mr Pritam Singh.

First, on the issue of citizenship, I think I will repeat my point here. Every Singaporean, regardless of whether new citizens or old citizens, make the same pledge of allegiance to this country. They have the privileges of being a Singaporean. They have also the responsibilities of being a Singaporean. As to whether they can best represent and unite Singaporeans, I think it is best left to the judgement of the Singaporean electorate. And I think Singaporeans are wise and discerning, so I do not think we need to overly prescribe this.

The question about how the Community Committee works, I think we have established precedent because this is how we have assessed the eligibility of the Malay candidates and the Indian and the Other Minority candidates for the Parliamentary elections in the past. And that has served us well and the same mechanism will continue to work.

On the issue of language, I would say that the Community Committee and the respective sub-committees will need to assess the person holistically. Yes, language will be one of the criteria. But we are also keenly aware that all of us, regardless of our race, language or religion, may practise our religions slightly differently, may live our lifestyles differently. But the key is this: do the respective Chinese, Malay and Indian sub-committees consider the person belonging to their community, as a package, holistically? That is the key point.

As to how committees work, I would not want to prescribe their roles, and it will not be my remit to comment on how they should go about doing their function. But the philosophy has never changed. The philosophy is that, as a package, do you believe that this person belongs to your community? And I believe that the people in the committees are wise enough to know how to make that judgement call, considering all the factors that the Member has mentioned.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I would just like to make a point of clarification to Minister Chan in relation to what he just said. The speeches I made in November when we had the debate on the Constitution amendment were speeches in support of the Workers' Party's position for an Appointed President, for reverting to an Appointed President and an elected Senate. They were not offering specific suggestions about campaigning procedures for an Elected President. I was not agreeing with the notion that we should continue to elect the President, and here are my suggestions for the procedures to run that campaign. It was for supporting an Appointed President. And I would make the point, since it was brought up by Minster Chan who had made the observation, that the Constitutional Commission agreed with that point as well.

Mr Chan Chun Sing: I thank Mr Leon Perera for his clarifications. I am just a bit puzzled. The Member said that the November speeches were in support of the Appointed President. Is that what he mentioned just now? I thought the November debate was about the Senate. How does the Appointed President and Senate proposals work?

Mr Leon Perera: The Workers' Party's proposal was for an Appointed President and an Elected Senate to exercise the custodial powers over Civil Service appointments and the Reserves that the Elected President currently holds. So, in fact, you are setting that out as a contradiction when there is no contradiction at all. We argued then for a reversion to an Appointed President and an Elected Senate to handle the custodial role and —

Mr Chan Chun Sing: So, can I have it on record that you are now proposing that we have an Appointed President and a Senate? Is that correct? That is correct, right? Okay.

Mr Leon Perera: Not only is it correct, it is what we have argued all along. That was what we argued in November.

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Okay. So, then let me ask this: but you would agree with me that we want a depoliticised President to the extent that our efforts can? Because your line of questioning during November was that we tried our best to have a President that can act as a unifying figure for our country. Is that correct? Do you share that perspective that we would like a President that can unify us and be depoliticised to the extent possible?

Mr Leon Perera: I certainly agree with the goal. I think we do not disagree on the goal of having a unifying President as a symbol for Singapore. But what we disagreed about is the Elected Presidency. We argued then and we argue again that an election inevitably has a tendency to politicise the office of the President. An Appointed President, like what we had in the past, with President Yusof Ishak, like what the Constitutional Commission itself called for, is a better thing for Singapore.

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Okay, I understand. So, the Member wants to appoint a President and a Senate, but as we have gone through in November, that would also have the same risk of politicisation, maybe eight times over. But we are not to go there today but what we can agree I think on both sides of the House is, as the Member has mentioned, to the extent possible, we want a mechanism, an election process that allows us to have a unifying figure and a custodial figure and that is why we have proposed the slight adjustment to the campaigning methods today and I think we can agree on that.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Madam, just to clarify once again: what the Minister just said is not correct. We do not agree to an election process for the President.

