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.

YANG MI: I WOULD BE GLAD TO BE LOVED FOR MY MONEY, FOR I HAVE LOTS OF IT

To the non-Chinese speaking world, Yang Mi 杨幂 is not a familiar name.

From her photos, one will be forgiven for mistaking Yang Mi as an airhead who earned her fame and fortune by looks and luck. 

Not so.  Yang Mi is astonishingly accomplished. Her glamourous image belies her professional skills and business capabilities.

Starting out as a child actress, Yang Mi has starred in a string of hit shows that she has become a household name in China. Some of her acting roles include less popular but critically acclaimed shows.

Not only an outstanding actress, Yang Mi is also a successful producer and talent manager.  While in her 20s, she founded a talent agency, Jay Walk Studio 嘉行传媒 which has now become a multi-million dollar entertainment company.  Actors and actresses under her agency have gone on to become huge, famous top-line stars in their own right. Her company has produced several popular shows.

The 35-year-old is now very wealthy, not by windfall, but earned by shrewd decisions, risks taken, untold sacrifice and personal costs.

Last month (May 2022), Yang Mi said something which sparked social media reactions.  At the Chinese variety show, Mao Xue Wang 毛雪汪 (EP16), the host, probing her love-life, asked Yang Mi: Where does security in love come from?  She replied, from oneself.  She went on to add: "If the guy is good to me because of my wealth, I will be delighted with that, because I do have money."  [1]

毛不易: 恋爱中的安全感来自于哪？

杨幂:自身。 甚至就想说，如果他是因为我有钱跟我好的话，我可太开心了，因为我有钱。

What does she mean by that?  Is she bragging about her wealth?

Having accomplished much and become so fabulously rich by her age, Yang Mi is a woman in a league of her own whom few (men) can match.

I'm not surprised she would say such things and think in such a way.

If we put aside her seeming audacious tone, I think you will see that her reasoning is grounded on logic and realism.

People can be disappointing, untrustworthy and also heart-breaking. People and feelings are unreliable.

Money on the other hand, is tangible, sure and dependable. We know exactly what money can do and what money cannot do. Money can buy goods and services, and also loyalty and servitude.  Money cannot buy love, but it can buy lovers.

Men have been saying for decades that diamonds are a girl’s best friend. So why fault a woman for thinking to use her cash to make her man feel king?

I think Yang Mi’s candid words show her personal view that true love is a fairy tale: that one cannot reasonably expect a man to commit and stay just because of love – the guy needs more concrete reasons to stick around. 

Rather than aiming to find a man who would love her for who she is inside of her skin, she will be happy with (to settle for?) someone who is willing to be with her (to put up with her?) in return for a slice of her wealth and the good life that come with it. 

In her worldview, the reachable and realistic aim is for a transactional relationship.  So, if the guy loves her because of her money, she would be very glad, because she has lots of it.

Is there even such a thing as true, unconditional love? Or is true love a wished-for fantasy, non-existent in reality?

Well, I'd like to believe that true love exists - that one can love and commit to another, not caring whether the other is a prince or a pauper, in sickness and in health as the adage goes.

But perhaps true love is not so easy to find.  Many have given up the search.

If there is any truth in the suspicion that true love, though it exists, is elusive to most, even more so to extraordinarily capable and exceptionally successful women like Yang Mi, then one cannot fault such a woman for putting faith in her money, rather than in the heart of her man.

---

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1JveWzD5RU

Ascending The Monument

The Challenge: Climb 311 steps to the top of the tower - or so I thought. 

Standing 62 metres / 203 feet tall, the 'Monument to the Great Fire of London' is a fluted Doric column located in Central London, built between 1671 to 1677.

311 steps? No biggee. I climb the slopes of Bukit Timah Nature Reserve regularly. I paid the entrance fee of £5.80 and proceeded.  (The date was Sunday, 1 May 2022.) 

Little did I know what I had signed myself up for. 

The stairwell was a narrow tube containing a spiral staircase, just wide enough for one other person to brush past you. 

Very soon, I began to feel like I was walking up an endless curl, churning indefinitely. 

How long more to the top? I began to wonder. Instinctively, I looked up: only to see stairs spiralling upwards with no endpoint in sight. Big mistake. Panic rattled the doorknob of my mind, trying to enter. I fought a desire to quit and turn back down. 

I pressed on, but it seemed like I was climbing a forever spiral, walking up ascending circles indefinitely. It was surreal. It felt like I was looping a spiral version of the Penrose stairs. Claustrophobia was now nipping at my heels. 

To escape claustrophobia, I eyed the walls, looking for a window to the sky. Instead, I saw elongated windows like slits in the cylinder walls, so narrow that it was hard to see the outside. Distorted windows that promised but obscured view of the outside, added a sense of desperation. 

I stopped to catch my breath. 

Dotting the spiral column were climbers like me making their way up, even as others were making their way down. The muted din of their chatter was a comforting white noise. I sought to breathe in the air of their enthusiasm. 

A man a few steps below me on the opposite saw my hesitation. He caught my eye and said affirmatively, "You can do it!" His timely encouragement billowed my sails. Spurred, I determined to finish the climb. I had come this far. The only choice was to reach the top. I took a deep breath and then pounded up the remaining steps for the final assault. 

Yes, I did reach the top - winded, dizzy and somewhat daunted. 

I staggered to the parapet to wave to my husband and son who were on the ground looking out for me. 

I felt no joy at topping the tower, but dread that I had to go back into the darn tube to get back to the ground.

To get myself down, I decided to count the 311 steps aloud to myself as I descended. I figured that doing a countdown would give me the mental assurance that the curl will end eventually. That was how I made it through the narrow tube back to the ground without panicking. 

Who knew that the challenge was not about finishing a climb of 311 steps. The real challenge was to complete the journey of travelling up a high, mentally uncomfortable vertical tunnel. It was not a test of physical fitness but of mental fortitude. 

When climbing 10 storeys of a building, you would walk up straight flights of stairs, going one way and then the opposite way, usually wide enough for three people to walk abreast. Not to mention, there will be exit doors at every floor. That is not the case when ascending a 60 metre spiral staircase inside a narrow tube.

Did I enjoy the experience? Nope, it was scary. 

Would I do it again? Absolutely not!

Why the Accused Person Cannot be Named in Some Cases — a Lawyer Explains

Gag orders are for the benefit of victims and witnesses only

It is cardinal that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty. Yet, media reports on crimes regularly name the person accused of the crime, thereby exposing the person to shame even before conviction.  There is no lack of examples where accused persons, who were subsequently proven innocent, nonetheless had their good names dragged through the mud by media coverage in the run-up to being vindicated by acquittal.

In fact, whenever a person is accused of a criminal offence, the principle of Open Justice upholds the public’s right to know why and how.  Open Justice requires the trial of a person accused of a crime to be conducted in the public eye. There is an open invitation to the public to scrutinise the process by which the judge decides the guilt or innocence of the accused person. 

In other words, Open Justice means: "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done." 

Transparency of the legal process promotes public confidence in the outcome of the trial.  With confidence in the administration of justice, aggrieved parties have no reason to take the law into their own hands.  Open Justice promotes trust that the legal system will right the wrongs - that culprits will be brought their just deserts and that justice will be served.

Open Justice is so fundamental that unless the accused person is a minor at the time of the offence, or when gag orders are made, media is free to name accused persons.

For accused persons below 18 years at the time of the offence, statutory provisions ban the publication of their names as well as information that may lead to their identification.  It is an automatic ban.  There is no need to apply to court for gag orders to seal the identifying particulars of such young accused persons.

Gag orders preventing the public from knowing certain pertinent facts of an alleged crime, in fact contradicts the imperatives of Open Justice.  The contradiction is permitted for one reason only - that it is in the interest and for the benefit of victims and witnesses to do so. 

Gag orders on the identity of victims and witnesses serve the important function of protecting and shielding them from the distress of public exposure, thereby enabling them to give their testimony to the Court candidly and without embarrassment or reprisal. For victims of sexual offences, gag orders also minimise further trauma to such victims and prevent re‑victimisation.

Gag orders anonymising the names of victims and witnesses of sexual offences are the norm.  Less common are gag orders on the identity of the person accused of the sexual offence. Sometimes, media reports state the reason the accused persons cannot be named is due to gag orders protecting the victims’ identity.

But sometimes, the media reports do not give the reason for the Court’s decision to hide the identity of the accused person.  The absence of explanation for withholding the accused person’s identity, may give rise to cynicism.  It may appear as if such accused persons have been given the “benefit” of anonymity and spared from the glare of the public eye.  

Were those gag orders made to shield the accused person from shame? To protect the reputation of the organisation the accused person belongs to? The answer is No.

The law is clear: the sole purpose of gag orders is for the benefit of victims and witnesses, never for the accused person nor any other persons or interests. 

No less than our Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon has categorically stated: gag orders "are imposed solely for the protection of victims or witnesses and never for the benefit of accused persons.  This means that the only basis for extending the scope of a gag order to include an accused person's identity is that the disclosure of his identity would likely lead to the identification of the victims or witnesses". (Ref: Chua Yi Jin Colin v PP [2021] SGHC 290)

This means that the only reason to seal the identity of the accused person and any other particulars of the case, is because the Court takes the view that exposing those particulars would expose the identity of the victims and witnesses.

Crimes and the carriage of justice are everybody’s business. Whenever a person is accused of a crime, the public has the right to know all the relevant details about the case.  Information facilitates the public’s effort to understand the context of the alleged crime, why and how it happened. With proper understanding, the public is enabled to follow the course of justice and to appreciate the eventual outcome of the trial.

But if the Court decides that the exposure of certain information is detrimental to the victims and witnesses, then the public’s right to know will be deferred for the sake of the victims and witnesses. 

By Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss, a lawyer practising in Singapore for more than 30 years.

23 February 2022

A Citizen's Right to Return Home

I read with disquiet and appal the account by Charlotte Bellis, a pregnant New Zealand citizen who had been unable to return to her home country. [1]

Her plight is far from unique. Due to the controversial "Managed Isolation and Quarantine" (MIQ) system, tens of thousands of NZ citizens have been unable to get home.  [2]

The MIQ system was implemented by the NZ Government in defence of the covid pandemic. Under the MIQ system, anyone entering New Zealand is required to isolate at an MIQ facility for 10 days. NZ citizens must book and secure MIQ facilities as a pre-condition to get back into their country. 

Unfortunately, the number of NZ citizens wanting to return home far exceeds the very limited quantum of isolation facilities available for booking under the MIQ system. Charlotte Bellis was among the huge numbers of NZ citizens locked out of their own country by their own Government's hand. I can only imagine the anxiety, frustration, despair and hardships that the stringent MIQ system has imposed on NZ citizens.   

Unwanted separation from home and loved ones has become a worldwide symptom of the covid pandemic which has seen all countries barricading their doors, some more tightly than others.  It is harsh when countries close the door on non-citizens.  But things become eerily strange when a country locks out its citizens along with the foreigners. 

Hearing about the desperation of NZ citizens who cannot get home, it struck me that being able to return to one's own home country must surely be a given - a "needless to say" expectation - for any citizen.  I don't know much about NZ's bill of rights, so I have no comment as to whether or how NZ's MIQ system squares with their civil rights laws.

More pertinently, does our Singapore Constitution have anything to say about that?  

I dived into the Singapore Constitution and fished out this clause, to my relief: 

Section 13(1) of the Singapore Constitution states: 

"No citizen of Singapore shall be banished or excluded from Singapore."

 

I am relieved because (unlike some other clauses in the Singapore Constitution relating to civil liberties), this particular clause has no "ifs" and no "buts".  I love it when a statement of a citizen's right is simple and unequivocal.

As a mother of a son studying overseas, I distinctly recall the panic in March 2020 when I scrambled and managed to put my son on an SQ flight back to Singapore as the pandemic took the helm.  At that time, plane loads of Singaporeans flew home to hunker down with their family and loved ones.  Having each other made the ensuing lockdown days bearable and meaningful. 

The unwelcomed pandemic has been overstaying for two years now.  We have had to put up with much constraints to our movements.  As for travelling, that has become a complicated affair with rules shifting and changing constantly.  But Singaporeans who wanted to, have always been able to get home. And so it should be.

Some years ago, I was in plane landing in a foreign country.  As the plane touched down, some passengers broke out in a spontaneous applause.  Let me clarify that the landing was nothing unusual. The plane ride was not bumpy or scary, so the applause couldn’t be expressing relief for landing safely.

Curious, I asked a local why passengers clapped when the plane touched the tarmac.  The local explained that it was the custom for his nationals to applause when their plane touched down, to express their happiness at coming home. I immediately understood.  We all love to travel.  And - needless to say - we also love to come back to home.         

Postscript:  

On 1 February 2022, Charlotte Bellis issued a statement that she had received approval to return to NZ.

On 3 February 2022, the NZ Government announced that from 28 February 2022, NZ would be reopening their border and that the MIQ system, which had been in place since April 2020, would end for all but "high-risk" unvaccinated travellers.[3] 

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss

4 February 2022

---

[1] https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-omicron-charlotte-bellis-an-open-letter-on-miq/U4WQGYTJHUP36AGVOBN3F6PJSE/

[2] https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/300508296/miq-the-dark-shadow-across-new-zealand-that-has-to-lift

[3] https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-omicron-outbreak-nz-reopens-border-from-february-28-most-returnees-can-self-isolate-no-miq/CMUN2XHWHWMD4V5IRLCCWDWVVY/

Taking the Vaccine is now a National Imperative

For the last 18 months, we have been battling an invisible enemy without respite.

In stealth, the enemy travels across borders incognito, hiding in plain sight, stealing a ride into our very midst. 

The troops it marshals for its destructive aims are none other than us ourselves.  It recruits anyone regardless of passport, age or occupation - and whether vaccinated or unvaccinated - to be its unwittingly secret agents, its unwilling accomplices and its involuntary soldiers.  

The invisible enemy defies capture. Instead, it forces us to take captive our innocents, to serve as prisoners-of-war in its stead.  To ringfence the contagion, close contacts of infected persons are identified and sequestered.  I have myself had to serve a mandatory quarantine order.  The isolation was an ordeal.  I never want to do it again nor do I wish it on anyone.

Besides damaging our physical health, the enemy also wreaks havoc by disrupting our economy and damaging our social relations.

The enemy deploys the most effective weapon of destruction tested by all histories of nations: Divide and Conquer.  We are seeing people turning against each other, becoming fragmented shards provoked to blame, name and shame. 

In the struggle to cope with the disruptions and economic fallouts, there is every temptation to cut corners and to steal a march. Some will remain resolute and impassive, but some will falter and fall. Those who have acted irresponsibly must face the consequences, but in our haste to blame others for recklessness, let us not forget who the real culprit is and how devious the culprit is.  For the enemy has up the ante by evolving into something more contagious than before.  

Let's face it – we are at war.  Tough times require tough responses and decisive action.

After 18 months of rolling border closures and lockdowns, our economy is battered and our lives are tattered.  Shutting our gates, hunkering down and remaining isolated, is not sustainable. The enemy is cunning and determined to stick around. 

After 18 months of battle, it is clear that a successful national vaccination programme is the best hope to exit the pandemic.  It is also clear that there is a limit to our endurance. 

No one has guaranteed that vaccines are 100% safe.  But what are the alternatives? What are we up against? Is time on our side? 

For every argument, there will be a counter-argument. For every set of data, there will be a set of alternative data.  There is a time and place for healthy scepticism, reasonable debate and careful evaluation. But there must come a time to make a personal decision – to take up the personal risk of making such a decision – and to take decisive action.

As I see it, taking the vaccine is now a national imperative. Once the nation is well-vaccinated, we can get on the road to restoring what the pandemic has taken away from us.  Helping others will always involve personal risks and detriments. But we need to unite our efforts to save our country, our economy and our future from the destructive effects of the pandemic.

To those who have volunteered to be vaccinated, I say thank you for your sacrifice and the risk you took, for sake of others and for loved ones.

In this pandemic which affects us all, there is a big picture to consider. In the big picture, so long as the nation is insufficiently vaccinated, our borders will never be fully opened, our economy will be hampered, and people's lives and livelihoods will remain in limbo.  

To those eligible for vaccination but are hesitant to take the vaccine, do consider joining the vaccination drive.  In my humble opinion, time is not on our side.

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss