elections

Transparency in Political Advertising

In Parliament on 7 Aug 2024, I asked the Prime Minister whether political parties or candidates who pay digital content creators to post during or before election campaigns are required to disclose these payments. I also inquired whether content creators must declare their partnerships with political parties in their posts, and what the specific disclosure requirements are.

In his response on behalf of the PM, Minister Chan Chun Sing said that any paid Online Election Advertising (OEA) must be disclosed, showing the names of those who paid for and approved the content. Payments to content creators during non-election periods, if related to an upcoming election, must also be declared.

The Minister also mentioned rules under the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act and other existing requirements for political parties.

Transparency is key to maintaining trust in our electoral process.

This is the full text of the question and answer:

7 August 2024

Written Reply to Parliamentary Question on Whether Political Parties or Candidates that Pay Digital Content Creators to Post Content Either Before or During Election Campaigns Will Be Required to Disclose These Payments

Mr. Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (a) whether political parties or candidates that pay digital content creators, either directly or indirectly, to post content either before or during election campaigns will be required to disclose these payments; (b) whether the said content creators are also required to declare the nature of their partnership with political parties or candidates within their posts; and (c) what are the disclosure requirements.

Written Reply by Mr. Chan Chun Sing, Minister of Education, for the Prime Minister:

1. Under the legislation governing Online Election Advertising (OEA), only political parties, candidates, their election agents, or other third parties who have received written authorisation are allowed to publish OEA that is paid for. Every payment made in respect of any expenses incurred in the conduct or management of an election must be submitted as part of the declarations by the candidates and their election agents, rather than the digital content creator, and supported with bills and receipts as set out in the relevant laws. This includes all paid OEA. The OEA must disclose that it is paid for, and show the full names of the persons who paid for it. The full names of the persons who approved the content of the OEA must be shown as well.

2. Election expenses include any expenses incurred whether before, during, or after the election, in respect of the conduct or management of the election. Thus, any payments made to content creators during the non-election period ahead of any impending election would have to be declared as long as the content created is in respect of the conduct or management of the candidate’s election. Outside of elections, there are also rules governing the receipt of donations received by all political parties, political office holders, and other politically significant persons. Such donations must be disclosed under the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act. There are also other accounting and disclosure requirements on political parties as well, as the Member will be aware.

Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill

Accommodations for PwDs

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 for 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.

Electronic voting and counting of votes

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?

Allowable activities after Parliament is dissolved

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 an MP 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 MPs 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 MPs stand down after Parliament is dissolved and will continue contacting their MPs for assistance, sometimes on urgent personal matters or municipal matters that have safety implications.

Next, do grassroot 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 MPs 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 (MPs) 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 this period.

In another article in the Straits Times, it was reported that 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 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 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 distribution of collaterals from the day the Writ of Election is 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?

Summary

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 addressing the questions and concerns I have raised.

_________

Debate on the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill, 6 March 2023

Photo by Element5 Digital on Pexels

Cost of running General Elections

Elections are expensive, not just for the candidates and political parties, but also for the taxpayer. I asked a Parliamentary question on 9 May 2022 to obtain the breakdown of the amount spent organising and running each of the last three General Elections (GEs). Responding on behalf of the Prime Minister, Minister Chan Chun Sing revealed that the Election Department’s expenditure for the GEs increased from $13.5 million in 2011 to $30.3 million in 2020. This likely excludes the additional spending on security, which would be under the Ministry of Home Affairs’ budget.

In Singapore, elections are required by law to be held approximately once every five years, but can be called much earlier if the incumbent PM so chooses. This may confer an advantage on the incumbent, who can call elections when the ground is “sweet” for his or her own party. Be that as it may, an incumbent PM will do well to have an eye on the costs of organising and running an election, should he or she decide to call early elections.

Here is the full answer to my PQ:

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Prime Minister how much is the Government’s spending on organising and running the General Elections in 2011, 2015 and 2020 respectively, including but not limited to the cost of manpower, security, publicity and materials.

Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The expenditures incurred by the Elections Department (ELD) for the 2011, 2015 and 2020 General Elections were $13.5 million, $23.2 million and $30.3 million respectively.

Across elections, expenditure will fluctuate depending on manpower, info-communications technology, transport, and other logistical needs. For example, GE2015 was fully contested unlike GE2011, and more election officials were deployed. Higher logistics costs were also incurred as election equipment such as polling booths and counting tables were due for replacement. In GE2020, which was held during the COVID-19 pandemic, almost $8 million were spent on safe management measures.

