Wong Kan Seng
Singapore
“We all want a better future for our children and the future generations. Amid the debates, let us not lose sight of what we are working for – we are working for the benefit and future of Singaporeans. Not for growth targets, not for foreigners, but for Singaporeans.”
“Mrs Mildred Tan also suggested doing a longitudinal study on the impact of new citizens on Singapore. I am told that there is a periodic study on the perception of integration and rootedness of Singaporeans and PRs. A study is now ongoing too.”
“All they need to do is simply declare that they meet the residential criteria. EASING IN US ECONOMY (Impact on Singapore) 9. Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Senior Minister what will be the expected impact on the Singapore economy arising from the US Federal Reserve's announcement on 3rd November 2010 of a "quantitative easing" of the US economy…”
“Well, from the data I have here, 553 registered to vote before the 2006 GE and this is the data I have but Ms Lim may be right. There may be 1,000-odd that Ms Lim had mentioned. From what I am told now, we have 1,325 Singaporean overseas who are eligible to register to vote have registered.”
“But, as I said, there are so many other possibilities that they could come in and there could also be many possibilities that we could have missed and they have entered or left Singapore. LAND SWAP AGREEMENT FOR KTM STATION AND RAILWAY LANDS 2.”
“They are also recruiting people by offering them scholarships. So, we hope more of our companies can do that. Hopefully they come here to work for a while and, if they like our place, they may want to settle down. This is a place which they can think about. POPULATION AND TALENT DIVISION 5. Assoc. Prof.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,192 lines we hold for Wong Kan Seng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 27 of 64.
“Singapore will implement the recently passed United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 with the United Nations Bill just passed by Parliament this afternoon, to demonstrate our resolution against terrorism. We will play our part in the global effort to freeze the financial resources of terrorist networks. It is only when all the countries in the world unite against terrorism that we can hope to remove this scourge from the face of the earth. Singapore signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the United States in 1990, enabling the use of our bases by US air force and navy units to transit through Singapore. A higher volume of aircraft and ships are transiting through Singapore, especially since the US launched its retaliatory attacks. In the light of these recent developments, Singapore has now got to be more vigilant. Like other countries, we have stepped up security measures to protect our people and vital installations and offices, here and abroad. Members must not forget that Singapore has not been spared from terrorist attacks. In 1974, the Japanese Red Army hijacked a ferry, the Laju. And in 1985 and 1986, two bombs exploded at Faber House in Orchard Road. In 1991, Singapore Airlines flight SQ 117 was hijacked by Pakistani militants. We cannot, therefore, afford to take things lightly just because we have not been affected directly in the September 11 attacks. Suspension of Overseas Voting Sir, some people have speculated that it was due to the Government wanting to call a snap election that the registration for overseas voting was suspended. They surmise that the Elections Department was not ready for an early election. Let me say that this is not the case. All elements for overseas voting system are operationally ready.”
“Although the Bill is deemed to take effect from 26th September 2001, until the Bill is passed and signed into law, the present law allowing for registration of overseas electors remains in force. This means that at present the Registration Officer will have to continue to receive applications from overseas voters in accordance with the law in force today. Clause 3 of the Bill has thus been added to validate the acts and decisions of the Registration Officer not to register any non-resident citizens as an overseas elector taken since 28th September 2001 until the registers of electors are certified. Current Situation Sir, the sole reason for Government's decision is security. At the 25th September sitting of Parliament, I briefed Members of the House on the security threat faced by Singapore, as a result of the recent terrorist attacks in the US. The Prime Minister himself elaborated on this last evening at his dialogue with the trade union leaders. The United States and United Kingdom have started to attack terrorists hideouts in Afghanistan on 7th October. The financial assets of terrorist groups have also been frozen. The United Nations Security Council has passed resolutions prohibiting the funding or the giving of any form of assistance to terrorists. The terrorist groups have threatened to launch counter-attacks on countries taking part in these anti-terrorist measures. Singapore is a responsible member of the United Nations and of the world community. We have repeatedly stated our stand against terrorism and will play our part to bring the perpetrators of terrorism to justice.”
“All our overseas missions have been advised to heighten their security alertness, such as looking out for unidentified vehicles parked close to the chancery building or unattended receptacles and items. However, there is only so much that they can do. Having to additionally manage voter registration and voting will dilute the missions' resources further, and hamper their effectiveness in essential duties such as covering and monitoring the fast developing and changing events in their respective areas, which serve to protect Singapore's national interests. Putting too much stress on our missions will inevitably raise the risk of security lapses, something we must avoid. Sir, tension has mounted following the military strikes in Afghanistan. We do not know when, where or how the terrorists will strike back. Security will have to be further tightened. Events are unfolding as situations change day by day. We cannot anticipate what may come the next day. We have to be prepared for the worst. Freedom of movement could well be severely reduced. Airports and roads could be closed, and public transport at a standstill. Our missions will then also have to cope with the upsurge of consular work, looking after the welfare of citizens who are overseas. In the extreme, our missions may even have to be shut down partially or completely, interrupting any elections related work or even stopping them entirely. As security considerations are overriding, the Government has therefore decided reluctantly, in these exceptional circumstances, that there will be no overseas voting in the coming General Election. Clause 2 of the Bill suspends the relevant provisions in the Parliamentary Elections Act to effect this.”
