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 28 of 64.
“He will make a big issue of it, and he will not hesitate to take the matter to court. He has sued the Prime Minister but he lost. That is an example of how he decided that he should use the court as a process to settle his problem. He is now suing his party leaders. He knows how to make full use of the law. So if there is any sign or evidence that the 1980 Telok Blangah election or the 1997 Cheng San election was fraudulent, he would have gone straight to the court. Indeed, he did. He asked somebody. Maybe he did not ask, but somebody complained about the 1980 election in Telok Blangah and he went to court to petition but it was thrown out. I do not know why Mr Jeyaretnam keeps on harking on these issues, as if it is such a big thing to him when he has got no basis in his allegation. The only conclusion that I can come to is that when he raised the point, he did not bother to listen to the answers. Then he comes back subsequently rehashing the same old points like an old record. Mr Jeyaretnam also seems to have a perverse understanding of what is a free and fair election. A free and fair election, to him, means that when he wins, it is free and fair. When he loses, it is not free and fair. Like Mr Ravindran said, he won in the 1981 by-election. He won in 1984. He did not complain that these were not won freely and fairly. We had four Opposition MPs in 1991 - Mr Low, Mr Chiam, Mr Ling How Doong and Mr Cheo Chai Chen. They won. They have not made allegations that the elections which they won were not free and fair. So it is Mr Jeyaretnam's understanding of what is "free and fair" election. To me, his definition is quite perverse.”
“There is no need to, because whatever votes that are recorded in the machine will be stored there, and they can be read and counted, and the system will know who have voted. So we can be rest assured that we will try to find all possible ways and means to overcome this problem of machine breakdown. Mr Jeyaretnam is not here. His usual practice is to raise points and then he absents himself and does not bother to listen to the answers. Then, at subsequent sittings, he will raise the same points again because he did not hear the answers. It is not for his sake, but for the reason that because he raised some of these points - and I think he made serious allegations which are totally baseless - I must counter. One of the points he made was that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee. There is no need to do so because we are not doing something which is totally new. This is something that has been tried by many other countries, and we are learning and adapting it for our use. So I do not think there is a need to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. He cited a long list of complaints about fairness and unfairness in elections and the confidence of the people in the electoral process. He tried to discredit our electoral process by giving examples of the 1980 election in Telok Blangah or the 1997 election in Cheng San where he lost. Then out of nowhere, he talked about the 1993 Presidential election, which he said people had told him that Mr Chua should have won. These are totally baseless and groundless allegations. Mr Jeyaretnam is a lawyer. He knows the law. I presume he does. If he believes that there is electoral fraud, I think given half a chance, he will make a big song and dance out of it.”
“During the election campaign when a constituency is selected, we will also make extra effort to educate the voters of that particular constituency, so that the constituents can go to the community centre, community club or other community buildings and premises to learn how to use the system. On polling day itself, we will also set up demonstration machines. But the demonstration machines will not bear the same kind of ballot paper symbols as in the actual contest. It will be just a mock-up showing different symbols, and the voter will be taught how to use the machines. There could also be a video screening during the time that the voters line up to vote, for them to see how the voting is to be done, just to refresh the memory. If they still need assistance, the election officials will be on hand to show them how to vote at the demonstration set. So there will be a lot of education. In the process of educating the public before the writ is issued and before the system is certified, we will try to get feedback from them. If there are good ideas to incorporate in the system, they will be incorporated. Mr Ang and some MPs have asked what happens if the system breaks down half way. If the system breaks down half way, there will be technical staff on standby to try to fix the problem. There will be power generators on standby. There will be extra machines on standby, so that these can be used to supplement either the power outages or the machines that cannot work. But in the event that everything cannot work, we can still use the paper ballot. What happens to those voters who have already voted electronically? Are we going to call them back?”
“In the testing process, at the end of it, before it is sealed, Opposition parties can send their representatives to see to it that the system works in the way it is intended to work. There is an audit trail in the paper ballot. There will also be an audit trail in the e-voting system. The audit trail is not to check who voted for whom after the election by the Government. The audit trail is to make sure that indeed a vote was registered by such and such a voter bearing that particular serial number. And, eventually, when there is to be a check arising from an election petition, then there is a record of that vote, voter and so on. That is the purpose of the audit trail. Nobody will know who voted for whom until there is an election petition ordered by the court. The election official will not know how a voter voted during the voting process. Unless, of course, the voter who needs assistance, say, a person who is blind, needs assistance and says to the election official, "Please mark this for me." And this is nothing new. This is also done in the paper ballot system. So only in that instance will the vote be known to the Presiding Officer. But that Presiding Officer, the election official, has been sworn to secrecy. So Members can be assured that it will be kept that way. On the question of senior citizens and their fear of machines, let me assure Members there will be an extensive public education programme to educate the public about the electronic voting system. We will involve the various community organisations in this. We will also put this in some of the shopping malls where people go to.”
“Mr Low does not mind. He has great confidence in the system. Our Elections Department would be quite careful to determine where to implement e-voting. In Mr Chiam's case, for example, he is afraid that if he loses, then what happens? Could he put the blame on the e-voting system? For that reason, I think we will definitely not have e-voting in Potong Pasir. Otherwise, if Mr Chiam were to lose, he will blame it on the system, and we will have endless trouble. For Hougang, maybe we will consider. Mr Chiam and Mr Jeyaretnam have also asked why are we rushing into this. They said that the time is so short and this is such a great secret. There is no secret about this. The fact is that it was made known and we start to tell the public. Eventually, we educate the public about it, and we cannot do this in secret. If we want this to have widespread acceptance and easy to understand, we must tell people beforehand. But before the system can even be implemented, it has to be tested and certified before we can implement. And unless the system is ready - in other words, tested and certified before the writ is issued - we will not implement the electronic voting system. We can only do so when the system is certified before the writ is issued. This question of secrecy of votes seems to trouble people. Let me assure Members that the secrecy of votes will be maintained, just as in the paper ballot system. It is no different. In the writing of the software and in the designing of the system, in the machines, in the connections, the Auditor-General will make sure that this will be the case. I cannot get into the technical details of the system right now, but, definitely, voter secrecy is the key feature in the e-voting system.”
“I am quite sure that when we implement this system, we will be able to ensure the integrity of voting system. The votes will be secret. The voter could not be traced unless it is ordered by the court. And the election official would not know who that voter has voted for, even looking at his screen. I can assure Members that in the verification, certification, testing of the whole system, the Auditor-General, who is tasked with that responsibility, would make very sure of that. Trying this system out on a small scale is not something that is really new. Other countries, like Belgium, for example, tried out electronic voting in 1991 in two electoral cantons. The Dutch tried out the touch-screen system in 1998 in eight municipalities. I am told that they would be expanding this to other municipalities and cantons. It is not uncommon to have different voting systems in the same country. Look at the United States. They have different voting systems in different states, and even within the same state, they have different voting systems in different counties. We can have different voting systems, provided people are educated about them and officials are trained to do the job, and people understand the system. Mr Chiam is afraid that we will implement e-voting in Potong Pasir. I can assure him that since he does not like it, we will not implement it there. I do not know whether Mr Low Thia Khiang would volunteer or not.”
