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

The Curious Case of Phillip George Sceats

I bet you didn't know that in 2018, an innocent Australian holiday-maker was arrested at Changi Airport and charged with trafficking an amount of cocaine punishable by death. 64-year-old Sydney businessman, Philip George Sceats languished in Changi Prison for the next 353 days, under the pall of the capital charge.

 

Then one day, as unexpectedly as he had been arrested, he was taken from his cell to court where he was discharged of the capital charge and told to leave Singapore within 24 hours. 

 

Sceats’ arrest in Singapore on 7 March 2018 and his release from prison on 23 February 2019 was never reported by any media at the time.

 

It was only revealed when his story was picked up by Australian journalist Natalie O’Brien and published by News Corp Australia on 18 October 2020.

 

O’Brien wrote that Sceats’ wealthy Sydney family had booked a holiday in Langkawi for him and his wife, to celebrate his 64^th birthday.  Sceats was to fly from Sydney to Singapore, where he would wait for six hours to catch his connecting flight to Langkawi.  His wife who was in Hong Kong for business, would meet him in Langkawi. His family also booked him an airport hotel room for him to rest before his flight to Langkawi.

 

In the early hours of 7 March 2018, Sceats arrived at Changi Airport. Just as his passport was stamped by Singapore immigration, he heard police officers calling out his name. The police officers then escorted him to the luggage carousel to pick out his suitcase.

 

When his suitcase was opened in their presence, two packets of white powdery substance secured by masking tape were found inside the suitcase.

 

Sceats had no idea how those packets got into his suitcase.  The shocked and bewildered Australian was immediately handcuffed and conveyed to Changi Prison.

 

Meanwhile, the Singapore police had the two packets of white powder, which weighed about 90 grams in total, lab-tested.  They were found to contain 39.4 grams of cocaine.

 

Under Singapore law, anyone found in possession of more than three grammes of cocaine is presumed to have had that drug in possession for the purpose of trafficking unless it is proved that his or her possession of that drug was not for that purpose.

 

The penalty for trafficking more than 30 grammes of cocaine is death.

 

On 10 March 2018, the third day of his incarceration at Changi Prison, Sceats was formally charged with the capital charge of trafficking 39.4 grams of cocaine.

 

Facing the spectre of the hangman’s noose, Sceats’ plight could not be more dire. Fortunately for him, his family had the means, influence and determination to save his life. They engaged a well-known Singapore criminal lawyer to defend him against the capital charge. They also hired a team of high-credentialed private investigators and consultants to find evidence that would convince the Singapore authorities that he was innocent of the charge and that he had been set up by persons unknown.  Sceats’ high-powered team included former high-ranking police officers from three different Australian states.

 

The team took stock of the many things in Sceats’ case that did not add up. 

 

According to O’Brien, the street value in Sydney for the amount of cocaine found in Sceats’ suitcase was AUD $27,000 to AUD $30,000, but it was worth less than half of that in Singapore and Malaysia. There was no money to be made from smuggling cocaine from Australia to Singapore, so it was bizarre for anyone to attempt to do so.

 

Also, Sceats was not searched before he boarded his flight at Sydney. But by the time he arrived at Changi Airport, Singapore police officers were waiting for him. They knew his name and his arrival details. This meant that the Singaporean authorities had been tipped-off by someone after Sceats' flight left Sydney and before it arrived in Singapore.

 

After working on Sceats’ case for several months, his team of private investigators produced a thick file of evidence and documents. Sceats’ Singapore lawyer furnished the dossier to the Attorney-General Chambers, urging that his client was nothing more than an innocent holiday-maker who had been set-up.

 

On 23 February 2019, not knowing what to expect, Sceats was brought to Court. That day, a judge granted him a Discharge Not Amounting to an Acquittal.  Freed at last from his ordeal, Sceats returned to Australia.

 

While telling Sceats’ story, O’Brien’s article also related Sceats’ experience as a prisoner in Changi Prison. However, Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had things to say about Sceats’ account of his time at Changi Prison.  It was MHA’s beef with Sceats’ depiction of local prison conditions that finally earned him a spot in The Straits Times.

 

On 3 November 2020, Straits Times published an article "MHA refutes Aussie's claims relating to time in remand here" which gave MHA’s rebuttals to Sceats’ account.  O’Brien’s article had stated:

 

1.       Sceats was held in death row.

MHA clarified that Sceats "was never housed together with inmates on death row" but in a separate area meant for remanded persons at Changi Prison. 

 

2.       Sceats said: “We were allowed out for 20 minutes at a time."

MHA clarified that Sceats was given an hour of "out-of-cell" time, along with all other inmates in remand.

 

3.       Sceats said "Guards come past your cell every hour. They don’t turn the lights out when you are on the death penalty."

MHA clarified that the cells for those in remand are fitted with lights that are scheduled to automatically switch off at night.

 

4.    Sceats said "It was very strict regime in there. If you do something wrong they give you the cane on the bare bum.  They say it is like sitting on a barbecue."

MHA clarified that inmates are only caned for serious offences, such as aggravated or repeated assault on another inmate, or assaulting a prison officer. This punishment is reviewed by an independent committee and is confirmed by the Commissioner of Prisons before it is carried out.

 

5.       Sceats said "I think 14 guys were executed while I was there."

 

Of all the details that Sceats had told O’Brien about his time at Changi Prison, this was the most chilling.

 

But MHA gave no rebuttal to that claim.

 

Was Sceats exaggerating? Sceats was in prison from 7 March 2018 to 23 February 2019. I looked up the 2018 and 2019 Annual Reports published by Singapore Prison Service. In 2018, there were 13 judicial executions.  In 2019, there were 4 judicial executions.

 

Sceats was about right when he said he reckoned 14 hangings were carried out during his time at Changi Prison. No wonder MHA said nothing about that.

 

While our national broadsheet’s coverage of Sceats’ story centred on explaining MHA’s rebuttals, Sceats’ story is not about prison conditions in Singapore. 

 

Sceats’ story is a cautionary tale of a holiday-maker who was arrested on arrival in Singapore and imprisoned for almost a year at Changi Prison on a capital charge; and how it took almost a year, during which strenuous efforts were made on his behalf, before his nightmare in Singapore ended.

 

Singapore may have closed its file on Sceats, but there is no closure for Sceats.

 

How did the Singapore Police come to know Sceats’ name and arrival details?

Who told Singapore Police Sceats' name and arrival details?

 

Sceats’ team wrote to both the Singapore and Australian authorities to find out, but no satisfactory answers have been obtained.

 

"I would give anything to know what really happened," Sceats had told O’Brien.

 

As for the rest of us, Sceats’ case raises several troubling questions.

 

Was the dossier prepared by Sceats’ team of private investigators instrumental in securing his freedom?

 

Could the Spore authorities have, on their own accord, eventually arrived at the conclusion that they had caught and imprisoned an innocent man?

 

If Sceats did not have the means and resources to obtain the best available expert help, would he have made it to freedom?

 

Villains had opened his suitcase, planted the contraband substance inside it, contacted the Singapore police and provided them with Sceats’ name and arrival details. Could what happened to Sceats, happen to anyone?

 

Perhaps Sceats’ profile and circumstances as a 64-year-old wealthy Australian businessman worked to make him an unlikely cocaine smuggler. 

 

If the next unlucky person to be framed by villains is one without means nor favourable profile – what would be his chances of escaping the hangman's noose?

 

Indeed, Sceats’ case is very curious, and also disturbing.