This is the basis for their petition
The Potong Pasir Petition – and the Parliamentary Act. Share and repost to all those who are interested in this matter.
.by Karen Teoh on Sunday, May 8, 2011 at 5:25pm.Friends,
Many of you would have received the call to go down to Potong Pasir to sign a petition. More than a few of you, like me, have also asked “Why?” and how will this help.
Now, some of you may have seen my earlier notes about the Tanjong Pagar GRC walkover, so I hope you will take my word for it that I know enough about the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap 218) (“the PE Act”) to be able to explain the why – and what the SPP are trying to do.
Please read this article by Alex Au in which the basis of counting is set out.
http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/counting-agent-me/
All further references hereunder are to sections are under the PE Act. Also, all opinions on the law remain mine and should not be taken as advice as I am not a qualified person under the Legal Professions Act.
Now that we've got the disclaimers out of the way, on to what you all want to know.
SPP’s legal case, if it goes forward, would be an application by Originating Summons under s 90(b) by named plaintiffs, foremost of would be Lina Chiam under s 93(b), as well as Potong Pasir voters under s 90(a). Affidavits would need also be drafted adducing evidence that the Returning Officers judgment of the intention on the mark under s 50(2) is incorrect. It would also help to give evidence at the Polling stations by Poling agents that no assistance was given to voters about voting instructions under schedule 2 of the Act.
Under s 50(4) of the Act on rejection of papers is beyond the purview of the Election judge – so only the correctness of the papers attributed to each side, whether rightly or wrongly and counted under s 50(2) of the Act is at issue. Depending on the finding the judge takes, either 1 vote counted wrongly is sufficient – or all votes counted would lead to a different result, the Elections judge could void the election under s94(a), return the correct candidate to power s 94(c) and s 94(d) – scrutinize the votes. I think s 94(d) and s 94(c) together are rather more sensible – but as a matter of course, all remedies will be added to the pleadings for the Originating Summons.
In any case, it would be a win for Singaporeans for us to lay down the law so that Returning Officials of the ilk described by Alex Au in the link above are no longer given any latitude. I dread to think what happened in the close constituencies for WP.
Based on my experience with the preliminaries of getting such a petition together, SPP and Ms Chiam have 21 days from today, May 8 to file a petition as an originating summons under s 97. An estimate of costs given to me for the Tanjong Pagar application if the facts had been in our favour were that a 1 day trial for an OS would cost about $25K in court costs and filing fees, and a further $30-50K in lawyers fees. It would have come in at a lower end of the spectrum because I was prepared to do a fair bit of the work in drafting affidavits. These costs will have to be paid for by SPP – or the public.
If this case should go through, I think that the SDP, WP, Reform Party and NSP should all contribute minimum sums of at least $5,000 – for the simple reason that tying down the Returning Officers discretion in deciding against them is in the oppositions favour, especially with the number of close fights in SMC's this election - though none so close as Ms Chiams.
But don’t just take my word for it – read the statute for yourself.
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_vers...Y+ELECTIONS+ACT &date=latest&method=part&sl=1
I also am not quite sure why SPP isn’t just running an online petition that people can sign or indicate assent online? If anyone from the SPP is reading this, we’d be quite happy to let you have access to the Tanjong Pagar Groups online petitioner sign up. We’ve paid for it already – you might as well have it.
On a final note to all of you who have taken the time to read this - a democracy is about reading things for yourself then making up your mind – not blindly doing as told – no matter who tells you what to do – ruling party OR opposition. We are free citizens of Singapore and we have paid the price to exercise our rights – so please use them.
Votes to be rejected
50. —(1) The Returning Officer shall reject as invalid the following ballot papers only, namely, any ballot paper —
(a) which does not bear the complete official mark for the authentication of ballot papers or is not initialled by the presiding officer;
(b) on which votes are given for more than one candidate or group of candidates;
(c) on which anything is written or marked by which the voter can be identified except the printed number on the back;
(d) which is unmarked; or
(e) which is void for uncertainty.
[10/88; 18/99]
(2) Where the Returning Officer is satisfied that any mark made on a ballot paper clearly indicates the intention of the voter and the candidate or group of candidates for whom he gives his vote, the Returning Officer shall not reject the ballot paper on the ground solely that it has not been marked in all respects in accordance with the directions given for the guidance of voters under this Act.
[10/88]
(3) Before rejecting a ballot paper, the Returning Officer shall show it to each candidate or his counting agent if present and hear his views thereon, taking all proper precautions to prevent any person from seeing the number printed on the back of the paper.
(4) The decision of the Returning Officer whether or not any ballot paper shall be rejected shall be final and shall not be questioned on an application under section 90.
