Wednesday, January 16, 2013
ELISABELLE ARULDOSS: The little jungle off Singapore
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Blue Pill or Red Pill?
How many of you have seen ‘The Matrix’, the movie with the handsome Keanu Reeves as Neo and Laurence Fishburne as Morpheus? [1]
Credit: Christian Mes, Law School Memes |
Straits Times article published on 22 May 1986 |
Credit: Jared Nash, Law School Memes |
Me with Teo Soh Lung |
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Exploring the Extent of Executive Discretion
Screen-shot from http://www.singapore-elections.com/parl-1997-ge/cheng-san-grc.html |
List of legislation amending the Constitution |
Constitutional Amendment
|
Effective
Date
|
Nomination
Day
|
Lead
Time
|
Introduction of Non-Constituency
Member of Parliament scheme
|
10
Aug 1984
|
13
Dec 1984
|
4
months
|
Introduction of Group
Representation Constituency scheme
|
31
May 1988
|
3
Sep 1988
|
3
months
|
Introduction of Nominated Member
of Parliament scheme
|
10
Sep 1990
|
21
Aug 1991
|
11
months
|
Change in Group Representation
Constituency scheme
|
2
Jan 1991
|
21
Aug 1991
|
7
months
|
Act 41 of 1996
|
12
Nov 1996
|
23
Dec 1996
|
<
2 months
|
- Clearly
defined constitutional guarantees of fundamental liberties
- presence
of sufficient numbers of opposition MPs in Parliament
- an
independent Judiciary with effective, sufficient powers of judicial review
over Executive decisions
- a
Civil Society which is not overly hindered by laws restricting freedom of
speech and public assembly
- an
independent elections commission to oversee election procedures
Note: This article was published by The Online Citizen on 28 Apr 2012:
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2012/04/exploring-the-extent-of-executive-discretion/
With Teo Soh Lung (15 Jan 2012, Hong Lim Park) |
With M. Ravi (27 Apr 2012, Breakthrough Cafe) |
Saturday, January 14, 2012
"Raffles Hotel Singapore" - Not Singapore's
Raffles Hotel [1] on Beach Road is undoubtedly an icon. I love the place. I am sure many Singaporeans are fond of the place too.
Built in 1887, it was extensively renovated between 1989 and 1991. I must say, those involved in the restoration works did a marvellous job. The architecture of the building and its elegant interiors evoke the nostalgic ambience of a bygone era. Raffles Hotel is certainly a Singapore landmark I would be proud to boast about and to bring my foreign friends to see.
Sadly, Raffles Hotel does not belong to Singaporeans, as I only recently found out. Until 2005, the hotel was owned by Singapore-listed “Raffles Holdings”[2], a Temasek Holdings company.
In 2005, Raffles Holdings sold all of its hotel assets to US-based Colony Capital for SGD$1.72 billion. The portfolio of assets owned by Raffles Holdings consisted of 41 hotels and resorts, with its most prominent establishment being the luxurious 103-suite Raffles Hotel. (I guess I did not pick up on this news at the time it was announced.)
At the time of the acquisition, Colony Capital chief executive Thomas J. Barrack said: "We are honored to become the custodian of one of the finest hotel chains in the world and a true national treasure of the people of Singapore. We deeply respect the historical significance of the Raffles Hotel, Singapore and we consider it our responsibility to protect that legacy."[3]
In 2006, Colony Capital teamed up with a Saudi businessman to buy Fairmount Hotels and Resorts in a deal that resulted in Toronto-based Fairmount Raffles Hotel International[4] becoming the new owner of Raffles Hotel.
On 8 April 2010, The Straits Times reported that a Qatar sovereign wealth fund has bought Raffles Hotel for US$275 million (S$384 million), making it the third change of ownership in seven years.
This morning, 14 January 2012, I read in the Straits Times[5] that “Singapore’s grand old dame Raffles Hotel is finally in the hands of its new Qatari owners” - the government-owned Qatar National Hotels Company.