“We cannot have both situations. In the way he argued it, it does not make sense. Allowing voters to have different systems in the same polling station would actually complicate the voting process. I cannot imagine a situation where we have, say, in one constituency where e-voting and paper ballot are carried out at the same time, and the voters can do both at the same time. When that happens, who would ensure that that voter votes for the same party, both on the paper ballot and the electronic ballot? He could press "PAP" on the screen, but on the ballot paper, he marks, say, "SPP" (for the sake of Mr Chiam). When the officials do the count, they will find that the results are totally different and Mr Chiam will then say that the system cannot be trusted. It is a very silly idea. It is totally impracticable. It is impossible to implement unless we have the Presiding Officer standing next to the voter and say, "Let me make sure that you mark "PAP" on both the electronic screen as well as on the paper ballot, and after that you drop the paper ballot into the box". But does the voter want the election officials to do that - to watch what he votes? After all, voting is secret. I think we should not try this idea. As to why we are only trying this out on a limited scale, as some have also noted that this is the first time we are having electronic voting, I think it is not wise to implement electronic voting for all the constituencies that are being contested. It is better to start on a small scale and make it easily understood and educate the voters of that particular constituency, make sure people understand how it works and have confidence in the system before we implement it in other constituencies. It has nothing to do with the confidence of the system.”
“Yet, when he sends in his vote, for example, somebody may have canvassed him, and the secrecy of the vote again cannot be ensured. It is better that he turns up at the polling station to vote. Mr Ang Mong Seng asked whether the Elections Department can let the candidates know where their overseas voters are residing so that the candidates can send whatever materials that are necessary to keep the voters informed of their platform, promises, and whatever. That overseas voter has registered a Singapore address. The best way for the candidate is actually to send the material to that particular address which the candidate could get by buying the Register, and then let voter's relatives send him those communication materials rather than for the candidate to do so, as that would involve other operational difficulties. On electronic voting, there are a few questions about allowing the voter a choice between electronic voting and paper voting. Mr Chiam and Mr Noris Ong asked that we try out both the paper ballot as well as the electronic ballot on a pilot basis. Mr Chiam himself also said that we should not have more than one system operating in an election. He also said that we should not implement electronic voting until everything is ready and able to be universally implemented for all the constituencies. Some also asked why we are rushing into this and that we should not choose the Opposition wards for trying out electronic voting. I think Mr Chiam contradicted himself in some of his comments. On one hand, he said that both the electronic voting system and the paper ballot system be made available for voters to choose should we decide to implement the electronic voting. On the other hand, he said that we should not have more than one type of voting system.”
“If they do not vote, then their names will be taken off the Register as would happen to them if they were in Singapore. The practice is no different for overseas voting. Some MPs also suggested that to facilitate overseas Singapore citizens to vote, why do we not have postal voting. Postal voting has its own set of problems. For postal voting, we need to send the ballot paper to that voter. Then, he needs to send the ballot paper back to the Returning Officer. In the process, the vote can be lost, either in the postal stage when the department sends the ballot paper, or when the voter sends the ballot paper back to Singapore. There will be a lot of arguments about whether it was actually done or not. Besides, our election period is so short. From the writ of election to nomination and to the day of poll, the time taken for postal voting would not be enough because of our election period. Also, votes are secret. When ballot papers are sent overseas, who mark the ballot papers, who send them back, it is again very difficult to verify that. So, the secrecy of the votes would be compromised, particularly when we do not even know who marks that ballot paper. Mr Simon Tay also suggested early voting for those who happen to leave Singapore. They are actually in Singapore, registered as a Singapore voter, but they happen to leave Singapore on polling day. We have considered this. In other countries, they call this absentee voting. We again do not have time to register the absentee voter. To do so means that we have to give them the ballot papers beforehand and the ballot papers cannot be given beforehand until the polling day. Then, no canvassing is allowed during the time when a voter is supposed to vote.”
“So when registering as an overseas voter, that person would have to declare that he is still a citizen and that he is not disqualified to register as a voter before he can vote overseas. Under section 6 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, those citizens who have sworn allegiance to other countries, or those whose names are entered on the Register of Electors in another country, would not qualify to vote. The issue of dual citizenship does not arise because we do not recognise dual citizenship. If a person has dual citizenship, then we can take action to deprive him of his Singapore citizenship when we find out. At the time when the citizen declares that he is a citizen, we do not know if he is not already a citizen of another country. But when he is subsequently found out, then we can take action against him for false declaration, or to deprive him of his citizenship. And if he were to return, we can actually prosecute him for making a false declaration. As regards permanent residents, a Singapore citizen who is a permanent resident of another country is still a citizen of Singapore, so we cannot say that just because a person is a permanent resident of Australia, Britain or United States, we should deprive him of his vote. Until he has taken up citizenship of another country and sworn allegiance to that country, he is still a citizen and therefore should be eligible to vote. Prof. Chin also asked whether overseas voting is compulsory. Voting itself is compulsory in Singapore. Regardless of whether he is overseas or in Singapore, voting is compulsory. We have made it available for overseas Singaporeans, those who have two years out of five years residency, to register as a voter and they should and could register to vote.”
“They are on overseas assignments or training at the behest of the Government, that is, the Government sent them there, they are made non-resident by reason of the Government's decision or action. The Government asked them to go. As for others working in international agencies, for example, the United Nations, it is not just any international agency, it must be an international agency of which Singapore is a member. If he says that he works in a particular international agency, but Singapore is not a member, then that person cannot register himself as an overseas voter. Some MPs have also asked about the distinction between those sent by the Government to study or work overseas and other overseas Singaporeans. I have just said that for the officials, they are sent overseas by the Government, they perform an official duty. For the students, they are sent by the Government and they are bonded to serve the Government. Therein lies the distinction between them and those who go on their own or work for other companies. They go there on their own choice, are sent by their companies, or they go there on their own choice with their parents' money to study whereas, for those who are sent by the Government, we have asked them to do so. This distinction is made also in the election laws of other countries when they provide for overseas voting. I have cited a few examples - such as Canada and New Zealand are doing the same thing. Prof. Chin and Mr Simon Tay have also suggested that those who hold dual citizenship or who have become PRs of another country should not be allowed to register to vote. Firstly, in order to qualify as a voter, the voter must be a Singapore citizen.”
“If he stays in a country that is nearby the mission where we have an overseas polling station, there is nothing stopping him from registering himself as an overseas voter and vote in that particular mission. Let me give an example. If a Singaporean who is eligible to vote stays in Paris, the nearest mission for voting is London. He can actually register and then vote in London. We have not decided to open a polling station in Paris, not at this time, but when there is a reason to do so, we will do so. But, for now, we have grouped all those living in Europe so that they can vote in London. 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 remains a threat of plural voting. The Parliamentary Elections Act already differentiates between resident and non-resident citizens, as I explained earlier. Only citizens who are resident here are qualified to be registered as voters and to vote. The residency requirement is necessary so that we can allocate him a particular constituency. One hon. Member has asked, for an overseas voter, where will his constituency be. His constituency must be the Singapore address for which he has registered himself as a resident. It cannot be an address in London because we do not have constituencies in London. It is a simple matter which I explained yesterday. The amendment therefore would not remove this distinction that he must have a Singapore address. What it does is to extend the requirement of residency to include the groups of citizens who are away from Singapore for non-permanent reasons, and hence have sufficient ties to be allocated to vote in respect of a particular constituency.”
