From my sister’s Facebook Fan Page.

–

Sept 3, 2011

Hi everyone,

Thanks for reading The Straits Times and for your support of this FB fan page.

I left Jakarta the week before last, after 2.5 years of an extremely exciting and meaningful experience reporting on Indonesia. I have since left The Straits Times to pursue a new career outside journalism.

A few days ago, Wikileaks released a US Embassy cable that quoted my name. This is my response to it. I sent an excerpt of this note to my former editors at the ST. They replied to thank me for making these clarifications.

I met with a political officer of the US Embassy in 2008 for an informal contact meeting, prior to my Jakarta posting.

I am not making excuses – his cable misrepresented what I said and I would like to place on record what actually transpired.

I did not say or suggest that there was a “disconnect” between editors and reporters at the The Straits Times. Neither did I say I would “never write about racially-sensitive issues”. My comments were taken wholly out of context.

The political officer was interested in whether reporters and their supervisors in the ST newsroom ever disagreed on story angles. He suggested that reporters – especially those who had gone to school in a liberal environment such as in the US – would feel constrained for whatever reason in the newsroom.

My response included these points: That reporters and their editors did engage in discussions over how stories should be written – with the ultimate aim being to produce balanced reports – but that the editors would of course have the final word on what went into print.

What I also said was that I believe that the ST is run by smart people who strive to do what’s best for its readers, even as they face pressure from a government seeking to set the tone and form of media coverage.

This is a position I held openly and consistently throughout my eight-year career at The Straits Times.

I also stated that I would not want to write articles containing racially-charged remarks that could incite hatred or create rifts within society. I pointed out an example of how baseless comments could create or aggravate tensions among people. I am surprised that what I still believe to be a responsible position to take was misconstrued as self-censorship.

Neither did I suggest in any way that I was “discouraged” with my life as a Singapore journalist. I expressed my readiness to take on a new challenge and learn about a new country. I said that I would need a year at the very least to assess if the role was right for me.

My recent decision to leave journalism had everything to do with my own personal goals. I wanted to try something new and the right opportunity came up. It was not related to opinions referred to above that I openly held nor to the suggested – and misrepresented – angst the cable indicated I felt.

I have had a fulfilling and rewarding time working with my editors at the paper.

So after the first round of the Singapore Presidential Election 2011 (PE2011) results came out last night, I posted this status update on Twitter and Facebook:

If there’s gonna be a recount, can I also recast my vote?

Subsequently, I received comments/@replies to do with breast-beating and vote-splitting.

I also had the pleasure of reading similar-sounding status updates around the same time.

.  .  .  (or maybe -_- ?)

To clarify:

1. When I posted that update, I meant it as a tongue-in-cheek critique of the decision to proceed with the recount.

   I was fully aware that a recasting of the vote was and is impossible (although I think a run-off vote might be a good idea in the future so that the candidate that is elected goes into office with the support of a clear and distinct majority).

   What I meant was: look, if the difference was 100 votes, I’d wholeheartedly say yes to the recount. But if the difference was 7000 votes, how far off could the vote-counters have been?

   Was it not a waste of the vote-counters’ and the electorate’s time with a decision that was logical in theory but not in practice?

2. Most importantly, there was no self-recrimination going on when I made that update.

   I think it was a fair contest (to a certain extent, of course – and educated readers are already aware of the extents I am referring to).

   However, there was much recrimination on the parts of others.

   Many people were complaining about how the vote had been split, and if Tan Jee Say and Tan Kin Lian hadn’t contested, Tan Cheng Bock wouldn’t've have had his vote share eroded, and he would’ve become the elected President instead.

   I agree that the vote was split in that there were four candidates, so each candidate garnered a share of the vote, however large (or small) it might’ve been.

   But to quote a friend on Facebook:

   Democracy means I suck thumb and accept this Tan.

   There were four candidates; we voted; the Tan of our choice didn’t get in – deal with it.

P.S. To preempt any criticism regarding the picture at the top of my post: yes, I’m also aware that Sparta used to be an oligarchy…

P.P.S. Yawning Bread and Yee Jenn Jong have quite interesting takes on PE2011.

