Voting and ballot secrecy.

Mon, 2 May 2011
5 min read
1 Comment

I’m quite sad that political parties have to use little pockets of time in their speeches to reassure Singaporeans that their votes are secret.

If we still have to spend time discussing fundamental things like these, then what actual progress have we Singaporeans made as human beings?

Hence, I’m doing my part as a concerned citizen by posting this guide on voting and ballot secrecy, adapted from The Workers’ Party post on the matter.

You may, if you wish, download a guide here: everything on one-page or optimised for easier reading.

—

Have you heard people say that your vote is not secret?

Well, they’re either lying, or they’re stupid, or both. In all cases, they’re wrong – your vote is secret!

Here are some answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the voting process:

  1. Why does the election official call out my name and voter number at the polling station before giving me the ballot paper?
  2. Why must ballot papers have serial numbers?
  3. What happens after I cast my vote?
  4. After the election, politicians are able to highlight how certain communities supported Y party or Z party. This shows that votes are not secret!
  5. How else can you reassure me that my vote is secret?

Q: Why does the election official call out my name and voter number at the polling station before giving me the ballot paper?

A: This enables the representatives of political parties at the polling station to verify and cross out your name on their registers.

It is a transparent process to help all political parties:

  1. Prevent double-voting by any voter, and
  2. Ensure that the total number of ballot papers issued out and the total number of votes are the same.

BACK TO TOP

Q: Why must ballot papers have serial numbers?

A: This is to prevent instances of election fraud, such as:

  • Bringing counterfeit ballot papers into the polling station,
  • Vote impersonation,
  • Exchanging ballot papers with those that have been marked by others, etc.

Places like the United Kingdom or New York State also maintain the practice of numbering their ballot papers for the above-mentioned reasons.

BACK TO TOP

Q: What happens after I cast my vote?

A: You can download a handy infographic from the Workers’ Party website, displayed here:

In sum, the following process will take place:

  1. When polls close at 8 pm, voting boxes are sealed and moved to counting centres. Civil servants will count the votes in the presence of the candidates and agents from all parties contesting an area.
  2. Once the votes are counted, the votes, together with all the relevant records – i.e. the stubs of the ballot papers as well as unused ballot papers – are sealed and transferred to the vault at the Supreme Court where they are kept for at least 6 months.NOTE:
    • The votes cannot be retrieved unless a court order is obtained on the grounds of election fraud.
    • According to the Elections Department website, no court order has been issued to retrieve votes to date.
  3. At the end of 6 months, the sealed votes and records will be transferred to an incineration plant for destruction. The whole procedure is witnessed by candidates/agents from all parties. Seals on the votes and records have been found to be intact.

BACK TO TOP

Q: After the election, politicians are able to highlight how certain communities supported Y party or Z party. This shows that votes are not secret!

A: No. Your individual vote is secret. Nobody knows for sure how each individual votes, even if an individual states that she has voted for Y party or Z party.

Why, then, are politicians able to make the above-mentioned claim? There are two reasons:

  1. First, the existence of polling stations:
    • Each polling station serves about 10 – 20 blocks of flats and/or a few landed housing estates e.g. XX01 Polling Station in XX Constituency serves Blk 1 – Blk 15 of XX Road.
    • Since the counting of votes is done by polling stations, it is possible to know the combined results of each polling station, which comprises a few thousand votes.
    • Voting results by polling stations are accessible to all political parties contesting in that constituency.
    • It is possible to estimate support by zones of residents e.g. The residents of XX Road in XX01 zone are more supportive of Y party, while the residents in XX02 zone are more supportive of Z party.
    • However, it is impossible to narrow down the level of support to a particular block or an individual.
  2. Second, comments of politicians may be based on other estimates such as ground feel or verbal feedback.

BACK TO TOP

Q: How else can I be reassured that my vote is secret?

A: Tampering with the electoral process is illegal and tantamount to breaking the law.

Doing so is not in the interest of any political party elected to government – its power and legitimacy will be in question and its reputation tarnished locally and internationally.

BACK TO TOP

(Adapted from “Your Vote is Secret” by The Workers’ Party. More information on ballot secrecy can be found at the Singapore Elections Department website.

Download a guide here: everything on one-page or optimised for easier reading.

Why we need a Cooling-Off Day.

Mon, 2 May 2011
4 min read
2 Comments

After reading my letter, this gentleman called Stephen Teng got so mad that he used 30 question marks in his reply to me.

Maybe this is why we need a Cooling-Off Day – to prevent Singaporeans from voting with their spleens instead of their heads.

I’m not usually a verbose person. However, he seems eager for me to continue the conversation. Hence, I will sacrifice some time off from doing work to respond to him.

–

Hi “Stephen Teng”,

Change for better or worse ???

    Sorry – I’m not too sure which letter you were reading. I did not write about change at all.

What guarantee do u have that the present opposition parties can do a better job ??? On what basis ? Any record to show/prove ?

    No, I made no guarantee that I have any records of the above-mentioned, because I never made any of those arguments. Please re-read my letter carefully.

