PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RESULT (Delay in announcement)

Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Prime Minister if he will say why there was a seven-and-a-half hour delay before the result of the Presidential Election was announced.

The Prime Minister (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the recent Presidential Election (PE), the Elections Department estimated the result to be announced at about 1.00 am. But it could not do so until 3.30 am. The delay was 2(r) hours, not 7(r) hours.

1.66 million votes were cast in the Presidential Election. For comparison, in the 1991 General Elections (GE), only 800,000 votes, or about half the number, were cast. Members may remember that in the 1991 GE, the final result was announced at 3.15 am, only 15 minutes earlier than the announcement of the Presidential Election result.

Recognising the scale of the PE and the desirability of announcing the result early, the Elections Department decentralised the counting of ballot papers. Instead of counting all the ballot papers in one central counting centre, ballot papers were divided into 369 counting stations and counted as such.

Decentralised counting did speed up considerably the counting process. The largest counting station took only three hours to count. With the benefit of hindsight, the Elections Department identified two shortcomings: its procedure for progressive reporting of results to the Returning Officer for tallying was overly cautious and cumbersome and, secondly, its not providing enough fax machines. These caused the delay in the announcement of the result.

The Presidential Election counting organisation had three tiers. At the top was the Returning Officer (RO). He was assisted by 12 Group Assistant Returning Officers (GAROs). Under the GAROs, there were 163 Assistant Returning Officers (AROs) who directly supervised the polling and counting of the ballot papers. Each ARO looked after up to six counting stations. The RO, GAROs and AROs were located in different places. They communicated through fax machines and telephones.

The Elections Department adopted the 3-tier structure to provide supervision and control. This was the same structure used for the General Elections, except that this time, the RO, GAROs and AROs were dispersed over more counting centres.

The procedure for AROs to report results progressively to the RO was as follows. When each counting station completed its counting, the ARO would fax the result on a "Record of Counting" form to his Group Assistant Returning Officer. The GARO would re-fax it to the RO for double checking. After satisfying himself of its accuracy, the RO would give his approval by phone for the GARO to print out the "Record of Counting". The GARO would then fax the printed Form to the ARO, to be signed by the ARO and the candidates' Counting Agents. The ARO then faxed the signed Form to the GARO, who in turn would fax it to the RO. This completed the paperwork for the counting station.

Hence, for each counting station, the GARO had to handle five fax transactions. He received two faxes from an ARO and sent out three faxes - two to the RO and one to the ARO. The busiest GARO with 48 counting stations had to deal with 240 fax transactions. Each fax transaction took almost a minute.

Each GARO was equipped with only one fax machine. This was grossly inadequate. It caused a bottleneck which delayed the transmission of the "Record of Counting" form. As the AROs were instructed to complete all the faxing for one counting station, before counting the ballot papers of the next counting station, those AROs who supervised more than three counting stations were especially held up by the faxing bottleneck.

The basic problem, however, was that the reporting procedure, requiring five faxes per GARO, was too cumbersome. It was designed to maximise control and prevent errors, but was unduly cautious. The Elections Department will revise it to reduce the number of fax transmissions without sacrificing control and accountability. It will ensure that in future elections, the votes will be counted and the results available as early as possible.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, could the Prime Minister say what was the time the last counting station completed the counting of votes? When did all the returns from the group counting centres come in at the Conference Hall Counting Centre?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I may not be able to answer the question exactly. But the time taken to complete the activities in terms of progressive count, 2% of the counting stations were able to transmit the faxes to the RO only after 3.00 am. By 1.00 am, some 59% were able to transmit the results to the RO. So 2% of the counting places held up the total results.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: At what time did all the returns come in?

The Prime Minister: That was after 3.00 am. The last 2% of the counting centres held up the total result. It was given to me in percentage terms. There were 369 counting stations. So 2% of these counting stations made their results known only after 3.00 am.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, were the returns from all the group counting centres shown to the two candidates concerned at the Conference Hall Counting Centre?

The Prime Minister: The candidates were not shown all the results of the counting centres. But the Counting Agents at each counting centre would know the results, because the Counting Agents were there.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, the Prime Minister, in his reply, mentioned about insufficient number of fax machines and the reporting procedure. Was there any simulation exercise conducted prior to the counting to ensure that the procedure set out by the Elections Department and provision of fax machines are adequate?

The Prime Minister: There was no simulation exercise. Had there been one, the shortcomings would have been identified.

Mr Chia Shi Teck (Nominated Member): Sir, could the Prime Minister say whether there was a recount in some of the counting stations?

The Prime Minister: There was no recount.