Pursuant (LOL) to my previous post on voting and ballot secrecy, I will now explain what the phrase “Your vote is secret” means:

Common misinterpretation (or myth)

• Statement: You cannot tell anyone how you voted or how you intend to vote, because that’s a secret.
• Response: WRONG! Your vote/voting intention is only a secret if you want it to be a secret from everyone else.

Correct interpretation

Your physical vote is secret i.e. after you slot your voting slip into the ballot box, it will not be traced back to you.

Please refer to this post to find out why.

–

So you can tell people how you voted/how you intend to vote. There’s no law which mandates that you keep your vote/voting intention a secret.

In fact, you should discuss your voting inclination as often as you can.

Discussions of voting decisions, processes, etc. are always healthy and fruitful – so long as these discussions are conducted in a healthy manner, of course, with healthy people who are willing to listen to you, as opposed to, say, antagonising/intimidating/irritating/pooh-poohing you.

–

In any case, to prove my point about voting secrecy:

I stated yesterday that my vote would be going to Tan Jee Say, right?

But for all we know, I could’ve voted for Tan Cheng Bock… right?

The only way to confirm how I actually voted would be to:

1. Obtain a court order to open up the ballot boxes (and – mind you – there needs to be a good reason for this),
2. Trace my polling card number to the voting slip number, then
3. Find the correct voting slip hidden among the hundreds of voting slips in the ballot box.

Who is going to go to all that trouble???

–

P.S. Just to clarify, I did eventually vote for Tan Jee Say.

I don’t agree with everything he says.

However, his campaign statements about the Presidency are not only most closely aligned to my own values as a human being, but also most closely aligned to what I want in my President.

Moreover, Agagooga a.k.a. Gabriel Seah made a very insightful comment on Twitter about this matter:

One should vote holistically. If I had to agree with everything a party/candidate said I’d spoil my vote.

When I go into the polling booth tomorrow, I’ll be voting for Tan Jee Say.

I’m a bit late – I guess that makes me a swing voter? Heh.

Nevertheless, the decision to vote for Tan Jee Say only crystallised early this morning, after I did some long and hard soul searching.

In short, my decision has been based on how:

• We need leaders who have the vision and the moral courage to do what is right and stand up for things that are wrong – not managers who do what is easy and follow the status quo, even in the face of possible wrong-doings.
• Gravitas is extrinsic but ethics and morality is intrinsic; the former can be learnt, but the latter… Well, the latter can be ‘learnt’ too. But if you don’t have a heart, you just don’t – and people can see it.

Last but not least – and this is the most important reason of all – it’s time we did the right thing.

We spend so much time telling our children to do the right thing: be upright people; tell the truth as it is and not what you hope it to be; care for your fellow human beings; don’t cut corners; serve your community and nation with pride.

Imagine if I go into the polling booth on Saturday and place a cross next to a candidate who:

• Will not hesitate to curtail a person’s freedom, or at least, will perpetuate the ignominy of taking away a person’s dignity; or
• Will be easily satisfied in preventing transparency rather than enabling it; or
• Will allow discrimination against ordinary human beings like you and me to carry on unabated, or at least, fail to prevent hatred from spreading; or worse,
• Does not even have the courage to order his child not to skive or shy away from meaningful but laborious service?

If I vote for a person like that, how do I, in all good conscience, then go into class on Wednesday morning and look my students in the eye and say: hey kids, I did the right thing?

I’d be a morally bankrupt individual if I did that.

So come Saturday, I’ll be voting with my conscience, and I’ll be voting for Tan Jee Say. Come with?

Or, why I’m now seriously scared of Tony Tan, just like how George Yeo scared the bejesus out of me with his “Christians are less likely to riot” comment.

Why?

