PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 1.30 pm

The Minister for Information and the Arts (Mr Lee Yock Suan): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Parliamentary elections are of vital importance to Singapore and should be conducted in a fair and orderly manner, free from distractions and undue influence. Our electoral processes also need to be updated to take into account new developments such as the Internet. This Bill proposes amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act to, firstly, regulate political campaigning on the Internet; secondly, prohibit the publication during the election period of the results of opinion surveys on how electors intend to vote; and, thirdly, disallow a person from contesting simultaneously in more than one constituency. I will cover each of these issues in turn.

Internet Political Campaigning

The General Election in 1997 took place under rules that predated the Internet and did not allow political parties to post election materials on their websites during the campaign. At the time, few people had access to the Internet.

In the five years since, the popularity of the Internet has grown tremendously. Singapore already has the highest Internet penetration rate in Asia at 48%. Broadband access, which currently stands at around 90,000 subscribers, will become even more widespread in a few years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, contrary to what the media have been speculating, the Government has decided to allow political campaigning on the Internet in the upcoming General Election. However, a free-for-all Internet campaigning environment without rules is not advisable. The Internet is a double-edged sword. Whilst it facilitates discussion and communication, the seriousness of political debates may be cluttered by noise, mischief or frivolities during the election period. Worse, the anonymity in the Internet opens a door for surreptitious elements to mislead, distract and confuse the public. On the Internet, once a false story or rumour is started, it is like water that has been spilt. It is almost impossible to remedy matters, especially in the limited period of an election campaign.

The Government has always maintained that politics should be based on factual and objective presentation of issues, and reasoned debate. Regulations are therefore necessary to protect the integrity of our electoral process, and guide responsible use of the Internet during the elections.

Let me now highlight the new provisions on Internet campaigning.

Clause 7 of the Bill inserts new sections 78A to 78E. Section 78A will empower the Minister to make regulations concerning Internet "election advertising" (as defined in clause 2) during the election period from the day the writ of election is issued to the close of all polling stations on Polling Day. These regulations will apply to political party websites and non-party political websites which are required to be registered with the Singapore Broadcasting Authority under its Class Licence Scheme. The regulations will stipulate the features which these websites may contain.

For party political websites, the allowable features will include party posters and manifesto, candidate profiles, announcements of party events, party position on issues, moderated chats and discussion forums. However, non-party political sites should not campaign for any party. For example, they should not display party banners or candidate profiles. Such restrictions are necessary to ensure a level playing field and that political parties do not make use of non-party political sites to circumvent the rules on election campaigning, including accountability for all election expenses and political donations. The full list of Internet features will be released when it is finalised.

New section 78B will prohibit new displays of, or changes in, election advertising in all media on Polling Day. This is in line with current rules to disallow campaigning on Polling Day. This practice allows voters to reflect and vote in an atmosphere free from new election advertising messages on Polling Day. Section 78B, however, does not prohibit the publication of any news or current affairs coverage of the election in newspapers or in radio and television broadcasts.

The penalties for contravening section 78A and 78B are, upon conviction, a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both.

"Election Survey" and Exit Polls

Sir, let me now turn to the issue of the impact of opinion polls on the electoral process and election outcomes. Opinion polls or surveys often give the illusion that they reflect public opinion on certain issues and could mislead the public. Quick polls often use small sample sizes, bad question design and improper sampling, leading to inaccurate or slanted results. For instance, in the recent US Presidential Elections, the early projections of election results by the major media networks were faulty and might have influenced the election outcome.

The Internet makes it easy for anyone to conduct a survey online without proper controls, often leading to misleading or confusing results. Let me cite a recent example. A local website ran a poll on whether the death penalty in Singapore was supported. During the first seven days of the poll, some 83% of the respondents had voted in favour of the death penalty. Within the next four days, however, there was an about-turn resulting in the converse finding that 69% of the respondents were not in favour of capital punishment. How did such an about-turn occur?

Opinion polls can also give rise to a "horse-race" mentality, which can distract voters from learning the candidates' qualifications and their positions on key issues. This unhealthy preoccupation with survey results distorts and trivialises the election process and the seriousness of purpose of a General Election. Laws governing the publication of opinion poll results will need to be put in place to prevent this from occurring.

Some 30 countries in Europe, the Americas and Asia have imposed embargoes on the publication of election opinion polls and exit polls prior to, and on, Polling Day. For example, in Luxembourg, the embargo period is more than 30 days, for Italy 28 days, Venezuela 15 days and France 14 days. For Switzerland, Chile and Mexico, it is 7 days.

Clause 7 of the Bill will insert a new section 78C to prohibit the publication of the results of any "election survey" which is defined as an opinion survey of how electors will vote at an election in respect of any candidate, group of candidates, political party or issue identifiable with them. This embargo will apply to all media, during the election period from the day of the issue of writ of election to Polling Day.

The existing Act already prohibits the publication of exit polls. To remove any ambiguity, the new section 78D explicitly disallows the publication of exit poll results in all media on Polling Day.

The penalty for contravening the new sections 78C and 78D would be, upon conviction, a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both.

Multiple nominations

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now deal with clause 5 of the Bill on the issue of multiple nominations in an election.