“We were not able to disclose this information in the press statement issued on 29th September 2001 as doing so at that time would compromise our intelligence sources. Now, we know that United States military action began on 7th October. They were joined by the United Kingdom. Osama bin Ladin and the Al-Qaeda leaders have said repeatedly that they would strike back. There are now several cases of anthrax reported in the United States. Although these cases have not been linked directly to the terrorists, United States Vice-President Dick Cheney said a few days ago that the rising number of anthrax cases could be linked to terrorists. Bio-terrorism is a real possibility. Over the weekend, the FBI said it had received information that there may be additional attacks inside the United States or abroad in the next few days, and asked all law enforcement agencies to go on the highest alert. One possible threat cited by a United States intelligence official was attacks on diplomatic sites overseas. It is no consolation that we are proven right in our belief. Getting Singaporeans to congregate at known locations overseas on a published date for the purpose of voting will certainly expose our citizens to unnecessary security risk. We cannot take the security and safety of our fellow citizens for granted, no matter which part of the world they may be in. Many capital cities have gone on heightened alert, including the five cities which were to have been our overseas voting centres. We cannot expect foreign host countries to guarantee the safety of our people, under current circumstances. Moreover they have their own priorities and risks to manage.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Background Sir, on 19th April 2001, the Government amended the Parliamentary Elections Act to provide for overseas voting, and announced plans to have overseas voting in the coming General Elections at five of Singapore's diplomatic missions, namely, Beijing, Hong Kong, Canberra, London and Washington. Preparations were already underway, and on 26th September the Elections Department announced that eligible Singaporeans living overseas could start to register to vote at these five missions. On 29th September, the Government announced its decision not to conduct overseas voting in the coming General Election. I will explain the rationale for the Government's decision. Security Considerations Overriding On 28th September 2001 the Government received information on the actions that the United States planned to take. The Government then came to the conclusion that military action by the United States was imminent. We also had information that a second wave of attacks by the terrorists was expected, especially after the United States' military action, and the targets would not just be in the United States. This second wave of attacks may not be similar in nature as the first. There were also media reports that biological and chemical weapons might be used. The Government could not ignore these threat scenarios, and the danger these would pose to our people overseas should we go ahead with overseas voting. The Government then did a re-assessment of the situation and decided that it was best not to expose our citizens overseas to unnecessary risks.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the motion. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to Monday, 15th October 2001." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes to Eight o'clock pm to Monday, 15th October 2001. Table - Summary of Measures (Cols. 2411 - 2416)”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, pursuant to Standing Order No. 42, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. TACKLING THE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN 1.37 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. SUPPORT FOR AND CONCERNS OVER ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENTS WITH CHINA 2.31 pm”
“Mr Speaker, the recent tragic events in America underscore the threat posed by terrorism. Singapore is an open society and must remain mindful of our vulnerabilities to ethnic, ideological and religious tensions and conflicts in our multi-racial and multi-religious society. Our national security and continued peaceful and harmonious way of life are exposed to threats from domestic as well as external forces. Members will recall that Singapore was the stage for terrorist actions by foreign elements in the Laju incident of 1974 and, more recently, the hijack of SQ 117 in 1991. While we have not found any domestic group to be involved in politically motivated violence, we are conscious of the possibility for local groups, even if only a minority, to be influenced or misled into participating in an agenda of violence purveyed by external extremist groups. The Internal Security Department and the Singapore Police Force monitor racial and religious extremism and other security threats closely. Appropriate action will be taken against any group that threatens national security or law and order. In an increasingly inter-connected world, the scourge of terrorism affects all civilised countries. Hence, the Internal Security Department and the Police Force have established channels of cooperation for exchange of information with various countries on security issues and intelligence. RALLIES IN PUBLIC STADIUM (Employment of CISCO guards) 14. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Home Affairs why is there a need for organisers of public rallies held in a public stadium to employ CISCO guards to be present at such rallies where there is no imminent danger of a breach of the peace.”
“Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes past Four o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.”
