PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF OVERSEAS VOTING) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 1.38 pm

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Background

Sir, on 19th April 2001, the Government amended the Parliamentary Elections Act to provide for overseas voting, and announced plans to have overseas voting in the coming General Elections at five of Singapore's diplomatic missions, namely, Beijing, Hong Kong, Canberra, London and Washington. Preparations were already underway, and on 26th September the Elections Department announced that eligible Singaporeans living overseas could start to register to vote at these five missions.

On 29th September, the Government announced its decision not to conduct overseas voting in the coming General Election. I will explain the rationale for the Government's decision. Security Considerations Overriding

On 28th September 2001 the Government received information on the actions that the United States planned to take. The Government then came to the conclusion that military action by the United States was imminent. We also had information that a second wave of attacks by the terrorists was expected, especially after the United States' military action, and the targets would not just be in the United States. This second wave of attacks may not be similar in nature as the first. There were also media reports that biological and chemical weapons might be used. The Government could not ignore these threat scenarios, and the danger these would pose to our people overseas should we go ahead with overseas voting. The Government then did a re-assessment of the situation and decided that it was best not to expose our citizens overseas to unnecessary risks. We were not able to disclose this information in the press statement issued on 29th September 2001 as doing so at that time would compromise our intelligence sources.

Now, we know that United States military action began on 7th October. They were joined by the United Kingdom. Osama bin Ladin and the Al-Qaeda leaders have said repeatedly that they would strike back. There are now several cases of anthrax reported in the United States. Although these cases have not been linked directly to the terrorists, United States Vice-President Dick Cheney said a few days ago that the rising number of anthrax cases could be linked to terrorists. Bio-terrorism is a real possibility. Over the weekend, the FBI said it had received information that there may be additional attacks inside the United States or abroad in the next few days, and asked all law enforcement agencies to go on the highest alert. One possible threat cited by a United States intelligence official was attacks on diplomatic sites overseas. It is no consolation that we are proven right in our belief.

Getting Singaporeans to congregate at known locations overseas on a published date for the purpose of voting will certainly expose our citizens to unnecessary security risk. We cannot take the security and safety of our fellow citizens for granted, no matter which part of the world they may be in. Many capital cities have gone on heightened alert, including the five cities which were to have been our overseas voting centres. We cannot expect foreign host countries to guarantee the safety of our people, under current circumstances. Moreover they have their own priorities and risks to manage.

All our overseas missions have been advised to heighten their security alertness, such as looking out for unidentified vehicles parked close to the chancery building or unattended receptacles and items. However, there is only so much that they can do. Having to additionally manage voter registration and voting will dilute the missions' resources further, and hamper their effectiveness in essential duties such as covering and monitoring the fast developing and changing events in their respective areas, which serve to protect Singapore's national interests. Putting too much stress on our missions will inevitably raise the risk of security lapses, something we must avoid.

Sir, tension has mounted following the military strikes in Afghanistan. We do not know when, where or how the terrorists will strike back. Security will have to be further tightened. Events are unfolding as situations change day by day. We cannot anticipate what may come the next day. We have to be prepared for the worst. Freedom of movement could well be severely reduced. Airports and roads could be closed, and public transport at a standstill. Our missions will then also have to cope with the upsurge of consular work, looking after the welfare of citizens who are overseas. In the extreme, our missions may even have to be shut down partially or completely, interrupting any elections related work or even stopping them entirely.

As security considerations are overriding, the Government has therefore decided reluctantly, in these exceptional circumstances, that there will be no overseas voting in the coming General Election. Clause 2 of the Bill suspends the relevant provisions in the Parliamentary Elections Act to effect this.

