Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

2.09 pm

The Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The amendments being proposed to the Parliamentary Elections Act seek to improve the administration of parliamentary elections. They can be grouped into three categories. The first category of amendments involves changes to processes related to election candidates. The second category improves the management of contingencies during an election. The third and final category deals with other election processes.

Let me begin with the first category of amendments related to election candidates. Clause 4 amends section 28 to simplify the computation of election deposits. The election deposit will now be based on an elected Member of Parliament's fixed monthly allowance, rounded to the nearest $500. The clause also deletes the reference to cash payment and, in its place, provides the option for candidates to pay the election deposit by electronic fund transfer or in such other form or manner as the Returning Officer allows. The other methods of payment currently provided in the Act by bank draft or certified cheque will continue to be available.

To facilitate smooth and orderly conduct of nomination proceedings, clause 6 amends section 31 to provide that a person seeking to be a candidate in an election may be refused entry to the place of nomination unless the aspiring candidate satisfies the requirements set out in the new section 31(2). These requirements are that the aspiring candidate must have a political donation certificate issued under section 18(4) of the Political Donations Act and be accompanied by at least six other individuals, namely, his proposer, seconder and at least four assentors. In the case of a Group Representation Constituency, additional requirements apply, including that at least one member in the group must also have a certificate from either the Malay Community Committee or the Indian and other Minority Communities Committee. These requirements are also necessary for successful nomination. With the proposed changes, election officials can focus on processing the nomination papers of those who are serious about meeting the requirements for nomination.

The next set of amendments deals with the returns on election expenses. We will streamline and simplify the submission of returns on election expenses without diluting accountability.

Clause 23 amends section 74 to remove the current requirement for election agents to submit to the Returning Officer the supporting documents for election expenses, such as bills and receipts. To ensure accountability, clause 25 inserts a new section 75A to require a candidate and the candidate's election agent to maintain the supporting documents for the return on election expenses for a period of one year after notice of the return is published by the Returning Officer in the Government Gazette. The clause also empowers the Returning Officer to require, during this one-year period, the candidate or the election agent, or both of them, to furnish any supporting document or any other information relating to the return. Any contravention of the requirements of the new section 75A constitutes an illegal practice.

To protect personal data, clause 24 amends section 75 to require the Returning Officer to redact certain personal details when the returns and statements on election expenses are open for public inspection. Addresses and contact numbers will be completely redacted. However, for accountability, the names of candidates, election agents and donors will continue to be reflected in full with their identity card numbers partially redacted. The clause also extends the period of time for which the Returning Officer must keep the returns and statements on election expenses from the current six months to one year.

Next, I will discuss the proposed amendments to section 83.

Section 83 of the Parliamentary Elections Act currently prohibits certain classes of people, such as foreigners, from taking part in any election activity and also requires the persons conducting election activities for a candidate to be authorised to do so by the candidate or his election agent.

Section 83 currently defines "election activity" as including an "activity which is done for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at any election". Clause 26 amends the definition of "election activity" mainly to elaborate that an activity which is done to prejudice the electoral prospects of other political parties or candidates is also election activity. The Bill does not make any changes to the substantive rules in section 83 on election activity.

Let me now address the second category of amendments which deals with the management of contingencies during an election. The Bill spells out various procedures to strengthen the current provisions to manage various types of contingencies, such as a riot, fire or flood, which may occur during nomination, polling or counting proceedings. I will now take Members through the key changes being proposed.

Clause 17 inserts a new section 56BA to enable the Returning Officer to deal with contingencies affecting the conduct of nomination proceedings on the day of nomination.

If a contingency arises before the start of nomination proceedings on nomination day, the new section 56BA provides the Returning Officer with the powers to change the hours of the nomination proceedings, change the place of nomination, or to do both, or abandon nomination proceedings. If the Returning Officer decides to change the hours of nomination proceedings, the new hours must enable the nomination proceedings to start and conclude within the same day.

If a contingency arises during the nomination proceedings, the new section 56BA(3) provides the Returning Officer with the powers to suspend the nomination proceedings for a period of time and continue with the nomination proceedings at the end of the period at the same nomination place or at a different place on the same date, or abandon the nomination proceedings. Should there be a need to conduct nomination proceedings on another day, the President will issue a fresh writ stating the new date for nomination as provided under existing law.

Before making a decision under the new section 56BA(3), the Returning Officer may suspend the nomination proceedings for a period of up to two hours in order to assess the situation and decide on the course of actions to be taken.

Similarly, for polling and counting proceedings, clauses 18, 20 and 21 amend sections 56C, 56E and 56F respectively to empower the Returning Officer to suspend the proceedings for up to two hours to assess the situation and decide on the course of action to be taken.

We will also be replicating various changes to deal with contingencies, which we made to the Presidential Elections Act last year. These are covered in clause 13, which amends section 49A to empower the Returning Officer to extend the time taken for sealed ballot boxes from overseas polling stations to reach Singapore; clause 19 which inserts new sections 56DA and 56DB to spell out the procedures to be taken when marked local ballot papers are lost or destroyed when they are being transported after the close of polls to counting places and when marked overseas ballot papers are lost or destroyed when they are being transported from overseas polling stations to the counting place in Singapore; and clause 12, which amends section 48A to remove the current requirement for the Returning Officer to inform candidates or their election agents in writing as to the places where the votes will be counted or the postponement of counting due to certain contingencies described in that section. Instead, the Returning Officer will publish the information in the Government Gazette.

The third category of amendments deals with other election processes.