“The Home Affairs Uniformed Services officers are, generally, pleased with the review and the enhancements in the career management. Junior Officers who have served more than 10 years and who will be given a one-off retention payment are happy. Briefings on the details on the new scheme of service and the INVEST Retention and Retirement Plan started in mid-July, with individual consultation for officers who need to discuss further their options. In addition to information booklets, officers were also given a projection software for them to compute and compare projected benefits under the current and the new terms. As for the INVEST retirement plan where serving officers opt for earlier retirement age, officers decide based on what suits them best, taking into account their age, family commitments and plans after retirement. While some have expressed concern about the limited second career choices at age 55, others look forward to being able to start a second career after earlier retirement. Officers are also pleased with the possible additional source of savings available at retirement from the retirement fund. In general, the INVEST Retirement Plan has fared better among younger officers as officers with 10 or less years to retirement feel that their investment is not likely to gain much in the short span of time. Ultimately, each serving officer chooses what suits him best. No serving officer is worse off than before. Sir, this Bill will provide the legislative framework to implement the INVEST Plan. It will also make consequential amendments to the Pension Fund Act to allow for officers' benefits accumulated under the Pension Fund to be transferred from the Pension Fund to the INVEST Fund. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to.”
“Because of the additional component to replace pension, Police Senior Officers will get a higher contribution rate, that is 11 3/4% from the first year of service. In addition, Junior Officers will receive retention payments in a separate INVEST Retention Account. The retention payments will be credited into the officer's Retention Account on satisfactory completion of each year of service, during the officer's first 10 years of service. The payments equal one month of salary for each year of service during the first 6 years. In the 7th to 10th year, the payments rise to 1 1/2 months of salary for each year of service. The funds in the officers' Retirement and Retention accounts will be pooled to form an investment fund known as the INVEST Fund. The INVEST Fund will be managed by professional fund managers. Based on returns from investments, dividends will be credited into the individual accounts of each officer. An INVEST Board of Trustees, chaired by the Permanent Secretary, and comprising senior Home Affairs Ministry officials and people with relevant experience from the public and private sectors, will oversee the fund managers. The accumulated amounts in the INVEST accounts can be withdrawn by the officers progressively. If the officer resigns prematurely, the Ministry will retain part of the amount in the officer's accounts. The officer can only withdraw the full amount in his accounts if he serves a full career with the Home Affairs Uniformed Services, when he retires at age 50 or 55 for Junior and Senior Officers respectively. The Ministry expects the progressive withdrawal feature of the INVEST Plan to enhance retention, thus helping the Ministry to attract good quality officers to join and remain with the Home Affairs Uniformed Services for a full career.”
“Thus from 1st October 2001, all new officers joining the Home Affairs Uniformed Services will retire at age 50 if they retire as Junior Officers, and at age 55 if they retire as Senior Officers. Serving officers can choose to opt into the new scheme. The INVEST Plan is to help these officers transit out of service into their second career. Similar to the SAVER and Premium Plans that have been introduced in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), the INVEST Plan offers reasonable superannuation terms to uniformed officers who have to retire earlier than other civil servants. The Ministry of Home Affairs has also taken the opportunity to replace the Pension scheme for Police Senior Officers with the INVEST Plan. This is because our review found that a plan which builds up officers' retirement benefits through making monthly contributions into the officers' accounts during the course of their careers, such as the INVEST Plan, is better able to meet the needs of Police Senior Officers, as compared to one where officers receive a fixed quantum on retirement, such as the Pension scheme. This is also to make it consistent with our Senior Officers in the other Home Affairs Uniformed Services Schemes. We will then have uniformity in treatment, instead of differential treatment for the Home Affairs Senior Officers. The mechanism of the INVEST Plan is similar to the SAF's SAVER and Premium Plans. Under the INVEST Plan, the Home Affairs Ministry will contribute an amount based on a percentage of the officer's monthly salary into an INVEST Retirement Account kept for the officer. It is 7 3/4% for Junior Officers and 6% for Senior Officers, starting from the 7th year of service.”