[42/2005]
(2) Where the Returning Officer is satisfied that any mark made on a ballot paper clearly indicates the intention of the voter and the candidate or group of candidates for whom he gives his vote, the Returning Officer shall not reject the ballot paper on the ground solely that it has not been marked in all respects in accordance with the directions given for the guidance of voters under this Act.
[10/88]
Appointment and powers of Election Judge
92. —(1) Every application under section 90 shall be heard by the Chief Justice or by a Judge of the Supreme Court nominated by the Chief Justice for the purpose.
[42/2005]
(2) The Chief Justice or the Judge so nominated is referred to in this Act as the Election Judge.
(3) Witnesses shall be subpoenaed and sworn in the same manner as nearly as circumstances admit as in a trial by the High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction and shall be subject to the same penalties for the giving of false evidence.
(4) On the hearing of an application under section 90, the Election Judge may, by order under his hand, compel the attendance of any person as a witness who appears to him to have been concerned in the election to which the application refers.
[42/2005]
(5) Any person refusing to obey the order of the Election Judge under subsection (4) shall be guilty of contempt of court.
(6) The Election Judge may examine any witness so compelled to attend or any person in court, although the witness is not called and examined by any party to the application.
[42/2005]
(7) After the examination of a witness by the Election Judge, the witness may be cross-examined by or on behalf of the applicant and the respondent, or either of them.
[42/2005]
(8) The Election Judge shall be attended on the hearing of an application under section 90 in the same manner as if he were a Judge of the High Court.
[16/93; 42/2005]
(9) Unless otherwise ordered by the Chief Justice, all interlocutory matters in connection with an application under section 90 may be dealt with and decided by any Judge of the High Court.
[16/93; 42/2005]
Who may make application under section 90
93. An application under section 90 may be made to the Supreme Court by any one or more of the following persons:
(a) some person who voted or had a right to vote at the election to which the application relates;
(b) some person claiming to have had a right to be returned or elected at the election;
(c) some person alleging himself to have been a candidate at the election.
[42/2005]
Relief which may be claimed
94. All or any of the following reliefs to which the applicant may be entitled may be claimed in an application under section 90:
(a) a declaration that the election is void;
(b) a declaration that the return of the person elected was undue;
(c) a declaration that any candidate was duly elected and ought to have been returned;
(d) where the seat is claimed for an unsuccessful candidate on the ground that he or the group of candidates to which he belongs had a majority of lawful votes, a scrutiny.
[10/88; 42/2005]
Certificate of Election Judge as to validity of election
95. —(1) At the conclusion of the hearing of an application under section 90, the Election Judge shall determine whether the Member whose return or election is complained of, or any other and what person, was duly returned or elected, or whether the election was void, and shall certify such determination to the President.
[42/2005]
(2) Upon the certificate being given under subsection (1), the determination shall be final; and the return shall be confirmed or altered, or the President shall within one month of the determination, by notice in the Gazette, order the holding of an election in the electoral division concerned, as the case may require, in accordance with the certificate.
[10/88]
(3) Where the election of any Member for a group representation constituency is determined by the Election Judge under subsection (1) to be void, the election of the other Members for that constituency shall be deemed to be void.
[10/88; 9/91]
[42/2005]
Procedure and practice on applications under section 90
100. —(1) The procedure and practice on applications under section 90 shall be regulated by rules which may be made by the Rules Committee constituted and appointed under section 80 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap. 322).
[42/2005]
(2) The Rules contained in the Fourth Schedule shall be deemed to have been made under the powers conferred by subsection (1) and shall be amendable by rules made under that subsection.
[21/91; 42/2005]
SECOND SCHEDULE
Section 42(7)
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT
(CHAPTER 218)
DIRECTIONS FOR GUIDANCE OF VOTERS IN VOTING
1. The voter may vote for one candidate or, if the electoral division is a group representation constituency, one group of candidates.
2. The voter has one vote.
3. The voter will go into the place reserved for the marking of ballot papers and mark a cross in the space provided for the purpose on the right hand side of the ballot paper opposite the name of the candidate or, if the electoral division is a group representation constituency, the names of the group of candidates, for which he votes, thus, X.
4. The voter will then fold up the ballot paper so as to show the official mark on the back, and without showing the front of the paper to any person, show the official mark on the back to the presiding officer, put the paper into the ballot box and immediately leave the polling station.
5. If the voter inadvertently spoils a ballot paper, he can return it to the presiding officer who will, if satisfied of such inadvertence, give him another paper.
6. If the voter votes for more than one candidate or, if the electoral division is a group representation constituency, more than one group of candidates, on any ballot paper, his ballot paper will be void and will not be counted.
7. If the voter places any mark on the ballot paper by which he may afterwards be identified, his ballot paper will be void and will not be counted.