Although the Bill is deemed to take effect from 26th September 2001, until the Bill is passed and signed into law, the present law allowing for registration of overseas electors remains in force. This means that at present the Registration Officer will have to continue to receive applications from overseas voters in accordance with the law in force today. Clause 3 of the Bill has thus been added to validate the acts and decisions of the Registration Officer not to register any non-resident citizens as an overseas elector taken since 28th September 2001 until the registers of electors are certified. Current Situation

Sir, the sole reason for Government's decision is security. At the 25th September sitting of Parliament, I briefed Members of the House on the security threat faced by Singapore, as a result of the recent terrorist attacks in the US. The Prime Minister himself elaborated on this last evening at his dialogue with the trade union leaders.

The United States and United Kingdom have started to attack terrorists hideouts in Afghanistan on 7th October. The financial assets of terrorist groups have also been frozen. The United Nations Security Council has passed resolutions prohibiting the funding or the giving of any form of assistance to terrorists. The terrorist groups have threatened to launch counter-attacks on countries taking part in these anti-terrorist measures.

Singapore is a responsible member of the United Nations and of the world community. We have repeatedly stated our stand against terrorism and will play our part to bring the perpetrators of terrorism to justice. Singapore will implement the recently passed United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 with the United Nations Bill just passed by Parliament this afternoon, to demonstrate our resolution against terrorism. We will play our part in the global effort to freeze the financial resources of terrorist networks. It is only when all the countries in the world unite against terrorism that we can hope to remove this scourge from the face of the earth.

Singapore signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the United States in 1990, enabling the use of our bases by US air force and navy units to transit through Singapore. A higher volume of aircraft and ships are transiting through Singapore, especially since the US launched its retaliatory attacks.

In the light of these recent developments, Singapore has now got to be more vigilant. Like other countries, we have stepped up security measures to protect our people and vital installations and offices, here and abroad.

Members must not forget that Singapore has not been spared from terrorist attacks. In 1974, the Japanese Red Army hijacked a ferry, the Laju. And in 1985 and 1986, two bombs exploded at Faber House in Orchard Road. In 1991, Singapore Airlines flight SQ 117 was hijacked by Pakistani militants. We cannot, therefore, afford to take things lightly just because we have not been affected directly in the September 11 attacks. Suspension of Overseas Voting

Sir, some people have speculated that it was due to the Government wanting to call a snap election that the registration for overseas voting was suspended. They surmise that the Elections Department was not ready for an early election. Let me say that this is not the case. All elements for overseas voting system are operationally ready. The Elections Department has already distributed brochures and application forms to our missions overseas. It also briefed the officers from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who, in turn, briefed the mission staff and helped out in the public enquiries and registration there. The polling booths and ballot boxes that were specially made for overseas voting were also ready. In fact, some officers were sent to the five missions on 26th September when the announcement was made by the Elections Department to assist the missions in the registration of overseas voters.

As I have explained at length, the overriding consideration is that of security. However, there may still be sceptics or cynics who will choose not to believe this. So should there be an election soon, they will say, "There you are, I told you so." Let me reiterate that the Government's responsibility is to protect its people. We will avoid putting overseas Singaporeans at unnecessary risk in situations which are not within our control. The Government could still call a snap election if it wanted to. But it has nothing to do with cancelling overseas registration. Conclusion

Sir, the Government is just as disappointed as many Singaporeans are that there will be no overseas voting in the coming General Election. The Elections Department would have gained valuable experience if overseas voting at the five missions proceeded as planned. The Government hopes that the Singapore citizens abroad who had intended to cast their votes at these five voting centres will understand the extraordinary international security situation which has made this decision necessary. Finally, I stress that this is only a temporary suspension of overseas voting. It is certainly not a permanent reversal of Government policy. The Bill provides for suspension of the relevant provisions related to overseas voting only until the polling day of the coming General Election.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Simon Tay: Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to begin by thanking the Minister for his very full explanation and response to the market talk, or town talk, that there was a connection between the suspension of overseas voting and the talk of an early General Election. I think that Singaporeans should have the reassurance, as the Minister has given us, that this House, after deciding on overseas voting, does value overseas Singaporeans who are working abroad and wish to cast their votes. And I am glad also that the Minister has taken pains to point out, in detail, how the relevant Government agencies were ready to do this in time even if a snap election is called. And I think in this sense, I would agree with him that, having heard him, even if an early General Election is called, it would be coincidence rather than causation.

