PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [19th April, 2001],

"That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed. 1.34 pm

Mr Low Thia Khiang: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, my main problem on this Amendment Bill is on the electronic voting system.

Yesterday, I heard my parliamentary colleagues expressing their misgivings and skepticism on the proposed electronic voting system. Personally, I do not think the electronic voting system is really that awe-inspiring. Three days ago I attended a briefing on electronic voting conducted by the Elections Department, and I feel that, basically, there is no great difference between electronic voting and the traditional paper voting system. With regard to secrecy of vote, reliability of software and hardware, as well as the accuracy of counting, so long as the civil servants in charge can abide by the principles of the Bill, and conduct themselves fairly and honestly, the electronic voting system is technically feasible.

However, we cannot view this issue purely from the technical point of view. No doubt, electronic voting has already been used in a number of advanced countries, but our Government frequently reminds us that Singapore's conditions are quite different from the other countries. So in implementing electronic voting, we must not forget that we are indeed different from the other countries in a number of aspects.

First, the voters do have doubts on their rights to vote. Some voters are still harbouring the belief that if they vote for the Opposition, they may have to face some dire consequences. That being the case, electronic voting will inevitably add on more psychological pressure on them. If the Government genuinely respects the people's right to vote, then it should work harder in convincing the people that secrecy of the votes can indeed be maintained by the electronic voting system and ensuring the voters that they have the right to vote for the candidates of their choice - whether they are from the ruling party or the opposition parties. In other words, the voters must be convinced that it is perfectly legitimate for them to vote for the Opposition as their representatives in Parliament. This is their basic right.

Secondly, when they cast their sacred vote, there must be some means to indicate that their votes are recorded and accepted as valid votes that count towards the ultimate results of the poll. In the traditional way of paper voting, when a voter goes into the polling booth, he puts a mark against the name and party symbol of the candidate of his choice, and that gives him a sense of reality, an indication that his sacred vote will be counted as one more vote for his preferred candidate and be added to the final count of the votes. In the case of electronic voting, the voter merely touches the screen and the voting process is done, leaving the computer to do the recording, filing, and counting. The voter does not know, as a fact, whether his one vote has been properly recorded and counted as one more vote cast for his choice candidate. He may ask what would happen if there is an error in the process of recording, filing and counting by the electronic system. There are always doubts in the minds of the voters.

I understand that during the initial stage of electronic voting to be experimented in some selected constituencies, the computer system will print out an acknowledgement slip as a kind of safeguard, and in the case of a recount it can be used as a basis for recounting. The voters can see for themselves that their votes have been acknowledged, and they will have greater confidence in electronic voting. I feel that this procedure of acknowledgement should be included in the Amendment Bill so that it will become a permanent feature of the electronic voting system in Singapore.

Thirdly, on the display appearing on three screens, I feel that it is very confusing, particularly for those who are not used to new technology and the senior citizens who may be illiterate. The Government should consider simplifying the system with display on only two screens instead of three. In addition, symbols rather than words should be used.

Fourthly, the electronic voting system only allows voters to vote for any of the candidates. The voters cannot express their discontent by casting a "spoilt" vote. If the Government recognises that the casting of spoilt votes is also a way of voting for the voters to show their disapproval of all the available candidates, then it should be explained clearly how spoilt votes can be cast and considered under the electronic voting system.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the one-man-one-vote system, which returns our Government and representatives to Parliament, is very important for the Government and the country. It will show the legitimacy of the Government. If we want the people to be convinced that the Member of Parliament returned at the General Election for that constituency is the one whom the majority of the voters have actually voted for as their representative in Parliament, we must ensure that voters have the confidence of the election system when they cast their votes. Otherwise, the people may think the Government is playing foul. This kind of mentality is not conducive to our national cohesiveness, nor does it do any good to the Government or the people. To alleviate and eliminate this kind of negative mentality, the Government should convince the people that they have the right to vote for the Opposition. Civil servants should also be fair and impartial in the execution of their duties. They should not favour the ruling party. All citizens must know that voting is a basic right of the people. The people can exercise their choice without any fear of repercussion. All Singapore citizens should value the right and opportunity that under the one-man-one-vote system, every voter has equal power to vote for the candidate of his choice as his representative in Parliament.

