Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker: Minister Chan Chun Sing.

5.01 pm

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

As the proposed amendments are largely similar, this Bill is associated with the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill, which is the next Bill on the Order Paper. Sir, may I propose, with your permission, that the substantive debate on both Bills take place now. I welcome Members' comments or questions on both Bills after my speech. This allows the substantive points to be covered in a single debate. We will still have the formal Second Reading of the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill later in adherence to procedural requirements.

Mr Speaker: Please proceed.

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendments being proposed to the Parliamentary Elections Act. or PEA, and the Presidential Elections Act, or PrEA, are in line with the Elections Department’s, or ELD’s, continuous efforts to enhance our electoral processes and election administration. The amendments can be grouped into five categories.

The first category seeks to improve voter access for overseas Singaporeans and Singaporeans residing in nursing homes. The second category updates the election advertising laws to support informed voting. The third category seeks to streamline the administration, as well as enhance accountability and transparency, of the election expenses regime. The fourth category seeks to clarify and improve election processes. The fifth category focuses on the amendments that apply specifically to streamlining administrative processes for Presidential Elections.

Mr Speaker, let me begin with the key amendments under the first category, to enhance voter access for overseas Singaporeans and voters residing in nursing homes.

General Election 2020, or GE 2020, held during the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighted two key issues in our electoral landscape. First, the electorate is ageing rapidly – 21% of voters for GE 2020 were aged 65 and above, compared to 14% in GE 2011. Second, how travel restrictions can make it difficult for some overseas Singaporeans to travel to overseas polling stations or back to Singapore to vote.

In May and June last year, ELD sought feedback from various stakeholders, including political parties, nursing home operators and overseas Singaporeans, on special arrangements for voters residing at some nursing homes and postal voting for overseas Singaporeans.

Taking into account the feedback, clause 19 of the PEA Bill and clause 18 of the PrEA Bill empower the Returning Officer to make special polling arrangements in nursing homes, so that it is more convenient for voters who are in-patients or residents of nursing home to cast their votes there. These include setting up a special polling station within the premises of the nursing homes, and deploying mobile polling teams to collect ballot papers from bedbound voters in the nursing homes.

The selection of nursing homes for special polling arrangements would consider factors such as the number of voters in the nursing home and the practicality of deploying the mobile polling teams, taking into account the resources required.

For a start, ELD plans to pilot the special polling arrangements in nursing homes with more than 50 voters. This will involve 25 to 30 nursing homes and reach out to over 2,000 voters, about two-thirds of registered voters currently residing in nursing homes. The outcome of the pilot will help scope the provision of special polling arrangements at nursing homes for subsequent elections. The list of nursing homes selected for the pilot will be made public on Nomination Day, if the election is contested. Polling agents will be allowed to witness the conduct of polls at the nursing homes, to give candidates assurance on the integrity and secrecy of voting.

Next, the Bills provide eligible Singaporeans residing overseas the option to vote by postal ballot.

While there were suggestions to introduce postal voting in the past, we have not implemented this given the challenges associated with postal voting which is, after all, a form of remote voting.

Members may ask if the Government has changed our position.

To be clear, the Government maintains the position that voting in-person at polling stations remains the most transparent and secure method of voting that best ensures that each person wanting to vote can be accurately identified as an eligible voter and only votes once. However, we recognise that it may not be possible, for various reasons, for overseas Singapore Citizens to travel to one of the overseas polling stations or to return to Singapore to vote. With the introduction of postal voting, eligible Singapore citizens living, studying or working overseas will be able to mail in their votes even if there are travel disruptions or restrictions.

As set out in clause 28 of the PEA Bill and clause 25 of the PrEA Bill, ELD intends to implement processes supported by technology to provide assurance on the integrity and secrecy of postal voting. Let me elaborate.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, Sir, to help Members navigate the postal voting process, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout. Members may also access the handout through the MP@SG Parl mobile app.

Mr Speaker: Please proceed. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Step one is to register to vote overseas by applying online via ELD Voter Services. During registration, the overseas Singapore Citizen has to make a deliberate choice to either vote by post or at one of the overseas polling stations. Application to vote by post or at one of the overseas polling stations by an eligible overseas Singapore Citizen can be done anytime except during the period from the third day after the Writ of Election is issued until the end of the election. If he or she has chosen to vote by post, he or she will need to provide his or her wet-ink signature during the registration.

Step two, an overseas Singapore Citizen who has opted to be a postal voter can log in to ELD Voter Services using his Singpass after Nomination Day to download and print his postal ballot paper and the prepaid return envelope.

Step three, the postal voter will mark his vote on the postal ballot paper, fold and insert it in the return envelope, and seal and sign on the return envelope.

Step four, the postal voter should then post the sealed return envelope without delay. This has to be done during the postal voting period, which starts on the day immediately after Nomination Day and ends on the eve of Polling Day in Singapore.

In order to be accepted for counting, the return envelope must be postmarked before Polling Day and reach the Returning Officer in Singapore within 10 days after Polling Day.

The requirement for the postmark to be before Polling Day is to ensure that all votes are cast before the close of poll in Singapore so that voters residing in a time zone that is behind Singapore, such as the United States of America, do not cast their votes after knowing the results of the local poll.

To ensure that only bona fide postal ballot papers are counted, there will be a pre-count process in Singapore to sieve out the return envelopes which do not meet the criteria for counting. The process is set out in the lower row of the handout on counting of postal votes. For example, the return envelope must bear the signature of the voter furnished during registration and an official QR code which is unique for each voter. The QR code enables the wet-ink signature on the return envelope to be matched against the specimen signature furnished during registration.

To ensure voting secrecy, the postal ballot papers from the return envelopes will be removed and mixed with other overseas ballot papers before the start of counting. Candidates and counting agents will be able to observe this entire process.

Ahead of the upcoming Presidential Election, ELD will demonstrate the process and the system to be used to the media and political parties.