“We believe that many of them will come back to Singapore, they feel strongly attached to Singapore, they will defend Singapore's interests whenever Singapore is criticised. But if we were to find any other criteria to determine the eligibility to vote, we will end up with a lot of difficulties in implementation. So since other countries have also adopted a similar, simple, residential requirement as a criterion to vote overseas, I think that is a safe and simple way to do. Specifically on Mr Simon Tay's point on Article 12 versus the choice of overseas station, the Bill itself does not designate the particular overseas polling stations. That is left to the administrative discretion of the Returning Officer. Article 12 of the Constitution is not really an issue. Article 12 is infringed only if a person who is similarly situated in that place is treated differently for no rational basis. We have a rational basis for designating certain missions in one country as an overseas polling station and not another, ie, we have to regard the size of the voting population and the adequacy of the mission staff to conduct the poll and the security of the mission's premises. These are rational bases for deciding which overseas missions will be polling stations. These same criteria are also used in Singapore when we decide on where to put a polling station. It must be emphasised that no registered overseas voter resident in a country that does not have an overseas polling station is in any way disadvantaged or deprived of his entitlement to vote. He can be allocated to the nearest overseas polling station or, if he is already in the register of electors, he can always vote in Singapore when he is in Singapore.”
“In fact, by expanding this definition of "ordinarily resident", we have made it possible for certain groups of residents, ie, those who have lived in Singapore two years out of five years, to be able to vote overseas. Otherwise, by the strict definition of "ordinarily resident", if Singaporeans have actually moved away from Singapore, they have gone overseas to work, study or whatever, then they are not "ordinarily resident" in Singapore and, therefore, they are not eligible to vote under the Parliamentary Elections Act, unless they come back. And provided, of course, if their names still remain in the electoral register, then they can vote. So we have actually expanded this definition and made it possible for these citizens who have lived in Singapore for two years out of five years to be able to vote overseas. I hope that is simple enough for people to understand. There are suggestions on including other criteria, such as whether they have some assets in Singapore, whether they have properties in Singapore, whether they have economic interests in Singapore or their loyalties to Singapore, their ties to Singapore, their stakes in Singapore, and so on. We can choose a lot of criteria, but we must find one that is easy to understand, easy to implement and is convenient. It is difficult for us to define what is "stake", what is "emotional ties" and so on. All these are matters of the heart, not matters that one can measure. But when we come to residence, we can all measure residence - how long has one lived here during this period when one wants to qualify to vote. We are not doubting the loyalties or emotional links of Singaporeans to Singapore just because they live overseas.”
“Sir, I thank the Members for speaking on this Bill. First of all, let me clarify that election matters are not under the Ministry of Home Affairs. The fact that I am doing it is because the Prime Minister has asked me to lead the study group to go overseas and find out how other countries do electronic voting. I have been helping the Prime Minister also in other matters concerning the Parliamentary Elections Act, and that is why I am tasked with this responsibility to bring up this Bill in Parliament. There is no secret about this. I do not know whether the Prime Minister will decide to transfer his Elections Department to the Ministry of Home Affairs. That is a decision for him to take. Several Members have talked about the criteria other than citizenship to be eligible for overseas voting, and asked why not we include employees of local companies or multinational companies with offices here. Some have also made the point that voting is a right, not just a privilege, and Mr Simon Tay has mentioned Article 12 of the Constitution which ensures equality for all citizens. In fact, I have covered some of these points in my speech, but let me reiterate them here. The 5-year period for the qualifying criterion was chosen as it corresponds with a parliamentary election term, which is five years. For an overseas Singaporean to be deemed to be "ordinarily resident", in our view, is that he must have an aggregate of two years' residence out of five. This is reasonable. In New Zealand and Canada, a voter must not be out of the country for three years and five years respectively before he is eligible to vote. Setting a qualifying criterion based on residence is not an invention by us. Others have also done it.”
“Sir, it is 5.30 pm now, and we still have a few more speakers. We will come back tomorrow and I will deal with the rest of the questions, plus listening to the other MPs who have not spoken. On this note, Sir, I beg to move, "That the debate be now adjourned." Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the debate be now adjourned. Mr Deputy Speaker: Resumption of debate, what day?”
“The next elections may be just months ahead. There is another thing. Why is this kept secret? Please do not laugh. You know, Canon Adams, who was the principal of St. Andrew's School when I was there, said that people sometimes laugh just because they are nervous. They do not know what to do. So they burst into involuntary laughter. So please refer this Bill to a Select Committee. But, more importantly, if you want the world to say that the elections in Singapore are conducted fairly and freely, and more than the world, if you want our people to say that in Singapore the elections are conducted fairly and freely and we can repose the full confidence, please proceed immediately to appoint an independent elections commission, and hand over the conduct of the elections to a totally independent, neutral body, which will hold the scales firmly between the Government party and the Opposition parties.”
“They feel that it is their national duty to vote for the Government. So, is this an attempt to increase the PAP vote, and to see that the Opposition suffers as a result of it? May I mention a case in point, my own son who is in London? Why is he in London? Because he cannot get a job in Singapore. Why can he not get a job in Singapore? Because he has got my name. He is an economist. The MAS would not give him a job, and the banks are worried about employing him. So he cannot get a job here. And he cannot vote because he has not been here. There is Mr Ho Juan Thai. He has been living in London. He cannot vote, but he is just as much concerned about what goes on in Singapore, as any other Singaporean. So, why are you discriminating? Is it, as I said, to see that only those who will vote for the PAP are allowed to vote? I would ask the Minister to refer this Bill, particularly because of the introduction of the DRE voting system, to a Select Committee. As Mr Chiam has said, let the public get more acquainted with this. Let the public air their views about the introduction of the DRE voting system, whether they have any fears. And this will be possible if you refer this Bill to a Select Committee which will invite representations. It is good sometimes to let the public have their say. We get, time and time again, Government Ministers saying, "Speak up, speak up. Let us know what you think." But you have got to give them an opportunity. And you give them an opportunity, on Bills like this which concern a very important activity of them, to come and say what they think about it, what they think about how elections are being conducted in this country. Do they have full confidence in our electoral process? So, please, do not be in a hurry to introduce this Bill.”
“Again, about the fear of being found out, more than one speaker has mentioned about the fear in people that with electronic voting, it only increases the possibility of their votes being known, even before they are counted. How are you going to assuage this fear? By simply telling them, "No, we won't do it. You can trust us." That is not good enough. You have got to hand it over to an independent elections commission. Election officials must be recruited by the commission from outside. Then people might say, "All right, we can see that it is going to be conducted by a completely independent commission." And there will be NGOs monitoring the elections. Then we can see openly that our electoral process is fair and free. So my serious advice to this Government is: do things that are necessary and important to restore public confidence in the electoral system, and do not rush into electronic voting because it is modern or it is to keep up with the times. In the US, the voter strength must be running into 50-60 million or more. Here, it is less than 2 million. In India, they are planning to introduce it. But what is the voter strength there? Does the Singapore voter strength have any comparison to the Indian voter strength? Sir, may I say a few words about the overseas voters? As has been mentioned, it seems to me an exercise to garner more PAP votes. Why, as has been asked, this discrimination? You exclude people who are living outside Singapore, but who are just as much concerned about Singapore, just because they have not lived here for two years during the five years preceding. But you open it to all those who are in some way obligated to the Government. Of course, these people are obligated to the Government.”