Mr Goh Chong Chia: Mr Speaker, Sir, the introduction of the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill comprises two important features:

(1) This Bill acknowledges that Singaporeans have responded to the Government policy to form an external wing to our economy and that while they are not in Singapore, they should not be disenfranchised. Voting is a fundamental right and privilege of an adult citizen. This Bill, in making it possible for citizens abroad to exercise their right to vote, shows the maturity of our political system to give due consideration to the minority groups within our society. I remember when I first voted in an election - it was not in Singapore, it was in the United Kingdom - the right of Commonwealth citizens to vote while in the United Kingdom initially surprised me, but it really felt good to be part of the democratic process.

(2) In a world that is IT-based, there is a necessity to make provisions to allow electronic or DRE voting. I am glad this Bill makes it possible.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while I support the Bill, I have a few comments to make and wish to seek some clarifications.

(a) The Bill allows a recount to be carried out if there is a difference of 2% or less. In the past three general elections, there were only two cases below 2%. I believe that we are setting the allowance for recounting at too low a level. If we adopt a 5% difference, there would have been recounting in five constituencies in the 1991 and two in the 1997 general elections. Surely, in the interest of accuracy, a recounting based on 5% is not too much to ask. After all, recounting under this Bill is not a mandatory requirement.

(b) There is a requirement to test the DRE voting equipment before polling and during polling. Surely the equipment should also be tested at the end of the polling.

(c) What are the provisions in the system to ensure that progressive voting patterns cannot be revealed during the period of polling?

(d) Overseas electors on registration will be allocated an overseas polling station, but it is not clear to which electoral division will his or her vote be assigned.

(e) While there are requirements for inspections of machines for tampering, malfunction and damage, what are the safeguards in the procedures to ensure that the inspector does not tamper with the equipment?

(f) While overseas centres may be set up, we presume, and I think it was said yesterday, in areas and cities where there are large numbers of Singaporeans, those living some distance away from this major city may find it difficult to journey down to vote. Will the Government consider postal voting in the interim before a final electronic system is put in place?

(g) If a citizen, after spending some time overseas, returns to Singapore before the General Election, will he be subject to the two out of five years' rule on his voting eligibility?

Finally, some Members of Parliament had already highlighted yesterday that the Bill is treating private sector citizens overseas differently from Government employees overseas. I find this differentiation disturbing.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday, Mr Jeyaretnam made a statement which I will quote him today. He said, "I had not thought of speaking until I heard the Minister speak", and he was referring to our discussions on the Singapore Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Bill. I will quote him. I actually have not planned to speak, Sir, until I heard him. But more so, until I read in the press this morning how nonsensical statements had been given sense in the press today. That is a writing skill which I must applaud the Straits Times' journalist.

Why do I speak? Because I thought that there is some message which, if not checked, would have spread and would have done harm to our image as a country. Do we really believe that we would go our way to fiddle or to play around with the election results? I do not think so. I am not so concerned about Singaporeans but I do not believe Singaporeans will be so easily persuaded. I am more concerned with the international readers, the tourists who come to Singapore, pick up a copy of the Straits Times, read and go back and say, "Hey, in Singapore, they do silly things." I think that is not right.

Let me use one anecdote which I hope will be able to make my point. In 1979, I stood in a by-election. When I was presented as a candidate, at a press conference I was there with four or five, maybe six, others of my colleagues, and then the press asked me, "What have you got to say as a candidate?" I said, "I have nothing to say." And then the next day, the press came out and said, "Nothing to say, what an MP! What can he do for his constituents?" So a couple of my colleagues got a bit concerned that I might lose my elections. Anyhow, I pushed on. I had a couple of my colleagues come to help me. We fought. What was the result? I won decisively. Not only were my colleagues surprised, but the candidate who fought me from the United Front (I think he was the Secretary General) was also surprised.

But the interesting thing was I had a summons to go to Istana. I use the word "summons" in a pleasant sense - it is not the punishment that we all expect, but a nice little meal with the Prime Minister. Of course, today, he is the Senior Minister, and he asked me, "You won decisively. You won with good results. What did you do? Did you give them vain promises?" I said, "No. I didn't do such things." As you know, SM does not speak very much. But at certain times, you could see, you could feel this silent nod of approval for my results.