Next, let me touch on postal voting offences.

Clauses 26 and 28 of the PEA Bill and clauses 25 and 26 of the PrEA Bill deal with offences pertaining to postal voting. These include forging or fraudulently defacing any return envelope, supplying any return envelope without due authority to any person, or unauthorised possession of a return envelope. The present offences on improper handling of ballot papers will be extended to include postal ballot papers. These provisions seek to address the concerns surfaced during ELD’s engagements with political parties and overseas Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, Sir, now, I move on to the second category of amendments to update the law on election advertising. These amendments aim to support informed voting at elections, which is essential to Singapore's system of representative government.

Currently, the rules for online and non-online election advertising are set out in subsidiary legislation. Clause 30 of the PEA Bill and clause 28 of the PrEA Bill elevate these provisions on online and non-online election advertising to the respective main Acts. These amendments are needed to enhance transparency, so that voters know who is communicating the election advertising, and accountability, by making persons publishing election advertising responsible for their communications.

Let me begin with the amendments for online election advertising, which will be referred to as OEA in short.

The laws for OEA are largely unchanged by the Bills. The amendments are intended to provide greater clarity on the rules for online election campaigning and to address unique features and functionalities of online communication activities, especially since political discussions and campaigning are increasingly taking place online.

At the same time, space is preserved for Singapore Citizens to participate in political discourse online. For example, during the election period, barring Cooling-off Day and Polling Day, a Singapore Citizen can continue to publish OEA without adhering to published-by requirements, as long as the content is published in his individual capacity, he is not directed by others to do so and is not paid or did not pay to publish.

Clause 2 of the PEA Bill and PrEA Bill each contains updated definitions on the scope of OEA. First, the meaning of publishing OEA is extended to include amplifying access, such as boosting, reposting, sharing or resharing of existing OEA. Amplifying access increases the reach of the original content to more users and has a similar effect to publishing fresh content. Hence, it should be held to the same requirements.

Second, OEA content is considered to be published in Singapore, if the content is accessible from Singapore, or if it originates in Singapore.

To enhance transparency and accountability, clause 30 of the PEA Bill sets out the updated published-by requirements in a new section 61B. For the PrEA Bill, this is in clause 28 and a new section 42B.

Currently, OEA is required to display the particulars of the person who is responsible for publishing the OEA, and the particulars of the person who directed the OEA to be published. If the OEA is paid for, it should also show the particulars of the person who paid for it. With the amendments, the particulars of the person who approved the content of the OEA must be shown as well.

In the virtual world, it is easy to hide behind aliases and third parties to put out election advertising. This amendment strengthens transparency, so that voters can better discern the persons responsible for the election advertising.

From the start of the campaign period, election activity can only be conducted by political parties or candidates, or third party campaigners authorised by a candidate or their election agent. As paid election advertising constitutes election activity, clause 30 of the PEA Bill sets out the offence for unauthorised third parties to publish paid OEA. The equivalent provision in the PrEA Bill is in clause 28.

The same clauses restate the ban on publishing or displaying election advertising on Cooling-off Day and Polling Day. These will replace current section 78B of the PEA and section 60A of the PrEA respectively. In line with the updated scope of OEA, amplifying access to OEA which was published before the cooling-off period will also be subject to the ban to ensure space for voters to reflect on the issues at stake before casting their votes.

The exceptions to the cooling-off period ban will be retained, including for private and domestic communications, such as individuals sharing election-related content within a private chat or closed group with family or a small group of friends.

Currently, the Returning Officer, or RO, has powers to issue directions to candidates or their election agents to address certain breaches of the OEA regulations. Clause 30 of the PEA Bill and clause 28 of the PrEA Bill will provide expanded powers for the RO to address OEA-related breaches, by issuing corrective directions to any content publisher, including social media companies, to remove or disable access in Singapore to the OEA, or to stop or reduce electronic communication activity involving the OEA. The RO can also specify that the corrective actions must be taken within a certain period of time, so that breaches are addressed promptly during the short campaigning period.

These powers are intended to address the concern that online content that breaches the elections laws can potentially spread rapidly and, hence, tip the playing field and impact electoral outcomes. The RO will look at the specifics of each case, to determine the appropriate course of action. If necessary, the RO can exercise these powers expeditiously, to uphold the integrity of our elections.

We have witnessed how the threat of foreign interference in elections has intensified around the world, especially in the online space. Having OEA laws, and keeping them up-to-date, helps safeguard our electoral processes from external influence and ensure that Singapore’s future is only to be decided by Singaporeans. Besides having these laws, all political parties and candidates participating in elections have a vital role to abide by these rules to protect the integrity of our elections.

Now, let me elaborate on the amendments relating to non-online election advertising or “NOEA”. Clause 2 of both Bills defines NOEA which covers a wide range of non-online advertising, from electronic advertising by way of short messaging service or SMS, and telephone calls, to traditional advertising, such as a banner, flag or poster. To maintain coherence in the treatment of OEA and NOEA, the published-by requirements continue to apply to NOEA. Of the five published-by requirements, two are new, namely, to disclose the person or entity who approved the election advertising content, and to disclose the person or entity who paid for the election advertising. The two new requirements will better enable voters to assess the credibility of the information presented when forming their views on their preferred candidate.

Clause 30 of the PEA Bill and clause 28 of the PrEA Bill stipulate that the public display of traditional election advertising should only commence during the campaign period under the authority of a permit granted by the RO, as per the current regulations. To ensure a level playing field at parliamentary elections, clause 30 of the PEA Bill introduces a new offence of publicly displaying, between the issuance of the Writ of Election, and before the start of the campaign period, any traditional election advertising that contains political party symbols or party-affiliated symbols. There are exceptions, for example, flags that contain only the name and/or symbol of a political party, for the sole purpose of indicating that the office of the political party is located at or within a building.