Clause 2 amends section 9 to remove the requirement for the Registration Officer to publish in the Government Gazette the polling districts within an electoral division. Instead, the Registration Officer will publish maps or other images of the polling districts on the Elections Department's website. This will make it easier for members of public to view the polling districts compared to the current method of using text such as road names to describe polling districts. The Registration Officer will continue to publish in the Government Gazette a notice when an electoral division is subdivided into polling districts. The notice will provide details of the website and the physical locations where the maps can be inspected by the public.

Clause 3 amends section 11 to enable the Registration Officer to reject, without having to hold a public inquiry, a claim for a name to be included in a Register of Electors for an electoral division if the claim is clearly without merit. To safeguard claimants' interests, the grounds on which the Registration Officer may reject a claim without holding a public inquiry are tightly scoped in the new section 11(9B) as follows: (a) the claimant was not a citizen of Singapore on the relevant cut-off date for the Register; (b) the claimant was below 21 years of age on the relevant cut-off date; (c) where the claimant claims to be entitled to be included in the Register on the ground that the claimant's address has changed, the new address provided by the claimant is not the address of any premises within the electoral division, such as a P O box address.

The clause improves administrative efficiency in processing the claims specified in a new section 11(9B). For other types of claim, the Registration Officer will continue to hold a public inquiry before deciding whether to accept or reject such claims. Claimants whose claims are rejected without an inquiry have a right to appeal to the Revising Officer, appointed by the Minister, under the current section 12.

Clause 8 amends section 39 to empower the Minister to prescribe in regulations the method for computing the number of polling agents for each candidate or a group of candidates who may enter a polling station. This will enable the number of polling agents in a polling station to be madee proportionate to the number of voters allotted to the polling station instead of the current pegging of polling agents to the number of polling places in the polling station. This amendment gives flexibility to the Elections Department to design polling stations for efficient operation. To illustrate, Elections Department plans to introduce electronic voter registration or e-registration. This will result in a faster registration process for voters. With a faster registration process, the same number of voters in a polling station can be served by fewer polling places. To ensure an adequate number of polling agents for each polling station despite fewer polling places in the polling station, we propose to peg the number of polling agents to the number of voters in the polling station.

The amendment Bill also replicates relevant changes made to the Presidential Elections Act last year through the amendments in clauses 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 28(n). These relate to the notices to voters on voting procedures placed outside polling stations, the design of the ballot paper, recounting of votes, and election advertising. All these changes were elaborated during the amendments to the Presidential Elections Act last year and I will not repeat them today.

Lastly, consequential to amendments made in 2016 to the Constitution, clause 16 amends section 52 to increase the number of Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) to be declared. Currently, the number of NCMPs to be declared is nine, minus the total number of elected Opposition Members of Parliament. The clause increases the number of NCMPs to be declared to 12 minus the total number of elected Opposition Members of Parliament.

Allow me to conclude. The amendments I have described today will improve the administration of parliamentary elections while ensuring the secrecy of the vote and the integrity of the election process. The changes will ensure that our electorate continues to have high trust and confidence in our electoral system.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

2.23 pm

Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Thank you, Sir. Mr Speaker, it is hard for anyone to believe that in this modern age, we still some time cannot have a clear definition of what constitutes a valid vote in an election.

I have seen a ballot paper with a faint squiggly cross marked inside the demarcated box rejected by an Assistant Returning Officer (ARO) on the basis that the intention of the voter was not clear. I was flabbergasted and perplexed at the same time on how the ARO could have arrived at such a conclusion. The said voter could easily be an elderly person who, for some reason, could not imprint a more forceful mark on that ballot paper but that did not mean his or her intention was not clear in any way.

I have also seen ballot papers with a tick and a diagonal line drawn across it, well within the demarcated box for the preferred candidate, being marked for rejection. The reason, a tick means "yes" but the diagonal line across it forms an "X", which means "no". So yes and no at the same time, the intention of the voter was not clear. Yet I have seen an "X" marked on the party logo area counted as valid. I have also witnessed symbols and expletives in the demarcated box of a ballot paper counted as valid as well.

When I asked the Returning Officer to adjudicate on the validity of the rejected votes, he said the individual ARO at the respective counting tables has the authority to decide on such a matter. Sir, in the two General Elections I contested, there were at least six counting tables in each of the counting centres. So I am looking at potentially, six different interpretations of what constitutes a valid vote, just in one counting centre alone.

How can we call ourselves a developed country when we cannot even define, in simple term and without ambiguity, what is a valid vote?

So, while this amendment Bill seeks to issue clearer guidelines on what the Returning Officers and their assistants should look for in a ballot paper when determining the intention of the voter, I wish to seek some clarifications from the Minister on some of the proposed changes.

First, clause 11 of this Bill, which amends section 42 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, introduces a new sub-section (3AA), which states that “the voter’s mark on the ballot paper must be made in the area demarcated on the ballot paper for that purpose, and not elsewhere.”

Sir, to the visually impaired or elderly with poor eyesight, putting a mark squarely within the area demarcated on the ballot paper can be challenging, especially if these voters do not want any help to do so for whatever reason. I am sure many of us in this House would have come across ballot papers with the voter’s mark imprinted outside the area demarcated for that purpose. I believe the intentions of these voters were in no way unclear. However, such votes would be deemed invalid under the proposed amendment to section 42 of the Parliamentary Elections Act.

We are an ageing society and we will see more and more elderly voters in time to come. I have utmost respect for these voters who, despite their advanced age or disability, are determined to play a role in shaping our democracy, come what may. It would be sad to know that their effort and passion could be in vain with the proposed amendment. I seek more information from the Minister to address this concern. Separately, I hope the Elections Department could also look into designing a ballot paper with a larger area demarcated for the voters to mark with greater ease.