Currently the Act does not prohibit a person from contesting in two or more constituencies in an election. He may even be returned successfully in all the constituencies. However, Article 47 of the Constitution requires him to give up all but one seat, as it stipulates that one cannot be a Member of Parliament for more than one constituency.

An election candidate must be committed to a constituency when he contests there. Since the candidate can only take up one seat even if he wins in more than one constituency, there is no reason why he should be allowed to stand for election in more than one constituency.

The existing law dates back to 1947, when the Singapore Legislative Council Elections Ordinance 1947 was enacted, and has its origins in Victorian England. Multiple candidatures are disallowed in Australia, New Zealand, UK local elections and European Parliament elections. As there is no good reason for this provision to continue to exist in Singapore, the Government has decided to amend the Act to disallow multiple nominations.

Clause 5 inserts a new section 32A to deal with multiple nominations at a general election or when two or more by-elections are being held at the same time. The new section provides that if a candidate does not withdraw from nominations in all the electoral divisions for which he has been nominated except one, he will have all his nominations invalidated by the law. If his nomination for a Group Representation Constituency is invalidated, the nomination for the rest of the group would also be invalidated unless it can quickly file a fresh nomination before the close of nominations.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Chew Heng Ching (East Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Bill. With rapid advances in technology and with one of the highest Internet penetrations in Asia, it has become increasingly more difficult to monitor and control political activities on the Internet in Singapore. This move by the Government to further relax Internet campaigning based on a positive list' approach, stipulating contents which are allowed into political sites during election is indeed a step in the right direction. Sir, this is also in line with our gradual move towards liberalisation of our censorship policies and the media as we become a more developed country. We would recall that the General Election in 1997, just four years ago, prohibited political campaigning on the Internet. This amendment is therefore a step forward. I am sure in the years to come, this positive list' will be extended to allow more contents on the Internet during election campaigning.

Sir, the Bill, while regulating political campaigning on the Internet, also prohibits the publication of voter intent polls during the elections. I support this amendment as I am convinced that there is good reason for Singaporeans to be concerned about the potentially disruptive impact of pre-election opinion polls. There is no assurance of fairness in the conduct of such polls, which could cover anything from specific issues to pure speculation on the outcome of particular electoral contests. Hence, there is a grave concern that such polls may be cynically structured to produce desired outcomes for promoters, whose primary motivation may be to mislead, to misinform and to unduly influence the election outcome. The risk is particularly high for polls conducted on the Internet which, as we all know, may be rigged, or have a degree of participation from individuals outside of Singapore who have their own agenda and may not necessarily have the interest of Singaporeans at heart. These foreigners will not be here to bear the consequences of their actions, should their actions lead to undesirable outcomes.

To some extent, Sir, the fixation of opinion polls in other countries, such as the USA on peripheral issues, some even bordering on the frivolous and scandalous, will only confuse the electorate who may inadvertently focus on single issues, instead of national issues, which are crucial when choosing a government. At worst, it could allow the electoral proceedings and process in Singapore, which has always been conducted according to the highest standards, to be trivialised and be manipulated by parties with agendas that may be inimical to the interest of Singaporeans.

The over-reliance of such polls, which are of less relevance than the actual outcome of electoral contests, could undermine the legitimacy of the results and discredit the well-regarded system that we have built up over the years. Sir, one only has to look at the negative effects in the last Presidential Election in the USA, for example, when the international community congratulated the "wrong" President, only to then have to retract and reinstate their messages.

For this reason, Sir, the legal restrictions on voter intent polls during the election period is not new. As the Minister has explained, it is being practised in many countries in Europe, the Americas and Asia. This amendment should therefore be viewed positively in this light, ie, we are aligning our laws to be in line with international practices.

Sir, coming back to the Bill, some critics have complained that the powers being legislated in this Bill run anathema to Singapore's ambition to be a regional media hub. I beg to disagree. Responsible journalism has always been held in the highest esteem by the end consumer, ie, the public. I am convinced that both the local and foreign broadcasters and other media players in Singapore fully appreciate the fact that responsible reporting does not constitute censorship or restrain their obligations to report, inform and educate. What this Bill does is to make it clear and transparent where the goal posts lie, in order for them to operate effectively.

Nevertheless, Sir, the Minister could perhaps comment or give an assurance to this House that the intentions of the Bill have taken into consideration our overall ambition to be a media hub. This affirmation should greatly allay the fears and worries of those, both local and foreign, whose business and employment interests lie in the success of our media hub strategy.

Finally, in the enforcement of some of the specific provisions of this Bill, I would like to raise the concern on whether in the way the Bill has been drafted, innocent bystanders will be criminally liable for offences under this Bill.

For this, I refer to clause 6 of the Bill which makes it a corrupt practice for any person to publish on the Internet, any election materials without identifying the name of the printer, the publisher and the person for whom or at whose direction the election advertising is published. And where any contravention occurs, the printer as well as the person for whom and at whose direction it is published shall be guilty of an offence.

Sir, given the nature of the Internet, and the fact that sites can be hosted on a world-wide basis, there is no way printers can assure themselves that someone, somewhere, sometime may not post a message or host a site displaying election advertising without their authority or consent. Similarly, organisations which are non political in nature may not be able to prevent completely someone from picking up something on their open discussion forums, information listings, or even hijacking their site and publishing such information on their own political sites.

