PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 3.55 pm

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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 0.1% 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.

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. 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. 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.

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 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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? 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.

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. 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. 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.

Mr S. Iswaran (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. But before I proceed to speak on one or two points, I just want to respond to one or two particular comments Mr Jeyaretnam has made.

I am particularly troubled that he has chosen to make sweeping statements that impugn the integrity and impartiality of the public officials. I think it is one thing to take offence or have issue with a process or the legitimacy or merits of an argument. But I think it is quite another to cast such fundamental doubt on all officials in sweeping statements. And I am particularly concerned by this because, as an ex-civil servant, I have been involved in the election process as a Returning Officer. I know how seriously we took the process. The import of the process was impressed upon us, and we discharged it to the best of our ability. It would appear, by Mr Jeyaretnam's reckoning, the only way a public official could prove his impartiality was to facilitate an Opposition victory. Sir, I would hope that we could be somewhat more measured when we make comments on such matters.

Sir, on the Bill itself, I wish to just focus on two key points. The first is on overseas voting. It is clear that the Bill seeks to strike a balance between, on the one hand, endowing a very basic privilege of voting on Singaporeans who reside overseas and, on the other hand, the need to assure ourselves that there is a certain stake in the country, emotionally, perhaps materially, so that they do not take this privilege frivolously. In that sense, I think the Bill has made a good attempt. But there are some who ask the question, "Why not extend the vote to all Singaporeans who reside overseas, other than those who, by their conduct, criminal and otherwise, may have excluded themselves?" In other words, why not just let citizenship be the only criterion for voting? And there are sufficient, in a sense, administrative hurdles that the individual Singaporean overseas has to overcome, in terms of maintaining a local address, in terms of registering at various overseas registration centres within 21 days, and also the fact that in many places, these centres are in main cities. So they may have to make a special effort to do so, given that there is a significant effort involved before a person can become an overseas voter.

Having said that, I think there is merit to argue a case that we should assure ourselves that there is something more than just the effort to vote, that there is a desire and a stake in the outcome of the election. In that regard, I think the criteria that have been outlined are generally self-evident. But like Prof. Chin who spoke earlier, it appears to introduce dual standards, on the one hand, for those who are agents of the public service who are overseas, whether it is for educational reasons or for reasons of service or deployment, and, on the other hand, those who are in the private sector who have to demonstrate this aggregate two-year residence out of the preceding five years before they are eligible to vote.

Sir, since Prof. Chin has made all the points, I just want to illustrate one example. If we take students who go overseas to do their post graduate programmes, it is not unusual for those doing a PhD to spend 4-5 years on a PhD and post-doctoral work. And it would be difficult for such individuals to come back and satisfy this two-year aggregate residence requirement. Yet, I think we would be hard pressed to doubt their commitment to Singapore because, in many instances, they would be funded by their parents and I think many of them would want to come back and discharge their financial as well as their familial obligations. So I would hope that we could consider these cases and, in that regard, whether the two-year requirement is rather stringent and whether it can actually be lowered or moderated.

Sir, on the matter of electronic voting, the comment I wish to make is that Singaporeans are used to our paper-based system. It is a tried and tested process which Singaporeans understand and have confidence in. We are making a change and we can debate the merits of the change, etc. But I think the key point here is that it will raise some questions in the minds of voters, in particular, pertaining to the security and secrecy of the data, in this case, the vote.

Sir, electronic systems have shown that they are not free of glitches. And also to many Singaporeans, particularly the older groups, a computer or any electronic device is really a black box, a box that they do not fully understand and they therefore have some difficulty in mustering confidence in. This is probably analogous to why many people still have problems with not just using Internet banking or Internet-based transactions, but even registering for Giro-based transactions. So it would be useful if the Minister could elaborate how we are going to be able to ensure that our voters are confident, not just familiar with - using the parlance of manufacturing - the front-end system of how to do the vote, but also where we can engender confidence in them in the back-end system, in terms of its security and secrecy, so that they can accept the new system with ease and with peace of mind.

Mr Ang Mong Seng (Bukit Gombak): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, because of the regional economic development, there are now more than 100,000 Singaporeans who are staying overseas on a long-term basis to work or to do business. At the general election which is held once every five years, they still have the right to exercise their voting rights and to elect the Member of Parliament who they think could represent them. I think it is a good suggestion that these Singapore citizens be allowed to vote overseas, and I support this Bill. However, I have a few suggestions to make.