The Minister has shared with us some of his evaluation of risks for our overseas Embassies. Could he tell us what other events might be affected? For example, would it be that events at our Embassies abroad would be cut down or, perhaps, cut out altogether? For example, large public receptions?

Secondly, Sir, I would agree with the Minister that it is best to forgo all five cities at one go. There have been some suggestions, I think in the press, that if our Embassy in USA was the chief risk, why not allow voting to carry on in other countries? I would, myself, think that this would be the wrong policy. Firstly, I agree with the Minister that it is not sound in practice because the terrorists could strike anywhere. Secondly, I would further add that it is not sound in principle because it would discriminate amongst our overseas voters; that is, those in America might be deprived whereas those, say, in China will continue.

Looking further ahead, may I ask the Minister whether we should not look towards secured electronic voting for overseas Singaporeans. Can we not use this time between this coming GE and the next to look into this possibility? This should be good for the ease and security of voting. And secondly, it would be a very good demonstration of the security of electronic commerce.

With this, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair: Mr Speaker, Sir, voting at the General Election is a right of every Singaporean and this extends to some of our citizens living abroad as a result of the recent amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act.

I would submit, Mr Speaker, Sir, let our citizens decide whether to vote or not to vote given the opportunity to vote when they are living abroad, even if it means a threat to their security, perceived or real. Security considerations are important, no doubt. So is the right to vote. Can we not utilise electronic filing system and electronic voting system to see how it works? And this can be devised as soon as possible so that the market talk about the suspension of voting by our foreign citizens is quelled. Can we not in the process also secretly inform our citizens, who are living abroad, that voting can be held at a secret location? And if you are really serious about this, if we want to do it, we can. Let us see how ingenious our Government is.

One of the problems in this kind of issues is the lack of information, or there is very little information available to our citizens. No doubt, the reason or the excuse is security reasons. And all in the name of security reasons, there is very little information for most people, including parliamentarians. Perhaps, more information could be disseminated to our citizens and parliamentarians. We must have confidence in our citizens to analyse this information and decide for themselves. We must not treat it as though they will react adversely to any information that is disseminated to the citizens. We must have confidence in their sensible and rational ways.

What are the danger signs of terrorism against Singapore and our Embassies outside Singapore? At the moment, we are not quite sure. No doubt, there may be information from the internal and external security agencies to convince our Minister that we must not have overseas voting at the moment. But the lack of information disseminated to the citizenry brings about this form of suspicion that there could be other motives. So, perhaps we will have to find some sort of balance where this could be taken care of.

One could argue, Mr Speaker, Sir, if we are really serious about it, then do not call for General Election until just before August 2002. One could argue, why the hurry? What are the good reasons why we should have, from what we hear, election to be held soon? If there is a pressing problem of security of our nation, then why call for General Election, because life goes on in Singapore, especially since it is a situation where there have not been any major changes to bring about General Election, for which our Government still has time? It has got another nine to 10 months.

And if you are going along that line, let us see what happens in the next few months. If there is a reduction in the discussion and acts of terrorism, then perhaps this particular Bill would not be necessary at all.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate.

Most overseas voters, as indicated by letters sent to the press, are disappointed that they are not allowed to vote at the next General Election. The reason given by the Government for scrapping overseas voting is that the overseas Missions are not able to maintain sufficient security in the light of the 11th September terrorist attacks in New York and Washington DC, USA. However, most overseas voters appear to be sceptical of the reason given by the Government. One overseas voter asked, "If Washington is dangerous, then why not continue with the voting at the other four designated centres in London, Beijing, Hong Kong and Canberra?" Indeed, why not? Many are also surprised that our overseas Missions lack confidence in their security systems.