Section 78E of the Bill puts the onus on such persons charged with these offences, to prove that the contravention of the provision arose from circumstances beyond their control and indeed all reasonable steps and due diligence have been taken to ensure that the contravention would not arise. It is not clear then, and it is quite subjective what would be "reasonable steps", since it is so easy in this information age for abuse to be conducted without the consent or indeed the knowledge of the producers of such advertising.

Could the Minister therefore elaborate on how effective can any enforcement take place when an event like this occurs and how innocent parties to these infringements can adequately be assured that they will not be prosecuted indiscriminately?

Finally, Sir, the last amendment to the Bill is to plug a loophole in our law. It disallows a candidate from contesting simultaneously in more than one constituency. I agree with this amendment as, I think, it is impossible for an MP to serve more than one constituency given the demands of an MP's work nowadays. Indeed, this amendment is long overdue.

In conclusion, Sir, I hope the Minister would address some of the concerns I have raised in my speech.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, I refer to clause 5 of the Bill. I cannot understand why the Government wants to prohibit multiple nominations. As it is, the Government has already pegged the election deposit at a prohibitively high amount. If a candidate wants to risk losing his deposit, it should be his prerogative. What happens if multiple nominations are allowed and the candidates are returned to, say, three constituencies, either in the GRCs or single seats? If it is a GRC, then there should be no problem. By-elections in any event are not allowed in GRCs. Therefore, there shall always be other Members of Parliament in the GRC to look after his ward if that Member is busy looking after his other constituencies which he has been returned, or in the case of Jalan Besar GRC, the party that has won that constituency can always send one of its Members to be a caretaker MP there. In fact, since such a precedent has been set up in Jalan Besar GRC, the same principle can be adopted for a candidate who has been returned to multiple constituencies. If he is too busy working in one or two of his constituencies, his party can always delegate one of his party members to take care of his ward in another constituency which he has won. In the case of a single seat constituency, the same can be repeated as in the GRC. The single member must run from one constituency to the other constituency to take care of them. If he is unable to do so, then his party will have to delegate one or more of its members to stand in for him.

It is the PAP which has set the precedent of sending one of his party members to stand in for a colleague who has left Parliament for whatever reason. I cannot see why a candidate who has been elected to multiple constituencies cannot do the same if voters in those constituencies are willing to vote for him. Voters must be given a free choice to vote a candidate they like. The Government should not legislatively deprive them of their right.

Now, I wish to speak on the other amendments in the Bill. I also cannot understand why the Government, on the one hand, spends millions of dollars to promote IT in the schools and ask workers to upgrade their skills but, on the other hand, its use in relation to elections at election time, in some instances, is prohibited. As long as we know who are the people behind the publication advertising the poll findings, other advertisements, or news, I think it should be all right. The Government should allow the people of Singapore to grow up, think for themselves and make their own decisions. Those publications should be allowed as long as we can identify and catch them, if necessary, the persons responsible for those publications and make them accountable for their libel, sedition, or other disseminated matters which are criminal in nature. The Government should give them the freedom to publish, even if the PAP risks losing a few parliamentary seats at the polls. The bigger issue of freedom of publication and allowing our citizens to mature is surely more important for nation building than the party losing a few parliamentary seats.

In fact, for years now, the Opposition has been suffering the problem, that the ruling party is afraid of, that is, voters at the last moment may be influenced not to vote for the Opposition. The local press, during the electioneering period and especially on Polling Day, nearly always publishes sensational headlines which are detrimental to the Opposition, so much so that the Opposition has to tell the voters not to read the newspapers on Polling Day, knowing that the headlines in those papers will be devastating to the Opposition. The Opposition is certain that the ruling party is aware that, during election time, the local press almost always gives a bad press to the Opposition. Yet it allows the local press to carry on that practice simply because it knows that it is good for them.

My query to the Minister is: will the present amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act cover local press as well? To me, it appears to be so under clause 2 of the Bill. Will the Minister please clarify?

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Bill. This Bill will have a great impact in shaping the way in which we conduct elections in an information technology environment. In cyberspace, individuals are empowered to communicate their thoughts and ideas to others quickly and extensively. It is said that the pen is mightier than the sword, but I have no doubt at all that the computer keyboard is the mightiest of them all. This would be more apparent in the context of an election campaign when claim and counter-claim can be made as fast as one can think and type. Political exchanges taking place in the physical world can be easily dwarfed by those taking place in cyberspace. Individuals and parties can debate and campaign to their hearts' content, literally sitting in their rooms or offices.

This Bill and the regulations will eventually provide the rules of engagement for political campaigning in Singapore. It is important therefore that they are seen to be fair to all parties. I also believe strongly in the Minister's statement that politics should be based on factual and objective presentation of issues and reasoned debate. It does not follow of course that such a situation cannot arise in a cyberspace environment. The real question is: if left unregulated, will an undesirable situation arise? By which is meant a situation where voters are not able to judge objectively what is true and what is not. One may argue, for example, that the laws of defamation and other forms of mis-statement would be available to control such excesses and, therefore, further regulation would not be necessary. Be that as it may, the Bill opts for control through regulation, and it is to this approach that I now turn.

