CHAPTER 2: The Rules of the Game

 

When the boundaries report was released, Singapore looked like it was going to beat the virus. That day, 13 March 2020, the country chalked up only 13 new Covid-19 cases. Health ministry updates were still full of details about how each infected person had been traced to the original source of infection. This brought the number of infected cases to 200. But, hey, half of them had already been discharged and no one had died. Yet.

Worldwide, Singapore was being hailed for its exemplary measures to contain the virus. World Health Organization chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus praised Singapore twice, in February and a month later, for its meticulous contact tracing efforts and the setting up of a multi-ministry task force to fight the virus. To many, it looked like the timing was right for the government to call an election. The fourth generation (4G) leaders who were helming the multi-ministry task force also looked like they were up to the job of seeing the country out of the crisis sooner rather than later.2

In fact, The Straits Times polled various academics early during the outbreak who said that how the 4G would handle this crisis would be a “litmus test” or “baptism of fire”. Dr Mustafa Izzuddin, a senior analyst in international affairs in Solaris Strategies Singapore, said that the handling of the crisis will be a “political appraisal”.3

I thought to myself that the government would be silly not to hold an election now, as Singaporeans were notably gratified by the accolades that were pouring in, including from the usually critical Western media.4 Despite the absence of the more senior ministers, the younger lot showed that they were able to mobilise the agencies, resources and the people needed to deal with the virus.

There was also the impact of the first Budget introduced on 18 February, with an eye-popping $6.4 billion plan to help workers and employers ride out the crisis, announced by Heng Swee Keat, deputy prime minister, finance minister and leader of the 4G members of government. The largesse was way beyond the expectations of any economist. Unprecedented measures to cushion workers and families were announced, with the government paying for a part of workers’ salaries and putting cash directly into the hands of those who had lost their jobs.

If an election had been called then, I doubt that Singapore’s motley opposition crew would have had much of a chance going up against such a strong performance by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP). The PAP government showed its technocratic and organisational competence in mobilisation, and a generosity of heart for people distressed at how their jobs seemed to be vanishing because tourists stayed away and people were told to keep a safe distance from each other. It would be churlish not to vote for the PAP.

Nevertheless, the threat of the virus spreading hadn’t abated and by the time Parliament sat on 25 March to discuss the timing of an election, the outbreak had gotten worse, reaching into hundreds per day in crowded migrant worker dormitories in the following month.5 The government had its hands full securing the safety of thousands of migrant workers and setting up health and safety processes to reduce their mingling in the community.

But work on the elections carried on with the Elections Department instructed to put up guidelines for the conduct of a safe election, under a new Bill introduced in April which authorised temporary arrangements.

The Elections Department recommended that voters under stay-home notices (SHN) be allowed to vote outside of their electoral divisions in special polling stations.6 It also suggested that an aspiring candidate under quarantine order, SHN or medical leave would not have to be present in person during nomination proceedings.7 A representative will be allowed to file the nomination papers on his or her behalf.

The Bill also waived the penalty for voters on quarantine orders, SHN and medical leave due to acute respiratory illnesses, if they choose not to vote in the election. Their names would be restored on the Registers of Electors without a fine.

During the debate on the Bill on 4 May, members of Parliament (MPs) noted that while temporary arrangements were made for those on SHN to vote, no arrangements had been made for those being quarantined. This group of voters cannot leave their places of accommodation to vote because of the Infectious Diseases Act and likewise, those infected with Covid-19. At the time of the debate, the number of citizens of voting age under quarantine orders was said to be fewer than 1,000.8

The government rejected suggestions from MPs—such as postal voting, which was implemented in South Korea’s election on 15 April for Covid-19 patients, and online voting. Minister Chan Chun Sing briefly explained that it was still difficult to prevent impersonation and ensure voting secrecy through online voting.

To reduce the size of crowds on polling day, the Elections Department increased the number of polling stations from 880 to 1,100, allocated time-bands for voters to cast their ballots and offered a way for voters to check the length of queues online. As in GE2015, all seats, totalling 93, were contested this time.

But long queues still formed in some polling stations on polling day on 10 July. The Elections Department apologised twice that day and decided to do away with some requirements, such as getting voters to wear disposable gloves, midway through the day. At about 6.30pm, the returning officer made the unprecedented move of extending polling hours from 8pm to 10pm, leading many opposition parties to cry foul even though the move was legally above board.9

So how many people voted in all? Were people spooked by the prospect of being infected while exercising their rights as citizens? By polling day, 1,280 Singapore citizens and permanent residents (non-imported cases) had been infected with the virus. The health ministry does not provide a breakdown on citizens and PRs. There were 1,130 people quarantined in homes on polling day.

Despite the virus, the total turnout rate inclusive of overseas votes cast was an impressive 95.81 per cent, higher than the 93.56 per cent in GE2015. It was a record turnout since GE1997, which had 95.91 per cent of the electorate voting.

So voters put their faith in the safety procedures after all, even as there were mutterings about “opportunism” on the part of the PAP. Opposition parties, while predictably chafing at the arrangements which restricted access to voters, had been accusing the government of caring less for the health and safety of voters, than getting a favourable vote because of the so-called flight to safety approach that voters would take.

They also had another card to play: by the time the writ was issued on 23 June, over 40,000 foreign workers living in dormitories were infected with the virus. Opposition parties accused the government of mishandling the outbreak by taking its eye off foreign worker dormitories despite being warned by non-governmental organisations that the dormitories could be hotbeds for the virus.

Truth be told, the prime minister appeared to have timed his move carefully. He asked for the writ three days after a relay of six ministers went on prime-time television to talk about tackling various aspects of the virus. For political watchers, it looked like a dress rehearsal for the elections to come. 

The election was called during the second phase of the country’s reopening after the lockdown, known as the circuit breaker. This period allowed small-group social gatherings of up to five people, which is a nice figure for a candidate going on a walkabout with supporters, but ruled out large gatherings such as physical rallies.

I stand with the government on the timing of the election, which had to have been held by April 2021. No one could have predicted a “safe” period to hold the poll. It was a judgement call. It is clear to all now that the virus isn’t about to go away soon. Given that the prime minister has the authority to call for an election, it should be expected that he would do so when it would best suit his own party’s chances.

The conduct of a “safe election” and what transpired on polling day, however, made me wonder if we should have taken more time to think about voters’ rights.

Nobody, for example, asked those infected or quarantined if they wanted to vote. Instead, these citizens were told not to worry about not voting, which is compulsory in Singapore. I am not even convinced that the Elections Department explored other forms of voting for them, sticking instead to the tried-and-tested physical vote. Is it too much to expect that a system be devised for that small unfortunate group of infected or quarantined voters?

Despite the bureaucracy’s much-vaunted administrative, logistical and technocratic abilities, the polling process didn’t go as smoothly as in the past. Extra steps such as temperature screening can be blamed, but polling officers at different stations seemed unable to exercise any sort of initiative to ease the queues or refine procedures. Was this forbidden? Or did it reflect a Singapore system which is dependent on following set rules?

Voters turned up to vote, confident in the promise of safe and efficient polling. But for some, it was a frustrating wait in the queue, if not a frightening one. The sight of the elderly with walking sticks and in wheelchairs, crammed together during the early morning hours, waiting for their turn to vote was both...