Wednesday, June 21, 2023

ARE THE RIDOUT ROAD RENTALS IN BREACH OF THE MINISTERS’ CODE OF CONDUCT?



A minister must scrupulously avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interests between his office and his private financial interests. This is one of the rules stated in the Code of Conduct for Ministers of  Singapore. 

News that Cabinet Ministers K Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan were living in SLA-managed state-owned colonial mansions sitting on massive land areas, evoked many questions and much indignation from the public. 

Mr Shanmugam being the Law Minister under whose purview the SLA falls, while being a tenant of an SLA-managed state-owned heritage home, is a decidedly red flag.  

Is there a conflict of interests?

On 23 May 2023, PM Lee Hsien Loong issued a press release, announcing the appointment of Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean to review the rental of the two SLA-managed properties to Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan, and establish whether proper processes have been followed, and if there has been any wrongdoing.  PM Lee said that the review had to be done to ensure that the Government maintains the highest standards of integrity.

The decision to constitute the SM Teo review committee may be seen as an acknowledgment that the Ridout Road rentals do not look good and a public explanation was warranted.

A look at Clauses 3.1 and 3.2 the Code of Conduct for Ministers indicates that the Ridout Road rentals by the two ministers may be problematic, perhaps more so for Mr Shanmugam than for Dr Balakrishnan:

“3.1    A Minister must scrupulously avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest between his office and his private financial interests. Such a conflict, or a perception of conflict, can arise -

(a)       from the exercise of powers or influence in a way that benefits or may be seen to benefit private interests held; or

(b)       from using special knowledge acquired in the course of his activities as Minister to bring benefit or to avoid loss (or could arouse reasonable suspicion of this) in relation to his private financial interests.

3.2       A Minister therefore must never enter into any transactions whereby his private financial interest might, even conceivably, come into conflict with his public duty."

The key take-away from Clauses 3.1 and 3.2 is that appearances are very important. 

Apart from actual conflict of interest, a minister must also scrupulously avoid situations of apparent conflict of interest or where there is a perception of conflict.

A perception of conflict could arise from the exercise of powers or influence in a way that may be seen to benefit private interests held. 

It could also arise from using special knowledge acquired in the course of his activities as minister that could arouse reasonable suspicion of bringing benefit or avoiding in relation to his private financial interests.

As for Clause 3.2, the words “might, even conceivably” seem to import the idea that transactions where there is a potential for conflict of interests between private financial interest and public duty should also be avoided.

Fundamentally, a landlord and a tenant are opposing parties to a contract.  A landlord’s interest runs in the opposite direction of a tenant’s interest. Other examples of opposing contractual parties are: buyer and seller; lender and borrower. You get the picture.

By renting a state-owned house, Mr Shanmugam entered into a landlord-and-tenant relationship with the Government.  SLA represents the Government as the landlord. SLA is under the purview of the Ministry of Law. Mr Shanmugam is the Law Minister.  

How does that situation sit with Clauses 3.1 and 3.2?

Special knowledge

A person looking to rent a black-and-white house will access SLA’s website to see what houses are up for public tender.

Other data that house-hunters may want to know, but which SLA does not publish, include:

ü  As to which and when certain vacant houses would be going up for public tender;

ü  The Guide Rent for houses up for tender;

ü  The rentals of tenanted houses (but SLA does publish the results of recent open tenders on their website for a period of time); and

ü  The tenancy expiry date of tenanted houses.

Having information which others do not have, is an actual or potential advantage. 

According to SLA’s statement of 12 May 2023, the Guide Rent for 26 Ridout Road was not disclosed to Mr Shanmugam when he made his bid for it in June 2018. 

As Law Minister, would Mr Shanmugam have access to other SLA data relating to black-and-white properties which other house-hunters do not? 

On 2 August 2022, Mr Shanmugam speaking as the Law Minister, answered parliamentary questions on rental demand for SLA-managed black and white houses.  It was not public knowledge then that Mr Shanmugam was himself a tenant of such a state-owned colonial home since June 2018.  Mr Shanmugam informed:

“SLA currently manages 262 residential State black-and-white bungalows which exceed 20,000 sqft in land area. As of 21 July 2022, 236 of these residential State black-and-white bungalows are tenanted, with a median land size of about 38,000 sq ft and a median rental of about $13,000 per month.”