“The Plan will also replace the Pension scheme of the Police (Senior) Officers Service. The Plan will apply to all new Home Affairs Uniformed Services officers from 1st October 2001. Existing Home Affairs Uniformed Services officers are given an option to convert to the INVEST Plan and have the accumulated benefits under their existing schemes transferred to the new Plan. Let me explain the rationale of the INVEST Plan. The retirement age for new Home Affairs Uniformed Services officers will be lowered by 5 years, in recognition of the rigorous requirements of the Home Affairs Uniformed Services. Being in a uniformed organisation, HUS officers are required to be physically fit, agile and alert when discharging their day-to-day duties. For instance, Police officers need to be agile and fit to perform patrolling duties, which include physically strenuous tasks like pursuing criminals. Civil Defence officers perform operational duties such as fire-fighting and rescue, emergency ambulance and hazardous materials mitigation, which require considerable physical effort. Similar exacting physical fitness and mental alertness requirements apply to officers in the Prisons and Narcotics schemes of service. In addition, the increasing civilianisation and outsourcing of non-core functions will reduce the number of desk-bound administrative jobs. This in turn reduces the traditional channel used to hold older officers who are no longer suited for rigorous, frontline work, till they retire. For example, the number of desk-bound administrative jobs in the Police force will decrease to about 10 percent in the future.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Home Affairs Uniformed Services (HUS) plays a key role in meeting public safety and security needs. The presence of capable Home Affairs Uniformed Services officers will help to maintain a stable environment needed to attract investments. To ensure that the HUS is able to execute its roles in meeting public security and safety needs, we need to attract and retain good officers to join the Home Affairs Uniformed Services. It is with this objective in mind that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) commissioned a study by an international consultancy firm to review the Home Affairs Uniformed Services career structures and systems in April 2000. The Home Affairs Uniformed Services Career Review aimed to restructure the Home Affairs Uniformed Services career to ensure that it is well positioned to meet future public security and safety needs. It studied the career structure, pay and benefits package, career management and performance management of the HUS officers. The Government has accepted the recommendation to introduce a super- annuation scheme for HUS officers. The scheme is known as the INVEST Plan. The Plan will replace the Contract scheme that is currently open to Home Affairs Uniformed Services officers in the Civil Defence, Prisons, Narcotics Service, as well as the Police (Junior) Officers Service. Officers on the Full CPF Scheme in the above services will also participate in the INVEST Plan. They will continue to receive Full CPF contributions and will also receive additional contributions credited into the INVEST Plan to build up a superannuation fund to help them transit out of service at the age of 50 or 55.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps I should let you know that my name was not on the screen for the first vote on the Second Reading. My apologies. HOME AFFAIRS UNIFORMED SERVICES SUPERANNUATION BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.05 pm”
“Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Constitutional Amendment Bill proposes to amend Article 114 of the Constitution, to enable the Ministry of Home Affairs to implement a new superannuation scheme, known as the INVEST Plan, for the Home Affairs Uniformed Services (HUS). The INVEST Plan will be established under the Home Affairs Uniformed Services Superannuation Bill 2001 which I will move afterwards. The INVEST Plan will replace the current contract and full CPF schemes of the HUS officers. It will also replace the Pension scheme of the Police Senior Officers. The INVEST Plan is similar to the SAVER and Premium Plans introduced for uniformed officers in the Singapore Armed Forces in 1998 and 2000 respectively. The amendment will allow Parliament to establish separate Government funds to pay pensions, gratuities and other allowances in respect of any public service instead of meeting the payments from the Pension Fund or the Consolidated Fund. The amendment is necessary as the retirement benefits of Home Affairs Uniformed Services officers who join the INVEST Plan will no longer be charged on the Pension Fund or the Consolidated Fund, but on a new fund known as the INVEST Fund. As a result of the setting up of the INVEST Fund to pay for the retirement benefits of the Home Affairs Uniformed Services officers, there will be a consequential amendment to the Pension Fund Act (Chapter 224A). This amendment is contained in the Home Affairs Uniformed Services Superannuation Bill 2001. I will explain the INVEST Plan in greater detail when I move the Second Reading of the Home Affairs Uniformed Services Superannuation Bill 2001. Sir, I beg to move.”
“Sir, before he seeks clarification, can I just add to this point that Mr Lee Yock Suan was trying to explain? This Bill covers political parties and political sites as defined or registered by SBA as political sites. For example, the Think Centre has been gazetted as a political site and is therefore covered by this Bill. Anything else is not covered by this Bill. That is my understanding of it. Mr Low asked about Talkingcock.com. Today it is not registered as a political site, not that I know of. So it is not covered. But should it be involved in political discussions, should it be involved in the way that Think Centre has been involved, then we will consider including it as a political site. That is my understanding. I understand that there is also a new site called JamesGomez@yahoo or whatever it is. If it is based in Singapore, doing the same thing as he did in Think Centre, we may also consider gazetting that as a political site.”
“At the individual level, the Police will in their house visits advise family members to play an active role in inculcating "safe" habits to not only the elders but also all members of the family. Some of these preventive measures include for example, avoiding wearing expensive jewellery or carrying large amounts of money, arranging for someone to walk the elderly home when returning home late, and avoiding dark and deserted shortcuts. Besides crime prevention education and working with the community, the Police regularly patrol the neighbourhood and look out in particular for the safety and security of the elderly. The Police also spare no efforts to solve the crime and arrest the offenders, thereby sending a deterrent message to other would-be offenders. Indeed, by working hand-in-hand with the community, we have managed to keep the crime rate against elderly persons low. The number of robberies committed on elderly persons decreased from 89 cases in 1998 to 84 cases in 1999, and 67 cases in year 2000. The number of serious assaults involving elderly victims each year has also been consistently low, with 16 cases in 2000. Most of these cases arose out of disputes and misunderstanding within the family. Together with the community, the Home Team will work hard towards our goal of a safe and secure best home for all. COMPUTER RADIATION IN SCHOOLS 5. Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh asked the Minister for Health, in view of the dangerous level of computer radiation that could hurt children, what his Ministry will do to moderate the effect of intensive use of Internet learning in primary and secondary schools.”
