On technicality...
Legal Issue Regarding Returning Officers Time for Closing of Nomination and Rejection of Opposition Candidate
Dear Sir,
My name is Karen Teoh (NRIC 791xxx4Z) and I was present at the nomination hall of Singapore Chinese Girls School (“SCGS”) today to be an assentor for the potential candidates contesting Tanjong Pagar GRC.
I refer to the phone calls between myself and your officials today, 27 April 2011.
In particular, I refer to the phonecalls between myself and your Ms Doris (assistant to Mr Lee, Head, Elections Department) at 5.19 PM and 5.32 pm, as well as to your Mr David Tay of the General Enquiries hotline at 5.45 pm and 18.02 pm.
At Mr Tay’s suggestion, I have written this e-mail to place on record our conversations to enable the Elections Department to look into my complaint more effectively.
I was informed by Mr Tay at 6.18 pm that Mr Raymond Lim, Assistant Head (Policy and Programmes), Elections Departmentconsiders the standard procedure of the Elections Department and Returning Officer in concluding that nominations close at 12 noon sharp as correct practice. As this is hearsay, I would seek your indulgence in setting out in your written reply to me that this is in fact the case, or if not, the standard procedure of the Elections Department and its returning officers.
However, I must respectfully disagree with the Election Departments position. An accepted cannon of interpretation is that the phrase “both dates inclusive” is taken to mean to the last moment possible moment of the inclusive date. The time period thus expires on the start of the next date. For example, the phrase “the offer is good from 1 January 2011 to 7 January 2007 (both dates inclusive)” means that the offer is valid until the last moment of 7 January 2007. The offer for both dates inclusive therefore only truly expires on the first moment of 8 January 2007, being midnight, 8 January or 12.00am. A similar reasoning would therefore follow interpretations of time, which are but a smaller subset of dates.
In this respect, I refer you to s 29(2) of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap. 218), which states:
“s29...(2) Every such nomination paper and certificate shall be delivered to the Returning Officer, in duplicate and in person, by the person seeking nomination accompanied by his proposer, seconder and at least 4 assentors, at the place of nomination between 11 a.m. and 12 noon (both times inclusive) on the day of nomination, and if not so delivered, shall be rejected.
[18/2005]
At the same time, I noted that the Returning Officer announced at 12:00 sharp on the clock at the Nomination Hall that the nominations were closed. Thereafter, the independent candidates rushed over to submit their papers. The clock had not yet chimed 12:01. Myself, together with the other assentors and seconders stood some distance, maybe 3 to 4 rows of chairs away.
An argument went on for some time about the closing of the period for the submission of nomination forms between the potential candidates from the opposition and the returning officers, whom were all highly commendable for remaining calm, civil and pleasant in the circumstances.
However, I believe that closing the nominations at 12:00 noon sharp by the returning officer is in error, as the phrase referring to “between 11 a.m. and 12 noon (both times inclusive)” is quite explicit to the contrary. I apologise that I have only written to you at this late hour as I did not have access to the specific wording of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap 218) until I returned home.
The legal and correct answer to when nomination closes turns on what time 12 noon is over, as the statute is explicit about “(both times inclusive)”. This is, in turn based on the smallest unit of measurement on the clock used. The clock used at the SCGS measures time only in units of minutes and not seconds and it would therefore be 12:01 PM that noon is officially over. If it was meant to be 12 noon sharp, then the statute should be explicit about it. However, the clear wording of the statute is to the contrary, being “between 11 a.m. and 12 noon (both times inclusive)”.
I understand that this has likely never been the case since very few independent candidates have been this tardy and disorganized and it is a novel nexus of facts and law that has yet to be considered in Singapore.
However, in the circumstances, given that several interpretations are possible and there accepted rules of interpretation do not favour the Elections department construction of the rule, the best party to answer would be the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Singapore. I respectfully and strongly urge the Elections Department to undertaken this course of action as no present or future allegations of bias online against the Elections Departments good standing would therefore be possible.
Justice must be seen to be done and I hope that the Elections Department will continue to serve all Singaporeans as faithfully and effectively as it has done in previous elections.
