Connect with us

Opinion

Teo Soh Lung: Experience as polling agent

Teo Soh Lung volunteered at a nursing home during the recent presidential election, where she observed challenges faced by elderly residents in voting.

They suggested that voting for nursing home residents should not be compulsory and proposed giving voting rights to prisoners instead.

Published

on

by Teo Soh Lung

For this Presidential Election (1 September 2023), I decided to volunteer as a polling agent for civil society at one of the 31 nursing homes.

It was the first time that special polling stations were set up by the Elections Department (ELD). Each of these homes has not less than 50 voters.

I reported at a nursing home with less than 100 voters before 8 am to witness the sealing of the ballot boxes.

The Home and the ELD have organised the voting efficiently oand voting went smoothly and on time.

At just past 8 am, the first voter was wheeled into the room set up as a polling station. The polling agents were even supplied with a register of residents who were eligible to vote.

That morning, I was the only polling agent (ELD only allowed one for each candidate at each nursing home).

The nursing staff had organised two shifts for voting – one in the morning and the other in the afternoon, thus giving ample time for residents to rest and have their meals.

The ELD officers were polite, helpful and fair. They tried their best to explain the voting process to the elderly voters, many of whom did not speak English, were hard of hearing and I suspect did not know it was a presidential election.

Besides a big room which was converted into a polling station, voting was also carried out in the wards where voters were mainly bedridden.

The ballot box was placed on a trolley and pushed to the beds of the voters. There was a team of ELD officers and nursing staff to assist when patients were hard of hearing or unable to understand the process.

POLLING ROOM

Most of the voters entered the room in wheelchairs pushed by ELD officers.

Those who were able to identify themselves were given folded voting slips and wheeled to the polling booths.

Many really didn’t know what they had to do. Some simply stared at the booth and did not open the voting slip until helped by the officers.

Officers tried their best to assist, explaining that they had three choices and read out all the names of the candidates. (Actually, there were 4 choices, the last being invalid votes).

The voters were told to place the X stamp on the one they chose. I suspect most residents didn’t know who they were voting for.

Quite a few didn’t know how to use the stamps. They were senior members who had always voted with pens in the past.

So I suggested to the Returning Officer to give them the choice of pens. She swiftly placed pens at the booths.

I was notified about those who could not respond to officers. They suggested blank votes to be cast. I agreed. So blank votes were dropped into the ballot box.

VOTING IN WARDS

After more than 25 had voted, I went to the wards to observe voting there.

The condition of voters was worse in the wards. They were bedridden. The beds were moved to sitting positions for the voters.

After identification, a makeshift cardboard voting box with one side levelled to act as a table was placed on their laps.

Officers explained where they should place the stamp. They then stood aside to let them vote.

Those who didn’t know how to vote were assisted. Blank votes were dropped into the ballot box which was placed on a trolley for those who didn’t understand what it was all about.

Some were asked if they wanted to vote. If they replied “no”, they simply did not vote. Some were in near coma state and were naturally unable to vote.

As voting hours were from 8 am to 8 pm, ELD officers had to remain at the nursing home even though I suspect, they would have cleared the less than 100 voters by the afternoon. I left after the morning voting session.

According to The Straits Times of 26 August 2023, 31 nursing homes with more than 50 voters each were selected for this pilot voting project. A total of 4,087 residents were eligible to vote.

How many actually voted, I don’t know. From my observation of one nursing home and for just the morning when over 50 voters had cast their votes, I think voting should not be compulsory for the elderly.

I think it is best to leave it to the patients’ families. Let them take them to the polling station. The ELD can assist with the provision of special transport.

There were 1279 polling stations all over our little island for the Presidential Election.

If the government is keen to ensure that every person who is eligible to vote should be given the opportunity and assistance to vote, I think it is best to omit people who are ill.

Patients in nursing homes need care and staff are always very busy. I doubt if presidential or general elections are in the minds of patients. They have enough trouble. The patients in the home I observed are largely suffering from dementia. Why would they want to bother about who becomes the next president?

Instead of giving patients in nursing homes the ease to vote, I suggest that voting rights be restored to prisoners. I believe most prisoners are able-bodied and of sound mind.

I am told there are about 10000 prisoners with more in the Drugs Rehabilitation Centres.

I am not sure how many are Singaporeans. Let them exercise their rights as citizens. They have experienced many societal problems and have experienced our criminal justice system first-hand. It would be much easier to conduct voting in the prisons and rehabilitation centres than in our nursing homes.

Finally, voting hours were from 8 am to 8 pm. Think of the ELD officers who had to stay in the nursing homes for 12 hours or more when there were less than 100 voters to attend to. I really think that it is easier to take the patients to any of the 1279 polling stations rather than to take the polling stations to the nursing homes.