Second, clause 15, which amends section 50 of the principal Act, introduces a new sub-section (2A) to instruct the Returning Officer, when determining whether a mark made on a ballot paper clearly indicates the voter’s intention to vote for the candidate or group of candidates, to disregard any mark that is not made within the area demarcated on the ballot paper for that purpose.

I wish to ask the Minister, does that mean that as long as a voter’s mark is made within the area demarcated on the ballot paper for that purpose, a voter is allowed to exercise his artistic licence elsewhere on the ballot paper and it would still be counted as a valid vote, since the Returning Officer must disregard other mark found on the ballot paper as directed under this new amendment?

If a voter were to cross out the name of a particular candidate with words like “clown”, "my hero" or "Mr Bean", and then proceed to put an “X” in the area demarcated on the ballot paper for that purpose, would the Returning Officer be compelled to treat it as a valid vote under this proposed amendment to section 50 of the Parliamentary Elections Act? I hope the Minister can provide more clarity on this amendment, else it will only cause more confusion.

Voting is a serious act of civic responsibility. I believe we should not allow the ballot paper to be marked in any other way other than prescribed under the Act. There should be no other mark other than the mark left by the voter in the area demarcated on the ballot paper for that purpose. Returning Officers should not be tasked to disregard any other mark found on the ballot paper but to designate such ballot as invalid, as outright invalid. Voter education is also important. Beyond showing voters where to mark on a ballot paper, the Elections Department should also educate voters on what will invalidate their votes.

At this juncture, I wish to reiterate the Workers' Party’s stand on the NCMP scheme. We oppose the scheme as we believe in the fundamental principle that having more NCMPs is not the way forward to make our political system more robust. So, barring the amendment made to section 52(1) of the principal Act to revise the formula to determine the number of NCMP to be declared in an election, I do support the amendment Bill.

2.29 pm

Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill makes various changes to the administration of the various processes related to Parliamentary Elections such as nominations, polling and counting. I do not oppose the Bill and I concur with the various points made by my colleague Mr Png Eng Huat on the Bill, which I shall not repeat here.

I will pose several questions and request for clarification.

Firstly, clause 3 amends section 11. The new section 11(9B)(b) allows rejections of claims for eligibility without hearing, if the Registration Officer is satisfied that the claimant was not a citizen of Singapore or below 21 on the date prescribed in section 5(4), or the claimant's new address in the claim form is not in the relevant electoral division.

I would like to ask by what means the Registration Officer will make determinations to reject such claims of eligibility. Would he or she, for example, access the relevant Government database for personal information, and if so, what safeguards are there against errors, such as laxity in updating such databases?

Secondly, clause 7 amends section 37 to remove the prescription of the types of information to be included in the notices outside polling stations and to leave such details to be prescribed by the Minister in regulations made under the Act.

Previously, the Act prescribed what information would be reflected in such notices. For example, part of the old section 37 read, and I quote, "37(1): Outside each polling station, there shall be a fixed, in a conspicuous place, by the Presiding Officer, before the commencement of the poll, a notice showing the name of each candidate in English, Malay, Chinese and Tamil, and a symbol allotted to the candidate under section 34. And two, the names of the candidates shall be arranged alphabetically in English, in the order of their surnames, and if there are two or more candidates with the same surname of their other names."

I would like to ask what is the reason for removing these prescriptions and providing the Minister with broad latitude to determine the content of these notices. What guidelines or rules will the Minister be bound by making such a determination.

Thirdly, clause 8 amends section 39 to empower the Minister to prescribe the method for computing the number of polling agents for each candidate or groups of candidates who may enter a polling station. The reason given is to allow the Minister to ensure that the permitted number of polling agents is proportionate to the number of voters allotted to that station. I would like to ask for the reason that this change is being made. I would also like to ask if the legislative intent here is for the Minister to be able to ensure that the ratio of polling agents to voters is more or less similar across polling stations nationwide and in line with recent nationwide averages which is clearly desirable. Or, is the intent that the Minister should be able to exercise this discretion by varying the average nationwide ratio of polling agents to voters significantly away from the recent averages, either by increasing or decreasing the ratio.

And, Mr Speaker, Sir, lastly, and this is admittedly a relatively minor point. Clause 12 removes the current requirement for Returning Officers to inform candidates or their election agents of the location of counting centres or the postponement of counting due to contingencies. Rather, the information will be published in the Gazette. I would like to ask why this change is necessary as this could cause confusion amongst candidates if there is some disruption to the counting process due to contingencies. Would it not be possible to automate the broadcast of a simple email or text message to election agents and all candidates upon new information being published in the Gazette.

Mr Speaker: Members are advised to keep to the contents of the debate. The NCMP scheme is not relevant to this debate. Mr Dennis Tan.

2.34 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, I agree with what my colleagues, Mr Png Eng Huat and Mr Leon Perera have said in their speeches. I just have a few clarifications.

Firstly, clause 7 amends section 37 to remove the prescription on the types of information to be included in the notices outside polling stations and to leave such details to be prescribed in regulations made under the Act.

The parts of section 37 which are to be removed include sub-sections (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6). They list out basic information, such as names of candidates in four different languages to be placed in a notice outside the station with their respective symbols, such names to be listed alphabetically, and so on.

The proposed new section 37(2) states, for example, at (a) that the notice must contain such information presented in such form or manner, as may be prescribed.

