Cheng San GRC polling station controversy - Revision history

SGPolitico at 09:05, 21 June 2026

2026-06-21T09:05:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:05, 21 June 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The '''Cheng San GRC polling station controversy''' was an electoral dispute arising from the [[1997 ~~Singapore general election~~\|1997 general election]], in which the [[Workers' Party]] (WP) lodged police complaints alleging that [[People's Action Party]] (PAP) leaders who were not candidates in [[Cheng San Group Representation Constituency\|Cheng San GRC]] had been present inside polling stations there on Polling Day. The Public Prosecutor, acting on the advice of [[Attorney-General of Singapore\|Attorney-General]] [[Chan Sek Keong]], found that no offence had been disclosed. The matter was subsequently raised in [[Parliament of Singapore\|Parliament]] during the 1997 Committee of Supply debate on the Ministry of Law, where the Attorney-General's written opinion was tabled.		The '''Cheng San GRC polling station controversy''' was an electoral dispute arising from the [[1997 General Election\|1997 general election]], in which the [[Workers' Party]] (WP) lodged police complaints alleging that [[People's Action Party]] (PAP) leaders who were not candidates in [[Cheng San Group Representation Constituency\|Cheng San GRC]] had been present inside polling stations there on Polling Day. The Public Prosecutor, acting on the advice of [[Attorney-General of Singapore\|Attorney-General]] [[Chan Sek Keong]], found that no offence had been disclosed. The matter was subsequently raised in [[Parliament of Singapore\|Parliament]] during the 1997 Committee of Supply debate on the Ministry of Law, where the Attorney-General's written opinion was tabled.

	== Background ==		== Background ==

SGPolitico at 07:36, 21 June 2026

2026-06-21T07:36:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:36, 21 June 2026
Line 27:		Line 27:

	On section 82(1)(d), the opinion stated that persons found waiting inside a polling station did not come within the section, which applied only to those waiting outside.<ref name="agopinion" /> On section 82(1)(e), the opinion stated that a person inside a polling station could not be said to be "within a radius of 200 metres" of it, reasoning that the phrase meant 200 metres from the perimeter of the station, and that a polling station was distinct from a street or public place.<ref name="agopinion" />		On section 82(1)(d), the opinion stated that persons found waiting inside a polling station did not come within the section, which applied only to those waiting outside.<ref name="agopinion" /> On section 82(1)(e), the opinion stated that a person inside a polling station could not be said to be "within a radius of 200 metres" of it, reasoning that the phrase meant 200 metres from the perimeter of the station, and that a polling station was distinct from a street or public place.<ref name="agopinion" />
			[[File:19970730-HA-0671423.gif\|thumb\|Graphic attached to opinion from AG]]

	The opinion located the purpose of section 82(1)(e) in paragraph 99 of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt, Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections (the Elias Report, Cmd 7 of 1958), which had recommended creating offences for waiting outside or loitering near polling stations in order to prevent undue influence or harassment of voters as they approached.<ref name="agopinion" /> Activities inside polling stations were said to be governed by a separate regime under section 39(4), which empowered the presiding officer to exclude all but authorised persons, and section 39(7), under which a person who misconducted himself or refused to leave when ordered could be removed and could commit an offence under section 186 of the Penal Code for obstructing a public servant.<ref name="agopinion" />		The opinion located the purpose of section 82(1)(e) in paragraph 99 of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt, Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections (the Elias Report, Cmd 7 of 1958), which had recommended creating offences for waiting outside or loitering near polling stations in order to prevent undue influence or harassment of voters as they approached.<ref name="agopinion" /> Activities inside polling stations were said to be governed by a separate regime under section 39(4), which empowered the presiding officer to exclude all but authorised persons, and section 39(7), under which a person who misconducted himself or refused to leave when ordered could be removed and could commit an offence under section 186 of the Penal Code for obstructing a public servant.<ref name="agopinion" />

