Discussion in Parliament
on voting secrecy misses the point
Singapore
Democrats
3 Mar 08
Given the gravity of the problems surrounding the election process
in Singapore, it is astounding that the debate in Parliament on the
matter during Budget 2008 was completely devoid of substance and
sense.
The declaration that the vote is secret (see Straits Times
report below) misses
the point. Whether there is in fact ballot secrecy is not for the
Minister to assert or MPs to agree; it is for an independent
commission to enforce and ensure.
The fact that the ballot slip is numbered sets up the possibility
for the authorities to trace the vote. Such a possibility
compromises the principle of secrecy.
This problem takes on a much more sinister complexion given the
atrocious record of the PAP when it comes to democratic
practices.
The opposition must insist that serial numbers be removed from the
voting slips. Mr Wong Kan Seng's excuse that the numbers are to
prevent ballot stuffing is limp.
The Australian vote, for example, does not carry any
identification. Yet, stuffing of ballots is not a problem
there.
This is because there are many ways to prevent such cheating: Votes
should be counted at the polling centre instead of being
transferred to another venue thereby reducing opportunities for
ballot boxes to be switched or added, watchdog groups should be
allowed to monitor the voting and counting processes, voters'
fingers could be marked with indelible ink after they vote, an
independent commission should be in place to conduct elections, and
so on.
Many countries have adopted such procedures and their systems have
much more credibility than Singapore's. Numbering of voting slips
is just a convenient excuse for the PAP.
Pretending that the numbering is not a factor so as not to
exacerbate voters' fears is wishful thinking at best.
Singaporeans have repeatedly indicated that they fear voting for
the opposition because they may get found out. Sticking our heads
in the sand and wishing for the problem to go away is not a
solution.
Even if the opposition keeps quiet about this, it is not beyond the
PAP and its so-called grassroots people to start a whisper campaign
that such-and-such a person was victimised by the Government
because he or she voted for the opposition.
During our walk-abouts, many Singaporeans have approached us asking
whether such scenarios are true and whether the PAP really checks
how they vote. Real or imagined, the fear is there.
For example, a taxi-driver told us that he had on one occasion
approached his MP for assistance on a matter. When he returned to
enquire about the outcome of his request, he was asked why he voted
for the opposition and not PAP.
Whether his story was real or whether he was fear-mongering, no one
knows. But stories like these make their rounds in the
kopitiams
and housing
estates.
Why allow such stories to be circulated when there is a solution
which is to remove the numbering on ballot slips? In this way any
doubt that the voting may not be secret is once and for all
eradicated.
Take the bull by its horns. Confront the problems and work to
change it. The short-term pain will build the necessary foundation
for free and fair elections in the decades to come.
The longer we try to take the easy way out and not demand a
genuinely secret vote, the more advantageous it is for the
PAP.
This is why the SDP has called on opposition parties to come
together to demand reform of the election process. We will continue
to do so.
With the other many problems that beset our electoral process,
there is no doubt that Singapore's election system is a sham. That
there was no substantive debate in Parliament on the issue is a
shame.
http://singaporedemocrat.org/articlesgelections.html