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mdm President [Laughter.] Madam, I think today is not the occasion for us to go through this again. I think we can all check the Hansard as to what was said between you and the rest of the debate. Today, we are here to put in place the nuts and bolts on how we can get an Elected President, see it working.

Mdm Speaker: Yes, Deputy Prime Minister.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Mdm Speaker, I had the privilege of answering the clarification from Mr Leon Perera towards the end of the debate and he specifically asked me whether we would consider the recommendations in the Constitutional Commission to make sure that election methods were not politicised, or election methods were such that the process was not politicised and referred to the speech made by Ms Rahayu. I do not have the Hansard with me, but I stood up and I remembered that I agreed with Mr Leon Perera that, indeed, we should look at these things and we would do so when we enact the processes within this Bill and, indeed, that is what we are doing. I am glad that Mr Perera agreed with me at that point in time.

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mdm President, I was about to — [Laughter.] Mdm Speaker, Mdm Speaker. Sorry, my bad. Mdm Speaker, just on the record, I was about to hand this to the Workers' Party. The exact quote was this, "My second question", from Mr Leon Perera, "My second question pertains to a question we have repeated a few times. What are the strategies that the Government has to mitigate the risk of politicising the unifying office of the President" and it goes on "no doubt the politicisation may not have fully materialised for the past EPs that we have but there is a good reason to believe in future Presidential elections, if let us say, there are 10 candidates and let us say the winner gets 5% of the vote and let us say the campaign ends up becoming bitterly partisan, the office of the President could be politicised." So, it goes on. And Mr Teo Chee Hean's reply was and I quote, "Turning to the risk of politicisation and a possible tightening of rules for the Presidential Elections, the risk of politicisation is that I have addressed it explicitly just now in my answer but I think what Mr Leon Perera suggests and what the Commission suggests also is to look at the rules and the way that the Presidential Elections are conducted. I think there is merit, and I agree with Mr Leon Perera there." I quote from Mr Teo Chee Hean.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Leon Perera: I thank the Minister for sharing the extract from Hansard. But I think even as your own extract makes clear, referring back to the debate that Deputy Prime Minister Teo cited, I did not support the idea of an Elected Presidency and making procedural changes to reduce the politicisation risk in the election. I and my colleagues argued for the idea of an Appointed President because we argued and we still maintain that if you have an election, inevitably, that politicisation risk will emerge. There are various scenarios. I think one of them was touched on in the extract but, inevitably, there will be that risk. You can introduce procedural changes to campaign rules and so on and so forth and Minister Chan has shared some of those procedural changes today but it will not eliminate the procedural risk, that is why we argued then and we argue now that an Appointed President, like we had in the past, like President Yusof Ishak, is the best solution for Singapore.

Mdm Speaker: Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mdm Speaker, I was very, very clear on that day. I think the Hansard speaks for itself. And when I agreed with Mr Leon Perera, he was listening to me very attentively. And we all know that Mr Perera, how shall I say, is not shy to stand up to clarify a matter if he has not agreed with it at that point in time. And at that point in time when I agreed with him that we should make processes to depoliticise the election of the President, he did not respond at that point in time.

Mr Leon Perera: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his comment, but I think the totality of all that I said during the debate does not support a position that we should have an Elected President but make procedural changes, such as the ones that have been announced today. The position that I articulated then, and I hold the same position now is that we should revert to an Appointed President because whatever procedural changes you make, you do not eliminate the political risk. So, I was not arguing that we should go down the path of procedural changes.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Can I read the record for Mr Leon Perera's clarification?

Mdm Speaker: Yes, Deputy Prime Minister. Mr Perera, you can sit down.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: And I quote, "My second question pertains to a question we have repeated a few times. What are the strategies that the Government has to mitigate the risk of politicising the unifying office of the Presidency? No doubt, the politicisation may not have fully materialised for the past EPs that we had. But there is good reason to believe in future Presidential Elections, if let us say, there are 10 candidates and let us say, the winner gets 5% of the vote, or let us say, the campaign ends up becoming bitterly partisan, the office of the President could be politicised. I have not heard any strategy from any Member of the PAP on how this can be managed". And it is quite clear, Mdm Speaker, that he is referring to electing the President.