I would like to ask the Minister what exactly will be prescribed in the new regulations, which existing provisions may not be found in the proposed new rules and what will be the new additional provisions? And, what are the reasons for the proposed changes to section 37? What was wrong with the existing provision? And was there any particular incident which has given rise to the proposed changes.

I next move to clause 19. Clause 19 provides for a new section 56DA and 56DB after the existing section 56D. Section 56DA(7) and (8) and 56DB(1)(a)(b) relates to the postponement and abandonment of polling. Under the new section 56DA, if any ballot box containing votes cast is lost or destroyed, the counting of all votes cast at the affected polling station will be abandoned and the poll at that polling station must be restarted only if it is material to the election result.

The new provision sets out the considerations and mechanism for decision-making by the Returning Officer in respect of different scenarios. I would like to ask the Minister: why is the Government introducing these new provisions? Why is the Government suddenly concerned about these scenarios provided for in the new provisions? Are the proposed amendments due to any particular incident which happened in recent years?

I next move to clause 3. Clause 3 provides for a new section 9B(b) which allows for rejection of claim for eligibility without hearing if the Registration Officer is satisfied that the claimant was not a citizen of Singapore or below 21 at the date prescribed in section 5(4) and the claimant's new address in the claim form is not in an electoral division.

I would like to ask the Minister for his clarifications as to what criteria consideration should the Registration Officer adopt to assist him to come to a conclusion on the eligibility of a citizen. And, will the basis for a decision be recorded with sufficient details and made available to any such claimant upon demand?

Finally, I move to clause 11. Mr Speaker, clause 11 introduced a new sub-section 3AA to section 42 which provides that the voter's mark on the ballot paper must be made in the area demarcated on the ballot paper for that purpose and not everywhere. We must always strive to have a clear and unequivocal set of rules for the Returning Officers (ROs) to make the right determination with minimal chances of any dispute by any candidate and with good sense and bereft of any perverse or absurd outcome. For example, such rules must ensure, and I am going to give an extreme example that expletives written in the demarcated box of one candidate cannot sensibly be regarded as a vote for that candidate.

The Government should also review and strengthen the process by which Returning Officers handle any disagreement by candidates or their representatives, their counting agents, in respect of the validity of a voter's mark in a ballot to enhance certainty and transparency.

2.38 pm

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I recognise the peril that an unelected Member has in speaking on the matter of elections. So, I hope to confine my remarks to non-partisan issues.

The elections process must give the Government of the day a clear mandate to govern. I believe this Bill does reflect the Government's intent to ensure elections in Singapore are efficient, future-proof and conducted with integrity. But we should also think beyond the next general election. How will future politicians use, or abuse, these laws, and how will our history as a democracy be shaped by this Bill?

So, let me start with the problem of history. Clause 2 proposes that changes in electoral divisions may be published as maps online or for public viewing, instead of in written detail in the Gazette. This is good for efficiency. But it may unintentionally harm the historical record of changes in our electoral divisions.

The Gazette is a permanent part of our history and cannot be readily altered or destroyed. But materials that you publish online have little permanence – Internet links break, websites go down, documents can be altered or deleted without notice. We cannot even predict whether the Internet will exist in the form we are used to today. Many of us grew up using microfilm readers for research. Our children do not; our grandchildren almost certainly would not even know what microfilm is. But printed work has somehow stood the test of time.

Scholars will use the Gazette in the future to research how our electoral divisions changed, how that affects representation, how that affects outcomes in society and the economy. Let me give you just one small example. There is a paper, "The Political Economy of Housing Prices", published in the Journal of Housing Economics in 2010 by Eddie Sue and Wong Wei-Kang at NUS. This paper studies how electoral boundaries affect housing prices. I leave it to Members to make guesses as to whether Government or Opposition wards enjoy higher housing prices. I hope this will encourage you to read more academic papers.

Sir, the matter of electoral divisions changing does affects a large number of voters. In an article dated 24 July 2015, The Straits Times calculated that one in five voters were affected by redistricting ahead of the 2015 General Election (GE), and nearly one in three voters were affected by the 2011 General Election (GE) redistricting. So, a change that is so consequential should form a future-proof part of our historical record.

Before I move to the second issue, that of re-polling in the event of a lost or destroyed ballot box, l realise a similar debate took place during the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill in 2017. There are some differences, though, so I do beg your indulgence.

I think this problem of clause 19 is how do we minimise the political costs and risks associated with an election. Clause 19 proposes that if just one ballot box is lost or destroyed from a polling station, then all counting of votes from that polling station must be abandoned. If the margin of victory is within that number of uncounted votes, including overseas electors, then, a new poll must be conducted for that station.

Sir, a new poll costs time and money, but also creates political uncertainty. The identity of the Government may well hang in the balance of that one polling station. So, let us ask: how likely is it that an election will require re-polling, under the amended Bill?

The Elections Department informs me there were 832 polling stations in the 2015 General Election, and there were about 2.46 million eligible voters, and there are typically between two and four ballot boxes in each polling station. That is an average of 3,000 voters in each polling station. Suppose that by some disaster, one ballot box is lost from every single electoral division. How many re-polls would we have to conduct? So, I did some calculations for the last two General Elections (GEs).

It turns out that in the 2011 GE, the margin of victory was slim enough in two SMCs that they would have required re-polling. In the 2015 GE, it was two SMCs and one GRC which would have required re-polling. Obviously, SMCs are more likely to require re-polling because the margin of victory is more likely to be within the number of votes in one polling station. A polling station, on average, will contain 11.5% of the electorate for an SMC, and about 2.4% of the electorate for a GRC.

We are accustomed, of course, to the present Government winning elections by large margins. This may not be so in the future. As margins become tighter, the risk of a re-polling event does rise if a ballot box is lost.