The Potong Pasir Petition – and the Parliamentary Act. Share and repost to all those who are interested in this matter.
.by Karen Teoh on Sunday, May 8, 2011 at 5:25pm.Friends,
Many of you would have received the call to go down to Potong Pasir to sign a petition. More than a few of you, like me, have also asked “Why?” and how will this help.
Now, some of you may have seen my earlier notes about the Tanjong Pagar GRC walkover, so I hope you will take my word for it that I know enough about the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap 218) (“the PE Act”) to be able to explain the why – and what the SPP are trying to do.
Please read this article by Alex Au in which the basis of counting is set out.
http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/counting-agent-me/
All further references hereunder are to sections are under the PE Act. Also, all opinions on the law remain mine and should not be taken as advice as I am not a qualified person under the Legal Professions Act.
Now that we've got the disclaimers out of the way, on to what you all want to know.
SPP’s legal case, if it goes forward, would be an application by Originating Summons under s 90(b) by named plaintiffs, foremost of would be Lina Chiam under s 93(b), as well as Potong Pasir voters under s 90(a). Affidavits would need also be drafted adducing evidence that the Returning Officers judgment of the intention on the mark under s 50(2) is incorrect. It would also help to give evidence at the Polling stations by Poling agents that no assistance was given to voters about voting instructions under schedule 2 of the Act.
Under s 50(4) of the Act on rejection of papers is beyond the purview of the Election judge – so only the correctness of the papers attributed to each side, whether rightly or wrongly and counted under s 50(2) of the Act is at issue. Depending on the finding the judge takes, either 1 vote counted wrongly is sufficient – or all votes counted would lead to a different result, the Elections judge could void the election under s94(a), return the correct candidate to power s 94(c) and s 94(d) – scrutinize the votes. I think s 94(d) and s 94(c) together are rather more sensible – but as a matter of course, all remedies will be added to the pleadings for the Originating Summons.
In any case, it would be a win for Singaporeans for us to lay down the law so that Returning Officials of the ilk described by Alex Au in the link above are no longer given any latitude. I dread to think what happened in the close constituencies for WP.
Based on my experience with the preliminaries of getting such a petition together, SPP and Ms Chiam have 21 days from today, May 8 to file a petition as an originating summons under s 97. An estimate of costs given to me for the Tanjong Pagar application if the facts had been in our favour were that a 1 day trial for an OS would cost about $25K in court costs and filing fees, and a further $30-50K in lawyers fees. It would have come in at a lower end of the spectrum because I was prepared to do a fair bit of the work in drafting affidavits. These costs will have to be paid for by SPP – or the public.
If this case should go through, I think that the SDP, WP, Reform Party and NSP should all contribute minimum sums of at least $5,000 – for the simple reason that tying down the Returning Officers discretion in deciding against them is in the oppositions favour, especially with the number of close fights in SMC's this election - though none so close as Ms Chiams.
But don’t just take my word for it – read the statute for yourself.
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_vers...Y+ELECTIONS+ACT &date=latest&method=part&sl=1
I also am not quite sure why SPP isn’t just running an online petition that people can sign or indicate assent online? If anyone from the SPP is reading this, we’d be quite happy to let you have access to the Tanjong Pagar Groups online petitioner sign up. We’ve paid for it already – you might as well have it.
On a final note to all of you who have taken the time to read this - a democracy is about reading things for yourself then making up your mind – not blindly doing as told – no matter who tells you what to do – ruling party OR opposition. We are free citizens of Singapore and we have paid the price to exercise our rights – so please use them.
Votes to be rejected
50. —(1) The Returning Officer shall reject as invalid the following ballot papers only, namely, any ballot paper —
(a) which does not bear the complete official mark for the authentication of ballot papers or is not initialled by the presiding officer;
(b) on which votes are given for more than one candidate or group of candidates;
(c) on which anything is written or marked by which the voter can be identified except the printed number on the back;
(d) which is unmarked; or
(e) which is void for uncertainty.
[10/88; 18/99]
(2) Where the Returning Officer is satisfied that any mark made on a ballot paper clearly indicates the intention of the voter and the candidate or group of candidates for whom he gives his vote, the Returning Officer shall not reject the ballot paper on the ground solely that it has not been marked in all respects in accordance with the directions given for the guidance of voters under this Act.
[10/88]
(3) Before rejecting a ballot paper, the Returning Officer shall show it to each candidate or his counting agent if present and hear his views thereon, taking all proper precautions to prevent any person from seeing the number printed on the back of the paper.
(4) The decision of the Returning Officer whether or not any ballot paper shall be rejected shall be final and shall not be questioned on an application under section 90.