“As Mr Chiam has said, may I ask what is the burning need to introduce direct recording electronic voting? Just because some other countries have introduced it, it does not necessarily follow that we should also have it. After all, how many voters do we have? Less than two million. What is the saving in introducing this? Is it time? From what I saw at this briefing, I think more time would be taken up with the direct recording electronic voting than in the straight ballot voting. I then mentioned what Mr Chiam said about elderly people having trouble and I was laughed at. But it involves officials going to advise them, showing them how to use the machine. Again, can one trust the impartiality and integrity of election officials? Could the Minister tell us what is the burning urgency to introduce the DRE voting system in this country? If you take a GRC constituency, how many voters do you have? 100,000 or more. In Cheng San, it was only about 100,000 and it was supposed to be a big GRC. How long will it take to count 100,000 votes? It will only take three hours, as it did at Cheng San. What is the big deal about this electronic counting? What is most important is not speed, but to see that everything that is done is done fairly and justly. That is far more important than speed. May I commend that to the Government. The Government prides itself on its efficacy and efficiency. Some think it is far too efficient. It does not take into account human factors. It does not take into account the feelings of people. It is only concerned with efficiency, like a ruthless machine, regardless of the suffering or inconvenience caused.”
“This was again demonstrated in Cheng San with the Prime Minister coming to the constituency, and in his eve of poll rally intimidating the voters. It was nothing short of that. It was pure intimidation of the voters. The other reason for this lack of public confidence is that the public cannot place very much reliance on the integrity and impartiality of the election officials. When I mentioned this at the briefing two days ago, all the Minister for Home Affairs could say was, "Well, you take it to the court." That is no answer. Again, this impartiality and lack of integrity on the part of officials was demonstrated in Cheng San GRC. I myself made a complaint to the Assistant Returning Officer at a particular voting station about the presence of the Deputy Prime Minister in that station. All he could say was, "All right, you write it out." We wrote it out but nothing was done. Then the Prime Minister turned up, nothing was done. The officer did not have the power or the strength to tell the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, "Please leave." So how can you place any reliance on the integrity and impartiality of election officials? These are the things that we must look into, not race along and bring in electronic voting because we want to keep up with the times. I have not got very much time, so I must move on. May I say that this lack of public confidence also stems from the fact that, unlike other countries, we do not have any NGOs in this country to monitor and act as election watch on the conduct of elections in this country. In the Philippines and other countries, there are these groups but, in Singapore, there is nothing. May I move on? I see Mr Speaker is looking at his time. May I just move on to the DRE voting?”
“And anyone can see, seeing a situation where a party itself to that activity, having the whole power to make the rules and to run it, it is placed in a greater advantageous position than the other party or parties taking part in it. The first thing is that we have got to take the conduct of elections out of the hands of the Ministers of the Government. Incidentally, may I know why is this Bill being introduced by the Minister for Home Affairs? I thought elections come under the Prime Minister. I thought perhaps the Prime Minister was away, out of the country, but I see him sitting here. So I do not know why it has been handed to the Home Affairs Minister to introduce this Bill. Is it not the responsibility of the Prime Minister to explain this Bill and to answer Members of Parliament on it, unless tomorrow it is going to be announced that the Elections Department is going to be put under the Ministry of Home Affairs? May I say that it is a matter to be regretted very much. Do not rise to it, Mr Wong. Again, this lack of confidence stems from the previous announcements by the Government that it will know how voters have voted and they do it deliberately, taking steps to ensure that they do know. So in the 1997 elections, for the first time, we had precinct voting of five or six blocks together, so that the Government may know how the voting had gone, whether there was a preponderance of Opposition voters or PAP voters. If there was a preponderance of Opposition voters in that precinct, no upgrading, all benefits to be withdrawn from them. How could you inspire confidence when there is this fierce determination to win elections at any cost by the Government?”
“Whether it is nonsense or not, a democratic Government must take account of the perception of the people so that they may repose the fullest confidence that the electoral process in their country is fair and free, that elections are conducted fairly, that the citizens vote freely without any fear or compulsion, and that the final result represents the choice of the people, not the choice of the Government. In the 1997 elections, again going back to my own constituency of Cheng San, there was widespread disbelief that we had lost. This was again fuelled by the fact that there was this long delay between the counting and the announcement of the results, and by the fact that in one electoral district in Cheng San GRC, the number of ballot papers that were found in the ballot box exceeded the number on the register for that area. This was recorded by us and reported. There were also other irregularities. We reported that in some cases, we had come across more than one ballot paper folded together. That could not have been possible. So, a number of people were amazed that we had lost and wondered what was behind our loss. You have got to meet that sort of perception and assure them that elections are conducted fairly and freely. But this lack of public confidence, Sir, stems primarily, if I may say so, from the fact that the election activity in this country is conducted by the Government who itself is a party to the election. How could that be - a party who is taking part in the elections has the complete control of the elections as to what can be done, what should be done, and how it should be carried out? It makes nonsense of the rule that any activity must be seen and manifestly seen to be fair.”
“In the 1980 general elections, when I stood at Telok Blangah, I lost by a mere 500 votes to the then PAP candidate, Mr Rohan Khamis. After the votes were counted, the following day when I went around, a number of people expressed their total disbelief that I had lost in Telok Blangah. And this disbelief was fuelled by the fact that a ballot box had been left behind in one of the voting stations' centres for more than 20 minutes before the bus was sent back to pick it up and take it to the counting centre. So I met a number of residents who said, "How can this be that you lost? We were all so convinced that you should have won this seat." I know it is easy for you, the PAP Members, to laugh and shake your heads, but you have to take account of the public perception. You just cannot shut your ears and eyes to it, like an ostrich, burying your head in the sand and saying, "Everything is all right. We cannot see anything wrong, can we?" May I say again that in the 1993 presidential elections there was a widespread perception that the candidate, Mr Chua, had really won. Well, you may again shake your head, but I have met a number of people who said they could not believe it, that he had lost. And this was again fuelled, this perception was increased, by the fact that the announcement came some three or four hours after all counting had ceased. An attempt was made to explain this delay in Parliament by the Prime Minister that the facsimile machines had broken down or something. But why the four-hour delay just because the two facsimile machines had broken down? So, there was widespread disbelief in the result of the elections. It is all very well for the Government to say it is all nonsense.”
“Sir, I do not understand why the need to curb further a citizen's right to vote for a Member of Parliament by requiring him to stay an aggregate of two years during the five years immediately preceding the date of gazetting his name in the electoral register of the next general election. There is already a law where a Singapore citizen cannot reside away from Singapore for a continuous period of 10 years, failing which he has to show cause why he did not return to Singapore during that period of 10 years. I think, as long as a Singapore citizen has complied with all the laws of the land, he should be allowed to take part in a parliamentary election to vote for a representative of his choice. That should be his right. I think it is wrong to make a law to curb or diminish the right of a Singaporean. Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose this Bill, particularly on the proposal to introduce the direct recording electronic voting system in Singapore. But before I speak on the Bill and the clauses of the Bill on which I have my reservations, may I say that this Bill shows again that this Government gets its priorities wrong. Why do I say that the Government gets its priorities wrong? Mr Speaker, Sir, elections are the only test for determining or showing that the Government of the day has been elected fairly and freely by the citizens, and not only the Government of the day, but the Members of Parliament have been elected freely and fairly by all citizens. And the claim to democracy, which we are always making in this country, can only be sustained if the public, the citizens of Singapore, repose full confidence in the electoral process of this country. Sadly, this confidence is lacking in Singapore. May I amplify that.”