If SM is so careful with his young little candidate going out there winning results and winning properly, I cannot imagine he would endorse anyone of us, let alone the Minister for Home Affairs, trying to fiddle with the results of the elections. So when I read the press this morning, I said, "Ah, this looks as though there is this very strange message going through that the Opposition feels there is a possibility of us fixing the election results through the computers." Then I thought I better say something, if not, I would not be doing my country a favour.

I have kept this for over 20 years. Nobody knew about it, except SM and myself, not even my wife. So when I told her this morning, she said, "Oh, you really had that experience." Yes, I did. So before it fades away from my memory, I thought I would quote this little incident to try to do justice to a truth, and not allow constant repetition of untruths become the truths.

One of my colleagues told me this morning that Mr Jeyaretnam probably could have come from St. Andrew's School. I expressed a bit of shock because, in St. Andrew's School - I came from St. Andrew's School, Sir, and I was one of those who was a very keen sportsman, I was Captain of Rugby 15 - one of the lessons we learnt is sportsmanship. When we win, we win happily. When we lose, we lose sportingly. And I would say to Mr Jeyaretnam and my colleagues in the Opposition, let us fight healthily, let us play the game properly, let us win, and win properly. If we lose, we lose properly.

One incident I had was with Sarawak Rangers. When they played the game with me, I had the ball with me. They came for me and they punched me under the belt. My principal said, "Play on. Don't scold, don't shout. Push on." And I suggest that we all do the same.

Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Bill. I applaud the Government for its willingness to recognise how globalisation affects the democratic process as Singapore citizens continue to become global citizens. The Government should also be commended for its willingness to leverage on technology through the introduction of electronic voting. The proposed amendment to minimise the need for unnecessary recounting is also a step forward in the right direction.

Having proposed all these changes, Sir, I feel that the Government should go one step further. In the same vein as the previous speakers, I would like to urge the Government not to deny any Singapore citizens, regardless of where they are residing in and for whatever the period of time, the fundamental right to vote, so long as they remain citizens of Singapore. I would also like to appeal to the Government to go slow in its introduction of electronic voting.

Sir, in earlier elections, overseas voting may be inconceivable due to the logistics and timing involved. But advancements in communication, technology and IT have blurred geographic boundaries and shrunk the world. Meanwhile, our global participation had led some Singaporeans to take up residence abroad. In this regard, the Government must be given credit for its willingness to keep up with the times. Hence, I am very pleased that the Government has allowed overseas voting.

Sir, voting is a fundamental right for citizenship. All Singapore citizens should have the right to vote regardless of whether they are ordinarily resident in Singapore. The two years out of the five years rule is an artificial criterion. The basis for it is seemingly to sieve out Singaporeans who are more genuine Singapore citizens by virtue of their tenure as residents in the period preceding the election. But the proof of longer residency is not a foolproof argument that such Singapore citizens have a greater stake in the well-being of Singapore and that they would cast their votes with the best interest of the nation at heart and with open eyes on the impact of their votes. If this is the case, does it mean that the poverty stricken and the bankrupt in the country should not be given the right to vote because there is very little, if at all, any stake left in it? Certainly not. Because the right to vote is the fundamental right of every Singapore citizen. Conversely, a short period of residency is not a foolproof argument to assume that such Singapore citizens no longer have the interest of the nation at heart, that they are no longer patriotic and, as such, their right to vote ought to be forfeited.

Singaporeans work and live abroad for a varied host of reasons which could be the subject of a separate debate. Due to the education and the environment, Singaporeans have become global citizens and it is a credit to the Singapore Government that our Singaporeans have become so mobile and acceptable elsewhere. But this should not be the reason to disenfranchise them as, in their own way, they have become ambassadors for our island state and, sometimes, our strongest supporters in the face of foreign sceptics. This would not be fair to those who have been working abroad for a long time and are still sending their money back home. This would not be fair to those who are married out of Singapore, but still maintain close contacts with their families in Singapore and make regular visits back home. This is also not fair judgement on those who still follow the local news via our local newspapers' websites or avidly watch Singapore-produced programmes broadcast in the new country of residence which may be temporary in nature.

Sir, the right to vote should simply be a fundamental right of being a Singapore citizen. As long as Singapore citizens do not denounce their citizenship, they should continue to maintain their stake in Singapore Inc. In effect, they should continue to be a shareholder of Singapore Inc. with the right to vote irrespective of where they are and how long they have been there. If I am a top doctor, scientist, or academic, who has taken up overseas residence for many years but I am still a Singapore citizen, I would probably go to the Embassy to cast my vote on election day, if I still have the right to vote for my country. I also value the Singapore Government's tacit understanding of my contribution as a Singaporean outside Singapore. I may even consider an appropriate time to return to Singapore and make my contribution in my field of expertise for the best interest of Singaporeans as the linkage has not been severed.

Sir, every time local dishes, such as Hainanese chicken rice, char kuay teow, mee rebus, and mee goreng, are mentioned, the knees of Singaporeans who take up residence abroad will grow feeble. Even if they have been away for five or 10 years, they still crave for their authentic Katong laksa, the Malay satay and Jalan Kayu roti prata. Time has no effect in diminishing their taste of what is good and what is Singaporean. Similarly, time should have no effect in diminishing the worth of overseas Singaporeans to vote and the worth of their votes. We should not presume that they would not have the interest of Singapore at heart. We should not presume that, in future, they do not intend to take up their stake in Singapore and take up residence in Singapore again. In fairness, our Government has done an excellent job in getting some of our top brains back home again. For this, I salute the Government for what it has achieved. But I am asking the Government to go one step further by allowing all Singapore citizens the right to vote regardless of the length of residency in Singapore in the run-up period to the election.

Sir, I would now urge the Government to go slow in its introduction of electronic voting. I wish to state, at the onset, that I am not averse to changes or the use of technology to keep up with the time. But my concern is that some Singaporeans, especially the older generation, may not be adequately exposed to the IT revolution. Some of our older Singaporeans still stash their money under their mattresses, rather than put it into the bank. They may harbour doubts as to whether the use of electronic voting is a foolproof system, the results of which cannot be tampered with. The electronic voting system may be user-friendly. But there will still be some who do not trust it completely. This may be due to newspapers' reports of glitches in using electronic system, for example, the ATM banking machines. Despite all the safeguards that banks have put into place, there will still be the odd situation of system malfunction.

In the case of the election, how can we ensure that the electronic voting system will not fail? Should we not put the electronic system on trial and ensure that the safeguards are adequate before implementing it on a broader basis at the next general election? In past elections, the manual voting and counting system gave Singaporean voters a semblance of assurance in the system. It is not a foolproof system as it can still be subject to human error and hence the need for recounting. But it is a system with human faces, an intervention that the older generation of voters is accustomed to. For them, manual counting is more transparent.

Singapore's population is a red dot compared to the United States and the time that we take for counting is within acceptable, accustomed time limits. It is something that we can still tolerate at the next general election. Meanwhile, we can try out the electronic voting system on a trial basis in a few constituencies, with a parallel manual run to give voters the confidence that electronic voting really works.

With these comments, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr R. Ravindran (Bukit Timah): Sir, the Bill aims to introduce serious changes to our election laws. For a start, it will introduce overseas voting by Singaporeans who are working or studying overseas. It is certainly welcomed by many Singaporeans and is in line with Singapore 21 to make every Singaporean count.

Sir, first of all, I would like to reiterate that in Singapore, many Singaporeans trust the voting system that we have in Singapore. Yesterday, as I sat in this House listening to the speech made by the hon. NCMP, Mr Jeyaretnam, I was indeed not only embarrassed by the statements that he made - and I, in fact, endorse the statement of the Deputy Speaker earlier that he made nonsensical statements - because for a start he cited the examples of the 1980 election, the 1993 presidential election, and the 1997 Cheng San general election results to highlight that the results were not favourable to him and, as such, he has lost faith in the election system and in the voting process. But what he failed to highlight - and I think perhaps due to selective amnesia - was that in 1981, he was elected as the Member of Parliament for Anson and he did not explain how he won and whether he won at the behest of the Government. And he further did injustice to the other two Opposition Members in this House, namely the Member for Potong Pasir and the Member for Hougang, because by hinting that the process was not something proper, he again hints that the election of these two Opposition Members to Parliament itself was not a proper process. This again does injustice both to the two hon. Members of the Opposition and to Singaporeans at large who voted for them and for the other MPs of this House.