First of all, Singapore is a small country. The polling stations are normally set up not too far away from home, and transportation is very convenient in Singapore. However, if you stay overseas, it is not so easy. For example, in China, there are 36 provinces. If we have only one polling station in Beijing, those Singapore citizens who are staying in the other provinces may have to spend a few days' time to take a plane, a train or even to drive a long distance to go to Beijing to cast their votes. They will have to spend a lot of time and money just to cast their votes.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

5.17 pm

Mr Ang Mong Seng (Bukit Gombak): Sir, under this new Bill, overseas voting is not mandatory. Because of the inconvenience, some overseas Singapore citizens who are eligible to vote may simply give up their rights to do so. Therefore, I suggest that the Government consider making it easier for them to vote, for example, voting through the mail. The voters can then save a lot of time and money. In this way, many Singaporeans who are staying overseas would be able to vote at the general election.

Secondly, some overseas Singapore citizens could have been staying away from Singapore for many years. They may not be familiar with the background and the curriculum vitae of the candidates, particularly when the new candidates are normally introduced only shortly before the election. In this way, can the Government facilitate these candidates with some means to communicate with their voters?

I suggest that the Government let the candidates have access to the correspondence addresses of these voters so that the candidates can introduce themselves and their plans they have for their constituencies, to these voters. This would also help the overseas voters make some considered decision to elect the best person to represent them in Parliament.

With regard to electronic voting, I would say that this system is a product of high technology. It will save time, save manpower and provide accurate calculations. However, on its operation, I have two points to ask of the Minister.

It is often said that we have to be ever ready for any eventuality. On election day, in the event of a breakdown or failure of the electronic voting system in any particular constituency, does the Returning Officer have the discretion to switch back to the traditional voting method so that voting can be completed in the same day? According to the Bill, under the circumstances, the voting in that particular constituency can be postponed until a few days later. I think this is not fair because the results of the other constituencies may affect the original decisions of the voters in this constituency. Therefore, I suggest that in the event of a failure in the electronic voting system on that day and it could not be rectified in time, we should allow the voters to use the traditional voting method, so that they can complete all the voting within that day. But I do not agree with Mr Chiam See Tong's proposal to use electronic voting and the traditional paper voting simultaneously. This will only cause confusion.

Secondly, this new concept of electronic voting will be strongly supported by the young people and those who have knowledge of computers. But to the older people or for those who have absolutely no knowledge of computer usage, they would have some psychological barrier and fear for this electronic voting. So, before we implement electronic voting, the Government should educate the voters, particularly the senior citizens, so that everyone would be familiar and know how to use this electronic voting system. This will alleviate or remove their fear for such a system, and will reduce the number of blank votes.

In order that the electronic voting system can be implemented smoothly during the general election, I think the Government should make some early announcement on which constituencies would adopt this electronic voting system, so that the voters there can be psychologically prepared. However, I hope that the Government will not pick Potong Pasir as one of these constituencies so that Mr Chiam would not be so unduly worried.

A few days ago, I participated in the simulated electronic voting exercise, and I found that it was very simple and easy to use. We should help the voters, especially the senior citizens. Let them have a hands-on experience before the actual voting. This will build up their confidence and ensure that this electronic voting system will be more effective and convenient to our voters.

Mr Simon Tay: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill.

Sir, I think I will limit myself to comments on the Bill rather than to elections or, more generally, democracy.

Firstly, I would like to say, in my view, that voting is not a privilege for Singaporean citizens. It is clearly a right. Even if it is not in the Constitution itself, because we uphold the idea of a voting democracy, it is a right. Secondly, I would also say it is a duty, because in Singapore if you do not vote, you have to explain yourself or pay a fine. So it is a right and a duty, and not a privilege.

Looking at the Bill, I would, first, very strongly welcome the move towards overseas voting. This is an effort really that symbolises a transformation in thinking about Singapore and who are fully Singaporeans. We have come to recognise that globalisation and our own attempts to engage with the international economy require Singaporeans to work, study and live abroad. If 10 or 15 years ago, Singaporeans who lived abroad somehow were less-Singaporeans, I think, today increasingly, we see that we are linked to them. In some ways they help us and they are part of those who live here. And I think this is a profoundly important gesture, given what we have said in Singapore 21 about also encouraging Singaporeans to work abroad, and yet to remain Singaporean.