Clause 30 of the PEA Bill and clause 28 of the PrEA Bill also provide that the display of posters and banners must be at a place stated in a list of permissible locations in the regulations, and not within the 50-metre zone around any polling station. For example, posters and banners may be hung on street lamp posts along public roads outside the 50-metre zone around any polling station.

Finally, clause 30 of the PEA Bill and clause 28 of the PrEA Bill set out the ban on foreigners knowingly publishing or publicly displaying election advertising, and extend the ban to cover foreign entities. These amendments serve to strengthen the well-established principle that Singapore politics are for Singaporeans alone to decide.

Sir, the third category of amendments seeks to streamline the administration, as well as enhance the accountability and transparency, of the election expenses regime.

Clause 30 of both Bills will allow candidates to make technical corrections to their election expenses returns by submitting fresh returns to the RO, instead of having to apply to the Election Judge to do so. Examples of technical corrections include blank entry due to inadvertent omission, miscalculation during tallying, correction made but no signature initialed against it. Such corrections must, however, be made before the deadline for the submission of the election expenses returns, which is, 31 days after the election result is published in the Government Gazette.

To facilitate public inspection of election expenses returns, clause 36 of both Bills will allow for the publication of all election expenses online for greater transparency. This will allow voters and other stakeholders to inspect the returns filed by candidates free of charge without having to make a trip to ELD.

To further enhance the accountability and transparency of our election processes, clause 37 of the PEA Bill provides powers to the RO to audit any election expenses returns submitted for parliamentary elections. Allowing the election authorities to audit a candidate’s election expenses returns is not a new concept. Countries, such as Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, require some form of audited election expenses returns from the candidates or from the political party that fielded the candidates.

Sir, the fourth category of amendments seeks to improve the election processes. Let me highlight the key amendments.

Under the current law, a polling station for an electoral division can only be situated within the electoral division boundary. To provide greater convenience to voters who are residing near the electoral boundary, clause 14 of the PEA Bill and clause 13 of the PrEA Bill will allow the RO to set up polling stations in the adjacent electoral division if it will benefit a large number of such voters.

Currently, to ensure that children are protected from exploitation during elections, a person attending a primary or secondary school as a student is prohibited from taking part in election activities. The amendment of clause 42 of the PEA Bill and clause 41 of the PrEA Bill will change this to an age-based restriction to prohibit individuals below 16 years old from taking part in election activities. This is a more consistent approach.

To ensure that Singapore politics is only for Singaporeans to decide, foreign individuals and foreign entities should not be allowed to participate in election activities. The current PEA and PrEA prohibit foreign individuals from participating in election activities but are silent on foreign entities, such as foreign companies. Clause 41 of the PEA Bill and clause 42 of the PrEA Bill seek to make clear that foreign entities are also prohibited from participating in election activities.

I will now cover the amendments relating to events that disrupt the election process. Currently, the provisions to deal with disruptive events are in the PEA and PrEA, which mean that any amendment that needs to be made to respond to contingencies will need to be passed in Parliament. From the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a real need to provide greater flexibility in addressing disruptive events, to enable contingency arrangements to be put in place quickly, should they be required, to enable an election to be conducted while meeting the needs of the situation.

Clause 44 of the PEA Bill and clause 43 of the PrEA Bill allow the Minister to make regulations so that contingency arrangements can be put in place in a more timely and effective manner. The definition of disruptive events is also expanded to include transport accident, unplanned or prolonged outage of any telecommunication or electricity service, or an information and communications system, which is essential for the proper conduct of an election. Any regulation made under the Act to implement such contingency arrangements must be presented to Parliament as soon as possible after publication in the Government Gazette.

Sir, I will now cover the amendments that apply to presidential elections in clauses 3 and 4 of the PrEA Bill. These amendments are administrative in nature to streamline the presidential election processes.

First, the Presidential Elections Committee, or “PEC” in short, is responsible for ensuring that candidates for the office of the President have the required qualifications prescribed in the Constitution. For example, the applicant must be a person of integrity, good character and reputation and has met either the public or private sector service requirement. Clause 3 of the PrEA Bill streamlines the processes to remove the requirement for the PEC to consider applications from applicants who do not meet the minimum age of 45 years on Nomination Day to qualify as a Presidential candidate. Clause 4 of the PrEA Bill allows the PEC to reject an application from an applicant who does not state in his community declaration that he considers himself to be a member of the community that the election is reserved for.

The next amendment relates to the Community Committee, or “CC” in short. The function of the CC is to decide whether a person who has submitted a community declaration belongs to the Chinese community, the Malay community or the Indian or other minority communities. Currently, the CC is required to notify every declarant that their community declarations have been accepted for consideration. With the proposed amendments under clauses 5 and 6 of the PrEA Bill, the CC will only be required to notify declarants in the following cases.

First, to notify a declarant in an open election, who had declared that he did not belong to any of the prescribed communities, that his declaration has been accepted.

Second, to notify a declarant that his community declaration has been rejected as it is incomplete, or, in the case of a reserved election, not made for the relevant community the election is reserved for.

In all other situations, the community declaration will be accepted for consideration without the need for explicit notification.

The PrEA Bill also replicates relevant changes made to the PEA in 2018 through the amendments in clauses 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 25, 32, 34, 36 and 41. These amendments relate to allowing electronic payment of election deposits, streamlining of processes involving nomination, polling, recounting of overseas votes and election expenses returns, and updating of the definition of election activity. All these changes were elaborated during the amendments to the PEA that year and I will not repeat them today.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendments described above are part of ELD’s regular efforts to update and refine our electoral rules and processes. These proposals will help enhance voter accessibility and engender greater trust and confidence in our election administration and electoral processes. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

5.26 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I wish to speak on the Parliamentary Elections Amendment Bill. I will cover three aspects: first, enabling more Singaporeans to vote; second, on the counting of votes; and third, on election advertising. My party colleague Gerald Giam will speak later on voting by persons with disability and seek some other clarifications.