“The Home Team, especially the Police, regard the safety and security of the elderly and other more vulnerable members of the community as one of our key concerns. We adopt a multi-pronged approach in safeguarding the safety and security of the elderly, from crime prevention education to proactive enforcement. At the national level, the Police work closely with the media to raise awareness on crime prevention. For example, through its popular "Crime Watch", the Police highlight cases of crimes against the elderly, explain the modus operandi of the offenders, and advise preventive measures which the public should take to minimize the chances of them becoming a victim of crime. At the community level, each Police Division partners the community through the Community Safety and Security Programme (CSSP) to enhance the safety and security of the neighbourhood. There have been many successful CSSP programmes for the elderly. For example, the Central Singapore CDC, which has a high concentration of senior citizens, especially in the Kreta Ayer, Jalan Besar and Kampong Glam areas, started the "Care and Support Programme for the Elderly" to raise crime prevention awareness among its elderly residents. Through a series of crime prevention talks - some of them conducted in dialects - the Police share with the elderly how to protect themselves and their valuables. The elderly also form mutual support groups so that the more able members will support and take care of the less able. If unfortunately an elderly falls prey to crime, with his/her consent, the Police would liaise with the CDC for follow up on taking care of the victim.”
“Let me assure the House that Police has conducted a thorough investigation into the accident. Investigations have taken some time because of lack of eyewitness accounts. A Coroner's Inquiry has been fixed on 2nd August 2001 to determine the cause of the accident. It is therefore inappropriate to discuss the outcome of Police's investigations at this point in time. NETRUST 28. Mr Chng Hee Kok asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology what is the status of the development of Netrust and what is the current usage of Netrust in making payments for Government services.”
“The number of Malays involved in serious crimes1 is on a general downward trend. This downward trend is likely to continue for this year. The number of Malays arrested for serious crimes per 100,000 persons of the population decreased from 204 in 1998 to 178 in 1999 and 141 in 2000. In addition, the absolute number of Malays arrested for serious crimes in 2000 was the lowest in 3 years. The crime statistics do not show an increasing number of Malays involved in serious crimes. However, based on data for the year 2000, the national rate for the number of locals2 arrested for serious crimes stood at 65 per 100,000 persons of the population, while that for the Malay population was 141 per 100,000. The Police will continue to monitor the situation closely and work with the relevant agencies to tackle the problem. ACCIDENT BETWEEN AN AMBULANCE AND A BUS 27. Dr Teo Ho Pin asked the Minister for Home Affairs what is the outcome of the police investigation into the accident between a Singapore Civil Defence Force ambulance and a Singapore Bus Service bus along Buona Vista Flyover on 28 November 2000 which resulted in the death of 2 persons.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. A CASE OF DRUG TRAFFICKING - ZULFIKAR BIN MUSTAFFAH 2.30 pm”
“Sir, as the Committee has not been decided and when it will be formed has also not been decided, I really cannot tell him how many members will be in the Committee.”
“Sir, the Committee would only start its work when it is appointed.”
“Sir, I am not sure the UK experience is totally relevant to us. As far as we are concerned, our laws are such that Parliament was convened in May 1997 and the life of Parliament is five years.”
“Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam knows his law better than I do. We had elections on 2nd January 1997. We did not have Parliament sitting until May 1997.”
“I think Mr Jeyaretnam was here. He should remember.”
“Sir, the life of Parliament is five years.”
“I was waiting for an opportunity to say this. The Prime Minister and I discussed this. He decided that he would want to say something about it as well. So I waited for this occasion and Mr Jeyaretnam gave me the opportunity. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes past Four o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. WRITTEN ANSWER TO QUESTION REMUNERATION PAID TO MINISTERS 1. Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Finance if he will furnish details of all remuneration paid to each and every Cabinet Minister, Minister of State and Parliamentary Secretary for the year 2000 showing differently the basic salaries and other amounts paid by way of allowances, etc.”
“Singaporeans generally agree that the unbridled rights of individuals who run afoul of the law cannot override the rights of the community to be safe from subversives, gangsters, illegal immigrants, or to have clean roads and smooth MRT rides. Likewise, voting as a right comes with the responsibility to exercise it for the best interest of Singapore, one's family and the community at large. If Singaporeans do indeed feel "diminished when their political space and political rights are circumscribed", as she had claimed, then would they still remain in Singapore if their personal safety and security, and that of their family, become a daily concern through the lifting of the same safeguards that were cited? Singapore cannot be such a stifling place if it continues to attract tens of thousands of foreigners who want to work and live here. Finally, Sir, I would like to reiterate what I said at the last Parliament sitting. We are not doubting the loyalties or emotional links of Singaporeans to Singapore just because they live overseas. We believe that many of them will return to Singapore, that they feel for Singapore, and that they will defend Singapore's interest. The current criteria for overseas voting are not cast in stone, as I said at the last sitting. This is only the first step the Government is taking to provide for it. As the Prime Minister has said recently, the original intention was to implement overseas voting only in the 2007 General Elections, but we decided to bring it forward so that we can do it on a limited scale to gain some experience. We will review after the next Elections to assess the scope for extending overseas voting to more Singaporeans who are overseas.”