It is unfortunate that we are debating this Bill without having a complete idea as to what sort of features or items would be allowed on a political website. The Minister mentioned just now that a full list of features will be released when they are finalised. Firstly, may I ask the Minister when we can expect to see such regulations and, in particular, the list?

Secondly, I would like to ask the Minister what is the extent to which individuals, as distinct from political parties, can be involved in Internet discussions on political issues? Clause 6 contains a provision that allows individuals to communicate with each other "on a non-commercial basis". This is, to me, a puzzling phrase. Unless these individuals are in the business of political lobbying, I should have thought that all would communicate political views on a non-commercial basis. Even in the case of a candidate writing to a prospective voter, I do not think that he would be acting in a commercial capacity. It must surely be in the public interest that candidates and voters should be able to communicate with each other without being regarded as being in a commercial capacity.

Sir, the only type of person that would be caught would be those employed by politicians to answer email or respond to messages, presumably because he is doing so in the course of his employment and, therefore, can be regarded as acting commercially. If this is correct, and I do not say that it is, I wonder whether this is actually Parliament's intention. I should have thought that the objective would be to stop commercial posters using the Internet to bombard individuals with political advertisements. If so, I am not sure that the legislation, as drafted, would achieve in the purpose for restricting such people from doing so.

Sir, I would also like to know whether in the case of a political website, is it permissible for such a website to host a page where supporters can, for example, send their messages of support for the party or its policies? Would individuals doing so be regarded as infringing regulations, existing or proposed? I ask this because, again, the amendment exempting individuals from liability only speaks of communicating between individuals, not between individual and political party, for example. So I hope the Minister can clarify this particular point.

Sir, I hope that the Minister will make it very clear to every Singaporean that the regulations are not intended to stifle political comment, especially during election time. That would be inimical to the democratic process that we are fostering, and I believe that it would also be against the idea of active citizenry, because the exercise of political judgement and political will is, if one may call it, one of the fundamental attributes of exercising actively one's citizenship.

I agree that there must be some regulation so that the stated objective of having a clean and fair election can be maintained, as it has been in the past. But I do hope that the regulations will be seen to be clear and transparent to all parties concerned.

Finally, Sir, I express strong support for the restrictions on exit polls and the like. I have often wondered why voters would be swayed simply by numbers rather than issues, so I think this is indeed a very proper thing to exclude from the political campaign period.

In general, I support this Bill.

Mr R. Ravindran (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad that the Government has decided to allow political campaigning on the Internet, albeit with certain ground rules. This should certainly allay the fear of some that the Government would ban the use of Internet for political campaigns. Whilst we recognise the Internet as an easy medium to reach many people and for many people to access information easily, we must also concede that the Internet will be abused by some. Rumours, gossips and unsubstantiated stories can also be relayed instantaneously, which may cause irreparable damage.

The proposed section 78A empowers the Minister to make regulations governing non-printed election advertising in an election period and election advertising on the Internet in an election period by political parties, candidates or persons. It states that the Minister would regulate the Internet advertising by prescribing the features that must or must not appear in any election advertising.

Sir, I am glad to note that the Minister, in his speech, has chosen to use the "positive list" approach in making these regulations as it would provide clear guidelines to those involved on what is permissible for election political campaigning. It would also help set clear markers to other non-political web masters on what is legal and illegal under the Parliamentary Elections Act.

Sir, at first glance, it appears to be a rational move in the light of the fact that the use of the Internet for political purpose is something new here and also in many other countries. Some skeptics, however, claim that it is an uphill battle to try to control the use of the Internet during election periods because of the sheer multitude of users and also by the cross-border nature of Internet traffic. This raises the interesting question how overseas websites which engage in local political activity during election periods will be monitored and censured.

Sir, if I recall, very recently, when an election took place in a neighbouring country, a lot of foreign websites were sited overseas and a lot of political discussions involving this particular country's politics were all discussed in these overseas websites. So this certainly poses a challenge to the proposed amendments, and I wonder how the Minister would tackle this issue.

Sir, I appreciate that not doing anything is also something no responsible government can afford to do. I would like to ask the Minister for some clarification on the use of the Internet by political parties, candidates and agents during the election period.

Firstly, Sir, would the positive list allow mass emails by these political parties' candidates or agents to those who have registered themselves with these political parties and are willing to receive them, ie, those who are willingly submitting their emails to these political parties and candidates and are willing to receive these emails? Will they be subject to these regulations?

Secondly, can these individuals send these emails containing political information or advertisements to friends, and will they end up in breach of these regulations?

Thirdly, the proposed section 78B seems only to allow the sending of email by individuals to other individuals of his own political views. If one endorses the written viewpoint of candidates or a political party and states that it is also his viewpoint, will it also be in breach of the proposed regulations?

Fourthly, Sir, how are individual emails going to be monitored if there are thousands, if not millions, of emails being sent around? Can the monitoring be done without intruding into the privacy of individuals?

Fifthly, Sir, are bulletin boards, chat rooms and other websites that discuss political matters permissible during the election period?