First, enabling more Singaporeans to vote. The Workers’ Party is in support of enabling more Singaporeans to exercise their right to vote at national elections. In principle, we welcome the changes to enable more Singaporeans overseas and those in nursing homes to cast their votes.

As far as overseas voters are concerned, the Workers’ Party supports the implementation of postal voting to enable more Singaporeans abroad to vote. The current scheme of requiring overseas voters to physically turn up at only 10 polling stations in six countries severely limits the ability of overseas Singaporeans to vote. Under the Bill, overseas Singaporeans can vote from presumably any country with postal connections with Singapore. This is a positive development. It has the potential of empowering many more overseas Singaporeans to have their say in our national elections.

As far as nursing homes are concerned, this will enable those who need residential nursing care to participate in elections. The Bill provides for special polling stations and for mobile teams to be deployed at nursing home premises to facilitate this. It is envisaged that the mobile teams may issue and collect ballot papers “by the bed”. I am aware that this is implemented elsewhere, such as in the United States.

I have a few clarifications concerning the proposed arrangements at nursing homes. Under the proposed section 47A, the Returning Officer (RO) will decide whether to include a particular nursing home for special polling arrangements, depending on the likelihood of “a significant number of electors” who are residing there and who are unable to travel out to the ordinary polling stations, but are able to vote within the nursing home. Earlier, the Minister clarified that, for a start, nursing homes with more than 50 residents will be considered to pilot, if you like, this nursing home voting at the coming Presidential Election. My question here is how will ELD determine whether voters in the nursing homes have the necessary mental capacity to cast their votes? Will ELD, for example, start gathering data from these nursing homes well ahead of the elections, including categorising the residents to determine who are mentally well enough to exercise their vote independently? Will the nursing home pre-screen those who have dementia or Alzheimer’s, or will it be left to the mobile teams to do this assessment at the point of voting?

Sir, we should also ask how the integrity of the voting process "by the bed" will be ensured. There is a need for assurance to nursing home residents that their vote is secret and should be freely exercised. This is particularly important as, unlike other seniors, residents of nursing homes are more frail and dependent on the care they receive, often at subsidised rates. Some residents may worry about the consequences of their vote. These fears may be irrational, but I believe assurances to them about the secrecy and freeness of their vote are critical. What measures will be taken in this regard?

On a related note, it is stated by the proposed section 47A(4) that voting at such special polling stations should be conducted, as far as possible, in the same manner as that in an ordinary polling station. I note, for instance, that at an ordinary polling station, there is some randomness in the allocation of the ballot paper, and also privacy at the time the vote is marked and cast. How will this be assured at the nursing homes, especially when mobile teams go to the voters’ bedsides? I would also like the Minister’s confirmation that polling agents from political parties will be admitted to these nursing homes to safeguard the voting process, similar to ordinary polling stations.

Next, on the counting of votes. Clause 21 expands the methods of vote counting. The proposed section 49(4A) states that counting may be done manually or by mechanical or electronic means. What is meant by "electronic means"? Clause 2 will define electronic means as using an electronic service, and electronic service is, in turn, defined to mean services that allow end-users to access content or receive content, including a social media service. Potentially, this is a grave and far-reaching amendment, as it contemplates votes being counted using electronic services which are online. In ELD’s media release on this Bill issued on 6 February 2023, there is nothing mentioned about this change at all.

There is some concern that the use of online services to count votes potentially exposes the vote counting process to hacking and glitches. According to the Explanatory Statement to the Bill, the intention of clause 21 is to simply enable the use of counting machines as part of the counting process. During the last General Election in 2020, standalone machines were used for vote counting. At that time, ELD was at pains to emphasise that the counting machines were not connected to the Internet and that there were also other safeguards, such as repeating the counting process using different machines.

Clause 21 appears to contemplate that the counting machines would be connected to the Internet. If so, this raises concerns about the security and integrity of the counting process. How will counting agents be able to audit the counting process? Sir, as vote counting determines the outcome of elections, the transparency and auditability of counting should not be compromised.

Finally, on election advertising. I move on to the amendments relating to Election Advertising. By clause 30, this Bill introduces numerous provisions which ELD says is to increase the transparency and accountability to voters and to enhance traceability of communications of election advertising. This will impose additional requirements on candidates and political parties.

Currently, section 61(1)(c) of the Act simply requires election advertising to include the names of the publisher and printer. This Bill significantly enhances those obligations on election advertising to include the identities of various other persons. To appreciate what these new requirements will entail, I will refer to the examples given in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill. For instance, for printed handbills containing a slogan, candidates and parties will be further required to include the identity particulars of the election agent of the candidate and the candidate’s senior campaign staff who approved the content of the slogan. In another example, if a party engages a marketing firm to run its election campaign, the identity of the marketing firm will have to be stated in various situations.

Sir, I would like the Minister to clarify why the identities of campaign staff and the marketing firms will be required to be published. In the case of campaign staff working on campaign slogans, it is useful to take a typical scenario for clarification. If staff brainstorm on a slogan, and the final approval of the slogan is given by the candidate or the party, I would assume that there would be no need to name the staff involved. After all, campaign staff helping political parties ultimately take instructions from the party leadership. As for marketing firms, they are commercial entities who take on briefs for reward. Such firms can have multiple clients from different political parties over time.

Sir, for all election advertising, I believe the buck stops at the candidate and the political party. They are responsible for the content put out, and will be held liable for its contents. Is this not sufficient for accountability?

In relation to traditional election advertising, the new section 61G will require that banners, flags and posters will only be allowed to be displayed in permissible locations. It is stated in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill that there will be a “positive list of permissible locations”. Could the Minister clarify what practical difference this will make, compared to past elections? What assurance will candidates and parties have that there will be adequate space in prime locations for all participants?

