Connect with us

Current Affairs

Empty ballot boxes – 2 presidential candidates question Govt’s explanation

Published

11 years ago

on

bb

By Andrew Loh –

The Government’s explanation on why several ballot boxes were discovered in a school is being questioned by two of the four candidates who had taken part in the Presidential Election of 2011.

The discovery of the boxes was first reported by website TR Emeritus on 30 August. It uploaded pictures of the boxes which it said was sent to it by “a concerned anonymous reader” of the site.

The boxes were found at a school in Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, which had been used as a counting centre for the Presidential Election two years ago.

The Elections Department made a police report on 31 August upon being informed of the discovery of the boxes. It issued a statement and said that the discovery of the used empty ballot boxes had “no implications on the secrecy of the vote and electoral process”.

The police too issued a statement which, among other things, said:

“The persons interviewed by the Police have told the Police that the ballot boxes were empty when they found them, with no ballot papers inside. Preliminary investigations indicate that these were empty boxes left behind in the counting centre intended to be disposed of.”

There has been no word from the Attorney General about the investigations so far.

On Monday, 16 September, the Government explained in Parliament that the discovery of the boxes “did not constitute a lapse in the election process.”

Minister for Social and Family Development, Chan Chun Sing, replying on behalf of the Prime Minister, “stressed that the fact that some boxes were found clearly suggested an oversight by working personnel involved in the collection of discarded material after polling.”

“The entire process is controlled and carefully watched from the beginning of the polls until the boxes are emptied out and once the boxes are emptied out the boxes cease to be called election boxes. They would be known as discarded boxes,” he said.

Mr Chan said the disused boxes, once emptied, were “non-controlled items”. After the ballots are transferred out of these boxes, he added, they are “just like any other boxes.”

He also revealed that a recent check by the Elections Department discovered “several disused boxes” in five schools.

Mr Tan Cheng Bock, one of the candidates in 2011, posting on his Facebook page, questioned Mr Chan’s explanation.

“If [the] Election Department had always treated the boxes as not controlled items ‘just like any other boxes’, what prompted them to file an urgent police report?”

Mr Tan said “the initial response by Election Department reflected the seriousness of the issue when a police report was made.”

“It must be important enough to file this police report,” he said.

Mr Tan Jee Say, who had also participated in the elections in 2011, questioned two aspects of Mr Chan’s explanation. Posting on his Facebook page, he asked:

“The first obvious question is why was [Mr Chan] replying on behalf of the Prime Minister?”

“The question was specifically directed at the PM as the Elections Department comes under the PMO. The PM should be the one answering to Parliament unless he was physically unwell or was otherwise engaged in critical national matters on the day. But this was not the case as he was seen in Parliament in good spirits celebrating his father’s 90th birthday.”

He also questioned Mr Chan’s claim that the abandoned ballot boxes did not constitute a lapse of the electoral process.

Mr Tan Jee Say said: “A lapse is a failure to maintain a standard procedure and the Elections Department in its press statement dated 30 August 2013, set out what this procedure was for empty ballot boxes, namely, that: ‘They are supposed to have been collected by the Elections Department’s contractor, along with other discarded items, from the counting centres for general disposal.’”

Echoing what Mr Tan Cheng Bock said, Mr Tan Jee Say explained, “The Elections Department must have felt that something was amiss or it would not have taken the serious step of filing a police report to investigate this matter.”

He asked if police have completed their investigations and whether the minister had told Singaporeans “the full facts of the investigation”.

“To dismiss the discovery of unaccounted for empty ballot boxes as not a lapse,” Mr Tan Jee Say said, “is to trivialize the requirement ensuring a safe and sound polling process that must enjoy the highest level of public confidence and faith.”

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

TJC issued 3rd POFMA order under Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC) was issued its third POFMA correction order on 5 October 2024 under the direction of Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods about death penalty processes. TJC has rejected the government’s claims, describing POFMA as a tool to suppress dissent.

Published

2 days ago

on

6 October 2024

By

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), an advocacy group opposed to the death penalty, was issued its third Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) correction direction on 5 October 2024.

The correction was ordered by Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, following TJC’s publication of what the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) alleges to be false information regarding Singapore’s death row procedures and the prosecution of drug trafficking cases.

These statements were made on TJC’s website and across its social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter).

In addition to TJC, civil activist Kokila Annamalai was also issued a correction direction by the minister over posts she made on Facebook and X between 4 and 5 October 2024.

According to MHA, these posts echoed similar views on the death penalty and the legal procedures for drug-related offences, and contained statements that the ministry claims are false concerning the treatment of death row prisoners and the state’s legal responsibilities in drug trafficking cases.

MHA stated that the posts suggested the government schedules and stays executions arbitrarily, without due regard to legal processes, and that the state does not bear the burden of proving drug trafficking charges.

However, these alleged falsehoods are contested by MHA, which maintains that the government strictly follows legal procedures, scheduling executions only after all legal avenues have been exhausted, and that the state always carries the burden of proof in such cases.

In its official release, MHA emphasised, “The prosecution always bears the legal burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and this applies to all criminal offences, including drug trafficking.”

It also pointed to an article on the government fact-checking site Factually to provide further clarification on the issues raised.

As a result of these allegations, both TJC and Annamalai are now required to post correction notices. TJC must display these corrections on its website and social media platforms, while Annamalai is required to carry similar notices on her Facebook and X posts.