This opinion was first published at Function 8’s Facebook page. Ms Teo is a lawyer and an activist in Singapore. She is also a former politician who contested in Singapore’s General Election 2011.

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

Opinion

Are Govt policies and big business interests limiting competition in Singapore?

This opinion piece from Foong Swee Fong explores concerns about how restrictions on private driving instructors and rising COE prices may reflect a broader trend of collaboration between large corporations and the government, potentially reducing market competition and impacting Singaporeans.

Published

on

by Foong Swee Fong

The article, “Driving schools fully booked for months; some students paying bots to secure limited lesson slots” by Channel News Asia, encapsulates all that is wrong with Singapore.

The reason why students can’t get slots is because the “police stopped issuing private driving instructor licences in 1987 when the first two driving schools were set up”.

The police cited coordination and safety reasons.

In 1987, there were “thousands of them” but today “the country only has about 300 private driving instructors” as those who retired were not replaced.

With the gradual reduction of private driving instructors, students have little choice but to patronize the two main driving centres.

Thus, their business is booming not because they are providing excellent service at a competitive rate but because their main competitors – private driving instructors – are being reduced with each passing year, eventually to zero.

Singaporeans should be incensed because what the authorities did is anti-competitive and disadvantageous to them, but not surprisingly, this being Singapore, they brushed it aside, accepting it, perhaps, as the price of progress.

It is becoming a recurring trend: Big Business working hand in glove with the government to subvert the free market.

For crying out loud! The police “stopped issuing private driving instructor licenses WHEN the two driving schools were set up!” How blatant must it get before people start waking up?

While ComfortDelGro Driving Centre is part of the publicly listed ComfortDelGro Corporation, which is commonly perceived as government-linked, Bukit Batok Driving Centre is majority-owned by large corporate entities including Honda Motor Co, Kah Motors, and Income Insurance Ltd.

The CNA article then quoted young Singaporeans who say they still want to learn driving despite the skyrocketing COE prices “due to the convenience and option of renting a vehicle” from car-sharing companies.

It then relates the positive experience of a 22-year-old national serviceman, Calvert Choo, with car-sharing companies, about the price of rental and its convenient location near his HDB block, about Tribecar and GetGo, ending by saying that other reasons for learning to drive
include working in the ride-hailing and delivery industry.

I can’t help but sense that Big Business, with the government, is again trying to subvert the market:

In 2012, taxis were exempted from the COE bidding process to prevent them from driving up Category A COE prices. Instead, they pay the Prevailing Quota Premium, which is the average of the previous three months’ Category A prices at the point of purchase, with their COEs sourced from the Open Category. This arrangement acknowledges that taxi companies are using passenger cars for commercial purposes unlike private car owners, and that they can outbid private car owners.

However, recent trends have seen Private Hire Vehicles (PHVs), car-sharing companies, and even driving schools pushing passenger car COE prices higher, echoing the earlier situation with taxi companies. A simple solution would be to extend the taxi model to these groups. Yet, this approach has not been adopted, and authorities have instead proposed unrealistic solutions.

If COE prices remain elevated, average and even above-average-income drivers will be priced out of the market, forcing them to use PHVs and car-sharing vehicles.

Is this another diabolical scheme to force the people to patronize certain businesses, just like student drivers have now to patronize driving schools?

There are numerous worrisome alliances between Big Business and the Government in our country. They are using fewer generic medicines compared to many other countries in the region, which may contribute to higher healthcare costs. Some have raised concerns about the influence of patented medicines within the healthcare system, potentially increasing overall medical expenses.

As a measure of how preposterous the situation has become, the said CNA article, which in fact is propaganda and free advertisement for the respective big businesses, is published by state-owned MediaCorp, thus paid for by the people, to brainwash themselves!

The Big Business-Government cancer has spread deep and wide. By subverting the free market, resources will be mis-allocated, the poor will be poorer, a large chunk of the middle class will become the new poor, and the rich will be richer, thus tearing society apart.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Revitalizing democracy in Southeast Asia: Grassroots efforts, youth engagement, and international support

Simone Galimberti highlights the importance of grassroots activism, youth engagement, and international support to revitalize democracy in Southeast Asia. It emphasizes the role of students, global organizations, and bottom-up democratic approaches in promoting human rights and political freedoms.

Published

on

by Simone Galimberti

The 15th of September is celebrated internationally as the International Day of Democracy.

It is a United Nations-sanctioned day, one of the many recognized by the international body to highlight important issues that affect the planet and humanity.

Considering how the member states are so divided on matters of human rights and democracy, it is almost a miracle that there was an agreement to observe an international day on these issues.

Yet, perhaps commemorating this day is not totally surprising considering that even the most heinous regimes consider themselves, at least on paper, adhering to and respecting democratic norms and principles.