Let me now move on to the topic of election polls and exit polls. Sir, it is common in many countries, prior to the closing of voting, for opinion polls to be conducted by different organisations. The results of such opinion polls are published in newspapers, magazines and other periodicals, and sometimes telecast or broadcast on the electronic media. The dissemination of such results of opinion polls receives wide publicity and coverage in the print and electronic media, and such dissemination, particularly on the eve of polls, has the potential to influence the electors when they are in the process of making up their minds to vote or not to vote for a certain political party or candidate.

Sir, the methodology followed by different organisations conducting such opinion polls varies from organisation to organisation or the agencies conducting such polls. Similarly, the sample size of the electorate covered by such polls and geographic spread of the survey also differs substantially in each case.

Sir, apart from opinion polls, exit polls are also conducted by some organisations on the days of polls. Many would agree that opinion polls, the way the same are conducted, are not scientific. There is considerable bias, in the size and nature of the sample drawn, to make such an opinion poll and they tend to influence the voters in an unbecoming manner. It is common fact that many of the polls are motivated and are not impartial, because of the known leanings or prejudices of some of the organisations conducting such polls, towards or against certain political parties and/or their leaders.

Sir, I have carefully looked into the existing legislation covering the subject in many countries. I observe that in many states, eg, Canada, France, Italy, Poland, Turkey, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, etc, restrictions in one way or another are placed on the conduct of opinion polls and exit polls. For example, the Canadian Elections Act peremptorily prohibits the publication of any results of any opinion poll two days before the voting begins. Similarly, the Italian Decree Law of 18th November 1995, entitled "Urgent Provisions for Equal Access to the Media during Electoral and Referendum Period" provides that:

"Starting from the 20th day before the elections till the closing date of voting, it is forbidden to publish or circulate the results of exit polls, even if such surveys were carried out before the above mentioned period."

Sir, in this context, the provisions of our Parliamentary Elections Act, namely, sections 80 and 81, deserve to be specially noted. Section 80 prohibits canvassing in any manner on polling day. Section 81 prohibits anyone from dissuading any person from voting at an election from the day of nomination and polling day.

Sir, the existing law is a clear manifestation of recognition of ground reality by Parliament in its collective wisdom that the voter needs a period before the completion of the poll, during which he should not be disturbed in the process of weighing the merits and demerits of political parties and contesting candidates in the electoral fray, so that he can absorb what he has heard or witnessed during the election period in a tranquil and balanced frame of mind.

Sir, viewed in the light of the above statutory restrictions, allowing results of opinion polls and exit polls to be published on the eve of polls or during the polling process would be a deleterious intrusion into the mind of the voter, which is already prohibited by law during the aforesaid period of 24 hours.

Sir, in a worldwide study by Nils Rohme on the Freedom To Publish Opinion Polls in 1997, which was highlighted in the Minister's speech, it was reported that 30 of the 78 countries covered in the survey applied legal restrictions on the publication of public opinion surveys, mostly comprising an embargo prior to general elections. It extends anywhere from one day in some and up to six weeks in the case of South Africa. It is also clear from the survey that many countries in the world were not covered in the survey because they do not have regulations governing opinion polls because opinion polls do not exist or are very new in these countries.

Sir, I am comforted by the fact that in introducing this piece of legislation we are in the company of many progressive countries in the western world who have recognised the weaknesses and abuse of opinion polls in the democratic process and have placed controls on them.

In supporting the Bill, I would like to ask the Minister for three clarifications in this area:

Firstly, what is the position if an election survey is done and the results of the survey are put up on a website before the issue of the writ of elections? Is the person in charge of the website obliged to remove the details of the survey during the election period?

Secondly, will political parties, candidates and the media be allowed to conduct opinion polls using their website during the election period which is not disseminated to the public, and whether, in the political list which is to be put up for political parties and candidates to observe, they will be allowed to conduct opinion polls for their own use or which they may want to use after the election is over, and this includes the media?

Thirdly, Sir, what action will be taken against foreign parties who conduct opinion polls and publish the same overseas during an election period, as criminal laws are territorial in nature, and whether this law has any extraterritorial implications?

Perhaps the Minister can comment.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of this Amendment Bill is to enhance the control of the form and manner of election campaigning so that the opposition parties and their supporters could not make use of the new technology for effective publicity during the election period, to suppress the limited space where the opposition parties have to communicate with the masses, and thereby reducing the influence of the opposition parties and their chances of winning.

Although the Minister mentioned a moment ago in his Second Reading speech that this amendment has allowed the use of Internet during elections, this is, however, only the cosmetic surface of the Bill. What we should pay attention to is that this Amendment Bill redefines election advertising. Under clause 2 of the Amendment Bill, election advertising is defined as follows:

"Election advertising means any poster, banner, notice, circular, handbill, illustration, article, advertisement or other material that can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure the electoral success at any election for one or more identifiable political parties, candidates or groups of candidates, . and such material shall be election advertising even though it can reasonably be regarded as intended to achieve any other purpose as well and even though it does not expressly mention the name of any political party or candidate."

Sir, from this definition, any expression or article, so long as it is related to the election, can be regarded as election advertising and comes under the control of this Amendment Bill, if this article or expression is published on the Internet. The webmaster of the site can even be fined. For example, if someone puts on the Internet, "Keep it up, Workers' Party", that can be regarded as election advertising too. If someone attends a mass rally and subsequently writes a review on it, it could also be regarded as election advertising. In other words, anyone who gives any view on the Internet, whether to support or to go against any particular party or candidate, can be deemed to be election advertising and come under their control. As to how to control and whether or not it could be published, it will be determined by the Minister.