Source: Parliament Hansard

Your vote is secret

Let’s be very clear: YOUR VOTE IS SECRET. I will take you through the whole balloting process to see why. Vote with your conscience, not with fear!

Many Singaporeans harbour the misconception that their vote during elections is not secret. I’ve talked to many people, both educated and less educated, and the overwhelming majority seem to think this way. This is despite the fact that at every election, the Elections Department takes pains to communicate to voters two main points: Voting is compulsory, and voting is secret. I guess this is a point that Singaporeans just refuse to believe our government about.

It is even more unfortunate that some persist in perpetuating this urban myth, which only serves to strike more fear into the hearts of Singaporeans who are thinking of voting for the opposition. A letter in Temasek Review today exhorted Singaporeans to spoil their votes because, the writer reasoned, then the PAP won’t “mark” you for voting against them and if there are enough invalid votes, it will indirectly increase the opposition’s share of the valid vote.

This is wrong on many counts. I’ll highlight just two: Firstly, the PAP does not know which party you voted for, so they won’t know who to “mark”, even if they wanted to. Secondly, invalid votes do not factor in the final count, which is based on valid votes. This means that if there were 10 votes–six for the PAP, three for the opposition and one spoiled–the final tally is 66.6 per cent to the PAP (six divided by nine, with the spoiled vote excluded), not 60 per cent.

Let’s be very clear: YOUR VOTE IS SECRET. I will take you through the whole balloting process to see why:

Continue reading “Your vote is secret”

Voting with your head or heart? You can do both

When making a comparison between the PAP and WP teams, one should consider, how much the WP has done with its limited resources, and how much more it can do when it has the resources of five elected MPs. If I were a resident of Aljunied, choosing to support WP there would be a very rational and logical decision indeed, as well as one that will go down well with my heart and conscience!

The Straits Times did a feature length Insight article on 30 July on Aljunied Group Representational Constituency (GRC), which witnessed the fiercest contest of the 2006 General Elections (GE), between a Workers’ Party (WP) team helmed by its chairman, Sylvia Lim, and the PAP team led by George Yeo.

The article presented some interesting anecdotes from residents and insights from the politicians from both sides.

One Aljunied resident remarked that WP secretary-general MP Low Thia Khiang was “very good” because of the way he attended to his residents in neighbouring Hougang. Another long-time opposition supporter said he was 矛盾 (in a dilemma) about whom to vote for next time, because of the upgrading works that have been done since the last GE. Then he went on to say that if Sylvia Lim contests again, “I will still vote for the WP because it is important to have another voice in the Government. But not if others come.”

The upgrading works since the last GE included “spanking new gymnasiums at their doorsteps” and “colourful linkways that shelter them from the rain”. One of the PAP MPs boasted that there had been 51 linkways, 43 fitness corners, 18 drop-off porches and five gymnasiums built over the last four years. On top of that, there is an “iconic project” for each of the five divisions, such as an adventure park in Paya Lebar and a communal hall in Aljunied-Hougang.

Interestingly, ST’s street poll showed that only 40 per cent say they are pleased with the facilities, 30 per cent are happy with upgrading and 60 per cent, the transport infrastructure.

One resident, a kindergarten teacher (in which kindy, I wonder?), said she will be voting PAP because she believes “they have the clout and resources to continue with all the upgrading projects that have been ongoing”.

On the other hand, some residents felt there had been “unnecessary upgrading”, a “waste of resources” or poorly planned upgrading, like low quality lifts or inaccessible lift landing designs.

The article then painted the choice facing residents of Aljunied as being that of “head versus heart”. Their argument was that the PAP team should win hands down at the next GE “based on its performance on the ground” (i.e., upgrading works). However, voters may also make their choice with their “heart”, if they want more opposition MPs in Parliament to be a better check on the Government or be an alternative voice.

Having their cake and eating it

I am of the view that “head versus heart” is a false choice—there is no need for voters to choose one or the other. With the WP, they can have both. Here’s why:

Firstly, in terms of local concerns, the only thing that the PAP team has done, which a WP team will probably choose not to match, is their massive upgrading works. But do residents really need “colourful” linkways, spanking new gymnasiums and “iconic” adventure parks and communal halls? Some of those interviewed already said much of the upgrading appeared wasteful.

In any case, these works have already been done. Will the next team taking over the GRC—whether PAP or WP—need to do even more upgrading over the next five years? Probably not much. Furthermore, the PAP Government has pledged to complete lift upgrading works in all wards by 2014—just three years away. So neighbourhood upgrading should be a non-issue for the rational voter.