1. Watch this video once.
2. Watch the video again from 1:35 onwards, this time paying close attention to the parts of the transcript in bold:
   

   (Transcript from 1:35)

   “T-t-t-terrorism [1] is a fact of life today, and, er, you know, it is with us and I don’t think there is any point in trying to (pause) disguise ah, and it comes in many forms, not only with regard to one sector of… (longer pause) society [2], (pause) but from sectors of society or countries which you never thought this could happen – look at Norway.

   (longer pause)

   Somebody – Anders Breivik, I think – from the Christian far-right, (pause) set off a series of bombs, took a gun, killed over 90 people.

   Would you believe that could happen in Norway? From the Christian far-right [3]?“

3. Refer to the video once more, and answer the corresponding questions that follow:
   1. Based on the earlier portion of Tony Tan’s reply, why does Tony Tan stutter when pronouncing the word “terrorism”? Refer to Yawning Bread if you need assistance.
   2. Which “sector of society” is Tony Tan referring to? What is the significance of his longer pause i.e. what does it reveal about his thoughts and feelings with regard to that “sector of society”?
   3. Why is it hard to “believe” that “the Christian far-right” is not capable of carrying out violence? What is the significance of his use of rhetorical questions?

BONUS: One arbitrarily-chosen winner will win one arbitrarily-chosen prize based on the accuracy of your answers.

A heartening sight on a rainy Saturday afternoon: the Workers’ Party MPs braving the rain to say ‘thank you’ to the residents of Aljunied GRC.

Respect!

Suddenly, I discover I’ve been un-Friended.

“Getty Richway Luckschild is no longer in your friend list.”

Confused. Why? I hop over to his profile to try and figure it out. Ah. So des ne.

One of Getty Richway Luckschild’s likes: George Yeo.

Thought I’d just take a basic/preliminary look at the rejected votes in this year’s General Elections because it’s something I’m curious about.

Based on data provided by ChannelNewsAsia:

• Total percentage of rejected votes as a proportion of votes cast: 2%
• Constituencies with lowest percentage of rejected votes:
  • Hougang: 1.13%
  • Aljunied: 1.34%
• Constituency with highest percentage of rejected votes: Ang Mo Kio (3.01%)
• Proportion of constituencies with rejected votes > national average of rejected votes: 16/26

What are some possible conclusions we can draw from this?

• Perhaps voters in Hougang and Aljunied took voting the most seriously because:
  • These constituencies were the most hotly contested,
  • These constituencies were contested by the Workers’ Party (reinforced by the fact that all except one of the constituencies contested by the Workers’ Party had <2% of votes rejected).
• Rejected votes in Ang Mo Kio: small proportion of voters who feel they don’t really have a choice, or perhaps are really clueless about how to vote.
• If it’s the latter, then we can tackle this problem in relation to the fourth statistic I found:
  • Perhaps we need to be teaching our fellow citizens how to vote over the course of five years, instead of only doing so during the elections.
  • There also needs to be instructions at polling booths, because the rejected votes make a mockery of the voting process.

This is a basic analysis of the data, so I welcome more scrutiny/thoughts on the subject.

TL;DR: Your spoilt vote can be counted if the Assistant Returning Officer (ARO) deems it possible that there was intent to vote for a certain party.

I don’t know if this post will have any relevance, since I’m posting it so late on Polling Day.

But I thought I’d put it up for now and for posterity, to clear any misconceptions that people might have about spoiling their votes.

In sum, don’t spoil your vote because a spoilt vote is not always a spoilt vote.

With reference to Section 7.5 of the Handbook for Parliamentary Election Candidates 2011:

…a ballot paper on which the vote is marked elsewhere than in the proper place, otherwise than by means of a cross or by more than one marking will not be treated as void if an intention that the vote should be for one candidate or group of candidate clearly appears, and the way the paper is marked does not of itself identify the voter.

How does the ARO do this? These images will make my explanation clearer (borrowed from 何思慧’s Facebook note):

Any mark you make in the box next to the insignia of a certain party = intent to vote for them.

If you draw a big cross over the whole piece of paper, the vote is counted at the point where the centre of the X falls.

The only way to make sure your vote counts is to place a nice ‘X’ in the centre of the empty box next to the insignia of the party you are voting for.