More importantly, this Bill has also given the Government the power to deal with the webmaster of the site who publishes these expressions or articles. As a result, no webmaster would be willing to accept for publication on his site any of these articles. Consequently, this Bill will disable the effective use of Internet during the period of the General Election.

Why is it necessary to move this Amendment Bill now? This is because, in the past, only the newspapers and television have the capability to transmit messages to the voters and all these media come under strict control of the Government. During the elections, they all play the same tune. They will inevitably take the side of the Government, and there will be no coverage that is favourable to the Opposition or unfavourable to the PAP.

But now, with the arrival of the new media era, the Internet is becoming more and more popular and has become an effective channel to transmit messages to the voters. People also have a new space and channel to express their views and comments. Inevitably, there will be no guarantee that someone who will publish something over the Internet that supports the Opposition party and criticises the PAP, and this may affect the PAP! That is the reason why the PAP Government wants to move this legislation to block all these expressions, articles and comments that are unfavourable to the PAP. This is the true purpose of this Amendment Bill to control the usage of Internet during election.

Similarly, why is there a need now to ban the publication of opinion poll and exit poll? The PAP is worried about the effect of Internet. In the past, there was no need to legislate because all the media were under the control of the Government. We all know that during the election period, whether or not the party or the candidate could effectively transmit their messages to their voters is of great importance. All this while, the opposition parties, besides holding election rally, the only way of mass communication was to print and distribute flyers by inserting them into the letterboxes of the voters. It takes a lot of resources to print and to distribute these flyers, particularly in the GRCs. A lot of people, time, energy and money would be needed.

Now, with the Internet, a relatively effective channel to transmit the messages is readily available. We do not have to depend on the newspapers and television to send our messages across to our voters. But the PAP Government is blocking this channel, and the Minister now can regulate and restrict the use of the Internet. Hence, the Opposition is again landed in a situation of being disadvantaged. Is this what the PAP Government claims to be fair competition? More apparently, in order to block all these expressions that are favourable to the Opposition, the Government has already classified the SINTERCOM, a non-political party website, as a political website - this move brings the website under the ambit of this amendment. It is regrettable that the PAP is so very kiasu.

This Amendment Bill once again reveals the true colours of the PAP - to make use of the power and convenience of Government to legislate to block all channels that Opposition parties could more effectively use to transmit their messages and to communicate with voters so that Opposition party and its supporters are not able to be effective during election. This is the hypocrisy of the PAP's claims to fair competition, democracy and openness!

Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill involves the question of principle and the question of rules. I have no doubt whatsoever on the question of principle. Mr Chiam See Tong too commented only on the rules aspect, but not on the principle. I agree with the principle, but on the question of rules, I have some reservations. Mr Chiam asked why a candidate cannot stand for election in more than one constituency. This is like one husband wanting to have many wives. In Singapore, the law prohibits polygamy. Likewise, in an election law, the candidate must contest only in one constituency and serve his constituents there. Mr Chiam must have been eyeing the Jalan Besar GRC in addition to his own Potong Pasir. He is not sure whether to move to Jalan Besar, or to stay in Potong Pasir. So, to have the best of both worlds, he wants to contest in both. Well, he may end up with nothing.

I feel that we can support the general principle, and that is, we must have fair competition, to compete on a level playing ground. As we all know, election propaganda or advertising is a very serious matter. Whether it is the political parties or the individuals standing for election, their agenda and views on major national and international issues must be clearly communicated to the voters to win their votes. They should not hide themselves behind the cover of the Internet. They must stand up and say the right things at the right time. They cannot say things indiscriminately, without taking responsibility of what they are saying.

On the question of rules, the Member for Hougang, Mr Low Thia Khiang alleged that our liberalisation on the use of Internet for the purpose of election was, in fact, a suppression of the political parties. If someone is to post a slogan, "Keep it up, Workers' Party" on the Internet, I do not think anybody would take any objection to it. So be it! You do not have to worry about anyone going after you just because of that. If you want to participate in politics, you must have the political courage, political intelligence and say what you want to say. If you are not sure, then you should go and do something else instead.

On the question of rules, Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that the Government is liberalising election advertising on the Internet. Political parties can advertise their platforms with pictures inserted, and the surfers can hear their voice and see their pictures. As the Chinese saying goes, you sheng you se (full of sound and colour). This shows that our legislature and legislation are in pace with the development of technology. But we are allowed to display only still pictures, but not films. So no election advertising motion pictures over the Internet! Full of sound and colour, but no motion!

With the advancement of technology, our information providers can string together a series of pictures to animate them and turn these still pictures into some kind of motion pictures. Can the Minister please enlighten us on whether this is allowed under this Bill? I feel that we should review our law on video-tapes so that our manner of election campaigning can keep pace with the development of technology.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Simon Tay: Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate on this Bill.