So, let me say, Sir, that many Singaporeans were indeed surprised. Some of the friends that I met today in the course of my work were also surprised by the statement he made because many Singaporeans, when they go to vote to exercise their selection of the Member of Parliament for their constituency, do it with confidence and do it with free choice. As such, Sir, I would like to reiterate that not only myself but many Singaporeans have great trust in the integrity of the election process in Singapore.

Sir, let me now move on to the specific clauses, and highlight matters which are of concern. First of all, on the overseas voting (clauses 3 and 9). Sir, the amendment seeks to impose a requirement of residence in Singapore of two years out of the preceding five years. I would like to ask the Minister the rationale for the imposition of this 2-year residential requirement. If the object is to enable all Singaporeans overseas to participate in the elections and to determine the future government of this country, I find the requirement a little onerous. Some could be employed overseas, and the only time they come back to Singapore would be during their short leave period. I would request the Minister to consider lowering the residency requirement to about two months, with the provision that the period not be one that runs consecutively but the aggregate number of the total number of days spent in Singapore during the 5-year period.

I would also like to ask the Minister as to why the exemption provisions do not provide for students who are studying overseas, either on a private company scholarship or at their own cost. Sir, I notice that scholars on Government or statutory board bonds are excluded from the 2-year residency requirement. As a good number of Singapore students are studying overseas due to their inability to get into the local universities, it will be a pity if they are excluded from being eligible to vote due to the proposed provision. This is particularly so if they are pursuing post-graduate education. Sir, it is essential that we get as many Singaporeans as possible to participate in the election of the future government, as it will certainly create a greater sense of participation in determining the future of the Singapore Government.

Sir, secondly, let me move on to electronic voting or new section 50A. Sir, I commend the Minister for taking the bold initiative to introduce electronic voting in Singapore. It is the way to go for the future. It will certainly speed up the counting of votes and the announcement of the election results in future. We have seen the speed and accuracy of electronic voting in this House when votes are taken.

Sir, the new section 33A proposes that the DRE voting system cannot be used unless the voting system is approved by the Auditor-General or any other person appointed by the Minister in consultation with the Auditor-General. I would like to ask the Minister to explain who this other person will be. I would urge the Minister, if possible, to define this other person, for example, a High Court judge or any other person, whom he wants to appoint precisely in this Bill so that everybody knows that this person who is going to audit this system is a person who is impartial and above board.

I would also like to suggest that in view of the high respect and independence enjoyed by the office of the Auditor-General, whether the Minister could consider changing the consultation process into a concurrence or consent of the Auditor-General.

Sir, I am glad to note that the Minister, in introducing the Bill, referred to the touch-screen method to be used for the DRE system of voting. From my experience in dealing with senior citizens, I think the best way to get senior citizens to use IT services is through the provision of touch-screen solutions which are very easy to use. Sir, this is something that many elderly citizens will find easy to use and will certainly catch on very fast.

Sir, I would also like to ask the Minister as to whether electronic voting will give voters the same choices as they have now, which is (1) to vote for any one of the candidates, or (2) to spoil the vote or abstain from voting. Perhaps, some clarification of the actual process involved will go towards removing some nagging suspicion on the part of some individuals.

Sir, let me move finally to the question of recounting of votes. New section 49B seeks to introduce some finality to the recounting of votes. It imposes the requirement that the recounting of votes can only be allowed when the difference in votes exceeds 2% between the winning and losing candidates. Even then, only one recount will be allowed. Sir, I believe that this margin is reasonable, and a sound margin for any possible error in counting. This will certainly put some finality to frivolous requests for recounting.

Sir, I support the Bill.

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

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: 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.

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. 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? 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. 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.

I do not have any doubt that our Elections Department, the Returning Officers and all those who assist them will carry out their duties fairly and impartially. He talked about other countries having election commissions. He also cited the example of the Philippines where they have NGO election watchers. We know what happens in the Philippines. Do they have free and fair elections? I do not know. I think only Mr Jeyaretnam thinks so.

Ultimately, it is not a question of whether or not we have an independent election commission, or an Elections Department under the Prime Minister's Office. Ultimately, in every system or every commission or mission, it is the people behind it. The people who run and manage the system must have the honesty and integrity to make sure that they do their job properly. That is the litmus test, not the number of commissions that we have, not the type of systems that we have. It is ultimately the integrity of the people who run it.