[42/2005]
(2) Where the Returning Officer is satisfied that any mark made on a ballot paper clearly indicates the intention of the voter and the candidate or group of candidates for whom he gives his vote, the Returning Officer shall not reject the ballot paper on the ground solely that it has not been marked in all respects in accordance with the directions given for the guidance of voters under this Act.
[10/88]
Appointment and powers of Election Judge
92. —(1) Every application under section 90 shall be heard by the Chief Justice or by a Judge of the Supreme Court nominated by the Chief Justice for the purpose.
[42/2005]
(2) The Chief Justice or the Judge so nominated is referred to in this Act as the Election Judge.
(3) Witnesses shall be subpoenaed and sworn in the same manner as nearly as circumstances admit as in a trial by the High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction and shall be subject to the same penalties for the giving of false evidence.
(4) On the hearing of an application under section 90, the Election Judge may, by order under his hand, compel the attendance of any person as a witness who appears to him to have been concerned in the election to which the application refers.
[42/2005]
(5) Any person refusing to obey the order of the Election Judge under subsection (4) shall be guilty of contempt of court.
(6) The Election Judge may examine any witness so compelled to attend or any person in court, although the witness is not called and examined by any party to the application.
[42/2005]
(7) After the examination of a witness by the Election Judge, the witness may be cross-examined by or on behalf of the applicant and the respondent, or either of them.
[42/2005]
(8) The Election Judge shall be attended on the hearing of an application under section 90 in the same manner as if he were a Judge of the High Court.
[16/93; 42/2005]
(9) Unless otherwise ordered by the Chief Justice, all interlocutory matters in connection with an application under section 90 may be dealt with and decided by any Judge of the High Court.
[16/93; 42/2005]
Who may make application under section 90
93. An application under section 90 may be made to the Supreme Court by any one or more of the following persons:
(a) some person who voted or had a right to vote at the election to which the application relates;
(b) some person claiming to have had a right to be returned or elected at the election;
(c) some person alleging himself to have been a candidate at the election.
[42/2005]
Relief which may be claimed
94. All or any of the following reliefs to which the applicant may be entitled may be claimed in an application under section 90:
(a) a declaration that the election is void;
(b) a declaration that the return of the person elected was undue;
(c) a declaration that any candidate was duly elected and ought to have been returned;
(d) where the seat is claimed for an unsuccessful candidate on the ground that he or the group of candidates to which he belongs had a majority of lawful votes, a scrutiny.
[10/88; 42/2005]
Certificate of Election Judge as to validity of election
95. —(1) At the conclusion of the hearing of an application under section 90, the Election Judge shall determine whether the Member whose return or election is complained of, or any other and what person, was duly returned or elected, or whether the election was void, and shall certify such determination to the President.
[42/2005]
(2) Upon the certificate being given under subsection (1), the determination shall be final; and the return shall be confirmed or altered, or the President shall within one month of the determination, by notice in the Gazette, order the holding of an election in the electoral division concerned, as the case may require, in accordance with the certificate.
[10/88]
(3) Where the election of any Member for a group representation constituency is determined by the Election Judge under subsection (1) to be void, the election of the other Members for that constituency shall be deemed to be void.
[10/88; 9/91]
[42/2005]
Procedure and practice on applications under section 90
100. —(1) The procedure and practice on applications under section 90 shall be regulated by rules which may be made by the Rules Committee constituted and appointed under section 80 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap. 322).
[42/2005]
(2) The Rules contained in the Fourth Schedule shall be deemed to have been made under the powers conferred by subsection (1) and shall be amendable by rules made under that subsection.
[21/91; 42/2005]
SECOND SCHEDULE
Section 42(7)
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT
(CHAPTER 218)
DIRECTIONS FOR GUIDANCE OF VOTERS IN VOTING
1. The voter may vote for one candidate or, if the electoral division is a group representation constituency, one group of candidates.
2. The voter has one vote.
3. The voter will go into the place reserved for the marking of ballot papers and mark a cross in the space provided for the purpose on the right hand side of the ballot paper opposite the name of the candidate or, if the electoral division is a group representation constituency, the names of the group of candidates, for which he votes, thus, X.
4. The voter will then fold up the ballot paper so as to show the official mark on the back, and without showing the front of the paper to any person, show the official mark on the back to the presiding officer, put the paper into the ballot box and immediately leave the polling station.
5. If the voter inadvertently spoils a ballot paper, he can return it to the presiding officer who will, if satisfied of such inadvertence, give him another paper.
6. If the voter votes for more than one candidate or, if the electoral division is a group representation constituency, more than one group of candidates, on any ballot paper, his ballot paper will be void and will not be counted.
7. If the voter places any mark on the ballot paper by which he may afterwards be identified, his ballot paper will be void and will not be counted.