SGPolitico at 07:32, 21 June 2026

2026-06-21T07:32:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:32, 21 June 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The '''Cheng San GRC polling station controversy''' was an electoral dispute arising from the [[1997 Singapore general election\|1997 general election]], in which the [[~~Workers' Party of Singapore\|~~Workers' Party]] (WP) lodged police complaints alleging that [[People's Action Party]] (PAP) leaders who were not candidates in [[Cheng San Group Representation Constituency\|Cheng San GRC]] had been present inside polling stations there on Polling Day. The Public Prosecutor, acting on the advice of [[Attorney-General of Singapore\|Attorney-General]] [[Chan Sek Keong]], found that no offence had been disclosed. The matter was subsequently raised in [[Parliament of Singapore\|Parliament]] during the 1997 Committee of Supply debate on the Ministry of Law, where the Attorney-General's written opinion was tabled.		The '''Cheng San GRC polling station controversy''' was an electoral dispute arising from the [[1997 Singapore general election\|1997 general election]], in which the [[Workers' Party]] (WP) lodged police complaints alleging that [[People's Action Party]] (PAP) leaders who were not candidates in [[Cheng San Group Representation Constituency\|Cheng San GRC]] had been present inside polling stations there on Polling Day. The Public Prosecutor, acting on the advice of [[Attorney-General of Singapore\|Attorney-General]] [[Chan Sek Keong]], found that no offence had been disclosed. The matter was subsequently raised in [[Parliament of Singapore\|Parliament]] during the 1997 Committee of Supply debate on the Ministry of Law, where the Attorney-General's written opinion was tabled.

	== Background ==		== Background ==

SGPolitico at 07:32, 21 June 2026

2026-06-21T07:32:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:32, 21 June 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	== Background ==		== Background ==

	Cheng San GRC was a five-member group representation constituency contested at the 1997 general election by a PAP team led by [[Lee Yock Suan]], then Minister for Education, and a WP team led by its Secretary-General [[J. B. Jeyaretnam]] alongside [[Tang Liang Hong]].<ref name="st19970107" /> The PAP retained the constituency with 54.82 per cent of the valid votes.<ref name="st19970107" />		Cheng San GRC was a five-member group representation constituency contested at the 1997 general election by a PAP team led by [[Lee Yock Suan]], then Minister for Education, and a WP team led by its Secretary-General [[J. B. Jeyaretnam]] alongside [[Tang Liang Hong]].<ref name="st19970107">[https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/straitstimes19970107-1.2.31.6 "WP lodges police complaint against ministers' presence"], ''The Straits Times'', 7 January 1997, p. 21.</ref> The PAP retained the constituency with 54.82 per cent of the valid votes.<ref name="st19970107" />

	== The complaint ==		== The complaint ==

	On 3 January 1997, Polling Day, [[Prime Minister of Singapore\|Prime Minister]] [[Goh Chok Tong]] and the two [[Deputy Prime Minister of Singapore\|Deputy Prime Ministers]] were observed inside a Cheng San GRC polling station, although they were not candidates in the constituency. An MP for [[Tanjong Pagar Group Representation Constituency\|Tanjong Pagar GRC]], Dr S. Vasoo, was also reported to have been present.<ref name="st19970107" /><ref name="agopinion" />		On 3 January 1997, Polling Day, [[Prime Minister of Singapore\|Prime Minister]] [[Goh Chok Tong]] and the two [[Deputy Prime Minister of Singapore\|Deputy Prime Ministers]] were observed inside a Cheng San GRC polling station, although they were not candidates in the constituency. An MP for [[Tanjong Pagar Group Representation Constituency\|Tanjong Pagar GRC]], Dr S. Vasoo, was also reported to have been present.<ref name="st19970107" /><ref name="agopinion">[https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/search/download?value=PDFs/1997/19970730/19970730-HA-0671417.htm Written opinion of the Attorney-General Chan Sek Keong, "Presence of Unauthorised Persons Inside Polling Stations", dated 21 July 1997], tabled in Parliament and reproduced in the Official Report at cols. 1417–1424 (Appendix, 9th Parliament, Session 1, Volume 67, Sitting 14).</ref>

