Speech on the Second Reading of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 2022
Mr Speaker Sir, it is important to bear in mind that the aim of this bill is relatively narrow and coheres with the current policy underpinning of the relevant articles in the Constitution:
a. In the main, it serves to update the disqualification criteria concerning criminal convictions for membership for Parliament set out in Article 45 of the Constitution.
i. In this regard, what is proposed is to revise the fine quantum from “not less than $2,000” to “not less than $10,000”.
b. As a consequence, it is proposed that:
i. The disqualification criteria for a member of:
- Council of Presidential Advisers; and
2. Presidential Council of Minority Rights; as well as
ii. A candidate standing for election of the President be similarly updated.
As stated by the Elections Department in its press release, the proposed revision is to “account for inflation over the years” and ensure that the quantum “is commensurate with fines meted out for offences that are relevant to the integrity of the person…”.
a. In light of this background, unless a hon Member wishes to advocate a change in the current policy which has been in place since Independence, the proposed “light touch” amendment to the Constitution should not raise controversy.
It may be useful to appreciate the underpinning of this policy:
a. It is connected to the concept of universal suffrage; the right to vote for a candidate of his or her choice.
John Stuart Mill, a well known English philosopher, stated as follows in his 1861 essay, “Representative Government”:
“There ought to be no pariahs in a full-grown and civilised nation; no persons disqualified, except through their own default”.
Emeritus Professor Joseph Jaconelli, in his 2020 article entitled “Constitutional Disqualification” stated that whilst Mill was addressing the question of the extent of the right to vote, the same point applies to the right to stand for office. He went on to state that:
“It applies with greater force, since to provide otherwise would be to limit the range of choices available to the electorate”.
In other words, our approach is to leave decisions on the electability of a candidate to an informed electorate unless:
a. The candidate has committed a serious offence which attracts a sentence of more than one year or, as proposed in this bill, a fine of more than $10,000.
b. Even then, the automatic disqualification ceases after a 5-year period as provided for under Art 45(2) of the Constitution.
The approach in UK is similar.
a. Under its Representation of the People Act, a person will be ineligible to stand for elections if he has been convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment of one year or more.
For these reasons, I support the bill. It is fair that the electorate is presented with the widest possible slate of candidates compatible with a minimum level of checks for the integrity of the person. It is also fair that a candidate’s previous disqualification be reset after a certain period.
This bill however, relates not only to the disqualification to enter into an election, it also has an impact on the qualification to remain an MP. Currently, by default, both issues are tagged in that the same criteria applies to a sitting MP. Hence, notwithstanding my support for the bill, therefore, I feel it is necessary to sign-post for future consideration the ability of an MP to continue in his or her office upon being convicted of a criminal offence.
Just last month, The Guardian reported a case of an MP in the House of Commons who was convicted of sexually molesting a 15-year-old. He apparently did not resign immediately although it has been reported that he has since resigned.
a. We can ask ourselves — what would be the case if this happened in Singapore?
i. I dare say that a good number of Singaporeans would assume that the MP would be automatically disqualified from holding office as his conduct would have brought disrepute to the House and, quite frankly, our country too.
ii. That is not necessarily the case, however, if we look at the current provisions:
1. As I mentioned earlier, the disqualification criteria for a candidate is the same as the disqualification criteria of an MP.
2. This is provided for under Article 46 of the Constitution.
i. Hence, whether or not a sitting MP convicted of a crime will be automatically disqualified would depend on, not just his conviction, but his sentence.
- If the sentence of imprisonment is less than 1 year, then he is not automatically disqualified.
b. I did an informal survey of sentences imposed by the Court in cases reported by the Straits Times between March and April this year. I noted the following cases:
i. A S’porean male was convicted and sentenced to 1 week jail for possession of obscene videos, including child sexual abuse material.
ii. A Singaporean male who molested a female teenager by touching her soles and toes was sentenced to 2 weeks and 5 days’ jail.
iii. Another Singaporean male was convicted after pleading guilty to 5 counts of forgery for purposes of cheating involving $9.7 million. He was sentenced to 9 months’ jail.
If an MP were to have committed any one of these offences, he would not be automatically disqualified.
a. Of course, his tenure ceases automatically if he resigns from his party or if he “loses his whip”, which is Parliamentary parlance for being expelled from the political party for which he stood in elections.
b. This latter ground does not effect independent MPs, though.
There is a connected aspect to this issue which I seek to highlight.
a. For professionals such as doctors, lawyers and engineers, they would not be allowed to practice so long as they are convicted of offences that involve moral turpitude; irrespective of the actual sentences.
b. Civil servants convicted of crimes may be dismissed, reduced in rank or otherwise punished too. The standards are generally higher for uniformed officers.
c. It may be helpful for us, as a heuristic, to think of this as “two keys” — the first, a qualification to enter into the profession, and the second, a qualification to remain.
The question that arises for consideration is what should be the corresponding standard of conduct dealing with criminal convictions imposed on Singaporean politicians? That is, what should be the strength of the second key for MPs?
a. To me, this is a no-brainer.
b. Whenever we MPs enter Parliament, we receive salutes from the uniformed officers on duty.
i. This is meant to be a mark of respect for us as elected representatives of our country.
ii. Isn’t it anomalous that the saluting officer is held to a higher standard as compared to us?
1. This does not make sense.
iii. Therefore we might want to consider if we want to impose similar requirements on sitting MPs.
Whilst this may seem a simple enough task for this House to consider these issues, to implement a policy solution it would require bipartisan support from both sides of the aisle:
a. Without bipartisan support, there will a serious potential for misinterpretation — of the purpose behind the imposition of high standards for Singaporean politicians.
b. What should be avoided at all costs is a perception that the bill is an attempt of the part of one political party trying to constrain the public’s right to vote for a candidate of their choice.
c. Also, both sides of the House will need to come to a consensus on how we should deal with politicians who may be convicted for acts of civil obedience and conscience which is markedly different from criminal behaviour.
Once we have struck a consensus on how to treat criminal convictions of sitting MPs in this House, then, I would imagine that the disqualification criteria for candidates and members of other high constitutional offices may have to be revised again.
Mr Speaker, to agree on the current Bill is an easy matter — to my mind, it is a simple updating.
a. It does not propose to deal directly with 2 other important matters- the disqualification criteria of sitting MPs and parity of standards between sitting MPs and professionals, civil servants and uniformed officers.
b. This “second key”, in my respectful view, appears to be weaker for MPs.
i. Some possible solutions may be to:
1. Set up a standing committee to look into conduct of MPs such as the UK House of Commons’ Committee of Standards;
2. Impose disqualification so long as an MP is convicted (not convicted and sentenced) of an offence that is punishable by a sentence of imprisonment beyond a certain threshhold. This is the approach taken in Australia’s Commonwealth Constitution;
3. Or alternatively, imposing disqualification when an MP is convicted for a prescribed list of offences.
These are important matters but we can debate on these in good time, given that any Constitutional amendment here would require strong bipartisan support.