The information provided by Mr Shanmugam gives the impression that he has access to data relating to SLA’s inventory of tenanted and untenanted black-and-white houses and the rentals which the tenanted houses were fetching. 

Is there an apparent or a perception of conflict of interests of a kind that is not permitted by the Ministers’ Code of Conduct?  I guess this question will be considered by SM Teo’s review committee.

Suffice to say, by renting SLA-managed properties, the two ministers may well have created special challenges for SLA, challenges which SLA would not have had to face had the tenants been anyone else. 

SLA‘s job of managing a property may be split into 3 stages:

1.       finding a tenant;

2.       managing the tenant and the tenancy; and

3.       renewing the tenancy. 

For the first stage, the two ministers went through the transparency of a public tender to become an SLA tenant. If the tender process was rigorous as to be blind to the status of the Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan, then I suppose it is all well and good.

Managing the Tenant and the Tenancy

But after that, the tenant and SLA must face and deal with each other directly for issues relating to the premises. Situations will arise whereby SLA, acting on the landlord’s behalf, will have to exercise discretion to make decisions. 

For example, the tenant may wish to do up the place to suit his living arrangement; or the landlord must do some fixing up to fulfil its responsibilities.  The tenant and SLA on the landlord’s behalf would have to discuss matters such as: what sort of works may be done, when the works are to be carried out, the length of time to complete the works; as who bears the costs for what items; and so forth.

So that the minster-tenants would not be seen as “taking advantage” of their status, SLA would have to ensure that in exercising their discretion and when making decisions, they treat the minister-tenants no more favourably than other tenants i.e. take pains to show no favouritism.  Thus, there would be an extra layer of vigilance and diligence that SLA would not have had to take on had the tenants been anyone but ministers. 

According to URA records, applications were made for certain works to be carried out at both Ridout Road houses after the tenancies had commenced:

-   Mr Shanmugam’s tenancy commenced in June 2018. On 17 September 2018, URA received an application from SLA to carry out the following works at 26 Ridout Road: "Proposed additions and alterations involving a new open sided carpark shelter to the existing 2-storey conservation detached dwelling house".

-    Mr Shanmugam renewed his tenancy in June 2021 for another 3 years.  On 13 October 2022, URA received an application from SLA to carry out the following works at 26 Ridout Road: "Proposed restoration and replacement of existing doors and windows to conserved detached house"

-      Dr Balakrishnan's tenancy commenced in October 2019 and was renewed in October 2021. On 16 July 2021, URA received an application from a company to carry out at 31 Ridout Road: "Proposed retention of temporary addition & alteration works to existing 2-storey conservation bungalow".

There would almost certainly have been discussions, negotiations and agreement between the tenant and landlord on the proposed works before application was made to carry out those works. 

Given that the tenant in both cases were ministers, and one of whom was also the Law Minister, did SLA have protocols in place to ensure that the minister-tenants were dealt with at arm’s length, with no deference being granted to the tenants by virtue of their public office?

Would SLA tenant-management processes for the Ridout Road rentals be one of the things that SM Teo’s review will check?

Renewal of Tenancies

Both ministers obtained their initial tenancies through a public tender. But renewal of tenancy is a matter to be negotiated between the incumbent tenant and the landlord, as shown by SLA’s specimen Tenancy Agreement, which provides:

“If the Tenant wishes to have a tenancy of the Premises (in whole and not in part) for a further term, the Tenant shall serve a written request on the Landlord not less than three (3) months, and not more than six (6) months before the end of the Term, and the Landlord may, at its sole discretion, agree to grant the Tenant a tenancy for such further term from the end of the Term, at such rent and on such terms and conditions to be agreed between the Parties.”

Both ministers renewed their tenancies upon expiry.  Given that the tenants were ministers, and one of whom was also the Law Minister, did SLA have protocols in place to ensure that negotiations for renewal were conducted at arm’s length and that the terms and conditions of the renewed tenancy agreement were no sweeter to the minister-tenant than for any other tenant?

Would SLA’s tenancy renewal process for the Ridout Road rentals be one of the things that SM Teo’s review will check?

Misgivings with SM Teo being appointed to head the review.

The ministerial review is certainly welcomed. But the decision to appoint SM Teo to head the review has left a lot to be desired.

The irony is not lost on the public that SM Teo is a fellow cabinet minister and long-time colleague of the two ministers whose actions are the subject of SM Teo’s review.