	On 7 January 1997, the WP lodged a complaint with the Ang Mo Kio Police Division. A WP statement signed by Jeyaretnam said the party would await the police's proposed action, and stated that the presence of the ministers had intimidated voters. A police spokesman said that as of the previous night no formal report had been made by the party.<ref name="st19970107" /> Responding to press queries on 5 January, Goh said he did not think there had been any impropriety, stating that he and the two Deputy Prime Ministers had stood outside each station for about five minutes to assess voting turnout and had not entered the stations.<ref name="st19970107" />		On 7 January 1997, the WP lodged a complaint with the Ang Mo Kio Police Division. A WP statement signed by Jeyaretnam said the party would await the police's proposed action, and stated that the presence of the ministers had intimidated voters. A police spokesman said that as of the previous night no formal report had been made by the party.<ref name="st19970107" /> Responding to press queries on 5 January, Goh said he did not think there had been any impropriety, stating that he and the two Deputy Prime Ministers had stood outside each station for about five minutes to assess voting turnout and had not entered the stations.<ref name="st19970107" />
Line 34:		Line 34:
	== Parliamentary debate ==		== Parliamentary debate ==

	The matter was raised during the Committee of Supply debate on the Ministry of Law on 30 July 1997, at the ninth Parliament.<ref name="hansard19970730" /> Jeyaretnam, then a [[Non-constituency Member of Parliament]], stated that the WP regarded the statutory provisions as clear, and questioned why the conduct had not been prosecuted. He stated that if the law barred non-voters from waiting outside or within 200 metres of a polling station but permitted them to wait inside the grounds, the law would appear to be an ass.<ref name="hansard19970730" /><ref name="st19970731" />		The matter was raised during the Committee of Supply debate on the Ministry of Law on 30 July 1997, at the ninth Parliament.<ref name="hansard19970730">[https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/topic?reportid=004_19970730_S0002_T0007 Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report, 9th Parliament, Session 1, Volume 67, Sitting 14, 30 July 1997, "Budget, Ministry of Law"] (cols. 1338–1345). MPs speaking: Prof. S. Jayakumar (Minister for Law), Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung, Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam, Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Chairman).</ref> Jeyaretnam, then a [[Non-constituency Member of Parliament]], stated that the WP regarded the statutory provisions as clear, and questioned why the conduct had not been prosecuted. He stated that if the law barred non-voters from waiting outside or within 200 metres of a polling station but permitted them to wait inside the grounds, the law would appear to be an ass.<ref name="hansard19970730" /><ref name="st19970731">[https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/straitstimes19970731-1.2.40.2 "Waiting, loitering in poll station not an offence: A-G"], ''The Straits Times'', 31 July 1997, p. 28.</ref>

	Jayakumar summarised the Attorney-General's opinion and asked the Clerk of Parliament to distribute the full written opinion for the records.<ref name="hansard19970730" /> He stated that the Attorney-General had power under the Constitution to institute, conduct or discontinue proceedings at his discretion, and that it was not proper for the House to examine the merits of an individual prosecutorial decision.<ref name="hansard19970730" /> He also stated that the WP's [[Low Thia Khiang]] and Goh Yew Chye had themselves entered polling stations while voting was in progress, although they were not candidates or polling agents.<ref name="hansard19970730" /> The Chairman declined to allow Jeyaretnam to pursue the matter further, citing the guillotine on debate time.<ref name="hansard19970730" />		Jayakumar summarised the Attorney-General's opinion and asked the Clerk of Parliament to distribute the full written opinion for the records.<ref name="hansard19970730" /> He stated that the Attorney-General had power under the Constitution to institute, conduct or discontinue proceedings at his discretion, and that it was not proper for the House to examine the merits of an individual prosecutorial decision.<ref name="hansard19970730" /> He also stated that the WP's [[Low Thia Khiang]] and Goh Yew Chye had themselves entered polling stations while voting was in progress, although they were not candidates or polling agents.<ref name="hansard19970730" /> The Chairman declined to allow Jeyaretnam to pursue the matter further, citing the guillotine on debate time.<ref name="hansard19970730" />
Line 45:		Line 45:

	== References ==		== References ==
	~~{{Reflist\|refs=~~		<references />
	<ref name="hansard19970730">[https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/topic?reportid=004_19970730_S0002_T0007 Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report, 9th Parliament, Session 1, Volume 67, Sitting 14, 30 July 1997, "Budget, Ministry of Law"] (cols. 1338–1345). MPs speaking: Prof. S. Jayakumar (Minister for Law), Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung, Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam, Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Chairman).</ref>
	<ref name="agopinion">[https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/search/download?value=PDFs/1997/19970730/19970730-HA-0671417.htm Written opinion of the Attorney-General Chan Sek Keong, "Presence of Unauthorised Persons Inside Polling Stations", dated 21 July 1997], tabled in Parliament and reproduced in the Official Report at cols. 1417–1424 (Appendix, 9th Parliament, Session 1, Volume 67, Sitting 14).</ref>
	<ref name="st19970107">[https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/straitstimes19970107-1.2.31.6 "WP lodges police complaint against ministers' presence"], ''The Straits Times'', 7 January 1997, p. 21.</ref>
	<ref name="st19970731">[https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/straitstimes19970731-1.2.40.2 "Waiting, loitering in poll station not an offence: A-G"], ''The Straits Times'', 31 July 1997, p. 28.</~~ref~~>
	}}

	[[Category:Events]]		[[Category:Events]]
	[[Category:PAP]]		[[Category:PAP]]
	[[Category:Y1997]]		[[Category:Y1997]]

SGPolitico at 07:28, 21 June 2026

2026-06-21T07:28:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:28, 21 June 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:

	~~cheng-san-polling-station-controversy.txt~~

	~~Page~~
	1
	/
	1
	~~100%~~
	~~<!-- {{DISPLAYTITLE:Cheng San GRC polling station controversy (1997)}} -->~~

	The '''Cheng San GRC polling station controversy''' was an electoral dispute arising from the [[1997 Singapore general election\|1997 general election]], in which the [[Workers' Party of Singapore\|Workers' Party]] (WP) lodged police complaints alleging that [[People's Action Party]] (PAP) leaders who were not candidates in [[Cheng San Group Representation Constituency\|Cheng San GRC]] had been present inside polling stations there on Polling Day. The Public Prosecutor, acting on the advice of [[Attorney-General of Singapore\|Attorney-General]] [[Chan Sek Keong]], found that no offence had been disclosed. The matter was subsequently raised in [[Parliament of Singapore\|Parliament]] during the 1997 Committee of Supply debate on the Ministry of Law, where the Attorney-General's written opinion was tabled.		The '''Cheng San GRC polling station controversy''' was an electoral dispute arising from the [[1997 Singapore general election\|1997 general election]], in which the [[Workers' Party of Singapore\|Workers' Party]] (WP) lodged police complaints alleging that [[People's Action Party]] (PAP) leaders who were not candidates in [[Cheng San Group Representation Constituency\|Cheng San GRC]] had been present inside polling stations there on Polling Day. The Public Prosecutor, acting on the advice of [[Attorney-General of Singapore\|Attorney-General]] [[Chan Sek Keong]], found that no offence had been disclosed. The matter was subsequently raised in [[Parliament of Singapore\|Parliament]] during the 1997 Committee of Supply debate on the Ministry of Law, where the Attorney-General's written opinion was tabled.