Secondly, the accessibility of MPs, traditionally measured in terms of the frequency of walkabouts or holding MPS. By these two measures, the WP has proven it can and will continue to do these—perhaps even to a greater extent than the PAP MPs.

Sylvia Lim said that her team started walkabouts a month after the last GE in 2006. In any given week, the WP has a few teams visiting the GRC. So far, the WP has visited about 500 blocks, which is no mean feat for a party without the luxury of “staff augmentation” by People’s Association grassroots leaders and government agency representatives tagging along on during their walkabouts.

Ms Lim also explained that her walkabouts often took longer, as WP team members “tend to chat more with the residents”, indicating deeper engagement during the house visits. In addition, I have no doubt that many of the WP candidates, if they win, will devote more time to their Parliamentary and constituency work than the current PAP MPs, not one of whom is a full-time MP.

Thirdly, an effective alternative party like the WP, with a significant presence of five capable MPs in Parliament, will be able to speak up loudly and clearly for ordinary Singaporeans in a way that ruling party MPs can never do.

PAP MPs claim to speak out for their residents, but they are constrained as to how far they can go without being smacked down by their party elders. These MPs know their re-election hinges on the endorsement of their party elders. Why? Because if they are not fielded by their party in the next GE, they have absolutely no chance of being elected!

In any case, as a member of a political party, they are expected to support their own party and not oppose it, so they will be hamstrung from the start. Things get even worse if they are front benchers (i.e., Ministers), of which there are three in Aljunied. They are not even supposed to challenge the Government, because they are part of the Government. Yes, they can voice out behind closed doors, but we all know that what’s mentioned behind closed doors can also be easily dismissed behind closed doors.

On the other hand, opposition MPs know that their political survival depends almost entirely on the endorsement of residents at the next election, not the PAP or even their own party leaders. So you can be sure that any opposition MPs worth their salt will go all out to serve the residents well, and speak out strongly for them in Parliament.

There is evidence to support this. Just look at how many speeches Sylvia Lim—the lone non-constituency MP—has made in Parliament criticising government policies and proposing alternatives. Speech-for-speech, point-by-point, have any of the Aljunied MPs matched her in terms of quantity or relevance over the past four years? The three Ministers in the team simply do their job of reading out Government Bills and defending Government policies. They don’t challenge the Government in Parliament. As for the two backbenchers, I cannot recall any memorable points or issues raised by them.

In summary, I feel that when making a comparison between the PAP and WP teams, one should consider, how much the WP has done with its limited resources, and how much more it can do when it has the resources of five elected MPs (or more, if other wards fall to the WP). If I were a resident of Aljunied, choosing to support WP there would be a very rational and logical decision indeed, as well as one that will go down well with my heart and conscience!

The article presented some interesting anecdotes from residents and insights from the politicians from both sides.

Continue reading “Voting with your head or heart? You can do both”

Stop comparing Singapore with Third world countries

Why are we, a developed country, being compared with Third world countries all the time? Shouldn’t we compare ourselves with other First world countries like Taiwan, Korea, New Zealand, Denmark and Netherlands?

It never ceases to amaze me the kind of examples some people will use to drive home their point that the PAP is the one and only party capable of leading Singapore forever and ever.

In a letter to the Straits Times forum yesterday titled “PAP’s self-renewal a boon for the nation”, Jeffrey Law praised the PAP’s efforts at “self-renewal”, and in the process took a swipe — or rather three swipes — at neighbouring countries for their far-from-perfect political systems.

He started by saying: “It can be disquieting to know that some politicians in the region indulge in money politics and resort to buying votes.”

Was he referring to politics in other countries or in Singapore?

Continue reading “Stop comparing Singapore with Third world countries”

Victory for SBY, Indonesia…and ASEAN too?

Photo from Reuters

I am cheered that Dr Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, better known as SBY, has won his second term in as president of Indonesia, with a very comfortable margin which pollsters estimate at over 60%. Although the official results are not due till later this month, SBY has already declared victory and world leaders like Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong have already called him offering their congratulations.

This is a victory not only for him and his running mate, Boediono, the former central bank governor, but the great nation of Indonesia as well. The peaceful and fair election — contestations by SBY’s challenger Megawati notwithstanding — seals Indonesia’s transition from a military dictatorship under Suharto just over 10 years ago, to a thriving democracy with a free press and a steadily growing economy.

Continue reading “Victory for SBY, Indonesia…and ASEAN too?”