The fact that the Government is quick to cancel all overseas voting shows the attitude of the Government towards the constitutional rights of its citizens. For a long time now, the Opposition suspects that the Government has never been enthusiastic about the elections. At each General Election, it wants to get it over as fast as possible. Many General Elections had been held at the most awkward times, either during festive-end or rainy seasons. And the minimum time under the Constitution, nine days, is given for canvassing. The scrapping of overseas voting in double-quick time is evidence that the Government is not too keen on giving Singaporeans their constitutional right to vote.

Most overseas voters who wrote to the press recently indicated that they want to vote at the next General Election, despite the terrorist attacks. They feel that when they have voted, they would have a stronger bond to their homeland. They would feel that they are more Singaporean, and they also want to reassure themselves that they are citizens of Singapore. I think the Government should lift the suspension for overseas voting and allow our citizens living abroad to vote at the next General Election, at the same time, of course, making sure that all security measures are taken.

If the Government thinks that to open all five overseas centres is not very safe, then, at least, it should allow the other four centres to go on. There are substantial numbers of Singapore citizens abroad, other than those residing in America. Overseas voters who are not living in America should be given a chance to vote, and I would even suggest that, perhaps, more overseas voting centres be opened. For example, in Australia, other than just having it only in Canberra, we may have one, say, in Perth. I understand that there are many, many Singapore students aged over 21 who are studying in Perth. They should be given a chance to vote. Also, there are many people who go over to China to do business. They should be given a chance to vote. Maybe one other centre can be opened, other than Beijing.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, as I listened to the speakers before me, it is important that they be aware of the security issue, and that they have not given sufficient attention to that aspect. I agree entirely with the Minister that the security of our citizens, especially in overseas stations, is paramount. Citizens probably would prefer to exercise their rights in reasonably secure situations, and it would be best if their lives not be put at risk due to the enhanced security problems now in the West.

Since some speakers have mentioned about the use of electronic voting, I should just like to ask the Minister to clarify one point. Overseas voting and electronic voting are two new elements that were brought in recently through the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill. Would the Minister confirm that the Elections Department would still carry on with the electronic voting pilot scheme in Singapore?

Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, let me first deal with the question from Prof. Chin Tet Yung about electronic voting. I moved an amendment in Parliament on this some months ago.

Indeed, the Elections Department has been progressing with this matter for many months ever since Parliament approved having electronic voting in the coming General Election. They have been working very closely with the vendors and the systems designers to come up with a system. In fact, even before that, they also have a prototype plan to educate the public about how e-voting is supposed to be done and a session was also arranged for our MPs to see how the system works. But the details have yet to be worked out and these details have to be worked out with the technical people, the software writers, the designers, as well as with the vendors who supply the system. And that is only one part of it.

The key part of it is how to ensure that electronic voting is supposed to do the job that we want it to do, ie, to allow voters to vote in secret. We have agreed that the Auditor-General should be the authority to certify the system. The Auditor-General has appointed a consultant to work closely with his staff, to help them look into this system to ensure that its objectives are met. They have been doing this for the last several months.

The Elections Department has also spent money buying equipment and on developing software to develop the electronic voting system for use in the coming General Election.

But there are many issues to be resolved. The key part really is in the certification exercise, as well as the matrix involved in determining what goes in. Apparently, I am told that this has taken some time, and issues on whether the acceptance tests and the certification tests can be ready in time before the next General Election or not, we do not know because, from the current timetable, they are supposed to complete this process by the end of December. So, if the system is ready and we have elections, then, yes, e-voting will be implemented. But when we have elections and the system is not ready, then certainly we cannot use e-voting as a pilot in a one or two constituencies that we plan to do when I last spoke. So that is the status of electronic voting.