Now, Sir, how can we improve on this? The question is whether the lost ballot box represents a random sample of the votes cast at the affected polling station. After all, votes are generally cast into a ballot box in no particular order. Polling procedures can further improve on this by ensuring that voters who arrive as groups and who may vote similarly, such as families, are to split their ballots between the boxes randomly. This is in any case good practice. If the votes contained within one ballot box are actually missing at random, there is no issue in counting the remaining votes from the affected polling station. The procedures described in the Bill can apply in the event that the margin of victory still remains smaller than the missing votes from that particular ballot box.

I understand this clause was adapted from the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill in 2017. But, you see, Mr Speaker, these issues are unlikely to affect the Presidential Election because a polling station contains less than 0.2% of the vote in a Presidential Election. It is a much larger issue in a Parliamentary Election.

The last point I want to make is that clause 19 also does reserve powers to the Minister to decide how these procedures are to be carried out. And, of course, this may create the appearance of a conflict of interest. When Parliament is dissolved, the incumbent Cabinet does hold office until the first sitting of the new Parliament. Therefore, the Minister's ability to form the Government may well depend on the outcome of this single polling station. In another country, the results of a recent general election were unclear until well past the midnight hour. There were rumours of political interference there. So, I would suggest we consider reserving these powers to the Returning Officer to avoid any appearance of partiality.

The same applies, of course, to the Parliamentary Elections Act, where section 102 reserves the power to the Minister to make regulations regarding the Act. I think that we have no issue with this during the term of Government because the voters have clearly given their mandate.

But, there is this particular issue arising between the time when Parliament is dissolved and until when the new Parliament first sits.

Sir, the Government must be seen to have a clear mandate to make decisions on behalf of all Singaporeans. I am not criticising the integrity of the Government or of Members here today. But this is a law for the future. We would hope that future generations would act with integrity, we hope they would act exactly as we would. But, should we write laws that depend at critical moments on future office holders acting only in the best interests of the country? I share with this Government the view that our laws should be written in the long-term interest of the country. On balance, I expect the Bill will achieve that objective, but I hope the Government will be able to address some of these concerns.

2.46 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I start my speech, may I, with your indulgence, offer my congratulations to Assoc Prof Walter Theseira for making his maiden speech. In the same vein, and I am sure the other Members of the House would agree, we look forward to the contributions from the other Nominated Members of Parliament who have just been sworn in and will make their speeches in this House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the aims of this Bill which are focused on improving the conduct of the Parliamentary Elections and to deal with contingencies that may arise during an election. The overriding aim is of course to uphold the integrity of the process, and make sure that public confidence in the election process is always high. And I use the word "process" in its widest sense, from the processes involving the Electoral Register to the processes involving Nomination, conduct of elections and of course, elections expenses as well.

I have three points to make.

The first one, Mr Speaker, Sir, is in relation to deposits by candidates. I note that under clause 4(e) of the Bill, it is proposed that the deposit must be made through electronic funds transfer system, or bank draft, or certified cheque. Legal tender is removed.

Presumably, it is part of the Government's push to make Singapore go cashless. This lies in contrast with section 10(3) of the Presidential Elections Act. Members would note that the Presidential Elections Act was just revised just last year. I do appreciate the Government's push to convert our society to a cashless one. I half suspect the hon Minister One Ye Kung who is in charge of this initiative may even advocate payment using PayNow.

At this point, though, a significant part of our society still use cash. Why is it necessary in this circumstances to remove deposits by legal tender. Would it be better not to hurry this until our society has really become cash-free, which is not the case now?

With reference to the usage of certified cheques, how is this mode impacted by the Government intent that our society stops using cheques by 2025. Would the Elections Department (ELD) anticipate making further changes to this payment mode then?

I also note that there is no process outline on how the deposit would be returned. So, if you are pushing for cashless transactions, then perhaps we should provide for end-to-end such that the deposits may be contemplated to be returned to a specified account provided by the candidates via the electronic funds transfer system.

Second, on the recounting of votes, I note that clause 14 of the Bill provides that the Returning Officer must conduct a recount where the difference between candidates with the most number of votes, and the next candidate is 2% or less.

I support this amendment. In fact, in the last Elections, I had the chance to invoke the previous process as a candidate for Aljunied GRC when the candidates had to decide whether a recount was necessary. And Mr Speaker, Sir, it was almost like an episode from "The Amazing Race" because we had to make our way from the assembly area to the principal counting centre. We had to drive there, and through the process, we were not sure whether we would be too late to meet the Returning Officer. And finally, when we met the Returning Officer, we asked for a recount. Then, he took out a paper and read from the script, agreeing to our request. So, there were quite a lot of moving parts in the old process. This process is much better because the rationale behind the recounting is solely to ensure the accuracy of the vote count, given the close margins. So, it makes sense for the Returning Officer to be reposed with the power to initiate the process.

The final point, Mr Speaker, Sir, is on parliamentary expenses. Clause 25 proposes a different system where a candidate does not have to provide supporting documents, meaning bills and receipts. Instead, a statement would suffice.

May I please ask: what is the shortcoming of the current system of requiring the candidates and the election agents to provide supporting bills and receipts to the Returning Officer? The current system, in my respectful view, has good accountability. There can be public access to the bills and receipts – they can check whether the election expenses regulations have been observed by looking at the source documents and not just the statements. If there is any discrepancy or shortcoming, then there is the ability to deal with it, then and there, close to the holding of the elections. Under the proposed system, I fear that there could be unintended consequences, for example, loss of documents during the one year period that the candidate or the election agent is supposed to hold on to these documents. So, this, perhaps, may loosen the form of accountability, and may impact on the integrity of the process. Save for that, I support the Bill.