“Any overseas Singaporean who fulfils the criteria as a registered overseas voter, can register at the nearest mission, whether or not he lives in the country where the mission is located, or he can come home to vote. Some of the comments also referred to equality or protection in Article 12 of the Constitution. The recent amendments to the Act are also not in contravention of Article 12, which I think Mr Simon Tay referred to in his earlier statement. They do not remove anyone's existing voting entitlement. Neither do they make it more difficult for anyone to vote. In replying to some of the Members' questions at the last sitting, I have explained why not every overseas citizen can be qualified to vote so long as parliamentary elections continue to be run on a constituency representation basis, and there also remains the threat of plural voting. The residency requirement is necessary to allocate the voter to a constituency. This is necessary in an election based on constituency representation and to prevent plural voting. The recent amendments expand the definition of "residency" to include groups of citizens who are away from Singapore for non-permanent reasons and hence, have sufficient ties to be allocated to vote in a particular constituency. I cannot help it but to also refer to another article in the Straits Times recently, arising from this debate on the right to vote. Another Straits Times journalist has argued that being Singaporean adds up to a Singapore minus experience. It is a pity that she feels this way. Among other things, she wrote about several issues like detention without trial, X-rated movies, banning of chewing gums and mandatory imprisonment for harbouring illegal immigrants.”
“Section 43 of the Act, which Mr Jeyaretnam also referred to, says that voting is compulsory. So we have a duty to vote. While the Constitution does not contain an expressed declaration of the right to vote, I have been advised by the Attorney General, even before today, that the right to vote at parliamentary and presidential elections is implied within the structure of our Constitution. We have a parliamentary form of government. The Constitution provides for regular general elections to make up Parliament and establishes representative democracy in Singapore. So the right to vote is fundamental to a representative democracy, which we are, and that is why we have the Parliamentary Elections Act to give effect to this right. But I must also add that, as is the case in most countries of the world, the right to vote is not absolute but is usually subject to some conditions. Singapore, therefore, is no different. The most common of these conditions is age - in our case, 21 and above. All democracies allow voting only for citizens above a certain age. Another common condition is residence in the country where elections are held for regional representation. In our case, this is reflected as the need for a citizen to be ordinarily resident in Singapore to be able to vote. Residency is also a requirement for voters in, for example, New Zealand, Canada, Germany, Ireland, and South Korea. So, let me reiterate and emphasise again that the recent amendments did not change or affect our citizens' right to vote. Rather, they have relaxed the definition of being "ordinarily resident" in the Singapore context to facilitate overseas voting.”
“This academic is Mr Chua Beng Huat. I do not want to name names, but I think it is there in the newspapers. I think, amongst the letters published in the papers, only Mr Simon Tay seemed to have argued rationally what is the position in the law. When I said Mr Jeyaretnam's speech just now is symptomatic of his conduct in this House, I am referring to the times when we gave replies to his comments and he was not around to listen. Or, when we made statements and speeches, he did not listen, just as when the answers were given this afternoon by my Minister of State to the various questions he raised. He kept repeating the same questions over and over again. It is a pity. He should have used the time properly and then he would have been able to make more constructive contributions to the House. But he raises the same issues over and over again. Apart from his earlier comments attributing to me saying that "voting is a privilege", all his points about what is in the law, I agree with them. This is one of the very rare occasions that I agree with him. Let me put in my way what the position is in our law. Right now, the only expressed reference to voting by a citizen is in the Parliamentary Elections Act. Section 38 states that the register of electors is the conclusive evidence of a person's entitlement to vote. So, if a person's name is not in the register, he is not entitled to vote. Section 5 says that the qualifications for that entitlement are that he must be a citizen, he must be 21 years old and above, and that he must be ordinarily resident in Singapore. So, if a citizen whose name is not in the register or if he is not ordinarily resident in Singapore, then he cannot vote. That is quite clear in section 5 of the Parliamentary Elections Act.”