The question then I have heard in this House is really a question of "how". How do we qualify people? And, then, how do we reach out to them? In thinking about the qualifications of who abroad should be allowed to vote, I think an important premise, first, is Article 12 of the Constitution. This promises an equality among people. This equality is not absolute but must be rational and linked to an objective. As others have said, the rationale here is to make sure that those abroad who vote are those who have some connection and stake here. I do not want to quarrel then about this two-out-of-five years criterion, or whatever. But I do share the concern that an exception is made to the rule for those who are in Government service. We can see that the line between them and other Singaporeans overseas is narrow. Singapore Airlines is clearly, in sentiment, part of Singapore. If you have to serve as an SIA Station Manager or whatever for more than three years out of five, I will be at a loss to explain to somebody why a Singapore Airlines' Station Manager could not vote when he is serving Singapore, in that sense, abroad. But yet, because it is a GLC and not a Singapore Government statutory board, he would not qualify. So I think we need to think this through and perhaps expand it to include all Singapore-based companies and perhaps even multi-nationals here, which do business in Singapore and find it invaluable to take our Singaporeans abroad with them.

On the reverse side, I think we should be very open, in fact, about disallowing Singaporeans with permanent residency in other countries and dual citizenship. We have already talked about this in a previous Bill about leaving the engagement of Singapore politics to Singaporeans, and I think we should equally be frank that if you are a Singaporean citizen but have decided to formally take up permanent residence abroad or dual citizenship, which our laws do not recognise, we should say this would not do for voting. With these two ideas, I agree with the idea that we need some pre-qualification.

The second issue is the effort of how to reach out. If I am correct - I stand for correction here - in the Minister's preparatory remarks, but not in the Bill, there is a sense that we will apply this overseas voting only to some embassies abroad where there are concentrations of Singaporeans and our embassy staff are sufficient to support this. At first glance, this makes some sense. But with this idea of equality, one may come back and say, "Well, how come if I choose to be in Finland, I am unequal to somebody who is in Australia?" Secondly, looking at all things practical, we must recognise that there are limitations. Even if you have an embassy in Canberra, this does not make it easier to reach out to people in Sydney. We have an embassy in Washington, but you could be in Seattle, which is half way home already.

So in all these processes of how to reach out, I think we have to come to the idea that beyond actually turning up at the embassy, there has to be an idea of some verified form of voting by mail. And if this is done for big countries, there is no reason why it cannot be done in smaller countries allover the world, so all those Singaporeans who are dispersed in small communities abroad might also be allowed to vote (provided, of course, they pass the other qualification of who can vote).

The second point I would like to bring up about voting overseas is - perhaps because I do not understand the Bill fully - I do not see how this Bill helps those Singaporeans who happen to go abroad during election day. That is, I am normally resident here but because of work commitments and I cannot be in Singapore physically on voting day, I may have planned my work commitments, say, three or six months ahead, and voting (Election day) in Singapore is more a mystery than that. I do not see why we should not in the same spirit have a system for pre-voting for those people who live here, but just happen to be abroad on that particular day. Those are my comments about overseas voting.

On electronic voting, there has been a lot of debate here in this House, and I would only say that when I look at other countries, I see systems that are either incompetent and some which are just outrageously corrupt. I think, in general, in Singapore, we avoided both these problems. But still I do take the Minister's point that in our commitment to e-government, in our crunch on manpower, and in our wish to avoid the kind of embarrassing problems we saw in the US Presidential Election, there is a sense in moving towards direct recording electronic voting. And here, I just want to share the views of a number of other MPs, including the Member for Sembawang GRC, Prof. Chin, and the Member for West Coast GRC, Mr Iswaran, that a new system can have glitches and that effort must be made to educate voters, especially those who are uncomfortable with the e-world. In this sense, I would not ask for a Select Committee but rather I would ask the Government to reassure us that our system will actually somehow be improved, and that we implement the feedback, not so much from the voters themselves and the computer experts, but rather from grassroots organisations and, yes, even some elected Opposition MPs. I think they should help in the implementation of this programme so that they can see it up close and be reassured that we are substituting a more efficient, better system for one that has been so far fundamentally sound.

Dr Jennifer Lee: Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. I have only one point to make and it has, in fact, been raised by Members before. So I would be very brief.

I would like to join Prof. Chin, Mr Iswaran and Mr Tay in asking that the Minister consider including in the list of persons eligible, who may not have the requisite two out of five preceding years, not only those members of the SAF or Government employees or scholars, but also the employees of private locally registered companies or multi-national companies who are legitimately on prolonged overseas or international postings, as well as students who are overseas for long periods on their own funding. Because I think that all these Singaporeans count, be it that they are overseas on public service or in the employment of the private sector. That is all that I have to contribute.