Parliamentary Elections (COVID-19 Special Arrangements) Bill

Mr Speaker, elections have been a part of our democratic process since our independence in 1965. In a democracy, voting is a key responsibility and fundamental right of any citizen that enables them to choose their representatives in the government. Hence, it is important that we ensure all citizens get an opportunity to choose who represents them.

Given the current COVID-19 crisis and without the certainly how long it would last, this Bill will allow special provisions to be made during the General Elections. It will ensure that voting to be done safely while abiding with the core principles of the Parliamentary Elections Act such as voting in secret and allowing a Singaporean voter to exercise his rights to a one-man-one-vote principle.

There are some clarifications I would like to seek on this Bill. Firstly, under clause 2, the Bill only refers to elections that take place held on or before 14 April 2021. COVID-19 is not the first coronavirus to land on our shores. Why make these special arrangements temporary when history sometimes has the nasty habit of repeating itself?

Second, clause 5 allows Returning Officers to set up special polling stations in boarding premises or in some other suitable premises in Singapore where the electors are not allowed to leave due to COVID-19 stay orders. Is there any minimum number of voters that would warrant the setting up of these special polling stations? From the view of contesting parties participating in the General Elections, having too many polling stations may pose a resource challenge for them to deploy their polling agents to ensure transparency and legitimacy of the voting process.

Third, under section 81(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, no one can dissuade a voter from voting, from Nomination Day to Polling Day. However, under clause 8 of this new Bill, it makes an exception for the Returning Officer and the Director of Medical Services to authorise actions persuading voters not to vote, if they happen to be displaying acute respiratory symptoms, are feverish, or may have been infected by COVID-19. Can the voters go against the advice of the Returning Officer and the Director of Medical Services? Will the polling agents be allowed to witness the process to ensure transparency?

In a democracy, voting is a key responsibility and fundamental right of any citizen that enables them to choose their representatives in the government. In Malay, Sir.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In a democracy, voting is a key responsibility and fundamental right of every citizen that enables them to choose their representatives in the government. Notwithstanding my support for this bill, may I ask why these temporary special arrangements are made, even though the coronavirus threat can re-occur in future as we have witnessed before in human history?

(In English): A government has a duty of care to its people, and during their term, they are accountable to the voters who have voted them in. With or without COVID-19, on the day of the election, voters must have the capacity to hold the ruling party accountable for their actions should they fail to live up to the mandate given, while at the same time choose their representatives in government for the following term. It is the contest for votes amongst political candidates that gives the power back to the citizens to decide on the future of the nation. This Bill ensures that citizens retain this power regardless of the current crisis. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, holding a national election in the midst of a health pandemic carries some risk. The Prime Minister has not yet announced when the impending election will be called and by the Government’s own assessment, the COVID-19 situation in Singapore is not yet at a satisfactory phase.

The Workers’ Party has previously called on the Government to be judicious in deciding on the timing of the election, bearing in mind the twin priorities of public health and upholding democratic principles.

Sir, there continues to be unhealthy speculation on the ground as to when the Elections will be held. We note that the recent South Korean election was held at a time where the outbreak showed clear signs of declining cases, underscored by mass community testing. Meanwhile, medical experts here have opined that to be certain that we have turned a corner, a sustained decline in cases to zero or near zero, supported by wide testing, would be needed. As we debate this Bill, this is the elephant in the room. Can the Government clarify what progress needs to be made on the virus front before a General Election will be held?

Coming back to the Bill itself, the provisions cover the processes for Nomination Day and Polling Day. The Workers’ Party will support the Bill but I have some queries and concerns about how the provisions will be operationalised.

First, on Nomination procedures. Clause 9 modifies Nomination proceedings to cater for the event that a candidate is subject to a quarantine or stay home order, or is hospitalised or ill so as to be medically unfit to attend the Nomination in person. The provision allows the candidate to appoint a representative to file his nomination papers in his stead. This is a welcome provision, as it will enable a prospective candidate to still contest the election even if he or she is temporarily unable to attend at the Nomination Centre. One question that comes to mind is that by the time the candidate needs to utilise this provision, he would already be ill or under a quarantine or stay home order. How will he be facilitated to execute the Power of Attorney? For example, will a lawyer be allowed access to the candidate to witness the document?

Another question relates to who can be a candidate's representative. It is provided in clause 9(3) that a representative should be a Singapore citizen who is entitled to vote at the election and duly authorised under a power of attorney. That being the case, I would like the Government’s confirmation that there is no objection to a representative being a fellow GRC candidate or an assentor or subscriber already present at the Nomination Centre.

Next, I move on to the arrangements as to Polling Day. First, voters under Quarantine or Stay Home Orders. Clause 3 provides that voters who are under quarantine orders or stay home orders are excused from voting and that they cannot leave their designated places of home unless the Returning Officer makes arrangements for them to vote. If the RO does make such arrangements, the voters may then choose to vote.

It seems to be then that there are two uncertainties here. First, it is not clear that the RO will definitely make arrangements for such voters to vote, and second, even if such arrangements are made, voters may choose not to vote.

I am concerned about whether this clause will result in significant numbers of people not voting, when they may not be medically ill but simply ordered to be confined as a precaution. According to the Explanatory Statement to the Bill, this provision would also cover those who are on five days' medical leave due to having acute respiratory symptoms earlier.

From what I understand from the South Korean election, voters under quarantine were facilitated to vote, but only after 6.00 pm when the polling booths had closed to the general public. This arrangement protected other voters but also ensured that quarantined voters could vote.

Sir, we do not know the numbers of persons who may be subject to such orders at any time. If there were to be a cluster of infections in a certain area, there could be a significant number of voters for a particular constituency that could fall within this category. A significant percentage of absent voters may affect the outcome of the poll, especially in a close contest. I would like the Minister to clarify what commitment the Elections Department (ELD) is making to voters under Quarantine or Stay-Home Orders. Is the ELD not able to commit to giving all such voters the opportunity to vote?

Next, voters confined to boarding premises. Clauses 4 to 6 deal with voters who are confined to boarding premises which are not their ordinary residences, such as hotels, apartments and dormitories. I welcome the ELD's proposal to provide special polling stations at or near these premises to facilitate the voters' right to vote. On this, clause 5 states that the Returning Officer (RO) may establish a special polling station, where there are two or more voters form the same constituency in the same boarding premises. The use of "may" suggests that the RO may decide not to establish such special polling stations. What is the ELD's intention as to when it will or will not do so? Could the Minister also clarify why the Government requires at least two voters from the same constituency to be staying at the same boarding premise, before a special polling station will be set up?

One more query on this. For such voters confined to boarding premises, clause 6(3) states that the Minister may provide for the marking of votes remotely, that is, the voter need not turn up at the special polling station but may mark his vote, for example, in his room and hand his vote securely to the Returning Officer (RO). There may be a good intention behind this, but it adds a risk to the voting process. What safeguards will there be to ensure that the marked ballot paper is not tampered with or lost and has been duly included for counting?

Next, transporting of electors. According to the Explanatory Statement to the Bill, it may become necessary for the Returning Officer (RO) to arrange for dedicated buses to convey electors subject to COVID-19 Stay-Home Orders to the special polling stations that are not their places of accommodation, in order for them to cast their votes. Clause 7 thus provides that in such a situation, the usual prohibitions against transporting electors to and from polling stations will not apply.

Sir, I appreciate that this is a practical matter that ELD may need to provide for. However, it is useful to bear in mind the rationale for the prohibition on transporting electors in the first place, to ensure that on Polling day, voters may be casting their votes of their free will without undue influence or pressure. To this end, will the ELD implement any safeguards to prevent any attempt to influence voters on these buses from any person or even amongst the voters themselves, for example, by recording the journeys on CCTV or by imposing strict no-communications rules on board?