“I must say that Mr Jeyaretnam is just as confused as the writer who wrote that article and who started this debate on whether voting is a right or a privilege. She said she was confused "by the apparently self-conflicting statements" made between Mr Simon Tay and myself. Indeed, by her article, she confused others, including a person like Mr Jeyaretnam. Here are the two Hansard records of 19th and 20th April containing the speeches made by me in the two days of sitting of Parliament. I would like anyone, including Mr Jeyaretnam, to point out to me where in the two speeches I have made that I have said that "voting is a privilege". And if I did indeed say so, I will apologise to him. But if I did not, then I think they should do what is necessary. He is not the only one who was misled by this article. I would have expected academics, who are supposed to do their research, thorough in their work and finding out what is actually in the primary source of information, eg, documents, to check and confirm before they actually express a view. So we have an academic who says he now feels very diminished because his right to vote has been converted into a privilege. An hon. Member: By whom?”
“What the hon. Member said was that he read this article. He was not actually quite interested in this until there was this flurry of comments in the Straits Times and people complained to him and he wondered what this flurry of comments was really about and he referred to this article on 25th April in the Straits Times which was headlined something like whether voting is a right or a privilege and has ascribed to me saying that "voting is a privilege", and Mr Simon Tay saying that voting is a right. Let me get it clear.”
“Sir, actually, I am quite flummoxed by this. I would say that this speech by Mr Jeyaretnam is quite symptomatic of his conduct in the House - to borrow his word "symptomatic" - and let me explain that later. Unfortunately, the whole basis of his statement is based on some comments he read in the Straits Times, and that is his source of authority of what I said.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. IS VOTING A PRIVILEGE OR A RIGHT? 3.37 pm”
“3 of 2001, accepts the recommendations of the Commission as contained in paragraph 6 thereof and resolves in accordance with such recommendations. ADJOURNMENT TO A DATE TO BE FIXED Resolved, "That, at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. ADJOURNMENT MOTION”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament, noting the Third Report of the Commission on Parliament Staff as contained in Paper Misc. 3 of 2001, accepts the recommendations of the Commission as contained in paragraph 6 thereof and resolves in accordance with such recommendations. Sir, in accordance with Article 51(6) of the Constitution of Singapore, a Commission consisting of the Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Finance, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission and myself was set up to consider a new Scheme of Service for the Serjeant-at-Arms and Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms. The Commission has presented its Report to Parliament on 23rd April 2001. The Commission considered a proposal to create a new Scheme of Service for the Serjeant-at-Arms and Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms. The rationale for the proposal was that the duties of the Serjeant-at-Arms, especially in the area of security, have increased tremendously over the years, especially more so after moving into the new Parliament House in 1999. For instance, there was an increase in the number of visitors over the last five years from 9,390 in 1996 to 30,500 in the year 2000, and this number is expected to increase over the years. It was recommended that the new Scheme of Service for the Serjeant-at-Arms and Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms be based on the existing Police Scheme of Service for Senior Station Inspector and Station Inspector respectively. The recommendations of the Commission are contained in paragraph 6 of the Report. The House is asked to accept the recommendations of the Commission. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, noting the Third Report of the Commission on Parliament Staff as contained in Paper Misc.”
“Sir, wherever we draw the line, there will be others who fall outside the line and who would feel aggrieved. So whether we draw a line and say public sector, private sector, scholars, Government officials, or whether we say it is one out of five, two out of five, three out of five years, those who do not meet those criteria would be aggrieved. But no law is cast in stone and concrete. So as we progress, as we learn, as we eventually try to improve the system, modifications can be made. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.”
“That is why we have it in the provision that this certification and testing will be done by "the Auditor-General; or any person appointed by the Minister in consultation with the Auditor-General", and that particular phrase "any person" could well be a public accounting firm. But this is a trial project, we are doing it for the first time, and we do not know the scale of it. Eventually the Auditor-General may not have enough people to do the job and we may have to find a third party, those in the private sector, to help to do the job. So that possibility is not ruled out.”
“Again, they accept that, and there has been no allegation that these systems could produce the fraud that Mr Low just suggested. So, ultimately, it must therefore depend on, firstly, the people who design the software, who work out the system, and then the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General is a scheduled post and that person is trusted with the responsibility to ensure that the design would do what it is supposed to do.”
“I think it is right to say that we just cannot say the vote is secret, do not worry about it and that is it. We have to assure the public. I take that point. Therefore, in the process of testing and certifying, there is an authority, that is, the Auditor-General. But he is not alone, he is there to do the job, he will have to demonstrate to whoever that are present during the test and certification that this is indeed so. And we can actually get experts to check that. But where do we end? Supposing we get another expert to check on the Auditor-General, maybe another person to check on the expert, and so on and so on. Here we have the Elections Department working out the software, the system and the program. There is a checking body - the Auditor-General - to make sure that it is designed to do what it is supposed to do and no more, whether it is to track the vote, whether it is to add votes or convert votes of Opposition into PAP. And how more transparent can it be when that is being tested and checked by a third party? This checking by a third party is not something that we invented. It is something that is also being done in some countries. In Belgium, for example, they have a smart card system, which is also electronic. It is checked by the Ministry of the Interior, and the Ministry in charge of elections is the Ministry of the Interior, the equivalent of Home Affairs Ministry. There has been no suggestion that the Ministry of the Interior is trying to fix the results for the government party. In the Netherlands, the system is being worked out by the election commission officials and it is checked by a team from the university, and they accept that. In the United States, there are various systems and they are checked by a private company.”