In this regard, the Asia Pacific is a global trailblazer, setting a high bar on trumping and stifling civil and political rights and within the wider region, South East Asia is doing its bits to contribute and preserve this track record.

As highlighted by the ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) in a press release on occasion of International Day of Democracy, “ ASEAN has not shown serious efforts to promote universal values of democracy in its member states such as respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; holding free and fair elections; a pluralistic system of political parties and organizations; separation of powers; independence of the branches of government; freedom of expression and the press; and constitutional subordination of all state institutions to the legally constituted civilian authority”.

The specific theme of this year is the role of Artificial Intelligence to promote or destroy the democratic fabric of our societies.

I am not going to touch on it, not because it is an unimportant issue but because it is essential to talk more about the fundamentals, as underscored by APHR.

I will focus on possible remedies and practical, actionable, concrete initiatives that could really re-energize and re-vitalize democracy and human rights.

First, we need a massive effort at the grassroots level.

The same passion and commitment put into promoting the fight against climate warming and biodiversity degradation should also be shared to promote democracy and human rights.

Indeed, we need an overarching effort to engage the youths of the region in civic actions that can have direct repercussions on improving and enhancing the quality of democracy in the South East Asia.

It is not going to be easy as both students and their higher learning institutions in which they study, are conveniently brushing aside any discussion on human rights and democracy.

Second, the role of the international community.

International philanthropies organizations, human rights organizations working globally have a special responsibility to try to generate interest among the great numbers of detached, insulated and disinterested students of the region.

As we know, it is not that there is apathy and cynicism among them throughout the region. There are best practices, and we can look at the vigour put by students in Thailand to assert their rights and defend democracy.

Those members of the international community valuing democracy and, at least in words, profess steadfast, unflinching support for human rights, no matter risking of being accused of hypocrisy when they sign business deals with authoritarian and semi-democratic regimes of South East Asia, must play a big role.

While it is difficult, often impractical and inconvenient to raise issues of democracy and human rights in the official nations ‘ interactions, we should invest huge sums to support discussions and debate on these issues with local youths.

Ambassadors from these nations should be much more proactive and prioritize public engagements with youths and students.

While in diplomacy, pragmatism and real politick reign supreme, there is nothing that prevents the representatives of nations caring about democracy and human rights from stepping up their efforts.

Funding, even small grants, should be made available to support micro initiatives around human rights and democracy, offering students and young people channels to discuss topics that too often are ignored and neglected.

When their high-ranking senior officials do visit the capitals of South East Asia, they should always prioritize meeting with students and youths.

Such dialogues, even though they are just rich in symbolism and nothing else, would offer a way to embolden new generations to think differently.

Let’s not forget that the United Nations has been recently trying to highlight the importance of human rights to achieve sustainable development.

It means, for example, that climate change cannot be fought without giving people a voice and respecting their rights.

The Secretary General of the United Nations has been pushing to underscore the essentials of human rights through his Call to Action for Human Rights.

That’s why the regional office in Bangkok, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, plays such a vital role.

It should be equipped with more resources to scale its work in the region, also considering the active role played by the High Commissioner, Volker Türk through his initiative, Human Rights: A Path for Solutions, to commemorate, last year, the 75th anniversary of the adaption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

But then we need to tackle what it is, according to APHR, the defining issue, “integrating the institutionalization of democracy norms and promotion into the drafting of the ASEAN Vision 2045, which is set to be adopted in 2025 as the realization of the ASEAN Charter’s promises to strengthen democracy in the region”.

On this case, more awareness and knowledge on the part of the youths on democracy and human rights should lead to an overall discussion on the future of ASEAN.

Like all regional cooperation projects, ASEAN is, by definition, an elite initiative that is far from the day to day lives of the people.

This year and the next one are going to be fundamental for the future of the bloc.

Citizens, with the help of media outlets and with the involvement of social influencers who should espouse the cause, must take an informed interest on the ongoing negotiations on the future of ASEAN.

Ideally schools and universities should debate the way forward for this institution that is so remote and aloof that no one really cares about.

Lastly, we should remind ourselves that the status of democracy is ailing everywhere and not only in the South East Asia.

While we should enable the new generations to get engaged and involved, it is indispensable to find ways to improve the current existing model based on representations and elections.

It is high time that bottom up, deliberative forms of democracy are taken into consideration and given the due importance.

There are many ways to do so by putting the people and especially the youths at the center not only of the conversation but also at the center of the decision making.

While localized, endogenous ways must be found to strengthen democracy in the South East Asia, it is essential to reflect on how to do it.

It is indispensable to make democracy and human rights stronger by rethinking the way democracy works, making it more inclusive and participatory.

The author writes about development, regional integration and democracy and human rights in the Asia Pacific

Continue Reading

Trending