If we still have to spend time discussing fundamental things like these, then what actual progress have we Singaporeans made as human beings?

Hence, I’m doing my part as a concerned citizen by posting this guide on voting and ballot secrecy, adapted from The Workers’ Party post on the matter.

You may, if you wish, download a guide here: everything on one-page or optimised for easier reading.

–

Have you heard people say that your vote is not secret?

Well, they’re either lying, or they’re stupid, or both. In all cases, they’re wrong – your vote is secret!

Here are some answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the voting process:

1. Why does the election official call out my name and voter number at the polling station before giving me the ballot paper?
2. Why must ballot papers have serial numbers?
3. What happens after I cast my vote?
4. After the election, politicians are able to highlight how certain communities supported Y party or Z party. This shows that votes are not secret!
5. How else can you reassure me that my vote is secret?

Q: Why does the election official call out my name and voter number at the polling station before giving me the ballot paper?

A: This enables the representatives of political parties at the polling station to verify and cross out your name on their registers.

It is a transparent process to help all political parties:

1. Prevent double-voting by any voter, and
2. Ensure that the total number of ballot papers issued out and the total number of votes are the same.

BACK TO TOP

Q: Why must ballot papers have serial numbers?

A: This is to prevent instances of election fraud, such as:

• Bringing counterfeit ballot papers into the polling station,
• Vote impersonation,
• Exchanging ballot papers with those that have been marked by others, etc.

Places like the United Kingdom or New York State also maintain the practice of numbering their ballot papers for the above-mentioned reasons.

BACK TO TOP

Q: What happens after I cast my vote?

A: You can download a handy infographic from the Workers’ Party website, displayed here:

In sum, the following process will take place:

1. When polls close at 8 pm, voting boxes are sealed and moved to counting centres. Civil servants will count the votes in the presence of the candidates and agents from all parties contesting an area.
2. Once the votes are counted, the votes, together with all the relevant records – i.e. the stubs of the ballot papers as well as unused ballot papers – are sealed and transferred to the vault at the Supreme Court where they are kept for at least 6 months.NOTE:
   • The votes cannot be retrieved unless a court order is obtained on the grounds of election fraud.
   • According to the Elections Department website, no court order has been issued to retrieve votes to date.
3. At the end of 6 months, the sealed votes and records will be transferred to an incineration plant for destruction. The whole procedure is witnessed by candidates/agents from all parties. Seals on the votes and records have been found to be intact.

BACK TO TOP

Q: After the election, politicians are able to highlight how certain communities supported Y party or Z party. This shows that votes are not secret!

A: No. Your individual vote is secret. Nobody knows for sure how each individual votes, even if an individual states that she has voted for Y party or Z party.

Why, then, are politicians able to make the above-mentioned claim? There are two reasons:

1. First, the existence of polling stations:
   • Each polling station serves about 10 – 20 blocks of flats and/or a few landed housing estates e.g. XX01 Polling Station in XX Constituency serves Blk 1 – Blk 15 of XX Road.
   • Since the counting of votes is done by polling stations, it is possible to know the combined results of each polling station, which comprises a few thousand votes.
   • Voting results by polling stations are accessible to all political parties contesting in that constituency.
   • It is possible to estimate support by zones of residents e.g. The residents of XX Road in XX01 zone are more supportive of Y party, while the residents in XX02 zone are more supportive of Z party.
   • However, it is impossible to narrow down the level of support to a particular block or an individual.
2. Second, comments of politicians may be based on other estimates such as ground feel or verbal feedback.

BACK TO TOP

Q: How else can I be reassured that my vote is secret?

A: Tampering with the electoral process is illegal and tantamount to breaking the law.

Doing so is not in the interest of any political party elected to government – its power and legitimacy will be in question and its reputation tarnished locally and internationally.

BACK TO TOP

(Adapted from “Your Vote is Secret” by The Workers’ Party. More information on ballot secrecy can be found at the Singapore Elections Department website.

Download a guide here: everything on one-page or optimised for easier reading.