Let me now come to the other parts of the debate which several Members have also spoken, and I thank them for raising their views here and allowing me an opportunity to clarify some of them.

Mr Simon Tay asked us to look at the way of securing overseas voting and to come out with an electronic voting system. Even a simple system like that in which we talk about touch screen and keying in "Yes" or "No" and which party, etc, already takes time. And that is not even electronic in the real sense of the word, where it is transmitted from one station to another. It is just a simple system in a particular polling station and nothing goes out of that space. When you have electronic voting or secure overseas voting, through either the Web or through some other means, that is an issue far more difficult than the e-voting that we are planning. Even in the United States, I believe one state has commissioned an expert study on this and they have come to the conclusion that, today, there is no safe way of having Internet voting or voting on the Web. There is no way that it can ensure that the system works for them in the way that they wanted. So, this also deals with Mr Chandra Mohan's point. We cannot design a system just like that. It takes expertise, many, many experts and hours, to come out with something. And if the country that has the most experts and that is most knowledgeable, the United States, has not tried it, I think we must fear to tread.

On the question of right to vote, I have dealt with this at great length - whether citizens have a right to vote and whether overseas citizens have a right to vote, and there were many verbal gymnastic sessions that we had been through, I would not go into this detail here today. If hon. Members will refer to the Hansard as well as to the other speeches I have made, we have settled that quite clearly. No doubt, some people may still raise this question, but the law is very, very clear. The law, as it stands before our amendment to allow for overseas voting, is quite clear that only citizens resident in Singapore can vote. Then we amended the law to provide for citizens overseas to vote, provided they meet certain conditions. We have set the conditions and we will now see how that will work out before we consider any change to these conditions. So I will not deal with that for now until we have tried that out.

As to whether we want to open up more centres in other parts of the world, in other countries, whether it is going to be in Perth or Shanghai or Shenzhen, etc, I have also said that the five centres that we have selected are the five capital cities and, according to the Vienna Convention, these are places where we have our consular officers there, we have our diplomatic community there and we conduct our business there as a sovereign Government. That we will continue to do so. To try to expand all that into other areas, I think there are other issues that we will have to deal with as well. So we will leave that to later, when we have tried out how the selected Missions can implement a system like that when we have overseas voting.

On whether to have it in the other four Missions, apart from Washington, like Mr Chiam and Mr Chandra Mohan suggested, Mr Simon Tay made a valid point that we should not be selective in allowing Singaporeans overseas to vote. Besides, the security consideration is the same. We are not saying that only the United States has a problem. In my speech, I have said, at length, that we cannot expect what will come the next day. Unfortunately, Mr Chiam was not here when I explained in great detail the reasons why we have decided to cancel this registration of overseas voting, and he raised, in his speech a number of questions which I have actually dealt with. I would suggest that he reads my speech when the Hansard is out. Or if he would like to borrow a copy of the statement, I would be pleased to show it to him.

Regarding Mr Chandra Mohan's suggestion to secretly tell overseas voters about voting in a secret location, we cannot find a way to inform citizens secretly about voting in secret places. No matter how ingenious we are - we are clever - but not that clever to find such an ingenious way of informing citizens secretly about secret voting locations. One of my Permanent Secretaries once told me when I was a young officer, "Kan Seng, when two persons know of a matter, it is no longer a secret." So, how are we going to tell thousands of overseas Singaporeans, "This is a secret location. I tell you secretly, please go and vote on this secret day." It is just beyond my ability to think about it. Maybe if Mr Chandra Mohan can find a way of doing so, please secretly tell me about it!