Mr Ravindran asked me who is this other person, apart from the Auditor-General who may be appointed to audit the system. Right now, we do not have any particular person in mind. But like many of the other statutes that we have, we either get the Auditor-General or somebody else appointed in consultation with the Auditor-General to do the auditing. That person must be someone with the skills, the expertise to do the job of testing and certifying the electronic voting system. For example, it could well be one of the public accounting firms that has the expertise.

Sir, I believe I have answered most of the points, if not all of them, raised by Members.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Sir, I just like to ask the Minister a clarification. He mentioned just now that voting is compulsory, and that one of the consequences of not voting will be that your name will be expunged from the register of electors. If a person were to be overseas and qualifies but he happens, for example, to be working in Germany or Norway, he would have difficulty going to London to vote. Is there a duty on him to register? And if he registers, must he also travel physically to London to vote? What happens if he does not? Will his name then be expunged from the register of electors and will there be a chance for him to reinstate his name with minimum inconvenience?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I think this situation is no different from a person who is working overseas but whose name appears on the Electoral Register. So if, because of work, he cannot come back to vote right now, then his name will be taken off the register. But if he has a reason to be away - he shows his passport and says he was away in Germany and therefore cannot come back to vote - then his name will be restored in the register. Similarly, in the case of an overseas register, it is the same thing. We open the register for overseas Singaporeans to register, they check and they register. And if they do not go and vote, their names will be taken out. If they happen to stay in Germany but the polling station is in London, he has a good reason not being able to turn up physically to vote in London, then again his name would be restored.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, the Minister has not responded to some of the issues I raised in my speech. One is that I believe that the receipt system should become part of the electronic voting system in the future. I am also asking whether it is possible to actually simplify the process of e-voting. Right now, you have three panels - languages, the vote, and then "Yes" and "No". Can we do away with the first panel, and just have two panels, and also instead of "Yes" and "No" or in other languages, can we not use some symbols, which would be easier for people who may be illiterate?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I think, for background purposes, there are others who do not know what is actually on the screen, let me explain. There was a demonstration by the Elections Department for the MPs a few days ago to show how the screen looks like. That is only an example of how the screen will look like. Ultimately, how the screen will look like depends on the submissions made by the tenderers of the system. They may come back with a different screen. They may come back with a different image and we have to decide. But I take the point that we should make it simple and easy for people to understand, and for them to just simply perform the task without great difficulty. That is a point that we will take into account.

On the paper vote, actually it is a paper receipt, I said that during this trial we will have a touch screen, and then to assure the voters that what they touch on the screen actually gets recorded, we have a paper receipt to show them that it is indeed the candidate they have voted. Just like in the supermarket, you have a receipt. But a voter cannot take that paper receipt with him because he cannot take the ballot paper out of the polling station. So that paper receipt is cut and stored in a box which will eventually be sealed together with the other vote storage cards in the vault of the Supreme Court.

This is a trial feature. Whether we will extend this feature in future or not, I think we will have to study this. Maybe in five or six years' time, after the next election, there will be a totally different technology altogether that will obviate the need for this particular paper trail. But whatever it is, with or without the paper trail, there is an audit trail, that is, an electronic trail, that can show the voter, serial number and his vote, and that is the ultimate test. The paper is just to assure the voter. That is it. When we want to do a recount, there can be a recount. There is a paper receipt to do the recount. But from the examples that I have seen in Belgium and the Netherlands, in their electronic voting, the touch screen and the card, there is no paper. It is completely electronic. A recount is all done electronically.