2.52 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the initiative to introduce amendments to improve the administration of elections. I have a few suggestions and clarifications.

Firstly, I have a query about the proposed amendment to abandon the vote count at a polling station where a sealed ballot box has been lost or destroyed before the ballots can be counted. This amendment is unpalatable to many voters who strongly believe that every vote is sacred. Why should all the votes at the affected polling station be nullified due to a single loss, damaged or tampered box? This is a recommendation which a number of constituents are uncomfortable with and find difficult to accept. Why can we not proceed with the counting of the votes from the unaffected, sealed ballot boxes?

Secondly, it was proposed that should the number of votes from the affected polling station be enough to sway the electoral result for that constituency or division, voters of the affected station would be required to go through a fresh poll. However, I think that a re-poll of the affected electoral division does not necessarily ensure a fair and equitable election. This is as good as holding a by-election, especially when the national results have already been announced.

Perhaps it would be better that the re-voting exercise be held only in the event that the votes in the affected boxes could potentially sway the election result.

I would like to ask how many such incidents, including tampering of ballot boxes, had been reported since Singapore gained Independence and what other types of complaints pertaining to ballot boxes had been received? What were the measures taken to ensure the transparent and indisputable transfer of ballot boxes from polling stations to counting centres? One of the doubts raised was the possibility of ballot boxes being replaced during transfers. I would also like to ask for details about how ballot boxes from overseas are organised.

Next, I would like to ask whether the Elections Department can provide the ballot paper sample which uses black as the base color. My concern is that it may affect voters' ability to identify the candidates or the party logos on the ballot papers. Elderly voters may have difficulties reading the ballot papers. Has a consultation been done with different age groups about the design of the ballot paper to ensure clarity of design and readability?

In addition, how would the Elections Department ensure that the Assistant Returning Officers or polling staff provide indisputable guidance to voters at polling stations? Had there been reports or complaints made in past elections, such as those about assistants prompting voters to tick for certain candidates while addressing their queries at the polling stations?

One of the amendments is that elections deposit will be based on an elected Member of Parliament's monthly allowance, rounded to the nearest $500. Will Prime Minister's Office (PMO) consider reducing the deposit required further, such as by pegging against the median gross monthly income for full-time work, which is currently $4,232? This will further strengthen the efforts by the Government to ensure the building of an inclusive society. The deposit should preferably be set at a level that will not discriminate against those who have less wealth but have the qualities and willingness to serve.

Will the Elections Department consider further automating the nomination forms to make it largely system-enabled for potential nominees/candidates as well as for proposers and seconders?

I welcome the use of maps to show the boundaries to enable the electorate to know their constituencies prior to the GE. This will provide greater ease of viewing and clarity.

2.56 pm

Mr Speaker: Minister Chan.

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first thank all the Members for speaking on this Bill.

I will address the specific points raised. These can be grouped into three broad sets of issues. The first set of issues has to do with the provisions related to election candidates. The second set of issues relates to management of contingencies. The third set of issues has some unrelated issues which the Speaker has reminded us that are not relevant to this Bill, but nevertheless, I will make a few short remarks, in particular, on the NCMP scheme.

Let me begin with the provisions related to election candidates.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested reducing the election deposit. The purpose of the election deposit is to ensure that only those who are serious in contesting in the elections step forward. I agree with him that we should not set the amount so high that it becomes a barrier to entry. But we also need to strike a balance. Setting at the current rate of one month of a Member of Parliament’s allowance has worked reasonably well since we first had elections in Singapore. And under the law, candidates who contest and gather more than one-eighth of the votes will have their election deposits returned to them after the election.

Mr Murali Pillai suggested that we continue to allow cash payment of election deposits. We agree. The amendments will increase the options, not decrease the options in the mode of payment. We are encouraging candidates to use electronic funds transfer to make it more convenient for aspiring candidates so that they no longer need to withdraw cash or visit a bank to purchase a bank draft and go to the Accountant-General’s Department to make the payment. The Elections Department will also return the election deposits using electronic funds transfer, and it is as per the current process, the candidate has the choice to which method of refund that they would like to use. As for cash, this is something the Returning Officer may allow when there are technical issues with the electronic funds transfer system. So, we have increased the number of choices, rather than narrow it.

Mr Gan also suggested automating nomination forms. The Elections Department is looking into expanding its range of e-Services to candidates and election agents, and we will consider Mr Gan’s suggestion as part of their study.

Mr Murali spoke about possible unintended consequences from removing the need for candidates to submit supporting documents such as bills and receipts in their returns on election expenses. As there have not been any issues with these returns in the past, we propose to remove the need to submit these supporting documents to improve administration efficiency. But we are only doing away with supporting documents. The rest of the submissions are still required. This will not dilute accountability. The process for public inspection remains. Candidates are also required to keep these supporting documents for a period of one year, and the Returning Officer may require these documents for checks, where needed. So the candidates still need to submit the necessary declarations and it is just that the supporting documents need not come with it, unless there is a public enquiry, a public interest in this.

Mr Leon Perera and Mr Dennis Tan asked why some of the issues are moved out of the Act and that is because in our review, we made a distinction between operational matters which can be done in the subsidiary legislation, and the legislative matters which are required in the Act. So we are not removing the clauses that you have mentioned, but we are shifting them into the subsidiary legislation, so that we simplify the Act itself.