Since 1 November 2010, SM Teo and Mr Shanmugam have taken turns to sit as Home Affairs Minister:

-      Mr Shanmugam from 1 November 2010 to 20 May 2011

-      SM Teo from 21 May 2011 to 30 September 2015

-      Mr Shanmugam from 1 October 2015 to date

The public wants an independent review.  Can SM Teo’s review can be described as such?

We will never know why PM Lee did not decide to appoint a current or retired judge or civil servant, or any other non-political, non-partisan but capable person, to head the review.  A review headed by any such person would have been undoubtedly considered as an independent review.

Anyway, a review is better than no review.  We shall have to trust SM Teo and his team to measure the conduct of SLA and that of the two ministers, with a fair and objective yardstick.

By the way, SM Teo’s review seems to be confined to Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan, presumably because they were the two ministers cited by Kenneth Jeyaretnam in his blogposts.

But what of the bigger question: Are there any other ministers who are or may have rented SLA-managed properties? 

If there are, then such minsters should also come under SM Teo’s review.  It would seem unfair to Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan if such other ministers were exempted from review. 

SM Teo should poll all ministers to ascertain whether there are other ministers who are or have been tenants of SLA-managed state-owned properties.

If there are not, then chronologically, Mr Shanmugam is the first minister ever to do so in June 2018, followed by Dr Balakrishnan.

PR Fiasco or Wrongdoing?

Let’s review what has happened so far:

-     There has been rife public speculation and disquiet on the propriety of the Ridout Road rentals.

-      SLA has come out to make a public statement, in effect defending the Ridout Road rentals by the two ministers.

-   A review committee has been set up to scrutinise the rental processes and to check for wrongdoing, with the aim of defending the Government’s integrity.

-      Two sets of public officers would have been deployed: one set to give the detailed explanation of what transpired and the other set to study the explanation given by the first set. 

-      Precious parliamentarian time will be spent to debate the findings of the review committee. 

At this point in time, the decisions by the two ministers to rent the Ridout Road properties in the first place, look like bad calls.

All the ruckus would have been spared had the two ministers not rented SLA-managed state-owned houses.

More serious is the question whether the ministers took advantage of their positions to obtain personal benefits from the Government, while others stood in line.

Ugly optics are a public relations fiasco. But conflicts of interests can send someone out of office.

-      Is the public indignation merely a PR fiasco?

-      By expressing its dismay, is the crowd signalling its detection of impropriety?

-      On this, is the wisdom of the crowd right on the mark?

In due course, PM Teo will conclude his review and Parliament will debate on it come July 2023. 

If at the end of the day, Mr Shanmugam’s and Dr Balakrishnan’s rentals are vindicated, their vindication will serve to clarify that the Ministers’ Code of Conduct does not operate to prevent ministers from renting SLA-managed state-owned properties in the same way that the two ministers had done. 

This would mean that regardless of any negative sentiment the public may have, there would be no legitimate ground for complaint when the next minister follows suit.   

By Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss

 

SLA STATEMENT ON RIDOUT ROAD RENTALS RAISES MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS

 


Until Kenneth Jeyaretnam started writing about it on his blog on 6 May 2023, few knew that Cabinet Ministers K Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan were living in state-owned black-and-white houses at Ridout Road.      

Built in colonial times, black-and-white houses are architecturally unique and often sit on large pieces of land.  In Singapore, such heritage homes are highly coveted places of residence.  About 500 black-and-white houses remain today, the vast majority of them are state-owned and managed by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), a statutory board under the Ministry of Law. Such state-owned properties are only available for rent by public tender.

The optics of ministers living in state-owned colonial mansions surrounded by massive land while most Singaporeans squeeze themselves into pint-size flats in land-scarce Singapore, make an unpretty picture.

Not surprisingly, the Ridout Road news drew many questions and much indignation from the public. 

In response to rife public speculation and interest in the Ridout Road rentals by the two ministers, SLA issued a media statement on 12 May 2023.  The information provided by SLA raised more questions than answers.

Here are 6 facts revealed by the SLA statement and the questions that struck me when I considered each of those facts.

Fact 1:   26 and 31 Ridout Road had been vacant for more than 4 years and more than 6 years respectively, before they were tenanted.

- Why were those properties vacant for years?  

- Were they left vacant by decision or due to inability to find suitable tenants?

- If they were vacant by decision, why were they kept vacant? 

- When did the policy to keep them vacant change to getting them tenanted?