I have some sympathy for this Bill and I have more questions than protests or answers. I have sympathy for the Bill because it clearly is a new kid in town, a new medium, the Internet, which is potentially destabilising. I also sympathise in the sense that, at this point, with elections looming and talked about, any change or any new rules would be scrutinised very heavily, especially by the Opposition which has been patently clear from their speeches, believes that the existing media is very much skewed against them. In looking through the nature of the changes, I have looked for some ideas of trying to be balanced about it, trying to have rules that help more and more rational discussions of politics and a maturing of Singapore's young electorate, while avoiding the dangers of, frankly, rules being made to suit the ruling party.

Firstly, I would disagree with Mr Chew Heng Ching that I do not think this Bill liberalises the rules. I do not think the positive set of what a political party can put on the website is actually a step in the right direction. I would have much preferred a short, specific negative list. This would then allow much more creativity between the different political parties in dressing up their websites, in doing many more things. In this sense, this positive list, which the Minister has told us, is perhaps the wrong approach.

Secondly, I also cannot agree with Mr Chew that it is all clear and transparent. As the Minister himself has noted and the Bill states, there are many more regulations that would be made. Some of the details that the Minister has given are clearly not in the Bill and we will have to wait for a later date to find out what these regulations are. The devil will be in the details.

In the same breath, there have been many questions raised by MPs before me and I believe Mr Ravindran himself asked them. There are the details because the making of legislation creates more intricacies. Before Nomination Day, clearly things would be allowed and after that, not so. The question of the timeline and what is allowed by whom are increasingly complex. Let me move on to my next point and that is to seek some clarifications.

I am sorry, but I do not think it is clear whether the very basic point if I, as an individual, write an e-mail to one or even a thousand friends with my political opinion, I am not sure that the Bill could not catch me if I were to endorse one candidate or one party. This is particularly because of the definition of political advertising that Mr Low Thia Khiang has pointed to.

Secondly, I am not clear as to the ability of non-party sites to allow for debate, to host letters or even to positively endorse one candidate or one party, that is to say, the political party's site obviously can do so. I am not sure what the non-party sites can do. In the real world of real print, I am reminded that the Straits Times, quite traditionally, does endorse one party, the PAP. The question is whether new sites on the website can do the same thing.

Let me move on to my next point of even-handedness. Mr Speaker, it does disturb me that the regulations will be made by the Minister because during the campaigning period there is a question of even-handedness when the Minister is to be contested as well. This is particularly as regards to the proposed amendment in section 78B(f) which would allow for exceptions to be made, not only as to (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) which are all quite specific, but (f), an exception to be made to election is banned on "such other circumstances or activities as may be prescribed by the Minister by order in the Gazette." It is not at all apparent to me what these other circumstances or activities may be. We are looking for transparency and even-handedness. I think there needs to be some clearer projection of what this might be.

Sir, I also want to pause here to disagree with two other things that Mr Chiam had said. First, if I understood Mr Chiam See Tong correctly, he is in favour of multi-candidature, that is to say, a candidate could stand in more than one constituency, hope to win perhaps in a GRC and a single seat, and then give up his GRC seat and leave it to the rest of the team. From my reading of this, Mr Chiam has exposed his election strategy, moving from by-election to two elections. But as a citizen, I do not think this serves the voters or electorate well. It cannot be in the citizens' interest to have somebody run for two seats, win one and give one up, and hope that the rest of the team can make up for the lost man. I beg to disagree with Mr Chiam there.

The second point is that Mr Chiam and Mr Low, in their speeches, have made very easy targets of the local press. However, it is true that surveys do show public opinion, among Singaporeans, believes that the media is not fully impartial. However, I do think there are many good journalists and there is a new dynamic in the print media as well as television, that the competition the Government has fostered in the last year will, I hope, breed competition, freedom balanced with responsibility.

This brings me to my last point. My appeal to the Government and to the Minister would be that elections in Singapore should not be too quiet. There are elections in many one-party states which come and go and no one knows. There is no heat. There is no sense of people really registering their views. I think Singapore, so far, has avoided this. But this Bill, like the Bills on the foreign media before, takes us in little steps towards increasing the regulations that might bring down the temperature. Sir, it is true that we have seen some overheated elections which people maraud, cause damage, even lose lives, and I would not wish that to Singapore. But I think, whether in cyberspace or on the ground, we do need an election period where people feel that they are allowed to discuss issues freely, fairly, whether in person, in print or on the Internet. And there are many difficulties in administrating this new half-way house between print and talk. Internet is bound to have some level of rumour-mongering. That is because it is so accessible to all. But I would ask the Minister to consider whether we really need to go so far. After all, if we have talked mainly about the Internet, how about other forms of communication, such as SMS on the handphone? Would this be another target? What I am hoping, Sir, is that we should move towards not just allowing political parties and their sites to have a free and fair debate but rather elections must be about people, voters and their opinions, and that these regulations, if anything, must err on the side of freedom in order to give people their say.

Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of this Bill.

There are two main schools of thought on the prohibitions imposed by this Bill. On the one hand, some people regard unbridled democracy as a sheer form of tyranny, as it imposes upon the will of others. Hence, we need to balance the right to be democratic with the need to be responsible. We need to balance the right to information with the need to discern the person supplying the information, whether they have a personal stake in the well-being of Singapore or they are acting on their personal agenda. We need to balance the right and freedom of the individuals to express themselves freely with the need for those opinions to be expressed in a responsible manner. In a way, it is like parenting. I like to give my teenager sons as much freedom as possible to access information. But as a responsible father, I will restrict pornography, violence and the like. And if I know that drugs and smoking are bad for them, why would I even want to consider letting my children try them out?