Legal Issue Regarding Returning Officers Time for Closing of Nomination and Rejection of Opposition Candidate
Dear Sir,
My name is Karen Teoh (NRIC 791xxx4Z) and I was present at the nomination hall of Singapore Chinese Girls School (“SCGS”) today to be an assentor for the potential candidates contesting Tanjong Pagar GRC.
I refer to the phone calls between myself and your officials today, 27 April 2011.
In particular, I refer to the phonecalls between myself and your Ms Doris (assistant to Mr Lee, Head, Elections Department) at 5.19 PM and 5.32 pm, as well as to your Mr David Tay of the General Enquiries hotline at 5.45 pm and 18.02 pm.
At Mr Tay’s suggestion, I have written this e-mail to place on record our conversations to enable the Elections Department to look into my complaint more effectively.
I was informed by Mr Tay at 6.18 pm that Mr Raymond Lim, Assistant Head (Policy and Programmes), Elections Departmentconsiders the standard procedure of the Elections Department and Returning Officer in concluding that nominations close at 12 noon sharp as correct practice. As this is hearsay, I would seek your indulgence in setting out in your written reply to me that this is in fact the case, or if not, the standard procedure of the Elections Department and its returning officers.
However, I must respectfully disagree with the Election Departments position. An accepted cannon of interpretation is that the phrase “both dates inclusive” is taken to mean to the last moment possible moment of the inclusive date. The time period thus expires on the start of the next date. For example, the phrase “the offer is good from 1 January 2011 to 7 January 2007 (both dates inclusive)” means that the offer is valid until the last moment of 7 January 2007. The offer for both dates inclusive therefore only truly expires on the first moment of 8 January 2007, being midnight, 8 January or 12.00am. A similar reasoning would therefore follow interpretations of time, which are but a smaller subset of dates.
In this respect, I refer you to s 29(2) of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap. 218), which states:
“s29...(2) Every such nomination paper and certificate shall be delivered to the Returning Officer, in duplicate and in person, by the person seeking nomination accompanied by his proposer, seconder and at least 4 assentors, at the place of nomination between 11 a.m. and 12 noon (both times inclusive) on the day of nomination, and if not so delivered, shall be rejected.
[18/2005]
At the same time, I noted that the Returning Officer announced at 12:00 sharp on the clock at the Nomination Hall that the nominations were closed. Thereafter, the independent candidates rushed over to submit their papers. The clock had not yet chimed 12:01. Myself, together with the other assentors and seconders stood some distance, maybe 3 to 4 rows of chairs away.
An argument went on for some time about the closing of the period for the submission of nomination forms between the potential candidates from the opposition and the returning officers, whom were all highly commendable for remaining calm, civil and pleasant in the circumstances.
However, I believe that closing the nominations at 12:00 noon sharp by the returning officer is in error, as the phrase referring to “between 11 a.m. and 12 noon (both times inclusive)” is quite explicit to the contrary. I apologise that I have only written to you at this late hour as I did not have access to the specific wording of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap 218) until I returned home.
The legal and correct answer to when nomination closes turns on what time 12 noon is over, as the statute is explicit about “(both times inclusive)”. This is, in turn based on the smallest unit of measurement on the clock used. The clock used at the SCGS measures time only in units of minutes and not seconds and it would therefore be 12:01 PM that noon is officially over. If it was meant to be 12 noon sharp, then the statute should be explicit about it. However, the clear wording of the statute is to the contrary, being “between 11 a.m. and 12 noon (both times inclusive)”.
I understand that this has likely never been the case since very few independent candidates have been this tardy and disorganized and it is a novel nexus of facts and law that has yet to be considered in Singapore.
However, in the circumstances, given that several interpretations are possible and there accepted rules of interpretation do not favour the Elections department construction of the rule, the best party to answer would be the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Singapore. I respectfully and strongly urge the Elections Department to undertaken this course of action as no present or future allegations of bias online against the Elections Departments good standing would therefore be possible.
Justice must be seen to be done and I hope that the Elections Department will continue to serve all Singaporeans as faithfully and effectively as it has done in previous elections.