- If they were vacant for those years due to inability to find a suitable tenant, what were the efforts made over the years to attract tenants?

As far as I know, landlords hate vacant periods. Having an untenanted property is like keeping your cash savings in a non-interest-bearing current account.  Also, maintenance costs will continue to run, even for vacant properties.  Other than wealthy landlords who can afford to be indifferent, most landlords would assiduously avoid vacant periods and do whatever needs to be done to ensure that their property is at all times tenanted and therefore income-producing.

In land-hungry Singapore, a huge dollar figure can be put to describe the rental income forgone by leaving a piece of real estate – more so one in a prime location - vacant for a year, let alone 4 to 6 years. Idle state land resources represent an opportunity cost not only in terms of lost Government revenue, but also the loss of social benefits had the land been employed for public use.  

Here, we are talking about state-owned assets managed by SLA, an organ of the state carrying the burden of optimising the use of state properties, either for social benefit or to earn income for Government coffers.

An explanation should be given to the public as to why those two extremely large pieces of state-owned properties located in a prime area were vacant for years.

 

Fact 2: The 2018 public tender for 26 Ridout Road only garnered one bid.

What were the actions taken by SLA to publicise, promote and market 26 Ridout Road to attract potential bidders for the 2018 tender?

- Was the 2018 tender the first and only time since December 2013 that 26 Ridout Road was put out for bidding?

- If not, how many unsuccessful tenders were conducted before 2018?

- Were the terms and conditions of the bidding or the tenancy applied for the 2018 tender similar or different to those in the tender for other black and white houses?

- If different, what were those differences from the usual terms and conditions?

The response to the tender for 26 Ridout Road in 2018 was poor, attracting only one bid. 

Black and white houses are supposed to be highly sought-after. One would expect many to be interested to rent a black and white house, subject to being able to afford the rent.

If the Guide Rent is unknown to bidders, what is to stop an optimistic house-hunter from making a “try-luck” offer?

To make a bid, the bidder must fork out a bidding deposit which is the amount of his bid rent per month.  But his bidding deposit will be returned to him if his bid is unsuccessful. The bidder will not lose any money by making a try-luck offer.  Yet, the 2018 tender for 26 Ridout Road did not even attract any try-luck bids.

Was the poor response due to Insufficient publicity? To rule out insufficient publicity effort as the cause for the poor response, SLA should release details of the actions taken to publicise, promote and market 26 Ridout Road to attract potential bidders back then.

Were potential bidders put off by onerous terms and conditions? To rule out onerous terms and conditions as the cause for the poor response, SLA should release the bidding terms and conditions and the specimen tenancy agreement applied for the 2018 tender of 26 Ridout Road, for comparison with the bidding and tenancy terms and conditions for other black and white houses.

Were potential bidders put off by the state and condition of the house?  If the property has a Guide Rent, then it must be in a lettable condition.  At the minimum, the roof and structure of the house should be sound and in good condition, have water and electrical supply and a sewage system. 

I cannot believe that SLA would release 26 Ridout Road for rent if the roof was about to fall and if was too dilapidated to be fit for habitation. It would be unconscionable for anyone to palm off an unliveable place for rent.

Anyway, if spending some money to fix up the property will enable you to get it tenanted, then he would be a very silly landlord to not spend the money to fix up the property.

Of course, if it is going to cost a fortune to render a monster-infested property fit for human habitation, then I say nuke the place and turn it into a public park for joggers, strollers and lovers to haunt.  But don’t leave it vacant and idle.

All said, the poor response to the 2018 tender for 26 Ridout Road needs an explanation and I hope we get one.

Fact 3: The bid for 26 Ridout Road was won by the Law Minister as the sole bidder.

Besides only attracting one bid, the sole bidder who placed a bid above the Guide Rent (which was not disclosed to him), was the Law Minister himself.

A person looking to rent a black-and-white house will access SLA’s website to see what houses are up for public tender.

Other data that house-hunters may want to know, but which SLA does not publish, include:

ü  As to which or when certain vacant houses would be going up for public tender;

ü  The Guide Rent for houses up for tender;

ü  The rentals of tenanted houses (but SLA does publish the results of recent open tenders on their website for a period of time); and

ü  The tenancy expiry date of tenanted houses.