“If this is done, it shall be fair to all the candidates, as every candidate shall be having the same voting system, albeit a mixed one. This kind of system is fair, especially for the older voters. Old voters are fearful of the computer. This is illustrated by the takeover of the Post Office Savings Bank by the DBS Bank. After POSBank was taken over by DBS, the former bank introduced a lot of the banking work through the ATM booths. However, the older people still travel to the DBS Bank to deposit and withdraw their money. Sometimes they have to wait in long queues to do so. That was because they were illiterate and had the fear of operating the computer at the ATMs. They did not make any attempts to learn to operate the ATMs. These same old folks may have the fear also of operating the DRE voting machines. Sir, the other part of the Bill concerns overseas electors. It is only right that Singapore citizens residing abroad should be allowed to exercise their right to choose the Member of Parliament of their choice. The act of casting his vote for someone to represent him in Parliament is a very important right. It is only when a citizen has chosen his parliamentary representative that he can have a say in the affairs of his country, through his representative in Parliament. The citizens who are disqualified from voting are clearly spelt out in the Act. For example, people who have not taken their oath of allegiance or are serving a sentence of imprisonment or are of unsound mind, etc, are not allowed to vote in a parliamentary election.”
“In our case, should there be problems arising from the use of computers to vote, other than the recounting allowed under the law, I am afraid the loser, if due to the use of computer voting, has very little chance of redress. I think it is not right for the Government to have two voting systems at once in a general election. It is too early or premature for the Government to introduce the DRE voting system. The Government should be fully ready, then introduce the e-voting system for every electoral division, rather than only selecting a few and leaving the balance with the old manual voting system. It would appear that this is part of the Government's election strategy. The Government has tried the bait of upgrading HDB flats in the last GE, but failed to win back the two Opposition constituencies. Now it is trying something else - the new electronic voting system. If this were not so, then the Government should leave out the Opposition wards in the e-voting system. If the Government is unwilling to introduce the e-voting system to all the constituencies, then I call on the Government to hold back the e-voting system and keep it in abeyance for another four or five years, and only use it at the next general election after the coming one. If the Government is unwilling to hold back the introduction of the new e-voting system, then I would like to suggest that the Government use a dual voting system at the same time, ie, the use of a DRE voting system and the manual voting system simultaneously. With such a dual voting system, a voter is given the choice either to use the computer screen or use the ballot paper to vote. I am certain that Singapore has the technology to put up such a dual voting system.”
“In other countries, where computers or machines to assist in the voting system are to be used, people there are given a few years' warning or notice, unlike in Singapore where the Government is only giving the people a few months' notice or, at most, slightly more than 12 months' notice. I hear that the DRE voting system at this point of time is still not finalised. Tenders are being called to fix the system. The Government itself is not confident of the system. That is why the Government does not want to implement e-voting in every electoral division but only in selected ones. So why the need to rush going into the e-voting system? What I am afraid is that the opposition constituencies at Hougang and Potong Pasir shall be selected as guinea pigs for the e-voting system. If this happens, then I say that the Government is being unfair to the Opposition. There are so many more PAP-held constituencies than the Opposition. Therefore, it is only fair if PAP constituencies should first be selected to test out the e-voting system and not the Opposition ones. In any new computer system, Sir, there are bound to be teething problems. I think that the new DRE voting system is not going to be an exception. There shall probably be some unforeseen problems cropping up. I would like to mention that even in the USA during the last presidential election, there were problems with their machine-assisted voting system. Many voters in the Florida state complained that they accidentally punched the wrong hole in the voting card. The Supreme Court in America could not help them to redress the alleged injustice.”
“In the case of the DRE system, I should like to ask the Minister to assure us that the system is one that would provide the same level of secrecy and security as that present for the current system of voting through the ballot box. Voters would want to be reassured that their votes would remain secret, and that there would not be some electronic tracking device that would match their identities to their votes. May I ask the Minister what steps would then be taken to not just educate the public on how to vote in an electronic system, but also to assure them that the security features are in place to ensure that their vote remains as secret as in the case of the paper ballot. Sir, the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill is, as the Minister has pointed out, an important piece of legislation that enables more Singaporeans to vote, even though they are not physically in Singapore. This is to be strongly supported. As more and more Singaporeans venture abroad, it is important to provide them with the opportunity to exercise this most cherished of privileges, namely, the vote. We must remain vigilant only against those who have left us and wish us ill but, at the same time, we must endeavour to allow those legitimate voters who have a belief in Singapore but who have to work overseas, exercise their votes without unduly restricting them. Sir, I support the Bill. Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I would like to speak on two aspects of the Bill. I would like to speak on (1) direct recording electronic (DRE) voting system, and (2) overseas electors. Sir, I cannot support the DRE voting system because the notice given to use such a system is too short. I cannot understand why the Government wants to rush to pass this Bill.”
“In both these situations, I would say that an elector would have by such conduct forfeited the privilege to vote in a Singapore election. It is of course a problem, when we have overseas voting, that a person making false declarations or guilty of other illegal practices would not be subject to Singapore's criminal law, as he would be outside the jurisdiction. I would like to ask the Minister what are the possible measures that could be taken against such persons. Sir, our law states that voting is compulsory, and if an eligible elector does not vote, his name is liable to be expunged from the register until he gives a good reason for not voting. I should like to know whether overseas electors would be subject to the same provision. It may be much more difficult to vote overseas due to distance or transport problems. Certainly, they would not have as many polling stations. Sir, perhaps, we should look again at the qualifying conditions for overseas voting and question whether the distinction that was mentioned between the public sector and the private sector be maintained, and consider whether we have put in conditions of eligibility which would ensure that serious voters with sufficient concern about what happens in Singapore would get to vote, whether they are private or public sector employees. Sir, I turn to the electronic voting system. The use of electronic devices for voting is a step in the right direction. It is also a step that many view with suspicion, perhaps due to a concern that the electronic vote may not be as safe as the good old-fashioned ballot paper. Recent glitches in electronic billing, for instance, may have reinforced the feeling of mistrust.”
“When one votes, one gets the feeling that it may not count for much but one also gets the satisfaction that all who vote are engaged in a common venture of the most important kind - to elect representatives to the legislature and, in our system, indirectly, to the executive as well. It is with this perspective that I would like to comment on the new Bill. We must be careful that the vote, which is an affirmation of belonging to Singapore, should be regarded as a cherished privilege, to be taken away only if a citizen forfeits it through his or her own unacceptable conduct. Under clause 9 of the Bill, a new section 13A is proposed. This refers to the registration of overseas electors. Here, I find a curious distinction between those who are in the public sector or Government scholars, and those who are not. If one is not somehow in the public sector, one has to show a period of two years' residence out of five immediately preceding the prescribed date. This is not required of the public sector group. Perhaps, the Minister can explain why there is a need for this distinction. He mentioned just now that long-term Government officers will otherwise be disenfranchised. But by the same token, so would private Singaporeans working for private organisations overseas. So the distinction has to be justified, I believe, in another way. Second, any elector wishing to be registered has to submit proof that he is a citizen over 21 and he has to make a declaration to this effect as well. I wonder why the declaration is necessary. I am actually more inclined to have a would-be overseas elector declare that he has not acquired permanent residence in the country where he is currently residing, or that he is not in the process of being a citizen of that country.”