Sir, before I end, I wish to make an observation about the process leading up to this Bill. Last year, ELD reached out to political parties on the proposal to expand voting to include postal voting and voting at nursing homes. This was a welcome and useful process. However, there was no consultation or prior information about the changes to election advertising, which are the provisions that impact the work of political parties most directly. Looking at the Bill, these changes to election advertising are very detailed and must have been under consideration for quite some time. Yet, the changes were announced just a month ago, just before the Budget Statement and the Committee of Supply debates, which just concluded a few moments ago after 70 hours. The timing of the Second Reading debate on this important Bill may account for the few speakers we see listed today, just two of us from the Workers’ Party and, of course, Member Louis Ng. Is this ideal?

Sir, all in all, the provisions of this Bill have the potential to enhance our election process, especially those that enable more Singaporeans to cast their votes either in nursing homes or overseas via postal voting. However, I would like further elaboration on the changes to the counting of votes and election advertising requirements.

Finally, for the avoidance of doubt, I should clarify the Workers’ Party’s position on the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill. The Workers’ Party maintains its position on being opposed to the office of the Elected President. The reasons for this position have been canvassed over the decades since the 1980s, and I do not intend to repeat them. As such, we are not speaking on that Bill, and will vote to abstain then.

5.37 pm

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill takes steps to make elections more accessible for people with disabilities (PwDs) through the introduction of polling stations and mobile polling teams in nursing homes. In my speech today, I would like to make a proposal that could help PwDs more fully participate in the election process.

Article 29(a)(iii) of the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which Singapore has ratified, calls for political participation by disabled people by “Guaranteeing the free expression of the will of persons with disabilities as electors and to this end, where necessary, at their request, allowing assistance in voting by a person of their own choice.”

However, the Government has placed a reservation on Article 29(a)(iii), stating that to keep voting secret and to safeguard the integrity of voting, PwDs can only be assisted by an election official. According to the Government, the election official is obliged to mark the ballot paper in the manner directed by the voter and is under oath to keep the vote secret.

Has the Government considered the possibility that some PwDs would prefer to have someone they know and trust to help them to vote? This is a concern also expressed by the Disabled People’s Association (DPA). Other countries, such as Canada and Germany, allow friends and family to assist a PwD with voting. In Canada, the provision is made under section 243.01 of the Canada Elections Act, which allows either a friend or a relative to accompany a voter who "requires assistance to vote."

In Germany, this is provided under section 14 of the Federal Elections Act, which states that: "Persons eligible to vote who are illiterate or prevented by a disability from casting their vote may avail themselves of another person's assistance for that purpose."

If the concern is that the person assisting the PwD will not keep the vote secret, they can be required to take an oath of secrecy, just like all the candidates’ polling agents and counting agents currently do. Incorporating this measure will better ensure that PwDs can exercise their right to vote in a smooth and comfortable manner, while upholding the secrecy of their vote and election integrity.

Next, the Bill allows for votes to be counted by electronic means. This adds to previous amendments to the Act where electronic voting was permitted. When votes are counted by manual or mechanical means, counting agents appointed by the candidates and the candidates themselves are able to personally witness the counting of all the votes. They can physically ensure there is no mis-count of votes for each candidate.

The existing Act sets out the details on the inspection and testing of electronic voting machines in the presence of the candidates, their election agents or polling agents before and during elections. However, the Bill before us today does not appear to mention the inspection and testing of the electronic counting machines or system. Can the Minister clarify how the candidates and their counting agents will be able to audit the votes counted by electronic means?

Finally, I would like to seek more clarity from the Minister about what kind of election activities are allowed in the period from the day the Writ of Election is issued to Nomination Day. The rest of the questions in this speech relate to this period.

Parliament is dissolved when the Writ of Election is issued. When this happens, every Member of Parliament ceases to be a Member of Parliament, according to Article 46(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, and their allowances cease to be paid.

After Parliament is dissolved, are the former Members of Parliament allowed to hold Meet-the-People sessions (MPS) in their constituencies, interact with residents and provide assistance to them? Can they write appeal letters to Government agencies or other organisations on behalf of their constituents and, if they do, are agencies obliged to respond to them?

It should be noted that many residents will not be aware that Members of Parliament stand down after Parliament is dissolved and will continue contacting their Members of Parliament for assistance, sometimes on urgent personal matters or municipal matters that have safety implications.

Next, do grassroots adviser (GRA) appointments cease when the Writ is issued? If not, can GRAs continue operating as per normal after the Writ is issued, including writing appeal letters to Government agencies on behalf of residents?

Given that the People’s Association almost always appoints individuals who are PAP members as GRAs, would allowing GRAs to operate as per normal during this period circumvent the restrictions that are otherwise placed on election candidates and create an unlevel playing field for the opposition?

Is "campaigning" allowed from the day the Writ is issued to Nomination Day? Are potential candidates allowed to conduct house-to-house visits or visit markets and coffee shops, to either check on residents’ well-being or explicitly canvass for votes, while wearing their party uniforms and badges?

Just before previous elections, some incumbent Members of Parliament and potential candidates conducted some of these activities. For example, a Yahoo News article entitled "GE2020: Josephine Teo to leave Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC to contest in Jalan Besar" reported that Mrs Teo was “seen during a People's Action Party (PAP) walkabout at Beo Crescent on Monday morning (29 June), together with Jalan Besar incumbent Members of Parliament Denise Phua and Heng Chee How, as well as new candidate Wan Rizal Wan Zakariah. They were introduced to the residents as candidates contesting the GRC.” That year, Parliament was dissolved on 23 June and Nomination Day was 30 June. This constituency walkabout took place within that period.

In another article in The Straits Times, it was reported that the then-National Development Minister Lawrence Wong announced the PAP’s slate in Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC at a walkabout in the Marsiling ward of the GRC on 28 June – again, within this period. There was even a video of the team, consisting of Mr Lawrence Wong, Mr Zaqy Mohamad, Mr Alex Yam and Ms Hany Soh, together with Mr Ong Teng Koon, the former MP of the ward, at a coffee shop wearing their PAP all-white uniforms. At least two members of the group were wearing a PAP badge.