On 2 August 2022, Mr Shanmugam speaking as the Law Minister, answered parliamentary questions on rental demand for SLA-managed black and white houses.  SLA is under the Ministry of Law. He informed:

“SLA currently manages 262 residential State black-and-white bungalows which exceed 20,000 sq ft in land area. As of 21 July 2022, 236 of these residential State black-and-white bungalows are tenanted, with a median land size of about 38,000 sq ft and a median rental of about $13,000 per month.”

The information given by Mr Shanmugam gives the impression that he has access to data relating to SLA’s inventory of tenanted and untenanted black-and-white houses and the rentals which the tenanted houses were fetching. 

- When SLA decided that 26 Ridout Road would be released for public tender, did Mr Shanmugam, being the Law Minister, have access to that SLA decision, ahead of it becoming public knowledge?

- Or did Mr Shanmugam, despite being the Law Minister, find out about the tender of 26 Ridout Road by checking the SLA website like anyone else, so that he knew about it no sooner than the public did?

- If Mr Shanmugam, being the Law Minister, did have access to information that SLA would be putting 26 Ridout Road up for public tender, ahead of it becoming public knowledge, does it matter?


Fact 4: Mr Shanmugam made his offer for 26 Ridout Road through an agent.

- What does making an offer through an agent mean? 

- Does making an offer through an agent mean that the agent signed the bidding form in his own personal name, without disclosing the name of Mr Shanmugam as the prospective tenant and without making it known to SLA that he was acting as an agent on behalf of Mr Shanmugam? 

- Why didn’t or couldn’t Mr Shanmugam make the offer himself without going through an agent?

I picked up a “Bidding Form for State Property” at random from the SLA website. The Bidding Form I saw requires the bidder to provide his personal particulars, including his monthly income. He must also be the person signing the tenancy agreement as “tenant” if his bid is successful.

Clause 1.4 of the Bidding Form states: “The State Property shall be used solely for residential purpose by the successful bidder personally and his family”.

Clause 5.4 of the Bidding Form states: “The successful bidder shall not be entitled to transfer his right to rent.” 

This means that agents cannot bid on behalf of undisclosed persons. 

We do not know if a different type of bidding form applied to the tender that Mr Shanmugam went through in 2018.  SLA should release a copy of the bidding form used in that 2018 tender. 

If the bidding form used in that 2018 tender was the same as the Bidding Form I saw at SLA website, then Mr Shanmugam could not have made an offer for the property anonymously.  SLA would have been fully aware during the bid evaluation, that Mr Shanmugam was the prospective tenant.

 

Fact 5:   Mr Shanmugam notified a senior Cabinet colleague that he was making a bid for 26 Ridout Road.

 - Why did Mr Shanmugam notify a senior Cabinet colleague that he was making a bid for the property?

-   Did Mr Shanmugam do this for the sake of transparency?

If transparency was Mr Shanmugam’s aim, then why didn’t he give formal notice to the Cabinet instead of telling one Cabinet colleague?

-  Who was the senior Cabinet colleague Mr Shanmugam notified?

Why did Mr Shanmugam choose that particular colleague instead of any other colleague?

-  Did Mr Shanmugam inform the said senior Cabinet colleague verbally or in writing?

Since the SLA media statement mentioned that Mr Shanmugam had notified a senior Cabinet colleague that he was making a bid for 26 Ridout Road, it suggests that SLA has seen a copy of the notice given by Mr Shanmugam.  In which case, I hope SLA or Mr Shanmugam would release the copy to the public. That would answer a lot of questions.

 

Fact 6: Dr Vivian’s tenancy of 31 Ridout Road commenced 11 months after he had bid for it.

Dr Vivian made his bid in November 2018, but his tenancy only commenced on October 2019, 11 months after he made the bid for it.

31 Ridout Road being released for public tender would mean that it was ready to let. If so, the tenancy should commence immediately, to minimise the void period.

According to the Clause 5.6 of the Bidding Form I saw on SLA website:

"The tenancy shall be for a term of 2 years commencing within twenty-one (21) calendar days from the date of the Letter of Acceptance.”

Hence, the tenancy should commence immediately after the bid is awarded.

Yet, Dr Vivian’s tenancy did not commence immediately, but 11 months later.

- Why did Dr Vivian’s tenancy not commence immediately, but 11 months later?

- Was deferred commencement date imposed by SLA or requested by Dr Vivian?

-  If it was imposed by SLA, what was the reason for imposing such an unusual condition for 31 Ridout Road? 