ST Forum: Political changes must win over younger citizens

This is an excellently argued letter by Mr Michael Wee from today’s Straits Times, which deserves to be repeated here.

Political changes must win over younger citizens

Straits Times forum, 21 May 2009

TUESDAY’S report, ‘New strategies for a new world order’, on the President’s speech to Parliament hinted at what might be, to some, political liberalisation.

Given past precedents, any change made to Singapore’s political system will certainly be implemented with caution.

Such changes must be sufficient to overturn the cynicism of younger voters who want greater involvement and participation in the political process.

Where parliamentary politics are concerned, the best litmus test for any reform to the current group representation constituency system is its ability to elect a Parliament whose composition more closely reflects political parties’ percentage of votes.

Based on the last general election, the Workers’ Party garnered 16.34 per cent of the votes, but it holds only one of 84 seats in Parliament.

In Britain, which also uses a similar first-past-the-post system, the opposition Conservative Party holds roughly 31 per cent of parliamentary seats, which reflects the 32.3 per cent of the popular vote the party obtained.

Ambiguous or seemingly half-hearted attempts at reform will only further increase scepticism.

The People’s Action Party (PAP) should accept the possibility of greater opposition party involvement and acknowledge that other parties can also bring in a fresh generation of political leaders in their own right.

If the PAP can still be elected with the same resounding confidence even after meaningful reforms to the political system, it will certainly win over more fully the younger generation of voters.

Michael Wee

Straits Times articles on Opposition and PAP

I’ve followed the Straits Times’ last two Saturday Insight articles — last week’s was about the Opposition’s plans for the coming election; this week’s was a report card on the 24 PAP MPs who were brought in for the 2006 election.

Overall I feel that both articles were relatively balanced. In a rare departure from the ST’s usual reporting style, the two articles extensively quoted sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Given the political climate in Singapore, where fear of retribution runs high, I am not surprised that these anonymous sources provided some of the more juicy tidbits about political players on both sides.

Of the interviewees who were willing have their names quoted, I think SMU law lecturer Eugene Tan appears to have the best grasp of the issues:

On the P65 MPs:

They and others urge the younger MPs to go beyond ‘the mere stylistics and cosmetic branding’, as law academic Eugene Tan puts it.

‘They need to connect at the cognitive and personal level and I don’t think we have seen enough of that – well, not yet,’ he says. For instance, politically, the younger MPs have imbibed the party attitudes such that they are almost indistinguishable from the pre-65 MPs.

‘In Parliament, they have not distinguished themselves at articulating the younger generation’s perspectives, concerns and thoughts on national matters.’

On the WP:

Like it or not, the hammer is the most recognisable symbol after the lightning. How well they do will depend on whether they are able to bring new candidates and raise the calibre of candidates.

E-Engaging young S’poreans…with whom?

An article appeared on Saturday (March 7) in Malaysian newspaper The Star titled “Engaging the young and restless on their virtual turf”. The writer, veteran Singapore journalist Seah Chiang Nee, mentioned me briefly:

Prominent blogger Gerald Giam believes that until now the PAP did not see a need to use the Internet because it had firm control of newspapers and television.

He probably paraphrased it from a blogpost I wrote:

…back then, I think the PAP did not plan to use new media in a big way to win over the electorate. It didn’t see a need to since it had effective control over the mainstream media (it still does) and few Singaporeans were getting their news from the Internet (that number has grown, and it includes not just young people, but retirees as well).

Mr Seah also wrote that:

In his interview, PM Lee apparently realised it. Moving forward, he said, what is needed are young MPs who are comfortable with the new media landscape.

I’m interested to know who these young, potential MPs are — and if they even exist. Scanning local blogosphere for the past two years, I don’t know of many fellow bloggers who are pro-establishment and have made a name for themselves (i.e., Netizens know about them, for better or worse). Only a few come to mind: Ephraim Loy, Nicholas Lazarus, Kway Teow Man.

The fact that more than two years after PAP MP Denise Phua said the Internet is “85% against the government”, our blogosphere is still as anti-establishment as before indicates that there really aren’t many prominent bloggers in the PAP ranks to balance the anti-PAP rhetoric.

Added to the stringent qualifications for being a PAP candidate (scholar, CEO or can speak Chinese/Malay very well), this means that the party probably has to settle for candidates who are IT savvy, but are not necessarily bloggers.

This does not spell well for their e-engagement strategy. Being IT savvy doesn’t mean that one knows how to engage Netizens. Those are two completely different skillsets. It’s like asking a programmer geek to be a public relations professional.