In the Candidate Handbook for General Election 2020 published by the Elections Department, under section 2.4 titled "Activities from Writ of Election to Nomination Day", it is stated that "After the Writ of Election is issued and before the campaign period starts, activities, such as walkabouts, house-to-house visits, distributing election pamphlets, handouts and newsletters, and publishing of party manifestos and candidates’ biographical details will be subject to the applicable election advertising requirements." This implies that such activities are allowed subject to advertising requirements.

The next paragraph in that same section states more explicitly that "Political parties and candidates may conduct campaigning activities, such as walkabouts, house-to-house visits and the distribution of collaterals."

Based on section 2.4 of the Candidate Handbook, it appears that some types of campaigning, including walkabouts, house-to-house visits and the distribution of collaterals from the day the Writ of Election issued to Nomination Day, are allowed. However, the same language is not reflected in the Parliamentary Elections Act. Can the Minister please clarify if the ELD handbook is legally accurate in this respect?

Mr Speaker, to strengthen our democracy, the accessibility, integrity and fairness of our election process is of paramount importance. I look forward to the Minister's addressing the questions and concerns I have raised.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

5.46 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, the amendments introduced under both Bills will facilitate access to voting by voters overseas and in nursing homes, improve transparency in election advertising and strengthen election processes. I am, of course, glad to speak and I have clarifications in three areas.

My first area of clarification relates to election advertising requirements.

First, the definition of "publish" will be amended to include forwarding and sharing content. Given the ease of forwarding and sharing content on the Internet, it is not difficult to fall foul of these provisions. A number of provisions provides that the prosecution does not have to prove that an accused knew or had reason to believe that the content includes election advertising.

There is a general defence for the accused to prove that he or she did not and could not reasonably have known of the offence and took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence. If interpreted strictly, this defence can be difficult to establish.

Specific to election advertising, can Minister clarify whether it will be a defence for the accused to prove that he or she did not, in fact, know that the content includes election advertising? For instance, since the meaning of "content" includes hyperlinks and items that store data electronically, would it be a defence for the accused to prove that he or she did not access the hyperlink or folder?

While the public should, of course, responsibly share information online, there is also a difference in culpability between a layperson who carelessly forwards messages and links to a friend and a political operator looking to influence the elections. Can Minister share how the enforcement of the provisions relating to publication of election advertising will take into account the differences between these two scenarios?

Second, the Bill states that election advertising must include the identity particulars of persons who authorised making available to the general public the advertisement and who directed the election advertisement. Can Minister provide some examples to clarify the difference between authorising and directing an election advertisement?

Third, "publish" will exclude any communication of content between two or more individuals that is of a private or domestic nature by electronic means. Can Minister clarify what private or domestic means given that a chat on WhatsApp and Telegram can range from two participants to thousands? Further, can Minister clarify how publication provisions will apply to a situation where communication of content between two or more individuals that is initially private or domestic in nature is subsequently forwarded on a wider scale?

My second area of clarification relates to the penalties for breach of election advertising requirements.

It will be an offence to publish or publicly display election advertising that does not include the required information. Those convicted of the offence will be barred from voting for seven years and the Court will have no discretion to reduce the sentence. This is extremely harsh.

Under the current Parliamentary Elections Act and Presidential Elections Act, other so-called corrupt practices that similarly attract a seven-year ban include offences of making a false statement in relation to a candidate to affect the elections or making a false declaration as a candidate.

Election advertising should be transparent. But the failure to include required information in election advertising may be caused by honest mistakes. Such offenders are clearly less culpable than offenders who deliberately withhold information or provide false information. Can Minister share if individuals will be given an opportunity to correct breaches of election advertising requirements? Can Minister also share the rationale for the need to make the seven-year voting ban a mandatory sentence?

My third and last area of clarification relates to the special polling arrangements at nursing homes.

The amendments will allow special polling arrangements and mobile polling to be arranged to facilitate voting at nursing homes. A person in charge of a nursing home may inform the mobile polling team that a visit to an in-patient or resident is forbidden on medical grounds. The mobile polling team is then not allowed to visit or take the individual's vote.

Given that this effectively means that the individual will not be able to exercise their vote, this provision gives the person in charge significant powers. Can Minister share what safeguards are in place to ensure that the person in charge exercises such powers responsibly? For instance, will a doctor's report be required to substantiate the medical grounds for forbidding the visit by a mobile polling team? Will the wishes of the resident to vote be taken into account?

More generally, the Returning Officer is required to consider the conditions of electors, practicality and other peculiar circumstances in deciding whether to set up special polling stations and mobile polling teams.

These are highly fact specific questions that require an understanding of the residents and healthcare knowledge. In 2021, there were about 80 public, private and not-for-profit nursing homes. Can Minister share how the Returning Officer will make an informed assessment individually specific to all nursing homes? Will the Returning Officer be required to seek the advice of medical and geriatric healthcare professionals in ensuring that any polling arrangements are appropriately made?

Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of both Bills.

Mr Speaker: Minister Chan.

5.51 pm

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first thank Members who have spoken on this Bill. Let me first address the comments on the changes to the election advertising rules.

Mr Louis Ng and Ms Sylvia Lim sought clarifications on the amendments pertaining to election advertising.

Mr Ng asked whether it will be a defence for the accused to prove that he or she did not know that the content included election advertising and whether enforcement will take into account the difference in culpability between a layperson who carelessly forwards messages and links to a friend and a political operator looking to influence the elections.

The answer to both questions is yes. It is not the intention to penalise unintentional breaches of the election advertising laws. The legislation provides for a defence if a person unknowingly breaches the election advertising rules but takes steps to rectify the breach when he or she becomes aware of it. There is also a defence for persons who breached election advertising rules due to circumstances beyond their control, for example, if the breach was due to sabotage. Ultimately, any defence has to be considered based on the facts of each case.