Though I feel a sense of loss upon reading today’s Straits Times article, the fact is, that the horse bolted out of the stable seven years ago.
Still, questions nag my mind:
- How could parent company Temasek Holdings consider it alright to sell away “Singapore’s grand old dame”? There is only ONE Raffles Hotel and it is of historic and sentimental value to Singaporeans.
- Did Singapore need the money badly that we had sell off our heirloom and heritage? (To my understanding, people sell off their family jewels in times of war or crisis, out of necessity, in order to survive their hard times.)
- Have Singaporeans benefitted from the proceeds of the sale of Raffles Hotel in 2005? More hospital beds? Better care facilities for our elderly? More affordable housing for Singaporeans? Higher subsidies for education? Improvements in public transport?
I suppose it is pointless to lament the loss of Raffles Hotel. The next time I talk about Raffles Hotel to my foreign friends, I have to remind myself that Raffles Hotel does not belong to Singaporeans, so I have nothing to boast about.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
BLIND VOTERS' RIGHT TO VOTE SECRECY
A few days before Polling Day, I got a telephone call from a blind voter living in Mountbatten. He introduced himself to me as RON CHANDRAN-DUDLEY.
Ron called me that day because he wanted to tell me how much he objected to the way blind voters had to cast their votes under current voting procedures. (A more accurate description will be "visually handicapped voters" and these will include those who are totally blind or who suffer from defects of vision, either at birth, or subsequently due to illness or accidents. Not all blind voters can read Braille, e.g. an elderly person who becomes blind as a result of illness. Some have been writing before losing their sight.)
According to Ron, a blind voter like him who is able to hold a pen, would not be able to write or mark his vote on the ballot paper by himself. Instead, he would be required to tell the Officer which candidate (or which party) he wishes to vote for, and the Officer would then write the cross for him on his ballot paper.
Ron said that in other countries, besides getting the Officer to mark his vote for him, blind voters had 2 other options:
1. He is allowed to have a relative or friend of his choice accompany him to the voting booth to mark the ballot paper for him.
2. He can ask for and be provided with a template (or stencil) with windows (openings) matching the places where to mark his vote on the ballot paper.
A template is a simple device which serves to give the blind voter privacy. The Officer would tell the blind voter which box is for which candidate/party, but after knowing that, blind voter can then align the ballot paper against the template and mark his vote on the ballot by himself in private at the voting booth.
I thanked Ron for his feedback. I kept his telephone number as I felt he sounded like an interesting person whom I would like to talk to again.
Subsequently, I found out that Ron is a famous man who has done quite a lot in his lifetime. He used to be the President of the Disabled People's Association and was also the President of the Singapore Association of the Visually Handicapped (SAVH). Here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0T2twepn6w is a 6 min documentary about him entitled "Asians of the Year". He was going to be a doctor but met with a rugby accident and became blind at age of 19.
On Polling Day, while visiting a Polling Station, one of my Polling Agents (Ong Suping) came up to me to raise her concern about how blind voters were made to cast their votes. I recalled my telephone chat with Ron about this. It just so happened that Lim Biow Chuan was also present at that Polling Station and so the 3 of us (Suping, myself and Biow Chuan) had a brief discussion about this issue. The conclusion of the brief discussion was that present procedures had to be followed.
Subsequently, I asked Suping to write me a note about her concerns as a Polling Agent. Here is her note to me:
When a blind voter comes to the polling station, he/she will be led to the correct queue by either a family member or a presiding officer if no family members are present. The presiding officer will then let the senior presiding officer know that this person is blind and that he/she will need assistance to mark out their vote on the ballot paper. What the senior presiding officer will then do is to announce to the polling agents that this person is blind and that a presiding officer will be assisting him/her in marking their vote on the ballot paper. The presiding officer will then accompany the person to the booth to make their selection.