TikTok has also been issued a targeted correction direction, requiring the platform to communicate the correction to all Singapore-based users who viewed the related TJC post.

In a statement following the issuance of the correction direction, TJC strongly rejected the government’s claims. The group criticised the POFMA law, calling it a “political weapon used to crush dissent,” and argued that the order was more about the exercise of state power than the pursuit of truth. “We have put up the Correction Directions not because we accept any of what the government asserts, but because of the grossly unjust terms of the POFMA law,” TJC stated.

TJC further argued that the government’s control over Singapore’s media landscape enables it to push pro-death penalty views without opposition. The group also stated that it would not engage in prolonged legal battles over the POFMA correction orders, opting to focus on its abolitionist work instead.

This marks the third time TJC has been subject to a POFMA correction direction in recent months.

The group was previously issued two orders in August 2024 for making similar statements concerning death row prisoners.

In its latest statement, MHA noted that despite being corrected previously, TJC had repeated what the ministry views as falsehoods.

MHA also criticised TJC for presenting the perspective of a convicted drug trafficker without acknowledging the harm caused to victims of drug abuse.

Annamalai, a prominent civil rights activist, is also known for her involvement in various social justice campaigns. She was charged in June 2024 for her participation in a pro-Palestinian procession near the Istana. Her posts, now subject to correction, contained information similar to those presented by TJC regarding death penalty procedures and drug-related cases.

POFMA, which was introduced in 2019, allows the government to issue correction directions when it deems falsehoods are being spread online.

Critics of the law argue that it can be used to suppress dissent, while the government asserts that it is a necessary tool for combating misinformation. The law has been frequently invoked against opposition politicians and activists.

As of October 2024, Minister K Shanmugam has issued 17 POFMA directions, more than any other minister. Shanmugam, who was instrumental in introducing POFMA, is followed by National Development Minister Desmond Lee, who has issued 10 POFMA directions.

Major media outlets, including The Straits Times, Channel News Asia, and Mothership, have covered the POFMA directions. However, as of the time of writing, none have included TJC’s response rejecting the government’s allegations.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Hotel Properties Limited suspends trading ahead of Ong Beng Seng’s court hearing

Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has halted trading ahead of his court appearance today (4 October). The announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at about 7.45am, citing a pending release of an announcement. Mr Ong faces one charge of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts and another charge of obstruction of justice. He is due in court at 2.30pm.

Published

4 days ago

on

4 October 2024

By

SINGAPORE: Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), the property and hotel developer co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has requested a trading halt ahead of the Singapore tycoon’s scheduled court appearance today (4 October) afternoon.

This announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at approximately 7.45am, stating that the halt was due to a pending release of an announcement.

Mr Ong, who serves as HPL’s managing director and controlling shareholder, faces one charge under Section 165, accused of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts, as well as one charge of obstruction of justice.

He is set to appear in court at 2.30pm on 4 October.

Ong’s charges stem from his involvement in a high-profile corruption case linked to former Singaporean transport minister S Iswaran.

The 80-year-old businessman was named in Iswaran’s initial graft charges earlier this year.

These charges alleged that Iswaran had corruptly received valuable gifts from Ong, including tickets to the 2022 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix, flights, and a hotel stay in Doha.

These gifts were allegedly provided to advance Ong’s business interests, particularly in securing contracts with the Singapore Tourism Board for the Singapore GP and the ABBA Voyage virtual concert.

Although Iswaran no longer faces the original corruption charges, the prosecution amended them to lesser charges under Section 165.

Iswaran pleaded guilty on 24 September, 2024, to four counts under this section, which covered over S$400,000 worth of gifts, including flight tickets, sports event access, and luxury items like whisky and wines.

Additionally, he faced one count of obstructing justice for repaying Ong for a Doha-Singapore flight shortly before the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) became involved.

On 3 October, Iswaran was sentenced to one year in jail by presiding judge Justice Vincent Hoong.

The prosecution had sought a sentence of six to seven months for all charges, while the defence had asked for a significantly reduced sentence of no more than eight weeks.

Ong, a Malaysian national based in Singapore, was arrested by CPIB in July 2023 and released on bail shortly thereafter. Although no charges were initially filed against him, Ong’s involvement in the case intensified following Iswaran’s guilty plea.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had earlier indicated that it would soon make a decision regarding Ong’s legal standing, which has now led to the current charges.

According to the statement of facts read during Iswaran’s conviction, Ong’s case came to light as part of a broader investigation into his associates, which revealed Iswaran’s use of Ong’s private jet for a flight from Singapore to Doha in December 2022.

CPIB investigators uncovered the flight manifest and seized the document.

Upon learning that the flight records had been obtained, Ong contacted Iswaran, advising him to arrange for Singapore GP to bill him for the flight.

Iswaran subsequently paid Singapore GP S$5,700 for the Doha-Singapore business class flight in May 2023, forming the basis of his obstruction of justice charge.

Mr Ong is recognised as the figure who brought Formula One to Singapore in 2008, marking the first night race in the sport’s history.

He holds the rights to the Singapore Grand Prix. Iswaran was the chairman of the F1 steering committee and acted as the chief negotiator with Singapore GP on business matters concerning the race.

 

Continue Reading

Trending