Mr Louis Ng also asked for clarifications on the difference between authorising and directing an election advertisement and Ms Sylvia Lim asked for the rationale for naming the individuals and entities who approved the content of the election advertisement, even though they ultimately take instructions from the candidates or political parties.

The published-by requirements require that election advertising displays the full names of all persons who played an active role in publishing it. Such persons include: one, the person who authorised making available to the general public the election advertising; two, he person who approved the content in the election advertising; and three, the person for whom or at whose direction the election advertising was published. For any election advertising, these three persons may or may not be same. Some of these roles may also be played by entities, including marketing firms engaged by candidates or political parties. It is important for the identities of those involved to be set out clearly to ensure accountability and transparency.

Let me illustrate with an example. A political party hires a social media influencer for a fee, to post election advertising on social media on its candidate's behalf. As required under the law, the candidate must first provide written authorisation to the influencer to conduct election activity on his or her behalf. Thereafter, the candidate approves the content prepared by the influencer, before the influencer publishes the content on his or her social media account.

In this case, the political party is deemed to have directed the influencer to publish the election advertising, while the candidate had approved the contents of the election advertising. Meanwhile, the influencer is deemed to have authorised the publishing of the election advertising, since the election advertising was published on his or her social media account. Hence, the full names of the political party, the candidate and the influencer must be displayed on the social media post. The post should also state that it was paid for by the political party.

Mr Louis Ng also had a question on the meaning of private or domestic communication. As stated in my opening speech, examples of private or domestic communication include sending or forwarding election-related content within a private chat, or a closed group with family or a small group of friends. When deciding whether a communication is of a private or domestic nature, the Returning Officer, or RO, will make a case-by-case assessment, taking into consideration three factors: first, the number of individuals in Singapore who are able to access the content; second, whether there are restrictions to access the content, including whether it is a public or closed group; and third, the relationship between the sender and receiver of the content, for example, whether they are strangers or known to each other.

Next, Mr Louis Ng sought clarification relating to the penalties imposed for breaching the new election advertising requirements, whether individuals will be given an opportunity to rectify breaches of election advertising requirements and whether the penalties for such breaches are too "harsh" since if convicted, a voter may be banned from voting for seven years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, any person who publishes or causes to be published any election advertising during the election period is already required to comply with the published-by requirements under the existing law. These requirements are there to promote informed voting and to safeguard our elections from external influence. The penalty for not complying with these requirements is thus serious. This has not changed.

Let me reiterate that it is not our intention to penalise unintentional breaches of the election advertising laws. In general, individuals who have breached these laws will be notified and given the opportunity to voluntarily rectify the breach. Further enforcement action will be considered only if the individuals do not comply. Let me also assure Mr Louis Ng that any prosecution for such an offence will depend on the facts of the case and will only be instituted with the consent of the Public Prosecutor.

Mr Giam asked about the kind of election activities allowed in the period from the day the Writ of Election is issued to Nomination Day. Political parties and candidates may continue to conduct routine activities, as long as they are conducted within the limits of the law.

On Mr Gerald Giam’s other requests on whether former Members of Parliament are allowed to hold Meet-the-People Sessions to interact with residents, provide assistance to them, whether grassroots advisors can continue to operate as per normal after the Writ is issued, and the Candidate Handbook, these questions are out of the scope of the Bills. Mr Gerlad Giam may wish to file Parliamentary Questions and we will be happy to answer them separately.

Ms Lim asked about the amendment to require the display of posters and banners only in permissible locations and whether all political contestants will be assured of ample space in prime locations. The amendment is merely to set out clearly the permissible locations for the display of posters and banners, such as lamp posts and banner structures. These locations will be set out in regulations later. And I am sure that will be sufficient space for all political parties to do the necessary.

Mr Louis Ng noted that a person in charge of a nursing home may inform the mobile polling team that a visit to a resident or in-patient is forbidden on medical grounds, and asked about the safeguards in place to ensure that this is not abused. Sir, I would like to assure Mr Ng that the mobile polling team will not take the polls of residents or in-patients if there are medical grounds, for example, because they are quarantined or are not able to receive any visitors. This is to safeguard their well-being and safety. For such cases, we will require the production of medical documentation as evidence.

On Ms Sylvia Lim’s question on voters with some limitation in mental capacity, we will adopt the same approach as that for regular polling stations. That is, before the issuance of ballot paper, the election official will request the voter for his identification document and poll card. If the voter does not respond to the election official’s request for his identification document and poll card after a few attempts, the voter will not be issued a ballot paper.

If the ballot paper has been issued but the voter is somehow unable to mark the ballot paper, the election official will seek the agreement of the polling agents present that the voter will be allowed to cast a blank vote.

I would also like to assure Ms Sylvia Lim that for those who are able to make their way to the special polling stations set up at the premises of the nursing homes, the procedures are the same as the regular polling stations. Candidates will be able to send polling agents to the nursing homes to observe that voting continues to be secret and that the various procedures are adhered to.

Mr Gerald Giam asked whether a voter with disability can request someone who is known and trusted by him to help him vote. Sir, our voters with disabilities are independent and many of them are able to vote on their own. Over the years, ELD has introduced various initiatives to make it easier for them to do so, such as stencils for those who are visually impaired and lap booths for those on wheelchair. If the voter is physically unable to mark the ballot paper, he can request for an election official to assist him. These arrangements have served us well and we have no plans to change them currently.

Sir, let me now address Mr Louis Ng's question on how the RO will make the assessment to establish a special polling station in a nursing home and to authorise special polling arrangements there.

As Mr Ng rightly noted, the Bill sets out various factors that the RO is required to consider. As mentioned in my speech, ELD is piloting this new initiative at selected nursing homes with more than 50 voters for a start. In preparation for the roll-out of this new voting arrangements at these nursing homes, ELD has engaged MOH to understand the profiles of the residents and in-patients. ELD also visited these nursing homes to understand their unique context and environment.

