I know that for some time now, during election season, we have heard stories about residents being transported to PAP rallies and being given food and drinks. There was even one youtube video (originating from the 2011 general elections) that appears to contain a "testimony" by a rally goer that she was asked to come to the rally and that food would be given to those that came.
When the Hougang by-election campaign was going on, I blogged about whether something similar had taken place at the rallies. Let me be clear on this. My question is meant for both the PAP and the WP. http://article14.blogspot.sg/2012/05/any-food-drinks-or-vouchers-at-by.html
In my conversations with friends, and arising out of some comments that I have read online, it appears that many people consider 'treating' rally goers or voters as being underhanded and sometimes comically desperate. Many people appear not to be aware of the fact that treating a person by providing food or drinks for the purpose of influencing that person's vote or inducing him to attend a rally is in fact an offence under s.58 of the Parliamentary Elections Act:
58. —(1) A person shall be guilty of treating if he corruptly, by himself or by any other person, either before, during or after an election, directly or indirectly gives or provides, or pays wholly or in part the expense of giving, any meat, drink, refreshment, cigarette, entertainment or other provision or thing or any money or ticket or other means or device to enable the procuring of any such meat, drink, refreshment, cigarette, entertainment or other provision or thing, to or for any person —
(a) for the purpose of corruptly influencing that person or any other person to vote or refrain from voting;
(b) for the purpose of inducing that person to attend or remain at any election meeting;
(c) on account of any such person or any other person having voted or refrained from voting or being about to vote or refrain from voting at the election; or
(d) on account of any such person having attended an election meeting.
As required under the law, Desmond Choo and Png Eng Huat have filed their respective Returns on election expenses. On 2nd July 2012, the Returning Officer issued a notice under s.75 of the Parlimentary Elections Act stating that the Returns are available for inspection. http://www.eld.gov.sg/gazette/G_ParE2012/2012-07-02%20Notice%20under%20section%2075.pdf
Ordinarily, I wouldn't have been too concerned or curious about the expenses. But, my eyebrows were raised when I read a ChannelNewsAsia article: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1210457/1/.html
There's a line in there that states: "Mr Choo said the main expenses incurred were for the rallies and meals."
Meals? I hope that those were meals eaten by Mr Choo and his party workers that worked on the by-election campaign. If these meal expenses went towards feeding rally goers, s.58 of the Parliamentary Elections Act could be triggered. The Returns are available for inspection at the Elections department for a 6 month period. I might just pop down to take a look at the expenses if I can get away from work commitments. (or some other blogger/reporter from TOC or TRE might do it. :-) It would be interesting to see what sum of money was involved in relation to meals. Similarly, it would be interesting to see if Png Eng Huat had expended such sums.
Incidentally, for those that might be crying foul instantly and calling for the prosecution of Desmond Choo, take note of the fact that there is sufficient wriggle room in s.58 to argue that no offence was committed. These phrases could afford some room for the benefit of doubt to be given: "for the purpose of corruptly influencing", "for the purpose of inducing". An individual could argue innocence on account of having provided the food or drink independant of the purposes in s.58(1)(a) or s.58(1)(b).
Well, let us see what the explanation would be.
Showing posts with label desmond choo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label desmond choo. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 04, 2012
Monday, May 14, 2012
Did Subhas Anandan really say that?
It was reported in Temasek Times that Subhas Anandan has made an offer of setting up a Legal Bureau at the Hougang Community Club if the PAP candidate wins the Hougang by-election. ( http://temasektimes.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/subhas-anandan-to-offer-free-legal-aid-to-hougang-residents-if-desmond-choo-is-elected/ )
It appears that this information has been taken from a Chinese newspaper. I do not know Mandarin. But, I am given to understand that the article does not actually say that Subhas Anandan will set up a Legal Bureau at Hougang if Desmond Choo wins the by-election.
In fact, I should add that it would be shocking if Subhas Anandan actually made such an assertion as it could run counter to the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap 218):
Temasek Times ought to have been more careful in reporting the statement considering that it translates into a potential election offence. As we hurtle towards the new reality that more and more people are relying on online news, 'new media' must exercise some degree of responsibility in reporting information this like. True. We may put up such info hurriedly. But, if there are errors, we must be willing to acknowledge them. I am given to understand from a friend that the mistake could have been a result of poor translation. Does anyone with a good command of Mandarin care to comment?
It appears that this information has been taken from a Chinese newspaper. I do not know Mandarin. But, I am given to understand that the article does not actually say that Subhas Anandan will set up a Legal Bureau at Hougang if Desmond Choo wins the by-election.
In fact, I should add that it would be shocking if Subhas Anandan actually made such an assertion as it could run counter to the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap 218):
60. The following persons shall be deemed guilty of the offence of bribery:
(a) every person who, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, gives, lends, or agrees to give or lend, or offers, promises, or promises to procure or to endeavour to procure, any money or valuable consideration to or for any elector or voter, or to or for any person on behalf of any elector or voter or to or for any other person, in order to induce any elector or voter to vote or refrain from voting, or corruptly does any such act on account of that elector or voter having voted or refrained from voting at any election under this Act;
(b) every person who, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, gives or procures, or agrees to give or procure, or offers, promises, or promises to procure or to endeavour to procure, any office, place or employment to or for any elector or voter or to or for any person on behalf of any elector or voter, or to or for any other person, in order to induce that elector or voter to vote or refrain from voting, or corruptly does any such act on account of that elector or voter having voted or refrained from voting at any election under this Act;
(c) every person who, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, makes any such gift, loan, offer, promise, procurement or agreement referred to in paragraph ( a) or (b) to or for any person in order to induce that person to procure or endeavour to procure the return of any person as a Member of Parliament, or the vote of any elector or voter at any election under this Act;
Temasek Times ought to have been more careful in reporting the statement considering that it translates into a potential election offence. As we hurtle towards the new reality that more and more people are relying on online news, 'new media' must exercise some degree of responsibility in reporting information this like. True. We may put up such info hurriedly. But, if there are errors, we must be willing to acknowledge them. I am given to understand from a friend that the mistake could have been a result of poor translation. Does anyone with a good command of Mandarin care to comment?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