Sir, apart from what is in the Bill, what other practical measures is the Elections Department (ELD) likely to take to safeguard public health on Polling Day? It will be useful if the ELD can share its thinking, so voters know what to expect. For instance, will voters' temperatures be taken? Will they be issued with masks, hand sanitisers and gloves and would polling booths be disinfected regularly, as was done in the South Korean election? How much more is likely to be spent on an election with such additional requirements?

Another critical aspect is safe distancing. How will this be implemented at the polling stations? For instance, past practice shows that voters tend to congregate at the polling stations early in the morning, and by lunchtime the polling stations are quite empty. Will voters be advised to spread themselves out this time? What else can the Elections Department (ELD) share on the practical considerations?

Finally, the Bill does not cover how the campaign methods will be modified. On the issue of campaigning, Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean had told this House on 25 March that in view of the pandemic, campaign methods will need adjustment. For example, there may possibly be live streaming of videos on the Internet or more television time for candidates. It is important for these changes to campaign rules to be made known publicly and to political parties as soon as possible, so that candidates and parties have sufficient time to make necessary preparations and to source for service suppliers. When will the ELD make known the exact changes? Lastly, whatever changes are made, it is also critical that these modifications do not result in an escalation of campaign costs.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, it is right that the Prime Minister's Office prepare to provide a safe environment for the holding of the General Elections and we appreciate the rationale for the Bill. I look forward to the Minister's clarifications on the matters I have raised regarding the timing of the General Elections, the modified procedures and campaigning.

Mr Speaker, I support the Government's proposal to ensure that elections can be held as smoothly as possible if the COVID-19 outbreak is still on-going when elections are called.

Sir, this Bill's provisions will help assure electors and candidates that they will still be able to exercise their democratic rights, even if they are under Stay-Home Orders or other COVID-19 related restrictions. However, I am concerned whether the Bill goes sufficiently far in exploring alternatives, such as remote electronic voting, that might allow all electors, including those under Quarantine Orders, as well as those falling ill on Polling Day, to vote. Such remote voting technologies might allow us to reduce in-person voting, which will make it easier to protect public health.

I also wish to ask why the Bill does not address safe campaigning regulations under COVID-19, which should be defined well in advance of the polls, so that all parties can prepare.

Sir, even if COVID-19 appears under control when Parliament is dissolved, conditions may get worse by Polling Day. Polling may take place during circuit breaker measures, not by design, but due to necessity. Candidates and our campaign regulations will need to be prepared in advance.

First, let me discuss the issue of remote electronic voting. Electronic voting itself has been quite contentious. Since 2001, the Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA) has contained provisions for electronic voting, through Direct-Recording Electronic or DRE voting machines.

When the 2001 amendment to the PEA was debated many Members treated DRE voting with caution. Members argued that voters might be unfamiliar with the technology, expressed concerns about maintaining voter secrecy and asked how could DRE voting be proven to be free from electoral abuse.

Sir, in the end, these concerns come down to a lack of trust either in the Government's stewardship of the voting process or in the technology itself.

The passage of 20 years has given many reasons for greater trust in both factors. Many Singaporeans now routinely use remote electronic technology to transfer money, pay bills, make investments, file claims in Court and more. And most Singaporeans do not question whether technology can securely determine the identity of the user and record their decision properly.

As for trust in the voting process, there are six elected Opposition Members today, most of whom won their seats in a GRC. So I do hope the debate on the nature of democracy in Singapore has moved on beyond questioning the voting procedure itself, although I do appreciate as Ms Lim has reminded us that we should always be vigilant to safeguard democracy.

So, I think we should ask: why not consider provisions for secure remote electronic voting?