“Consequential amendments Finally, clause 27 and the Schedule make similar amendments relating to overseas voting and electronic voting in the Presidential Elections Act. Amendments are also made to the Political Donations Act to make it clear that political parties are permissible donors and to effect other technical amendments to clarify provisions. Sir, the overseas and electronic voting proposals that I have presented today are significant steps taken by the Government to ensure that our electoral processes move with the times. The other amendments are practical changes to fine-tune the current electoral processes and to safeguard voter privacy. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Bill. This Bill seeks to extend the vote to Singaporeans overseas and also to introduce into our electoral system the electronic vote. Both measures that the Minister has mentioned may be said to be a recognition of globalisation (which means that more and more Singaporeans are going abroad to work and study) and the Information Technology society (which requires all of us to be familiar with the use of computers). Sir, the simple act of voting is central to our system of Government. It is the foundation on which legitimate government in Singapore is based. While voting is not a constitutional right, it is nonetheless a strong symbol of citizenship, a mark of belonging - a privilege limited only to those who are citizens of a certain age. It is also a duty, as voting is compulsory. Many vote not because it is compulsory, but because they feel they are discharging their duty to society. Yet, voting, as an individual act, is a curious thing.”
“1% in Arizona to 5% in Vermont but the majority of them are 1% or less, for example, Virginia, South Carolina, Montana, Florida and Georgia. Therefore, Sir, you can see that the 2% margin proposed in the Bill is really quite generous. In the United States too, Sir, some states also require the requesting party to pay a deposit for the recount, which would be returned only if the results are reversed or if substantial errors are established. This is something we may consider doing in future if there is a need. Restriction on use of register Sir, I shall now touch on the restrictions on the use of the registers of electors. Currently, the Parliamentary Elections Act is silent on how the registers may be used. Given the information contained in the registers, there is potential for their misuse for commercial purposes, or invasion of privacy. Therefore, to protect the interest of the electors and prevent abuse, we are amending the Act to restrict the use of the registers. Clause 11 inserts a new section 21A which will allow political parties, candidates and their election agents to use the records in the registers of electors only for communicating with the electors. Use of records for commercial purposes will not be allowed. If the candidate, the election agents or the parties are to disclose any such information to another person, they can do so only after obtaining the written acknowledgement of the person that he is bound by the restrictions under the Act. Furthermore, any other person who obtains information from a register of electors cannot reproduce, store or transmit the information. Breach of any of the conditions under the new section is an offence carrying a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment for a term of up to six months or both.”
“The candidate or his election agent can also request for a recount at a counting place if he thinks the votes are too close there, without taking into account the aggregate of the votes for the whole constituency. Sir, this is an anomaly, as the closeness of the votes at the counting place level does not reflect the closeness of the contest for the whole constituency. For example, during the 1997 General Elections, the votes at quite a few of the 25 counting centres in the Cheng San GRC were recounted as the margins were close. However, if we look at the aggregated result, the winning margin was actually 9.6%. There should be no reason for a recount to be made for such a big margin. Sir, to address this anomaly, clause 21 inserts a new section 49B which will allow application only after the votes in the constituency have been counted. To avoid frivolous requests, recounts will only be allowed if the total winning margin is 2% or less of the total valid votes for a constituency. So using this criterion, Nee Soon Central in 1991 and Eunos GRC in 1988 would qualify for recount. The 2% margin will also apply to the recount of the hardcopy receipts for the constituencies using the DRE voting system. Sir, it is not unusual to set a margin for the purpose of recount. Malaysian law, for example, provides for a mandatory recount on application if the difference between the two leading candidates is 2% or less of the total number of votes cast. In Canada, a recount ordered by a court on application is mandatory only if the margin is 0.1% of the votes cast for the federal level elections. In the United States, the recount margins vary from state to state. They range from 0.”
“To provide for greater familiarity, it is stated in the new section 50D that the ballot image on the screen will have to be the same format as the ballot paper. The section also provides the Minister with the power to make regulations to modify the current election processes into electronic form. This is necessary as most of the current processes spelt out in the law are paper-based. For example, to allow the votes to be counted electronically, we will need to make the appropriate regulations to provide for it. To safeguard against hacking, there will be no online link between the voting machines and the counting centre. The DRE voting machines will only be connected within each polling station via a local area network. For the purpose of the trial at the coming elections, the machines will come with a hardcopy receipt feature. The main purpose is to assure voters of the accuracy of electronic voting. If the pilot phase is successful, the two trial features, namely, the hardcopy receipts and paper ballot backup, may be dispensed with in future elections. Sir, should the electronic voting system be ready for use at the next elections, there will be public education, not just for the pilot constituency, but the entire population as well. Singaporeans will have hands-on experience on demonstration touch screens at community premises, like community clubs and neighbourhood shopping malls. There will also be mass publicity through broadcast and print media. Recount margin Sir, now, let me turn to the recount margin. Currently, our election laws allow one mandatory recount, if requested by the candidate, regardless of vote margin at each counting place.”
“The new section 50B also provides for the auditors to conduct pre-poll inspection of the DRE voting machines which will be used on polling day. This will be done in the view of the candidates or their polling agents who are present. After the inspection, the machines will be sealed and stored at a secure place before being taken out on polling day. At the polling station, the presiding officer will have to ensure that the electronic voting equipment are still sealed and secured against use. The seals will be broken in the view of those in the polling station, before the machines are put to use. Sir, in the event of a system failure, there will be technical staff on standby to attend to the machines. However, in the unlikely event of a total system failure, then voting will be halted. It can resume at a later time using either ballot papers or the same DRE voting system. It can also be adjourned and conducted afresh another day within a week. For the trial at the coming elections, the conventional paper ballot will be the backup. To prevent potential disruptions caused by power failure, polling stations using the electronic voting system will also have backup power generators. Under the new section 50A, the electronic voting system must be able to maintain all the voting data stored regardless of power surges or outages. Sir, from the voters' perspective, I would like to emphasise that there is no change in the voting process with electronic voting. Only the medium would be different. For example, the making of a choice on the touch screen is no different from the current marking of the ballot paper. The confirming of the choice on the screen is similar to depositing the marked ballot paper into the ballot box.”
“The computers and touch screen monitors can also be used for other purposes after the election, so that there is no problem with storage, maintenance and system obsolescence between elections. Obsolescence is a common problem which the election officials in the United States, Belgium and the Netherlands highlighted to us during our October trip last year. This is not surprising, given the speed at which technology is changing. For example, we were told by one of our US hosts that they have difficulties maintaining the voting machines they have used for more than 10 years, as the company which supplied the machines has closed down. Such a problem will not occur if the voting system is only in the form of software, and the hardware can be used for other purposes after each election. Clause 22 inserts new sections 50A to 50D relating to the use of electronic voting systems, which are referred to as direct recording electronic (DRE) voting systems in the Bill. Before its use, the DRE voting system has to be scrutinised and approved by the Auditor-General or a person appointed by the Minister in consultation with the Auditor-General, before the issue of the writ. Approval is also to be given after conducting such necessary tests in the presence of the Returning Officer and such representatives of any political party who wish to be present. The criteria for the approval process are also stipulated in the new section 50A. These include the need for the votes to be cast in secrecy and for sufficient audit trails to be available for verification purposes. The audit trails are necessary to prevent election fraud, and are no different from what we are already doing for the paper ballot system.”