In the same way, if I know that misinformation and manipulating of information by persons with their own selfish agenda is against the well-being of Singapore, why would I want Singaporeans to be exposed to such information without safeguards, especially on a matter as important as electing leaders of the nation?

Sir, in our age of live broadcast, we do not want opinion polls to be conducted by third parties or foreign broadcasters who may misrepresent or manipulate public opinions. In this regard, I agree that we should not allow decisions regarding our future to be influenced by persons who may have their own private agendas.

Singaporeans may have the right to information but it is the duty of the Government to ensure that our citizens are entitled to information from responsible persons. In this IT age, we are flooded with all kinds of information. On issues affecting the future of the nation, we want to have information generated by persons with a strong regard for the well-being of our citizens rather than opinions generated by third parties with no personal stake in the nation.

Sir, the greatest irony of our age is that having more knowledge does not necessarily make one any wiser. Giving a man too many options does not lead him to make a better choice. At the end of the day, voting is something personal and sacrosanct to the voter. The choice of the voter should be based on his knowledge of the political party or candidate rather than knowledge of how other voters choose. Voting should be based on the political platform and confidence that the voter has for the party or candidate, not on the opinion of other voters. We do not want a situation where materials are circulated during the election period without any names on it. We do not want a situation where candidates and political parties go beyond their means and limits in election advertising. We do not want to have our political parties and candidates to be dependent on the purse of third parties who may have their own private agendas in supporting their election advertising. This can lead to money politics. Where possible, we must remove any danger and possibility of money politics taking place in Singapore.

Sir, I believe that the Bill can help to minimise the manipulation of public opinions prior to and during an election. The requirements in the Bill can also help to ensure greater accountability on the part of the political parties, candidates and third parties engaged in election advertising. The Government should also be commended for its alertness to the potential dangers that advancements in info-communications technology can present. In this regard, I also applaud the Government for its courage to make tough decisions to deal with them.

There is another school of thought on this Bill. Some purists of democracy will readily cite these prohibitions to substantiate their perception of Singapore as veering towards a police state, that the Bill impinges on the freedom of the individuals and political parties to contest freely in an election. These people would consider the prohibition of the publication of election opinion polls as an affront to the individual's freedom of speech and expression. They would consider the prohibitions on the Internet as unnecessarily authoritarian and even dictatorial. This group of people will ask why do the United States of America, widely regarded as the epitome of a democratic nation, allows election opinion polls to be freely conducted and yet the Singapore Government wants to ban it. Surely our citizens would be sophisticated enough to make the correct choice of electing their political leaders, regardless of what the opinion polls may suggest. Surely those who are IT savvy enough to surf the Internet would be able to discern and brandish the gimmicks and electioneering ploys on the Internet. If we place limits to the freedom of expression on the Internet, we appear to go against the grain of Prof. Michael Porter's recent advice for us to loosen up. If we define "election advertising" and "publish" so broadly in the Bill, we may unwittingly send a wrong message to our already politically apathetic younger generation of Singaporeans that they cannot communicate anything with a political flavour, especially during the election period.

Sir, the concern in this regard is whether we have defined the terms "election advertising" and "publish" too broadly that they become catch-all tools that cover too extensively non-political party activists who may want to express their views on the election. For example, someone attends an election rally and becomes a converted follower of that political party, be it the ruling or the opposition parties. He sends an e-mail to ask all his friends and relatives to vote for that particular political party. On the basis of his personal conviction, he proceeds to ask all his friends and relatives to canvass their friends to vote likewise. He even includes in his e-mail that out of the 50 friends that he has asked and polled, 40 of them have decided to vote for that political party. Does the Bill prohibit him to carry out the above actions, even though he may be acting on his personal conviction? If it does, I would suggest that we review the definition of these terms, as they are deemed to be too broad.

Sir, with these concerns, which I hope that the Minister can clarify, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, I believe you wanted to seek clarification.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Thank you, Sir, for giving me this opportunity to ask the hon. Member for Ang Mo Kio to clarify. For a moment, I thought he was debating an amendment to the Women's Charter rather than the Parliamentary Elections Act.

Sir, I would like to put on record that I do believe in monogamy. I do not believe in polygamy. Can I clarify with Mr Seng Han Thong that he is not insinuating in any way that I am a polygamist?

Mr Seng Han Thong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I mentioned just now that we must have some moral principle. As a husband, one can have only one wife and be faithful to her. But as a Member of Parliament, he can only serve one constituency and be faithful to his voters. Just now the Member for Potong Pasir said that he should be been given the liberty to serve many constituencies. He mentioned that he wanted to contest in Potong Pasir and the Jalan Besar GRC, and serve whichever constituency he wins in. I am afraid if he does that, he would end up losing both constituencies. I hope that he will be more faithful to his own constituency. Since Mr Chiam remarked about my analogy of yi fu duo qi (one husband many wives), I would change it to yi fu duo qu (one person many constituencies).

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.05 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.42 pm to 3.05 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.05 pm