To be clear, convenience alone would not be a good reason for remote electronic voting. Voting in public binds Singaporeans together as we exercise our democratic rights. But during COVID-19, having a significant fraction of electors choose to use remote electronic voting would greatly reduce crowding at polling stations. Crucially, this would free up polling stations for elderly voters, who are less likely to use remote electronic voting. And it will also mean voters who are acutely sick or under Quarantine Orders, could also exercise their right to vote.

Sir, there is a real risk that many electors would be unable to vote due to COVID-19. I will stand corrected, but the present Bill's clause 5 does not appear to require the Returning Officer (RO) to ensure special polling stations are set up to accommodate all electors subject to Stay-Home Orders. There may be some discretion permitted.

It will be helpful if the Government could clarify whether the Bill does impose a requirement that all electors on Stay-Home Orders must be given arrangements to allow them to vote.

The present Bill is also silent on electors under Quarantine Orders, while clause 8 also expressly allows the Returning Officer (RO) or Director of Medical Services to advise electors against voting if they are acutely sick or otherwise exposed to COVID-19. So, there are many cases where electors could have difficulty exercising their right to vote in person, while protecting public health.

Second, I wish to ask why the Bill does not address the conduct of campaigns during COVID-19. Sir, our campaign process must also be adapted to ensure public health is not at risk. I note that the PEA does not govern campaigning in detail. But nonetheless, the Government could have used this Bill to enact temporary amendments to the PEA or to other Acts to create a legislative framework to govern campaigning during COVID-19.

I am not so worried that there will be a free-for-all in campaigning that puts public health at risk. I am confident that the ELD will consult with MOH and issue instructions on the conduct of the campaign. Rather, I am asking whether we should do more to ensure that a broad framework to allow for a range of restrictions on campaigning, calibrated to the public health risks, is put into the primary legislation for the duration of COVID-19.

Sir, this relates to a broader question on the right balance between specifying policy in the primary versus secondary legislation. But there are reasons to err on the side of being exhaustive in the primary legislation, where elections are concerned. The PEA itself goes into detail on voting procedure because it is important that every aspect which might affect the integrity of the vote be subject to as little discretion as possible. Through this, all candidates are assured that the electoral process reflects the laws agreed and passed by Parliament, rather than the decisions made on the ground by individual officers or the regulations issued by the ELD. So, the lack of discretion can be a virtue.

Sir, I will not propose specific rules here, but campaigning must be regulated because it exposes the candidates and electors to public health risks from COVID-19. The hallmarks of a normal campaign – gathering volunteers, holding rallies, attempting to meet as many electors as possible – all involve significant personal contact. We should, therefore, define rules for specific campaign activities which may be allowed as essential, depending on the severity of the COVID-19 outbreak at the time. And defining these rules well in advance will allow candidates to prepare.

In my view, a good framework would first aim to govern the campaign activities the candidate can engage in, which may include restrictions on places that can be visited, number of electors that can be contacted, rallies and so forth.

Second, to govern the number of persons, other than the candidates, who can assist in physical campaign operations, as each additional person naturally adds to the public health risk.

Third, to regulate the extent to which supporting services to a campaign, such as vehicle rental, poster printing, Internet advertising, and so forth, will be made essential, at least to candidates, even if not to other parties.

And fourth, to provide for changes in the allowed campaign expenditure level to account for the fact that much of the work normally done by volunteers on the ground may have to be conducted online through costly advertising, and to account for other increases in cost, as may happen if essential services have to open solely to service candidates.

Sir, there are no doubt many other considerations. For example, candidates may face difficulties accessing Internet advertising during the campaign, as this also depends on the cooperation of the Internet platforms. Google, as we know, has ceased to accept political advertising in Singapore, as of December 2019. And with restrictions on physical campaigning, Internet advertising becomes quite essential.

Mr Speaker, I support the Government's efforts to ensure our elections can carry on, even if called in the midst of the COVID-19 outbreak. But I believe more work can still be done to improve access to voting for all electors and to define rules for campaigning in advance that are fair to all candidates and protect the public health. I hope the Government will address these in the reply, or in subsequent legislation if necessary.