“More people are now familiar with electronic devices, such as computers, automatic teller machines (ATMs), etc. Many also use the ATMs to top up their cash cards and even subscribe to IPO shares and use Nets terminals to perform all kinds of transactions such as paying for goods at supermarkets. The Government has therefore decided that it is time to make provisions for electronic voting in our elections. Elections Department is currently developing the system. If it can be ready before the next General Elections, we will try it out on a limited scale. The trials will allow both the voters and the election officials to learn from the experience before making its use universal. Sir, electronic voting is not new. Countries which have used electronic devices either for voting or for counting of votes include the United States, Belgium, Netherlands and Brazil. The United Kingdom also tried out various forms of electronic voting and counting at its local elections in May last year. Last October, I led a team to look at the electronic voting systems used in Belgium, Netherlands and the United States. Both Belgium and the Netherlands use touch screen voting systems running on personal computers, Belgium since 1991 and the Netherlands since 1998. Essentially, the voters make their choices either by touching the screen with their finger or with an electronic pen. In the Netherlands and the US, I saw the use of dedicated voting machines, where the voters make their choices on a panel. I also saw the use of punch card and mark sense ballot papers for voting, where the ballots can then be counted electronically by machines. After studying the different systems, we have selected the personal computer- based touch screen system for our use. It is fast and convenient to use.”
“This can be held before the poll opens in Singapore but must close no later than the close of poll in Singapore. For example, for the voting at our London Mission, it will only be noon there when the poll closes at 8.00 pm in Singapore. Hence, to provide the voters there with sufficient time to cast their votes, and yet have the poll closed no later than the close of poll in Singapore, we will likely have to hold the voting there one day earlier. Sir, clause 21 inserts a new section 49A which provides 10 days for the overseas votes to be returned to Singapore. Overseas votes will be counted as soon as is practicable after they arrive in Singapore. However, if the winning margin, based on the local votes counted, is higher than the total overseas votes for a particular constituency, then the winner will be declared on polling night. For example, if the difference in votes between the winning and losing candidates in a constituency is, say, 1,000, and there is only a total of 500 overseas electors for that constituency, the winning candidate will still be declared as the winner for the election since the 500 overseas votes do not affect the poll result in Singapore. However, overseas votes will still be counted, and added to the local votes and subsequently published in the Gazette. Electronic Voting Sir, now let me move on to electronic voting. Singapore now uses a paper ballot voting system for the General and Presidential Elections. The system is manpower intensive, and the Elections Department anticipates increasing difficulty in getting public officers to serve as election staff, especially given the trend of public service agencies being corporatised. We should now also take advantage of technological advances.”
“In a very closely contested constituency, the overseas votes from these "friends" may just be able to change the outcome of that election. Besides the qualifying criterion, clause 4 amends section 6 to disqualify a non-resident from voting if he is in a foreign jail or has a Singapore warrant of arrest issued on him for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding 12 months. Those in foreign jails are excluded for obvious reasons. Fugitives of justice should also be excluded because they are running away from Singapore law. Electors who wish to vote overseas will have to pre-register at the Elections Department or one of our overseas missions. This will allow the Elections Department to determine and prepare the required resources. Clause 7 amends section 10 to provide for the establishment of overseas registration centres in any Singapore embassy, High Commission, diplomatic mission or consulate, while clause 9 inserts a new section 13A that provides for the registration of overseas electors. The registration for overseas voting will be open at our missions at the same time as the register is open for inspection in Singapore. The registration for overseas voting will be open for 21 days, 7 more days than the 14 days given to the electors in Singapore to inspect the register. This is because the overseas electors may need more time to be informed of the registration and to come forward to register at the missions. Clause 14 inserts a new section 36A providing for the establishment of overseas polling stations in any Singapore embassy, High Commission, diplomatic mission or consulate, while clause 16 inserts a new section 39A that deals with voting by overseas electors. Overseas voting will be held as close as the polling day in Singapore as possible.”
“Those overseas Singaporeans who do not maintain a local address with the Commissioner of National Registration will not have their names entered or retained on the Electoral Register as they cannot be allocated to any particular electoral division using their foreign address. In order for an overseas citizen to retain a Singapore address on the register, the National Registration Act is also amended so that citizen can either use the address of one of his local residential properties, or the local residential address of any family member or relative. It is reasonable to expect a Singaporean overseas to register a residential address which he still owns or has some links with, and for this address to be used as the basis for determining the constituency he belongs to. If we allow him to register, say, his last known address, but he has already sold the property, then his elector status can be objected to or challenged by the current occupants at that address, when the register is open for inspection. Therefore, the provision for the person to register the address of a relative enables him to have an address in Singapore for voting purposes. Sir, to prevent vote manipulation, we require the residential address to belong to his own property or his relative's and not, say, his friend's. Allowing an overseas Singaporean to register his friend's address with the National Register will mean that he can use any person's address as his local address, since it is difficult, if at all impossible, to define "friends". This can then be exploited as a loophole to manipulate votes. For example, a candidate can ask all his "friends" overseas to register an address in the constituency he is contesting as their Singapore address.”
“Sir, it is not uncommon for countries to impose residential requirements as a condition to register their overseas voters. New Zealand and Canada, for example, require their citizens to be out of the country for no more than three and five years respectively to be eligible to vote overseas. For both countries, their residential requirements also do not apply to the government officials and their dependants. There are other countries, eg, India and Israel, which allow only their diplomats or personnel on official assignment overseas to vote overseas. This requirement of residence is an important one. It is a necessary pre-condition to constituency representation and to prevent plural voting, which is a form of electoral fraud. Our parliamentary elections are conducted on a constituency basis. The poll is conducted and the votes counted for each constituency. Therefore, a citizen's residence in Singapore affords the basis for allotting him to a particular constituency to vote during an election. Secondly, without allocating a constituency based on a citizen's residence, a citizen can easily vote more than once at any election and not being detected. This is plural voting. Thus, residence is and must be retained as a pre-condition to vote. The amendments effect a relaxation in a manner that will not allow plural voting to take place. Sir, the new law deems certain groups of overseas citizens to be ordinarily resident in Singapore. These are citizens who are likely to have intentions to resume residence in Singapore. Hence the amendments provide them the facility of voting outside Singapore. The voters' constituency is based on the records on the Electoral Register, which in turn is derived from the register maintained by the Commissioner of National Registration.”