I continue, in Mr Leon Perera's words, "I think Ms Rahayu Mahzam came closest to that and to her credit, she talked about tightening up the rules for partisanship during the Presidential Election campaign. So, what would be the Government's strategy to mitigate that? That is my second question."

And, Madam, in my reply to him, I said, "Turning to the risk of politicisation and the possible tightening of rules for the Presidential Elections, the risk of politicisation is that I have already addressed it explicitly just now in my answer but I think what Mr Leon Perera suggests and what the Commission suggests also is to look at the rules and the way that the Presidential Elections are conducted, I think there is merit and I agree with Mr Leon Perera there."

As I said, Madam, Mr Perera is not shy to stand up to disagree if he has been understood wrongly and he did not stand up to disagree with me at that point in time.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Perera.

Mr Leon Perera: During the debate, what I did call for was for the Government to explain its strategy for managing the politicisation risk and I felt that whatever had been explained up to that point in time were not sufficient safeguards to manage the politicisation risk. I alluded to Ms Rahayu Mahzam's comments as being one attempt to explain the strategy, but I pointed to the fact that there had not been a proper strategy explained at that time.

I think some of the procedural changes that have been suggested today are an attempt to manage that politicisation risk but my statements then cannot be construed to mean that I support an Elected Presidency with procedural changes. What I am saying is that an Elected Presidency inherently has that risk, there is that inevitable tendency. There was no comprehensive strategy to manage that, and you can make procedural changes, you can make tweaks here and there but, at the end of the day, an election still runs the risk of becoming politicised even if you make all kinds of procedural changes. That is why an Appointed Presidency is still a better solution and the Constitutional Commission itself actually pointed that out. My statements in the November debate did not constitute support of an Elected Presidency with procedural safeguards.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Madam, I thank Mr Leon Perera for agreeing that we should have political safeguards at that debate. He did not clarify. I thank him again for agreeing that we should have political safeguards.

5.57 pm

Mdm Speaker: I will now put the question.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Mdm Speaker.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Lim, let me just read the collection of voices first.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim, do you want to voice your dissent?

Ms Sylvia Lim: Yes, Mdm Speaker. The Workers' Party Members would like our dissent specifically recorded.

Mdm Speaker: Can you please put up your hands, for those who wish to dissent?

Hon Members Mr Low Thia Khiang, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Png Eng Huat, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Chen Show Mao, Mr Pritam Singh, Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong and Mr Leon Perera raised their hands for their dissent to be recorded.

Mdm Speaker: You may put down your hands.

Mr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member): Sorry, I have a point to make. Can I just ask if I can just voice a point that I actually —

Mdm Speaker: Mr Kok, it is over already. We have also taken the vote. You cannot go back to clarification. Clarification time is over.

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.

Question for Third Reading put, and agreed to.

Mdm Speaker: Do Members wish to voice your dissent for your dissent to be recorded?

Ms Sylvia Lim: Yes, Mdm Speaker, the Workers' Party Members would like our dissent specifically recorded.

Mdm Speaker: Can you please put up your hands?

Hon Members Mr Low Thia Khiang, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Png Eng Huat, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Chen Show Mao, Mr Pritam Singh, Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong and Mr Leon Perera raised their hands for their dissent to be recorded.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Kok, do you wish to record your dissent?

Mr Kok Heng Leun: Can I voice my abstention to this vote?

Mdm Speaker: You cannot do it. It is either you vote for or against. But do you wish to record your dissent?

Mr Kok Heng Leun: Yes, because I am still not convinced by the arguments for —

Mdm Speaker: You are not going into the merits of the Bill, Mr Kok, it is over. So, do you wish to record your dissent?

Mr Kok Heng Leun: Yes.

Mdm Speaker: Can you put up your hands again, those who wish to dissent?

Hon Members Mr Low Thia Khiang, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Png Eng Huat, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Chen Show Mao, Mr Pritam Singh, Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong, Mr Leon Perera and Mr Kok Heng Leun raised their hands for their dissent to be recorded.

Mdm Speaker: Okay, you may put down your hands. It will be recorded.

Bill read a Third time and passed.