“But whatever it is, with or without the paper trail, there is an audit trail, that is, an electronic trail, that can show the voter, serial number and his vote, and that is the ultimate test. The paper is just to assure the voter. That is it. When we want to do a recount, there can be a recount. There is a paper receipt to do the recount. But from the examples that I have seen in Belgium and the Netherlands, in their electronic voting, the touch screen and the card, there is no paper. It is completely electronic. A recount is all done electronically. I have forgotten to answer one question on the vote margin - why 2%? Two percent is actually a very generous figure. We can have 5%; we can have 10%. But ultimately what is it that we want to see? We want to see that there is a fair amount of a margin to take care of a margin of manual counting error. Looking at the elections of the last many years, actually 2% is already very generous. In the examples that I have quoted, in the United States, some states have only 0.1%; in Canada's Federal Election, 0.1%; and in some other states, 1%. Of course, there are also other states which have 5%. There is a variation in the US. In Malaysia, it is 2%. So if you look at 2%, it is a reasonable margin.”
“I think, for background purposes, there are others who do not know what is actually on the screen, let me explain. There was a demonstration by the Elections Department for the MPs a few days ago to show how the screen looks like. That is only an example of how the screen will look like. Ultimately, how the screen will look like depends on the submissions made by the tenderers of the system. They may come back with a different screen. They may come back with a different image and we have to decide. But I take the point that we should make it simple and easy for people to understand, and for them to just simply perform the task without great difficulty. That is a point that we will take into account. On the paper vote, actually it is a paper receipt, I said that during this trial we will have a touch screen, and then to assure the voters that what they touch on the screen actually gets recorded, we have a paper receipt to show them that it is indeed the candidate they have voted. Just like in the supermarket, you have a receipt. But a voter cannot take that paper receipt with him because he cannot take the ballot paper out of the polling station. So that paper receipt is cut and stored in a box which will eventually be sealed together with the other vote storage cards in the vault of the Supreme Court. This is a trial feature. Whether we will extend this feature in future or not, I think we will have to study this. Maybe in five or six years' time, after the next election, there will be a totally different technology altogether that will obviate the need for this particular paper trail.”
“I think this situation is no different from a person who is working overseas but whose name appears on the Electoral Register. So if, because of work, he cannot come back to vote right now, then his name will be taken off the register. But if he has a reason to be away - he shows his passport and says he was away in Germany and therefore cannot come back to vote - then his name will be restored in the register. Similarly, in the case of an overseas register, it is the same thing. We open the register for overseas Singaporeans to register, they check and they register. And if they do not go and vote, their names will be taken out. If they happen to stay in Germany but the polling station is in London, he has a good reason not being able to turn up physically to vote in London, then again his name would be restored.”
“He mentioned just now that voting is compulsory, and that one of the consequences of not voting will be that your name will be expunged from the register of electors. If a person were to be overseas and qualifies but he happens, for example, to be working in Germany or Norway, he would have difficulty going to London to vote. Is there a duty on him to register? And if he registers, must he also travel physically to London to vote? What happens if he does not? Will his name then be expunged from the register of electors and will there be a chance for him to reinstate his name with minimum inconvenience?”
“I do not have any doubt that our Elections Department, the Returning Officers and all those who assist them will carry out their duties fairly and impartially. He talked about other countries having election commissions. He also cited the example of the Philippines where they have NGO election watchers. We know what happens in the Philippines. Do they have free and fair elections? I do not know. I think only Mr Jeyaretnam thinks so. Ultimately, it is not a question of whether or not we have an independent election commission, or an Elections Department under the Prime Minister's Office. Ultimately, in every system or every commission or mission, it is the people behind it. The people who run and manage the system must have the honesty and integrity to make sure that they do their job properly. That is the litmus test, not the number of commissions that we have, not the type of systems that we have. It is ultimately the integrity of the people who run it. Mr Ravindran asked me who is this other person, apart from the Auditor-General who may be appointed to audit the system. Right now, we do not have any particular person in mind. But like many of the other statutes that we have, we either get the Auditor-General or somebody else appointed in consultation with the Auditor-General to do the auditing. That person must be someone with the skills, the expertise to do the job of testing and certifying the electronic voting system. For example, it could well be one of the public accounting firms that has the expertise. Sir, I believe I have answered most of the points, if not all of them, raised by Members. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Sir, I just like to ask the Minister a clarification.”