Let me now address Ms Lim and Mr Giam's comments on the amendments to enable the use of counting machines. Let me assure Ms Lim and Mr Giam that there are no plans to introduce electronic voting for now, and ELD will continue to use standalone machines that are not connected to the Internet.

While ELD does not rule out any future solutions that can help enhance our election processes, electronic voting currently requires information on the voter's vote to be retained in the system for audit purpose. This makes it challenging to maintain voting secrecy in the event that an audit has to be done.

I would also like to assure Ms Lim that ELD will consult the political parties as it has done in the past, should advancement in technology allow the safe and secure use of electronic voting machines before rolling this out.

Mr Giam may also wish to note that the section 50B of the Parliamentary Elections Act currently sets out the various requirements to be fulfilled before electronic counting machines can be used. This includes testing of the system in the presence of candidates and their agents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me conclude by reiterating the intent behind these Bills, which is to update the existing laws to enhance voter accessibility, strengthen trust and confidence in our electoral processes, and ensure that Singapore politics is for Singapore Citizens only.

ELD has consulted political parties on the key initiatives on the new voting modalities last year in 2022 and these are part of the continuous efforts of ELD to enhance our electoral processes and election administration.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me also touch on a few points that were raised just now. Ms Lim asked if we are going to pre-screen the electoral roll before we determine the nursing homes to be involved. As for how many people will be eligible to vote in a nursing home, this will depend on those people who have previously registered. So, we do not pre-screen as a procedure, those people that pre-register. But as I explained, during the voting, the election officials will make that assessment as to whether the person has the mental capacity to conduct the voting.

We agree with Members that the secrecy and the neutrality of the elections officials are very important. This is why the current mode is for the election officials to conduct this rather than to certify many other individuals who are not election officials to help respective individuals. Ms Lim can also be assured that the randomness of the issuance of ballot paper is the same as any polling station.

You asked whether polling agents can assess, I think I have answered that, answer is yes, to view the processes in the nursing home.

And electronic means, we have answered that as well. The counting machines are not connected to the Internet.

Mr Gerald Giam asked about whether we can qualify individuals to help the PwDs. As I have explained, I think it is best that we do this in a way that gives us confidence that the officials are cleared, neutral, impartial in their work rather than to clear many individuals for respective needs which we may not have the confidence to say that they are all clear about the processes.

With that Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. I urge all Members on both sides of the house to give your fullest support to both Bills.

Mr Speaker: Any clarifications? Ms Sylvia Lim.

6.04 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim: Speaker, I have got two clarifications for the Minister. The first concerns what he mentioned in his main speech that the Minister's powers to make regulations or adjustments due to disruptive events, I think he mentioned that this is going to be removed from the main Act and put into subsidiary legislation for more flexibility, if there is a disruptive event.

So, I have two questions concerning this. First is that, is it the intention that Minister will actually issue subsidiary legislation well ahead of the election to cover as many scenarios as possible? And during the election, he alluded to the fact that there may be a need to issue some further regulations, for example, a transport incident – that was what he mentioned. Does he foresee that since the Minister will be a participant in the election itself, that there will be any issue with the issuance of those sorts of regulations? So, that is the first thing about the regulations concerning disruptive events, that most of them will be issued well ahead of election, and during the election, it would be limited to extreme exigencies; and whether there is any issue with the Minister being a participant in the election, issuing those regulations.

And lastly, just a clarification on nursing home voting. Will the ELD be conducting special voter education at the nursing homes to be chosen for the pilot, for the reasons which I mentioned earlier?

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Ms Sylvia Lim for her two clarifications. The quick answer to the first one is, yes, of course, the Minister will work with ELD to try to anticipate all the possible contingencies that we have to deal with prior to the elections. I am sure you agree with me that during the election period, you are as busy as me. Not the time for us to make new regulations at that point in time. Yes, so ELD has a scenario plan, various contingencies, as I have described, and we will try to put this out as early as possible.

On the second question, yes, indeed, we are working closely with the nursing home, not just on the logistical and administrative arrangements, but also, as part of our outreach, to let the voters that are potentially voting in a nursing home, understand their rights and responsibilities.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Just one clarification for the Minister. I believe he said just now that section 50B of the PEA allows for the inspection and testing of voting machines and vote counting machines. I cannot remember the exact words that he used.

However, I believe that section 50b(2) actually requires for the inspection and testing of DRE voting machines and direct recording electronic voting equipment. But it does not mention vote counting machines. So, can I confirm that vote counting machines will be included in this pre-election audit by the candidates and their polling agents?

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, sir, the answer is yes. We have done this before. The last election we used the vote counting machine that is the same as those used by the currency exchangers. That was demonstrated to all the political parties prior to ensure that the accuracy of the system.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

6.08 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim: Mr Speaker, for the Presidential Elections Bill, as I mentioned earlier, the Workers' Party Members of Parliament would like to record abstention on the Bill.

Mr Speaker: So, would you like to abstain for this Bill?

Ms Sylvia Lim: Yes, abstention.

Mr Speaker: Would you like to record your dissention by standing in place, please?

Ms Sylvia Lim: Record our abstention, yes. We will stand.

Mr Speaker: Technically, you should have stood up before I say "the ayes have it".

Ms Sylvia Lim: Sorry. I was a bit slow, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Perhaps you might want to raise your dissension later, at the Third Reading instead?

Ms Sylvia Lim: Can we not have it recorded now?

Mr Speaker: When I declared that "the ayes have it, the ayes have it", that has passed, process wise.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Yes, let it be recorded.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly 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.

Mr Speaker: The question is, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." As many of the opinion say aye, to the contrary say no.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Speaker, we request our abstention to be recorded.

Mr Speaker: Let me call on the votes. I think the ayes have it. For those who want to record your dissention, please stand in place.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Abstention, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Yes, abstention.

Hon Members Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Leon Perera, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong stood at their seats for their abstention to be recorded.

Mr Speaker: Okay, noted.

Bill read a Third time and passed.