The problem I am seeing is on 2 levels:
1. What comfort can the blind voter get that the presiding officer is marking the correct ballot box according to his/her wishes? A family member should at least be allowed to be present at the voting booth to witness and be the eyes for the blind voter. At least someone they trust is with them or is marking out the box for them.
2. How do polling agents (who are meant to be there to ensure votes are cast under no undue influence and is fairly conducted) ensure that there is no incongruous activity in this instance?
What the senior presiding officer told me when I raised the point that we have all taken the oath of secrecy and should therefore be allowed to witness this since we are all under oath and it is the job of the polling agent to make sure things are conducted in a fair manner, she told me that presiding officers have taken different oaths allowing them to see a person’s vote while our oath as polling agents only allow us to be present at the polling station and not to see a person’s vote. I am not sure if that really is the case or not. Are there really different oaths?
I don't believe there are clear guidelines today with regards to blind voters as when I asked for a copy of these guidelines saying that this is the way it is supposed to be conducted, the senior presiding officer could not give it to me.
My suggestion is for the blind voter to elect or authorize a person of their choice beforehand to accompany them on polling day to mark the ballot paper with them. Just because they are the minority doesn't mean we don't protect their rights as voters. And as a polling agent I can take greater comfort that the vote is rightly cast since the person marking the vote on behalf has been chosen by the voters themselves.
I must thank Suping for raising her concerns to me.
After receiving Suping’s note, I did some research, and I found out that in April 2011, the current SAVH President wrote to the Elections Department about Singapore’s blind community frustration that it does not get enough privacy when voting. Blind voters would like to have a family member or friend to help them mark their ballots, rather than have an electoral officer do it for them, as has been the case in past elections. However, the Elections Department replied SAVH, saying that under the law, family members are not allowed to help a blind voter mark his ballot as that ‘may compromise the secrecy of the vote cast and may subject the voter to undue influence or pressure’.
After I found out about this, I spoke to Ron. Ron told me that in 1991, he himself wrote to the Elections Department saying the exact same thing, and got the exact same reply from them. He said he is very disappointed that nothing has changed since 1991 till now. There is been no progress in the last 20 years on the rights of blind voters. But meanwhile, other countries were making changes to their voting procedures for blind voters. I checked and found that Ron is right. This is how blind voters cast their votes in UK: http://www.rnib.org.uk/livingwithsightloss/yourrights/Pages/voting.aspx
I also found out that Maruah has also written to the Elections Department on this issue on 5 May 2011.
I thank Ron for helping me to understand how a blind voter feels. A Blind voter does not want the Officer (who is a stranger) to know his vote. SAVH has asked for the blind voter to be allowed to have a family member or friend accompany him to the voting booth. UK and other countries go a step further. They respect the right of the blind voter to vote in PRIVATE. Hence, the voting procedures allow for the provision of a template for the use of blind voters who are able hold a pen.
I do not understand why the Elections Department rejected SAVH’s request for a trusted person to accompany the blind voter to the booth, yet they do not provide the solution of using a template. So the only way for a blind voter to cast his vote, including one who is able to hold a pen and write, is to inform the Officer, a stranger, who he wants to vote for.
I agree with Ron that I would like blind voters to be given a choice of either being assisted by a relative or friend of his choice or alternatively, be given a template so he can mark his vote by himself without assistance and in private.
The next GE is in 5 years’ time. I hope that some progress will be made before then in improving the rights of blind voters.
Meanwhile, the Presidential Elections are just round the corner. I wonder if it is not too much to ask of the Elections Department to tweak the present voting procedures to provide blind voters with the use of a template?
Postscript: On 18 August 2011, the Straits Times reported (at Pg 4 Prime) that for the upcoming Presidential Elections on 27 August 2011, the Elections Dept had produced special stencils to enable blind voters to mark their ballot papers on their own. For the first time in Singapore's election history, blind voters would be able to vote on their own and in privacy. My wish had become a reality. See also this article by Theresa Tan: http://blogs.straitstimes.com/2011/08/19/not-being-blind-to-different-voting-needs/