On Mr Chandra Mohan's question on calling for the GE and his suggestion that we do not call for it until the situation is more secure since we have up to August 2002 to call it, let me say that it is the prerogative of the Government to call for an election any time between now and August 2002. Who is to determine that this is the best time? It surely must be the Government. Who is to say that if we extend this to August 2002, we can expect no further unforeseen circumstances? I cannot guarantee that. I cannot tell him that if we defer this for the time being until the attack is over, until the terrorist counter-attack, everything will be peaceful and calm and we will back to our life as per normal. I cannot guarantee that today. Even before September 11th, in some places, maybe he can. But there is no utopia on earth. Unfortunately, we cannot tell what may happen between now and August 2002. So the Government has to choose the best time to have an election. It may be coming soon. It may be August 2002. So, we will have to wait and see. If people expect that election is coming soon, then let them be prepared for it. If they think that we should follow Mr Chandra Mohan's advice and wait till August 2002, so be it. I think we let it be like that.

About giving information to people on security threats that we face, we would like to share as much as possible but, at the same time, we must also not unnecessarily alarm our people about every piece of information that we receive. Even in the United States, I do not think that all the key people are privy to all the secrets and intelligence information. Even for the Intelligence Committee in the Congress, I do not think they are privy to every bit of intelligence information, but they receive Congressional notes, briefings from the intelligence agencies. If need be, we will tell the public what happened but we will choose what to tell, because we also have to make sure that the sources of information that we receive are also protected. By nature, security must be something that we must take very seriously, and not simply publicise it every time we receive a piece of information. We will tell the people as much as we can.

Sir, I think I have answered most of the questions that were raised by Members here. If there is anything that I have missed out that Members think is important, please raise it again.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I have a few questions about e-voting. On the road-show that the Minister is talking about, when will it come on? The second question is how many constituencies will have e-voting?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: We would like to do the road-show with the equipment and the system that closely resemble what we are going to do for the actual e-voting. Then it is meaningful in the public education exercise. If we were to use the prototype that the Elections Department and its vendors worked out to educate the public, I think it may confuse the people. So we have to wait for that said system to be ready before we can start the road-show to educate the public. As I have said, the system is not likely to be ready until the end of this year. So, we cannot have road-shows definitely before the end of this year.

As to how many constituencies will have this e-voting, I have said, as a pilot, we will choose one or maybe two single member constituencies. It is small scale, big enough for us to try out and, at the same time, give us a hands-on experience as well as educate the public on what e-voting is all about. If Potong Pasir would like to volunteer, we will think about it.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I made it clear to the Minister the last time when the prototype was shown to the MPs that Potong Pasir is definitely not interested in e-voting.

An hon. Member: Why?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: It is all right if Mr Chiam does not like it. But Mr Low Thia Khiang, when he made a speech here during the debate on the Second Reading of the Amendment Bill, welcomed it.

Mr Simon Tay: Sir, it is a question that the Minister may have missed. This is a simple question that while I give the benefit of the doubt to the Government's assessment of security, I would like to ask the Minister whether any other changes will be made to security at our overseas embassies, such as the holding of large receptions. Second, is a point of clarification. When I mentioned about the prospect of looking into a secured electronic voting for overseas Singaporeans, I did not mean that it is for now, but I meant, prospectively, for the next General Election.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes, we will look at all kinds of systems that may come by. In fact, after we showed the prototype to Members of Parliament and after we got a vendor to come up with a system and they are still working on it, I also got a briefing from the Indians who had an e-voting system, a simple gadget which had been implemented in several states in India. We have looked at the system. It is very simple, and we are exploring that too as a possibility. Of course, there is one missing key element in that Indian system, and that is the inability for us to know whether it is a real voter or somebody else who pressed the key. Whereas in our system, we have a serial number, and in case there is a challenge or a petition to the court, the court will then say, "Check, open this up", and we will know whether there is such a voter or not. But in the Indian system, this check is not available. So we have asked them to explore whether they could put in something that will allow us to trace, whether it is a real voter with the right name in the register.

As regards to holding a large reception by our missions, our missions would have to take all the factors into consideration, including the importance of the occasion, the security aspects, as well as other considerations before they decide whether to have or not to have a large reception. I must leave that to the missions to exercise their judgment.

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.