“Under the current election laws, only Singaporeans who are "ordinarily resident" in Singapore can vote. The term "ordinarily resident" is not explicitly defined in the Act. Strictly interpreted, a Singaporean who is not "ordinarily resident in Singapore" will not be allowed to register to vote. To enable them to vote overseas, it is therefore necessary to expand the definition of "ordinarily resident". Currently, there are various ways "residence" is defined in our statutes. For example, for income tax purposes, a natural person is resident in Singapore if he is in Singapore for 183 days or more during the year preceding the year of assessment. Under the Women's Charter, the courts would have jurisdiction over family disputes or to entertain proceedings for presumption of death only if one of the parties has been habitually resident in Singapore for a period of three years immediately preceding the institution of the proceedings. Clause 3 amends section 5 of the Parliamentary Elections Act to deem non-resident Singaporeans to be ordinarily resident in Singapore and qualified to be registered as electors if they have lived in Singapore for an aggregate of two years within five years of their registration to vote overseas. The five-year period corresponds to the statutory maximum term of Parliament. The two years in five years criterion will not, however, apply to citizens and their families sent by the Government to work or study overseas, as well as those working in approved international agencies, eg, the United Nations. Otherwise, some of those who are assigned by the Government on long tours of duty or sent by the Government to study overseas will inadvertently be disenfranchised.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill proposes amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act to provide for overseas and electronic voting. It also specifies a vote recount margin and restricts the use of the register of electors. I will deal with each one of them in turn. Overseas voting Overseas Singaporeans are spread out in many countries. The number is not large, compared to the total Singapore population. Based on the 1997 General Elections statistics, the Elections Department estimates that in a fully contested election, about 43,000 electors, or slightly more than 2% of the electorate, are likely to be resident abroad. Our sense is that the number of overseas Singaporeans of voting age is probably higher, as some of them may not have restored their names on the register over the years, and some have come home to vote. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has estimated that the current number of Singaporeans overseas is about 100,000. The Government recognises that more and more Singaporeans will work and study overseas with economic globalisation. Therefore, the Government has decided to try out overseas voting in a limited way at the next general elections if all the preparations and procedures can be completed on time. This will allow us to gain some experience, and we can then consider doing it on a larger scale later. For a start, overseas voting will be carried out at our Missions in Beijing, Canberra, Hong Kong, London and Washington. These Missions are chosen because of the significant number of Singaporeans living in China, Australia, Hong Kong, Europe and America, and the Missions have enough staff to conduct the elections. Now, let me move on to the eligibility for overseas voting.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, with effect from this day's sitting until 28th February 2002, - (a) Question Time may continue for up to one and a half hours from the commencement of a sitting; and (b) the existing time in Standing Order No. 88(2) be revised from "1.30 pm" to "2.00 pm"." This is to allow more Questions to be answered. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, "That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, with effect from this day's sitting until 28th February 2002, - (a) Question Time may continue for up to one and a half hours from the commencement of a sitting; and (b) the existing time in Standing Order No. 88(2) be revised from "1.30 pm" to "2.00 pm"." ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD FLATS (Building programme) 1. Dr Teo Ho Pin asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many new Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats will be built in FY 2001/2002; (b) how many existing HDB contracts have been tendered but not awarded; and (c) how many of these flats are tendered or will be tendered using Design and Build procurement method.”
“Sir, I think we have all had a fairly long day today, and I do not intend to make a long speech. I will leave the best speech to the last. I just want to thank the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker for listening to the hundreds of speeches made by the MPs and the replies given by the Ministers. It has been a very long sitting. I am sure we have heard exhaustive replies concerning many issues but, despite this, MPs do not seem to get tired. Just by looking at the number of speeches made on the seven Bills, a total of 19 apart from the two Supply Bills, in addition to those by the Ministers in their Second Reading, I think we have covered quite a lot in the last four hours. So, on this note, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed.”
“And so the Prime Minister knows what each office-holder owns and the Prime Minister does not keep this to his chest, as Mr Jeyaretnam said. The Prime Minister shows that list to the President. So when there is an allegation of misconduct, the declaration would form the basis for an investigation. Thirdly, all PAP MPs are also required to declare their income to the Prime Minister, even though they are not in charge of any Ministry or policy. This system is instituted by the PAP and I do not know whether the Workers' Party has a similar system to require its MPs to declare their assets to their own leaders. If not, then he should firstly put his own house in order. Fourthly, if we have such a register, it would only intrude on the personal privacy of members unnecessarily. Already, it is quite difficult for us to get people to contest and, doing so, would simply dissuade such people from coming forward.”
“Within each zone, each contesting independent candidate or party will be allocated one assembly centre, irrespective of the number of electoral divisions in the zone being contested by them. More details will be announced at the general election. Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam is not here to listen to this. But having made the point, I should reply to his point. Otherwise, the House would be left with no answer to the question raised. This is not the first time Mr Jeyaretnam raised it. I do not think it will be the last time too, if he remains in the House or continues to remain in the House. The reasons why we do not need such a register have been stated before and I will just reiterate very quickly. Firstly, Mr Jeyaretnam's proposal does not necessarily contribute to a clean government and uncorrupt practices. It will not stop corrupt practices if an MP chooses to be corrupt. An MP who is corrupt will not openly list his corrupt things in the declaration. So apart from satisfying the curiosity of some people, this will not help to maintain a clean government. Indeed, Mr Jeyaretnam must have thought of this practice because it was practised in the United Kingdom. The British have such a system in 1974. But we all know by 1994, there was a large number of complaints concerning the sleaze problems of the MP. As a result, the Prime Minister had to set up a committee on standards in public life to oversee the conduct of holders of public office. In Singapore, our practice has always been that there is a code of conduct for the Ministers and the office-holders and each Minister or office-holder is required to file a declaration of his assets to the Prime Minister at the beginning of each term.”
“Usually, the contesting parties will gather at the respective headquarters or at a large hotel ballroom. In Australia, for example, the results are transmitted via computers from the ground, and are placed in the National Tally Room in Canberra. The TV network covers the results live from the National Tally Room. Some MPs gather at the National Tally Room while others gather at a large hotel ballroom to await the results. In the United States, the announcement of results is decentralised. However, the main points of congregation for the candidates and the supporters are at the campaign headquarters or at a hotel ballroom or the party HQ. Members of the public will not be allowed into the central announcement centre. Contesting candidates will also not be allowed into the central announcement centre because their supporters are likely to congregate at the vicinity of the central announcement centre if the candidate is there. However, the media will be allowed to be present to cover the results when they are announced. Before the announcement is made publicly, the candidates would be told of the result. They can then get themselves ready to meet the supporters at the assembly centre and thank them. This is the same practice as in the past. 2.30 pm Let me explain how the assembly centre works. Separate assembly centres will be allocated to different political parties with the contending groups of the candidates and supporters physically separated from each other. The risk of potential conflict will be reduced. Supporters of the candidate will also have a safer place to gather. Several electoral divisions will be grouped together into a zone. The number of zones will depend on the number of contesting candidates and will be determined after Nomination Day.”
“There will also be separate assembly centres for candidates and their supporters. This is different from the previous arrangement that candidates and their supporters gather at the counting centres to hear the announcement of results. In past elections, even though the announcement of results was broadcast live over radio and television, large crowds of supporters of contending parties still gathered at the announcement centres to hear the results being announced. The atmosphere of such gathering can be very tense. Some troublemakers appeared and taunted the candidates and the supporters from the opposite camp. Such behaviour can spark off major law and order problems. Although there were no arrests at announcement centres in recent elections, the potential for a situation in such gatherings to escalate and turn ugly is very real. At the last general election, the crowd atmosphere was particularly tense at the Bishan-ITE where the result for Cheng San GRC was announced. It was thus prudent to designate a central announcement centre and have separate gathering points for different political parties. Let me explain how this central announcement centre works. For the coming elections, the results will be announced and broadcast live by the Returning Officer over radio and television from a centralised announcement centre, and that is likely to be at the Elections Department. Apart from simplicity, this will avoid the problem arising from having supporters of different political parties congregating at the announcement centre. Centralised announcement of results is already practised in countries such as Thailand, Hong Kong, Australia and Germany. However, in most countries, there are no designated places for contesting parties to congregate.”