I have forgotten to answer one question on the vote margin - why 2%? Two percent is actually a very generous figure. We can have 5%; we can have 10%. But ultimately what is it that we want to see? We want to see that there is a fair amount of a margin to take care of a margin of manual counting error. Looking at the elections of the last many years, actually 2% is already very generous. In the examples that I have quoted, in the United States, some states have only 0.1%; in Canada's Federal Election, 0.1%; and in some other states, 1%. Of course, there are also other states which have 5%. There is a variation in the US. In Malaysia, it is 2%. So if you look at 2%, it is a reasonable margin.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, does the Minister agree that there are important issues in this electronic voting? One is the issue of secrecy of vote, and the other is how the votes cast are recorded electronically and counted correctly. I think it is not enough for the Minister to just say that, "I assure you that the vote will be secret." Does he agree that, most importantly, we must convince the public how the system works, no matter how technical it is, and how the program is written in such a way that it cannot be tampered with? Because, for instance, someone has asked me, "How do you know that the program will not be written in such a way that for every two votes cast for an Opposition, one will automatically be converted to vote for the PAP?" I think these are issues which require more than just saying, "I assure you".

On the other point which the Minister made about the job being done by civil servants and that their integrity and the human factor are important, does he agree that besides trusting the civil servants' integrity in implementing the system, it is also important that it has to be transparent so that the public know what they are doing are done correctly? And is there any safeguard that the civil servants cannot follow the rules for the PAP?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I think it is right to say that we just cannot say the vote is secret, do not worry about it and that is it. We have to assure the public. I take that point. Therefore, in the process of testing and certifying, there is an authority, that is, the Auditor-General. But he is not alone, he is there to do the job, he will have to demonstrate to whoever that are present during the test and certification that this is indeed so. And we can actually get experts to check that. But where do we end? Supposing we get another expert to check on the Auditor-General, maybe another person to check on the expert, and so on and so on. Here we have the Elections Department working out the software, the system and the program. There is a checking body - the Auditor-General - to make sure that it is designed to do what it is supposed to do and no more, whether it is to track the vote, whether it is to add votes or convert votes of Opposition into PAP. And how more transparent can it be when that is being tested and checked by a third party?

This checking by a third party is not something that we invented. It is something that is also being done in some countries. In Belgium, for example, they have a smart card system, which is also electronic. It is checked by the Ministry of the Interior, and the Ministry in charge of elections is the Ministry of the Interior, the equivalent of Home Affairs Ministry. There has been no suggestion that the Ministry of the Interior is trying to fix the results for the government party. In the Netherlands, the system is being worked out by the election commission officials and it is checked by a team from the university, and they accept that. In the United States, there are various systems and they are checked by a private company. Again, they accept that, and there has been no allegation that these systems could produce the fraud that Mr Low just suggested.

So, ultimately, it must therefore depend on, firstly, the people who design the software, who work out the system, and then the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General is a scheduled post and that person is trusted with the responsibility to ensure that the design would do what it is supposed to do.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes, there are checks. But is the Minister aware of the public perception that all these checks are done by the Government? There does not seem to be any third party or independent party to witness or actually conduct the check. So would he actually consider inviting an outsider, not within the Government, for instance, an auditor from outside the Government, to check the system?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: That is why we have it in the provision that this certification and testing will be done by "the Auditor-General; or any person appointed by the Minister in consultation with the Auditor-General", and that particular phrase "any person" could well be a public accounting firm. But this is a trial project, we are doing it for the first time, and we do not know the scale of it. Eventually the Auditor-General may not have enough people to do the job and we may have to find a third party, those in the private sector, to help to do the job. So that possibility is not ruled out.

Mr Speaker: I will allow one last clarification.

Mr S. Iswaran (West Coast): Sir, the Minister has explained the different treatment of the public sector, either scholars or those who are sent overseas on assignments, as opposed to those in the private sector, and those who go and study on their own. I think he has cited the examples of the fact that those on Government scholarships are bonded to come back and serve and those in the civil service will return. But, nevertheless, while there is merit in this argument and also the precedents in other countries, there will be those who feel aggrieved that, in essence, really two students in the same university overseas pursuing the same course, one sponsored by the Government and the other on his own funding, would be treated differently. So I would urge the Minister to assure this House whether there would be scope to treat these two categories equally since, I think, we can be assured that chances are there would be commitment to the country on both counts.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, wherever we draw the line, there will be others who fall outside the line and who would feel aggrieved. So whether we draw a line and say public sector, private sector, scholars, Government officials, or whether we say it is one out of five, two out of five, three out of five years, those who do not meet those criteria would be aggrieved. But no law is cast in stone and concrete. So as we progress, as we learn, as we eventually try to improve the system, modifications can be made.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.25 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.00 pm until 3.25 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.25 pm