On the issue of the number of polling agents required, we have simplified this so that it is according to the number of voters, rather than the number of polling places. There is no intention to decrease or increase the number of polling agents overall, but this will allow us to better match the number of polling agents with the number of voters, and it would be an easier way for everyone to understand the processes.

The third issue raised by Mr Leon Perera is the issue of notifications. It will be done simultaneously via the Gazette and also available on the ELD website, so that it is easily available for everyone to check when there is an announcement to be made by ELD.

Next, let me touch on the management of contingencies. Mr Gan and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira spoke about the proposed procedures should a ballot box be lost or destroyed. Let me state that if ballot boxes go missing or are destroyed, the proposed new sections 56DA and 56DB spell out the processes to handle such contingencies to maintain the integrity of the election.

Fresh polls will be conducted if the number of votes affects the election results for the electoral division. All voters assigned to the affected polling station will then have to re-cast their votes. And now, this is key. This is because when voters drop their ballot papers into the ballot boxes in any polling station, they have a choice. It will not be possible for us to ascertain which voters cast their votes in the affected ballot box So that is why it goes by the polling station, rather than the individual voter. And this will only be done if, as I have explained, it affects the polling results for the electoral division.

And how do we know whether the affected votes might affect the election results? This is when the sum of the total number of affected voters and the total number of overseas voters from the affected electoral division is equal or more than the difference between the votes already counted for the top two candidates. The procedure we are proposing is not new. This contingency procedure has been in place for Presidential elections. Now, what is new is the proposal to apply the same contingency procedures to Parliamentary elections as well.

Assoc Prof Theseira suggested to minimise the need for fresh polls by changing the polling procedures in the polling station. There is a downside to that because the current procedure is designed to allow voters to drop their ballot paper into any ballot box, so that voters can be assured of voting secrecy, as an added check. So this has served us well, and I think we will continue this current arrangement.

There are also contingency provisions and procedures that we want to put in place. Assoc Prof Theseira observed that if there were lost or damaged ballot boxes in a SMC, chances would be higher for a fresh poll to be conducted. Let me assure Members that there has been no instance in past elections of lost or damaged ballot boxes prior to the votes being counted. Consequently, there was no instance of re-polling as a result of loss or destruction of ballot boxes. And, if indeed ballot boxes get lost or damaged, the amendment in today’s Bill would lay out clearly in the law the steps to take to deal with such a scenario to ensure the integrity of the election process.

Members have also asked has there been any event that triggered us to review the current existing procedures. The answer is that this has always been part of our ongoing work in ELD to make sure that our processes are kept afresh. As Assoc Prof Theseira said, we need to think long term, we need to anticipate what may happen even though it may not have happened yet.

Assoc Prof Theseira asked if providing the Minister with powers to decide how a re-poll is to be done will be a conflict of interest. Now, let me assure Members that the new section 56DA spells out clearly the procedures to be undertaken by the Returning Officer when a ballot box is lost or destroyed after the close of polls in Singapore. This includes informing the candidates of the affected electoral division, publishing a notice in the Gazette that the Returning Officer has abandoned the counting of the votes cast at the affected polling station, and if there is a need for a fresh poll, to specify the date, hours of the poll and location of the polling station. The provision in section 56DA(8) is to provide the Minister with the powers to prescribe other operational details in the regulations, if required, such as the notice to be placed outside the polling station.

In response to Member Mr Dennis Tan, we are thinking ahead of possible contingencies, rather than being triggered by any recent or past occurrence.

Mr Dennis Tan also asked for the grounds of rejection. The Registration Officer will reply to the claimant, and if the claimant so chooses, he or she may make public the reasons for the rejection. So it will not be the Registration Officer who makes public the reasons for the rejection, but it is made available to the claimant, and he or she can make the necessary public announcement if they so choose to.

I will now touch on other points raised by Members.

On the design of the ballot paper, we share Mr Png Eng Huat’s and Mr Gan Thiam Poh's concern for the elderly. And this is indeed the reason why we have recently refreshed our polling paper design. The use of black as the base colour was introduced at General Election 2015 to help focus voters’ attention on the box to mark their voting choice. The background for the parts containing the candidate’s photograph and symbol remain white, so that these parts are clearly visible, and in clear contrast to the voters. The Elections Department took in the views of voters of different age groups when coming up with the new ballot paper design.

Mr Png Eng Huat asked about the adjudication process. We have very clear adjudication rules and process set up, and the ELD routinely conducts training for all the Assistant Returning Officers (AROs), the Group Assistant Returning Officers (GAROs), so that they can do their job professionally. But we should also put in context, such as how many of these votes actually go into adjudication. Actually, the answer is very few, but notwithstanding that it is very few that really require adjudication, we constantly make sure that training of our AROs, of the GAROs are all done systematically and done professionally. And they are not partisan to any particular party. They will adjudicate based on their professional judgement on how best this is to be done.

Election officers are trained to adjudicate based on whether the voters' choice is clear, according to the law. Now, with the amendment to only consider markings in the demarcated area of the ballot paper, we will remind voters to mark their choices with an "X" for the candidate, or in the case of a Group Representation Constituency, the group of candidates they are voting for, in the demarcated area of the ballot paper. And Mr Png may like to help us to remind voters to mark the "X" in the demarcated area, rather than to exercise their artistic talent in the polling station.

Mr Gan also asked if there had been previous cases of tampering with ballot boxes during an election. The answer is no. There is a rigorous process to ensure that there is no break in the chain of custody of the ballot boxes from the polling stations to the counting centres, and from the counting centres to the Supreme Court where the ballot papers are retained in safe custody for a period of time before they are subsequently destroyed. For transparency, the process is open to observation by candidates and their agents. When sealed ballot boxes are transported from polling stations to counting centres, candidates and their polling agents may also board the buses to observe the process.