They can’t even manage their respective party of few hundred members, and they can govern S’pore of a few millions citizens ???

    These are your opinions, which you formed on your own. They can also be perceived as potentially slanderous to the opposition parties.

    Nevertheless, this is Singapore. You are entitled to your own opinions, as well as potential legal responses based on the allegations you have made.

U dare to try them without any understudy at all ? It’s like a business father asking/forcing(freak GE) his inexperienced children to take over his business. Do u not agree ???

    No, I do not agree because I never said anything about “try[ing] them”. Please re-read my letter carefully.

    I will refrain from commenting on your analogy.

Has PAP not proven all these yrs since 1959 ??? Tell me, which same democratic government in the world can survive this long ???

    Three things you may want to note:

    1. To answer your first question: sorry, this is a non-question. You need to state exactly what you are referring to in the case of the PAP government having to prove itself before the question can be answered.
    2. You mentioned having an “understudy” earlier. You may want to bear in mind that the PAP government never had understudies either when they began their term of duty in 1959.
    3. In your second question, you have conflated the concepts of ‘government’ and ‘political party’. Most democratic governments the world over have survived for as long as or even longer than the Singapore government has. Singapore, however, is unique in that one political party has been in power all this while.

Furthermore, PAP only took one GE within 5 yrs to overthrow the previous corrupt government.

    You are attempting to rewrite history by saying that the then-Labour Front government was corrupt.

However, the opposition MPS, both past & present, including the current 3 MPs (2MPs + 1NCMP) have been in parliament for >50 yrs, and have not made any headway. If not, why not ??? So, how many more yrs do they need ???

    I think the first question is best answered by yourself. With regard to your second question, I may be bald, but I can neither read minds nor look into the future. I’m sorry for not being able to answer your question.

Of course, u can always try the opposition. It’s yr free choice.

    Thank you. I already said I have not made up my mind yet. Please re-read my letter carefully.

Suggest u re-read my posting on “fluke or freak GE ?” in this forum.

    Thank you. I will politely decline because I have work to do.

Don’t say, u have not been fore-warned by them, what they plan to do after May 7. Ok ???

    D: Okay.

Thanks,
Laremy

Be balanced in criticism.

Mon, 2 May 2011
3 min read
Add Comment

Dear Madam/Sir,

I refer to “On Chen Show Mao, Mr Low’s motives and the WP’s missing plans” (May 01).

I reside in Aljunied GRC. As of yet, my allegiance lies with neither of the teams contesting the ward.

In fact, I salute both teams for working the ground tirelessly over the last five years. Their efforts have made it extremely difficult for me to choose whom I should allow to represent me in Parliament.

Nevertheless, I have some views that I would like to share with the writer:

  • On the issue of Mr Chen Show Mao’s commitment and connection to Singapore, we must first look to Singapore’s evolution in its short history as a nation.

    In 1997, then-Prime Minister (PM) Goh Chok Tong acknowledged in his National Day Rally speech that “we have encouraged [a] dispersal of Singaporeans by asking [them] to go regional and create Singapore’s external wing”.

    He went on to say that “the more able ones, in whom Singapore has invested the most, have a special obligation to society. We must all join hands to keep Singapore together”.

    Mr Chen is a child of the above-mentioned policy, and he has heeded the same call to return. That Mr Chen, like Dr Janil Puthucheary, is able and willing to serve the nation should be answer enough for the writer.

  • On the issue of Mr Low’s proposed budget, it would only be fair to require the Workers’ Party team (WP) to come up with a proposal if the People’s Action Party (PAP) team is expected to do likewise.

    If the counter-argument is that the PAP team is the incumbent, so it will reuse the same budget, then there is no reason why a WP-led Town Council might not do the same.

  • On the issue of Mr Low’s motives, this has been made sufficiently clear. In my opinion, I believe Mr Low wants a chance to:
    • improve the lives of Aljunied GRC residents in both material and non-material ways, and
    • be a stakeholder in Parliament so that the WP’s long-term vision of an alternative government can be realised.
  • On the issue of democracy and a First-World Parliament, the writer claims we “cannot afford to spend time debating…on every matter in the name of democracy”.

    Surprisingly, he seems to have afforded the time to categorically critique Mr Chen, Mr Low and the Workers’ Party, all in the spirit of democracy itself.

    Perhaps this is to demonstrate the WP’s vision of a First-World Parliament in action: besides the basic functions of voicing views and working together to resolve national issues, there is also “responsible opposition…to generate a culture of accountability”.

  • Finally, the writer’s concluding remark about fairness perplexes this reader.

    The writer states that Mr George Yeo responded ably to Mr Low’s queries by meeting his constituents more often over the course of five years – that is, one election cycle.

    If fairness is in question, then is the writer insinuating that Mr Low also be given the same opportunity and time frame to prove how he will manage Aljunied GRC?

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,
Laremy LEE (Mr)

(Published as “Letter from Laremy Lee” on 02 May 2011 in TODAYonline.)