SGPolitico at 07:28, 21 June 2026

2026-06-21T07:28:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:28, 21 June 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:

			cheng-san-polling-station-controversy.txt

			Page
			1
			/
			1
			100%
	<!-- {{DISPLAYTITLE:Cheng San GRC polling station controversy (1997)}} -->		<!-- {{DISPLAYTITLE:Cheng San GRC polling station controversy (1997)}} -->

	The '''Cheng San GRC polling station controversy''' was an electoral dispute arising from the [[1997 Singapore general election\|1997 general election]], in which the [[Workers' Party]] (WP) lodged police complaints alleging that [[People's Action Party]] (PAP) leaders who were not candidates in [[Cheng San Group Representation Constituency\|Cheng San GRC]] had been present inside polling stations there on Polling Day. The Public Prosecutor, acting on the advice of [[Attorney-General of Singapore\|Attorney-General]] [[Chan Sek Keong]], found that no offence had been disclosed. The matter was subsequently raised in [[Parliament of Singapore\|Parliament]] during the 1997 Committee of Supply debate on the Ministry of Law, where the Attorney-General's written opinion was tabled.		The '''Cheng San GRC polling station controversy''' was an electoral dispute arising from the [[1997 Singapore general election\|1997 general election]], in which the [[Workers' Party of Singapore\|Workers' Party]] (WP) lodged police complaints alleging that [[People's Action Party]] (PAP) leaders who were not candidates in [[Cheng San Group Representation Constituency\|Cheng San GRC]] had been present inside polling stations there on Polling Day. The Public Prosecutor, acting on the advice of [[Attorney-General of Singapore\|Attorney-General]] [[Chan Sek Keong]], found that no offence had been disclosed. The matter was subsequently raised in [[Parliament of Singapore\|Parliament]] during the 1997 Committee of Supply debate on the Ministry of Law, where the Attorney-General's written opinion was tabled.

	== Background ==		== Background ==
Line 48:		Line 56:
	== References ==		== References ==
	{{Reflist\|refs=		{{Reflist\|refs=
	<ref name="hansard19970730">Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report, 9th Parliament, Session 1, Volume 67, Sitting 14, 30 July 1997, "Budget, Ministry of Law" (cols. 1338–1345), MPs speaking: Prof. S. Jayakumar (Minister for Law), Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung, Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam, Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Chairman).</ref>		<ref name="hansard19970730">[https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/topic?reportid=004_19970730_S0002_T0007 Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report, 9th Parliament, Session 1, Volume 67, Sitting 14, 30 July 1997, "Budget, Ministry of Law"] (cols. 1338–1345). MPs speaking: Prof. S. Jayakumar (Minister for Law), Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung, Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam, Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Chairman).</ref>
	<ref name="agopinion">Written opinion of the Attorney-General Chan Sek Keong, "Presence of Unauthorised Persons Inside Polling Stations", dated 21 July 1997, tabled in Parliament and reproduced in the Official Report at cols. 1417–1424 (Appendix, 9th Parliament, Session 1, Volume 67, Sitting 14).</ref>		<ref name="agopinion">[https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/search/download?value=PDFs/1997/19970730/19970730-HA-0671417.htm Written opinion of the Attorney-General Chan Sek Keong, "Presence of Unauthorised Persons Inside Polling Stations", dated 21 July 1997], tabled in Parliament and reproduced in the Official Report at cols. 1417–1424 (Appendix, 9th Parliament, Session 1, Volume 67, Sitting 14).</ref>
	<ref name="st19970107">"WP lodges police complaint against ministers' presence", ''The Straits Times'', 7 January 1997, p. 21.</ref>		<ref name="st19970107">[https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/straitstimes19970107-1.2.31.6 "WP lodges police complaint against ministers' presence"], ''The Straits Times'', 7 January 1997, p. 21.</ref>
	<ref name="st19970731">"Waiting, loitering in poll station not an offence: A-G", ''The Straits Times'', 31 July 1997, p. 28.</ref>		<ref name="st19970731">[https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/straitstimes19970731-1.2.40.2 "Waiting, loitering in poll station not an offence: A-G"], ''The Straits Times'', 31 July 1997, p. 28.</ref>
	}}		}}

	[[Category:Events]]		[[Category:Events]]
			[[Category:PAP]]
	[[Category:Y1997]]		[[Category:Y1997]]

SGPolitico: Created page with " The '''Cheng San GRC polling station controversy''' was an electoral dispute arising from the 1997 general election, in which the Workers' Party (WP) lodged police complaints alleging that People's Action Party (PAP) leaders who were not candidates in Cheng San GRC had been present inside polling stations..."

2026-06-21T07:24:37Z

Created page with " The '''Cheng San GRC polling station controversy''' was an electoral dispute arising from the 1997 general election, in which the Workers' Party (WP) lodged police complaints alleging that People's Action Party (PAP) leaders who were not candidates in Cheng San GRC had been present inside polling stations..."

New page

The '''Cheng San GRC polling station controversy''' was an electoral dispute arising from the [[1997 Singapore general election|1997 general election]], in which the [[Workers' Party]] (WP) lodged police complaints alleging that [[People's Action Party]] (PAP) leaders who were not candidates in [[Cheng San Group Representation Constituency|Cheng San GRC]] had been present inside polling stations there on Polling Day. The Public Prosecutor, acting on the advice of [[Attorney-General of Singapore|Attorney-General]] [[Chan Sek Keong]], found that no offence had been disclosed. The matter was subsequently raised in [[Parliament of Singapore|Parliament]] during the 1997 Committee of Supply debate on the Ministry of Law, where the Attorney-General's written opinion was tabled.

== Background ==

Cheng San GRC was a five-member group representation constituency contested at the 1997 general election by a PAP team led by [[Lee Yock Suan]], then Minister for Education, and a WP team led by its Secretary-General [[J. B. Jeyaretnam]] alongside [[Tang Liang Hong]].<ref name="st19970107" /> The PAP retained the constituency with 54.82 per cent of the valid votes.<ref name="st19970107" />

== The complaint ==

On 3 January 1997, Polling Day, [[Prime Minister of Singapore|Prime Minister]] [[Goh Chok Tong]] and the two [[Deputy Prime Minister of Singapore|Deputy Prime Ministers]] were observed inside a Cheng San GRC polling station, although they were not candidates in the constituency. An MP for [[Tanjong Pagar Group Representation Constituency|Tanjong Pagar GRC]], Dr S. Vasoo, was also reported to have been present.<ref name="st19970107" /><ref name="agopinion" />

On 7 January 1997, the WP lodged a complaint with the Ang Mo Kio Police Division. A WP statement signed by Jeyaretnam said the party would await the police's proposed action, and stated that the presence of the ministers had intimidated voters. A police spokesman said that as of the previous night no formal report had been made by the party.<ref name="st19970107" /> Responding to press queries on 5 January, Goh said he did not think there had been any impropriety, stating that he and the two Deputy Prime Ministers had stood outside each station for about five minutes to assess voting turnout and had not entered the stations.<ref name="st19970107" />

The WP grounded its complaint in two provisions of the Parliamentary Elections Act:<ref name="agopinion" />

* Section 82(1)(d): no person shall wait outside any polling station on polling day, except for the purpose of gaining entry to cast a vote.
* Section 82(1)(e): no person shall loiter in any street or public place within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station on polling day.

== Prosecutorial decision ==

On 14 July 1997, the WP issued a press release expressing surprise that the Public Prosecutor had advised the police that no offence was disclosed by the reports against the Prime Minister, the two Deputy Prime Ministers and Dr S. Vasoo.<ref name="agopinion" /> On 15 July 1997, the [[Singapore Democratic Party]] called on the Attorney-General to explain the decision and to state whether it was an offence for unauthorised persons to enter polling stations.<ref name="agopinion" />

The Minister for Law, [[S. Jayakumar]], asked the Attorney-General for a formal opinion on whether it was an offence under the Parliamentary Elections Act for an unauthorised person to enter and be present in a polling station.<ref name="agopinion" />