- If it was Dr Vivian who requested for the deferred commencement date, why did SLA agreed to such an unusual condition for 31 Ridout Road, given that there were other bidders apart from Dr Vivian?

- If it was Dr Vivian who requested for the deferred commencement date which SLA agreed, then how was the loss of rental income during the additional void period accounted for?

SLA ended their media statement with a promise to release more details in July 2023.  I will wait till then for the answers to my questions.

 Jeannette Chong Aruldoss

Thursday, March 9, 2023

Going behind the quirky must-do of the oath of secrecy in Singaporean elections

 

1955 Legislative Assembly Election
Source: ELD | Milestones

Guaranteeing secrecy of your vote is an imperative for free and fair elections. 

Towards this end, for general and presidential elections, Singapore’s Elections Department (ELD) requires all authorised personnel to make an Oath of Secrecy before they are permitted to enter a polling or counting station to carry out their roles. 

If you had taken part at the last general election as a polling or counting agent for a candidate, you would have had to appear before a Commissioner for Oaths to sign your signature on a printed form captioned “Form of Oath of Secrecy (Form 18)” containing the sentence: 

"I, the abovenamed person, swear that I will not at this election in the abovementioned Electoral Division do anything forbidden by section 56 of the Parliamentary Elections Act which has been read to me."  

With the following footnote:

"Section 56 of the Parliamentary Elections Act (printed overleaf) must be read to the person taking the Oath. No stamp fee is required." 

GE2020 Form 18

If you notice, Form 18 has a very odd stipulation that Section 56 of the Parliamentary Elections Act must be read to the person taking the Oath, before the person swears and signs Form 18.  This directive is not just odd, but also onerous, because Section 56 is 500 words long. I don’t want to lengthen this essay by 500 words, so let me show a picture of Section 56 instead. 

 

Section 56, Parliamentary Elections Act, Cap. 218


Imagine the tedium of reading out Section 56 and the tedium of hearing a recitation of it. I can read Section 56 myself, but I am legally obliged to let someone read it to me. 

The last three general elections were more hotly contested than before.  General Election 2011 saw the highest number of seats contested since post-independence, with 82 of 87 seats (or 94.3%) contested. At General Elections 2015 and 2020, all seats were contested.  Walkovers are now a thing of the past. 

At each of the last three general elections, vast numbers of officers and agents had to be recruited by ELD and candidates to serve at polling and counting stations. All these personnel would have had to produce a signed Form 18 in order to gain admission into polling or counting stations to carry out their roles. 

I was a candidate at General Elections 2011 and 2015. Each time, I had to recruit about 50 volunteers to serve as my polling and counting agents at the Single Member Constituency where I contested.  All 50 polling and counting agents including myself as candidate, had to make the Form 18 Oath. 

I did not contest at General Election 2020, but was among the many Commissioners for Oaths who administered Form 18 for candidates, polling agents and counting agents. General Election 2020 had 1,097 polling stations. There are plans to increase the number of polling stations in the next general election. [Ref: Written reply PQ2503 of Notice Paper No. 1586 of 2022] 

At the general elections that I have been involved in, it was each time an enormous logistical effort to arrange for the Oath of Secrecy to be taken by those required to make it. That Section 56 must be read to the declarant, was an added load on the effort.   

Once upon a time, I read bedtime stories to my children. That was when they were too young to read for themselves.     

In this day and age, surely declarants can read Section 56 for themselves. If they are not clear what Section 56 means, they should exercise personal responsibility to seek clarification, before making the Oath. 

If the declarant is illiterate or cannot understand English, then reading out Section 56 to such a declarant is pointless. 

It has always bugged me why Section 56 must be read out to the declarant.  Recently, I decided to dig out the origins of the Oath of Secrecy.  My journey back in time bore fascinating fruit. 

The first time Singapore held a general election was on 20 March 1948. 

At that time, Singapore was a British Colony.  The British Colonial Government decided to hold the 1948 general election to let the people of Singapore elect 6 out of the 22 seats in the Legislative Council, with officials and appointed members holding the other 16 seats.  

In preparation for Singapore’s first ever election, the British Colonial Government enacted the Singapore Legislative Council Ordinance, 1947 and set up the Elections Office under the Colonial Secretary's Office.  