For overseas votes, there is similarly a secured chain of custody. Sealed ballot boxes are transported back to Singapore by two election officials and they are kept at the Supreme Court. They are then transported from the Supreme Court to the counting place to be counted. After counting, the ballot boxes are then transported back to the Supreme Court to be kept together with the local ballot boxes for six months before they are destroyed.

On Mr Gan’s and Mr Png Eng Huat’s comments on election officials, let me first emphasise that the elections are administered by public officers who have been trained to do their election duties according to the law, in an impartial and transparent fashion. Election officials are not allowed to influence voters on who to vote for. Each voter decides for himself who to vote for. Where election officials have to communicate with voters, for example, in the case of visually handicapped voters to guide them on using the stencil, they do so in an audible voice so that candidates, agents and other election officials around them can hear the conversation.

I thank Mr Gan for welcoming the use of maps to show the boundaries of polling districts. Assoc Prof Theseira asked if the move to an online-only publication of polling districts will adversely affect historical records and hence future research. I would like to assure Assoc Prof Theseira that the Elections Department will maintain a proper archive of the boundaries of polling districts and electoral divisions. Members of the public can also continue to view electoral boundaries interactively using the SLA OneMap. They can also inspect or purchase these maps in hard copy at the offices of SLA and Elections Department. As with other public records, the maps would also be kept with the National Archives in due course.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your indulgence, let me just make a few comments that are not entirely relevant to today's debate, and that is the issue of the NCMP. We have gone through this debate previously in this House. We had also debated this during the Constitutional amendments.

May I make a humble suggestion? If the Workers' Party feel that it is not in its Party's manifesto or beliefs to support the NCMP scheme, then we have two choices in front of us. One, it is for Workers' Party candidates, during elections to publicly declare that he or she will not take up the NCMP seat even if offered. The second option is for the Workers' Party to impose a rule on all its Members to not take up a NCMP seat even if it is offered and this will be the Workers' Party's guideline. I think with these two options, the Workers' Party can take its pick on what it wants to do. But it would be rather disingenuous to say that we oppose the NCMP scheme, and at the same time, to take up the NCMP seat. So I leave it to the Workers' Party on the choice that it wants to make going forward, and I am sure that enlightened Singaporeans will understand why and what Workers' Party wants to do.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I mentioned at the start of my speech, this Bill makes changes to improve the administration of parliamentary elections while ensuring the secrecy of the vote and the integrity of the election process. They are part of the continuous improvements to strengthen election administration and to improve services to voters and candidates.

With that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. I urge all Members to give your support to the Bill.

3.13 pm

Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a point of clarification. On the response of the hon Minister in relation to the payment of deposit, Members of the House will recall that the hon Minister said that in legal tender is in addition to the other modes prescribed. I just want to point out that in relation to the amendment Bill, under the old section 28(2), it reads the deposit may be paid but "Any sum required to be deposited under subsection (1) shall be paid in legal tender or by a bank draft or a certified cheque". That has been deleted and replaced by the new proposed provision, which reads "The deposit of the sum required under sub-section (1) must be made through an electronic funds transfer system designated by the Returning Officer for that purpose, or by a bank draft or a certified cheque, or in such other form or manner as the Returning Officer allows".

So, may I seek a clarification from the Minister, is the hon Minister relying on the catch-all provision at the end that the Returning Officer would allow legal tender as well? If that is so, then my concerns will be addressed.

Mr Chan Chun Sing: The answer is yes, your interpretation is correct.

Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Speaker. Actually, my clarification is on the similar point that Mr Murali raised. Because I think earlier, Minister in his round-up speech, said that the Returning Officer could allow election deposit to be paid in cash if, for example, the electronic transfer failed. So, is that the only circumstance when cash would be accepted, meaning that there were some problem with Internet or electronic transfer? Because it does seem to set another barrier for candidates who may be raising money up to the very last minute and may not be able to do the funds electronically. So, I would ask the Minister to give some indication that the Returning Officer should accept cash, unless there is a very good reason why – and I cannot think of any – why cash should not be accepted.

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, in answer to both Mr Murali's and Ms Lim's questions, yes, we would hope that the primary mode would go towards e-payment and transactions. But in extenuating circumstances as you have mentioned whereby the electronic payment system failed, then we are able to accept cash. Or if you are talking about last-minute crowd-sourcing, so if there are extenuating circumstances, I think candidates can let the Returning Officers know and they will exercise the discretion.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Meaning that actually the failure of the electronic transfers is not a pre-requisite, that means to say, there could be other circumstances why they could not do the electronic transfer?

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Yes.

Mr Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat, is your question pertaining to the NCMP?

Mr Png Eng Huat: No.

Mr Speaker: Please proceed.

Mr Png Eng Huat: Sir, I want to ask Minister just a question. Would the Minister, in the interest of transparency, make the adjudication process training public, so that at least we, as candidates, would know how AROs adjudicate such invalid votes?

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the training is best done by ELD. I do not think that there is anything secret about it. We train thousands and thousands of public officials on how to do it. There is nothing that we need to hide. The rules are very clear.

So, with today's amendments, it will be even clearer because, first, we have improved on the layout of the ballot paper, where it is black contrasted with white, and the white boxes where people are supposed to mark are clearly contrasted against all the other areas that are printed in black. And I think ELD would be happy to share with Mr Png Eng Huat how we train our officers.

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 Chan Chun Sing].

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