== The Attorney-General's opinion ==

In a written opinion dated 21 July 1997, Attorney-General Chan Sek Keong concluded that the Parliamentary Elections Act did not create any offence of unauthorised entry into or presence within a polling station, and that persons who only waited or loitered inside a polling station on polling day committed no offence under the Act.<ref name="agopinion" />

On section 82(1)(d), the opinion stated that persons found waiting inside a polling station did not come within the section, which applied only to those waiting outside.<ref name="agopinion" /> On section 82(1)(e), the opinion stated that a person inside a polling station could not be said to be "within a radius of 200 metres" of it, reasoning that the phrase meant 200 metres from the perimeter of the station, and that a polling station was distinct from a street or public place.<ref name="agopinion" />

The opinion located the purpose of section 82(1)(e) in paragraph 99 of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt, Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections (the Elias Report, Cmd 7 of 1958), which had recommended creating offences for waiting outside or loitering near polling stations in order to prevent undue influence or harassment of voters as they approached.<ref name="agopinion" /> Activities inside polling stations were said to be governed by a separate regime under section 39(4), which empowered the presiding officer to exclude all but authorised persons, and section 39(7), under which a person who misconducted himself or refused to leave when ordered could be removed and could commit an offence under section 186 of the Penal Code for obstructing a public servant.<ref name="agopinion" />

The opinion stated that waiting outside a polling station was made an offence because it gave rise to opportunities to influence or intimidate voters, whereas the possibility of a person inside a station influencing or intimidating voters in the presence of the presiding officer, officials and polling agents was considered so remote that it was discounted by the Act.<ref name="agopinion" />

== Parliamentary debate ==

The matter was raised during the Committee of Supply debate on the Ministry of Law on 30 July 1997, at the ninth Parliament.<ref name="hansard19970730" /> Jeyaretnam, then a [[Non-constituency Member of Parliament]], stated that the WP regarded the statutory provisions as clear, and questioned why the conduct had not been prosecuted. He stated that if the law barred non-voters from waiting outside or within 200 metres of a polling station but permitted them to wait inside the grounds, the law would appear to be an ass.<ref name="hansard19970730" /><ref name="st19970731" />

Jayakumar summarised the Attorney-General's opinion and asked the Clerk of Parliament to distribute the full written opinion for the records.<ref name="hansard19970730" /> He stated that the Attorney-General had power under the Constitution to institute, conduct or discontinue proceedings at his discretion, and that it was not proper for the House to examine the merits of an individual prosecutorial decision.<ref name="hansard19970730" /> He also stated that the WP's [[Low Thia Khiang]] and Goh Yew Chye had themselves entered polling stations while voting was in progress, although they were not candidates or polling agents.<ref name="hansard19970730" /> The Chairman declined to allow Jeyaretnam to pursue the matter further, citing the guillotine on debate time.<ref name="hansard19970730" />

== See also ==

* [[Cheng San Group Representation Constituency]]
* [[1997 Singapore general election]]
* [[Parliamentary Elections Act]]

== References ==
{{Reflist|refs=
<ref name="hansard19970730">Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report, 9th Parliament, Session 1, Volume 67, Sitting 14, 30 July 1997, "Budget, Ministry of Law" (cols. 1338–1345), MPs speaking: Prof. S. Jayakumar (Minister for Law), Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung, Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam, Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Chairman).</ref>
<ref name="agopinion">Written opinion of the Attorney-General Chan Sek Keong, "Presence of Unauthorised Persons Inside Polling Stations", dated 21 July 1997, tabled in Parliament and reproduced in the Official Report at cols. 1417–1424 (Appendix, 9th Parliament, Session 1, Volume 67, Sitting 14).</ref>
<ref name="st19970107">"WP lodges police complaint against ministers' presence", ''The Straits Times'', 7 January 1997, p. 21.</ref>
<ref name="st19970731">"Waiting, loitering in poll station not an offence: A-G", ''The Straits Times'', 31 July 1997, p. 28.</ref>
}}

[[Category:Events]]
[[Category:Y1997]]