It was publicly declared that the Elections Office was "non-partisan and completely colourless and was only concerned with ensuring that every eligible voter had an equal chance to vote. It was completely without party affiliations of any kind and the ballot would be secret, as in any democratic country."  (The Straits Times, 14 October 1947) 

The 1947 Ordinance morphed into the Singapore Parliamentary Elections Act, 1954.  The Elections Office under the Colonial Secretary's Office is now the ELD under the Prime Minister’s Office.  

Ploughing through the ancient 1947 Ordinance, I was jubilant to find the mother of Section 56 and Form 18 within its yellow leaves. 

Entombed in the 1947 Ordinance was the edict that all officers, agents and other authorised personnel had to make an Oath of Secrecy before they could attend at a polling station or at the counting of votes. 

The Oath of Secrecy prescribed by the 1947 Ordinance was as follows:

"I swear that I will not at this election for the ____________________ electoral district do anything forbidden by section 51 of the Singapore Legislative Council Elections Ordinance, 1947, which has been read to me." 

The form had the following footnote:

"The section must be read to the declarant by the person taking the declaration." 

1947 Form of Oath of Secrecy


Ah ha - that is where the words “which has been read to me” and “must be read to …” came from! 

The Singapore Parliamentary Elections Act, 1954 has endured numerous amendments. But its Form 18 remains substantially the same as the Form of Oath of Secrecy incepted by the 1947 Ordinance. 

The words "which has been read to me" in the Form 18 Oath statement and the words "must be read to …” in its footnote, have been carried forward in successive iterations of Form 18 since 1947 to the present day, without questioning if the requirement and the wording continues to be suitable in today's context. 

Perhaps the author of yore intended the words “must be read to the declarant” to be taken literally.  More importantly, those words conveyed the message that the declarant must understand the do’s and don’ts as prescribed by the relevant section, before he makes the Oath of Secrecy. 

Whatever might have been the good reason for requiring the whole section to be read out to the declarant back in 1947, such a requirement is no longer meaningful in today’s context. 

The requirement that Section 56 must be read to the declarant, is an anachronism. 

Feeling brave after having done the research, I decided to write to ELD to propose that Form 18 for general elections as well as its counterpart, Form P13 for presidential elections, be updated. 

I wrote up a long letter to ELD.  I explained how it was onerous and not meaningful to read out 500 words of legal prose to each declarant. Instead, the form should have the declarant declare that he/she has read and understood the relevant Section. This puts the onus on the declarant to seek a proper understanding of the relevant Section, before making the Oath of Secrecy. 

I proposed that for both Form 18 and Form P13, the words "which has been read to me" in the Oath statement be changed to "which I have read and understood"; and that the footnote be removed for both Forms. 

If adopted, the revised Oath statement for Form 18 would be:

"I, the abovenamed person, swear that I will not at this election in the abovementioned Electoral Division do anything forbidden by section 56 of the Parliamentary Elections Act 1954, which I have read and understood."  

And the revised Oath statement for Form P13 would be:

"I, the abovenamed person, swear that I will not at this election do anything forbidden by section 36 of the Presidential Elections Act, which I have read and understood." 

Not having to read 500 words of legal prose out to each declarant will help alleviate the massive effort required to carry out the oath taking process during a general or presidential election. 

I sent my lengthy letter to ELD on 21 Feb 2023 at 12:59 pm.  

You won’t believe it - ELD replied to me the very same day at 5:14 pm:

 

21 February 2023 5:14 pm

Dear Mrs Chong-Aruldoss

Thank you for your feedback submitted on 21 Feb 2023.

We will take your suggestion into consideration when we next review the forms. Regards 

ELD reply on same day

The speed at which ELD replied to me, was pretty impressive.
 

I hope ELD would take up my suggested changes to Forms 18 and P13 before the next general or presidential election. 

The next general election must be held by 23 November 2025, so perhaps the next general election is not imminent. 

However, the next presidential election is due to be held by 13 September 2023. If contested, the huge exercise of getting Form P13 signed for everyone required to do it, will be repeated. 

Presidential Election 2011 was contested by an unprecedented four candidates.  There were a huge number of officers and agents seeking to sign Form P13 at Presidential Election 2011. 

Presidential Election 2017 was uncontested. With no polls, Form P13 was unused. 

If Presidential Election 2023 is again uncontested, then as before, there would be no polls and Form P13 would remain unused.  In which case, my misgivings with Form P13, would have no practical relevance. 

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss