The controversy began after the government allowed some Singaporeans living in five major cities to vote in the coming elections provided they meet certain conditions.

Exception will be granted to those who are on official duty or on scholarship.

To qualify, the others must have spent an aggregate of two years in Singapore in the last five years. The cities are Beijing, Canberra, Hong Kong, London and Washington.

The exercise is a concession of sorts. For years, the government had not acted on calls to make arrangements in its foreign missions to allow its citizens to vote.

Many liberals are, however, still unhappy that the tech-savvy government is unable--or unwilling--to let everyone exercise his right to vote.

But, replied Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng, voting is not a right in Singapore but a privilege. His comment shocked and angered many Singaporeans.

Chua Beng Huat wrote to the press to say he had always believed that it was his right as a citizen to vote. "Privilege" was something conferred by superiors on subordinates, he said.

"It is my understanding that it is the people who confer the privilege to govern on the political leaders," he added.

Another unhappy reader remarked: "We have enough for the world to joke about like the ban on chewing gum, flushing toilet fines, urine detectors in lifts, anti-nudity at home law, etc.

"Don't add another to this list: Singaporeans are privileged to vote from now on!"

Constitutionally, the minister is right. It grants a number of rights, including religion, freedom of assembly and the right of association with certain qualifications.

But nowhere does it confer on the people the right to vote. Confirming this, constitutional lawyer Kevin Tan said if it had, there would now be a lot of litigation by overseas citizens suing the government.

Yet every citizen has a right to vote every five years. "That is a moral right that comes with citizenship," he said.

The government rarely dwells on semantics over theoretical issues, considering such debate a waste of time. Then why is it doing it this time?

Why should Singaporeans lose their right to vote just because they are abroad?

Some cynics say the ruling party doesn't want it because of the fear that most of these votes will go to the Opposition.

A better solution is for the vote to be made a constitutional right but subject to a stricter registration to keep out people who have emigrated.

No country allows 100 percent registration. Existing laws already forbid a person who has a criminal record, an unsound mind or taking up citizenship in another country to vote.

The official excuse for not letting citizens abroad to vote is a practical one. Singaporeans are scattered all over the globe, many living away from diplomatic missions.

In the past when the number of globetrotting Singaporeans was small, the thought about giving them the vote did not arise. But as the number grew to 100,000, the government was pressed to do something about it.

For most of them, it is a straight issue. Whether students or workers, they return home after a certain period, ranging from three to six years. Many go home for brief vacations in-between.

At any rate, they have a home or a fixed address, a family, a bank account or Central Provident Fund (CPF) account.

Those who operate businesses overseas return home more frequently.

A minority, however, have left Singapore for many years with no intention of returning, obtained foreign permanent residence but kept their Singapore passport and citizenship for safety.

For 21st Century Singapore, which is threatened by ill-effects of transmigration, control of voting through registration is better than declaring the vote a privilege.

The vast majority are likely to support the government if it lays down rules for registering overseas voters by defining who can or cannot vote.

In other words, there is a lot to gain by making the vote a constitutional right--and strengthening rules to prevent emigrants or would-be emigrants from registering as voters.

Singapore is forming a civil society, an open government with fewer regulations. Young, better-educated Singaporeans may react adversely to government reference to "privileges" rather than "rights."

Just like voting, the passport is also described as a "privilege" item given by the government, not a right. That again is poorly received.

Another is the foreign media. Again, its presence in Singapore is also a privilege. This is unnecessary.

Twenty years ago, yes. But in today's interlinked world, the presence of foreign media has become a "right."

They have a duty to report in the republic (not influencing local politics, though) because of Singapore's high degree of globalisation.

More and more foreign corporations are operating here. Out of a population of 4.15 million, one million people are foreigners.

At the same time, an increasing number of overseas firms are bought over by Singaporeans or forming strategic alliances with them. So they have a right to know what is happening here.

Over the next few years, new technology will allow every registered Singaporean to vote wherever they are.

Meanwhile, the next best thing is electronic voting. Singapore plans to test it during the next general election, probably at this year-end or the first half of 2002.

It is not online. A voter will still have to go to the polling station but instead of putting a cross on a ballot paper, he will hit a key on an e-machine.

Even with this half step, cynics have expressed unease about how safe and reliable their vote can be. Unlike the ballot paper, which is sealed and destroyed after a while, his vote will be stored in a disk that can be called up.

Seah Chiang Nee is a veteran journalist and editor of the information website littlespeck.com