MARUAH – GE2025 series (4th of 6)

30 April 2025

Article 21(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

At MARUAH, we believe in everyone’s right to a free and fair election.


MARUAH – GE2025 series (3rd of 6)

29 April 2025

Article 21(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

At MARUAH, we believe in everyone’s right to a free and fair election.


MARUAH – GE2025 series (2nd of 6)

28 April 2025

Article 21(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

At MARUAH, we believe in everyone’s right to a free and fair election.


MARUAH – GE2025 series (1st of 6)

27 April 2025

Article 21(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

At MARUAH, we believe in everyone’s right to a free and fair election.


MARUAH – GE2025 series

26 April 2025

At MARUAH, we believe in everyone’s right to a free and fair election.

In July 2020, we published a series of six posts in as part of a ‘GE2020 series’.

The messaging contained within is still as relevant as ever, and serve as a timely reminder that everyone has a right to a free and fair election.

We will be republishing these posts and our messages over the next few days leading up to Polling Day.

Thank you.


What principles should be considered to guide the boundary delimitation process?

1 April 2025

In a 2007 paper published by Dr. Lisa Handley, “Challenging the Norms and Standards of Election Administration: Boundary Delimitation”, she explained how certain fundamental principles should be considered when setting international election standards to guide the delimitation process.

  • Impartiality: The boundary authority should be a nonpartisan, independent, and professional body;
  • Equality: The populations of constituencies should be as equal as possible to
    provide voters with equality of voting strength;
  • Representativeness: Constituencies should be drawn taking into account
    cohesive communities, defined by such factors as administrative boundaries,
    geographic features, and communities of interest;
  • Non-discrimination: The delimitation process should be devoid of electoral
    boundary manipulation that discriminates against voters on account of race, color,
    language, religion, or related status; and
  • Transparency: The delimitation process should as transparent and accessible to
    the public as possible.

Dr. Handley concluded that “there is no single best model for delimiting constituency boundaries. The wide variety of delimitation practices, many of them quite successful, attest to this. However, it is important to establish standards to which the delimitation process might aspire, if current practices do not already meet them. These standards will need to be flexible to be relevant to both mature and transitional democracies, but underlying all of them should be the fundamental principles of impartiality, equality, representativeness, nondiscrimination, and transparency.

Meeting standards that include an impartial boundary authority (guided by principles like equal voting strength, representativeness, and non-discrimination) as well as a process that is as transparent as possible offers credibility and legitimacy to a process that can have decided political consequences. The table below provides a summary of the principles that should guide the delimitation process and some examples of best practices that meet these standards.


Electoral Boundary Delimitation in Singapore

29 March 2025

What is electoral boundary delimitation?

Boundary delimitation usually refers to the process of drawing electoral district boundaries. However, it can also be used to denote the process of drawing voting areas (also called polling areas, districts or election precincts) for the purposes of assigning voters to polling places. The periodic delimitation of electoral boundaries is necessary in any representative system where single-member districts or uniformly small multi-member districts are used. If electoral boundaries are not periodically adjusted, population inequities develop across districts.

Countries have adopted various methods for delimiting districts. Countries that delimit districts must establish a formal structure and a set of rules for carrying out the delimitation process. In some, the choice of methods is simply a matter of historical tradition, but the delimitation can also be based on a variety of factors that may include the geographic size of the country, its physical features, or its financial resources. Different sets of districts can produce different election outcomes, and even if the underlying vote patterns remain constant, the choice of delimitation practices is important.

Source: ACE Electoral Knowledge Network

Observations of electoral boundary delimitation in Singapore

  • Process shrouded in secrecy, i.e. lack of transparency
  • Unexplained changes in electoral boundaries
  • Electoral boundaries may not coincide with community boundaries
  • No public representation on the Electoral Boundary Review Committee (EBRC)


Our right to free and fair elections

27 March 2025

Universal Declaration of Human Rights – Article 21 (3)

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

General comment adopted by the Human Rights Committee under article 40, paragraph 4, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

21. Although the Covenant does not impose any particular electoral system, any system operating in a State party must be compatible with the rights protected by article 25 and must guarantee and give effect to the free expression of the will of the electors. The principle of one person, one vote must apply, and within the framework of each State’s electoral system, the vote of one elector should be equal to the vote of another. The drawing of electoral boundaries and the method of allocating votes should not distort the distribution of voters or discriminate against any group and should not exclude or restrict unreasonably the right of citizens to choose their representatives freely.


MARUAH letter on recent changes to electoral procedures

14 June 2024

Maruah has submitted the following feedback to Elections Department of Singapore (“ELD”) in view of the General Election due by next year, and ELD’s announcement that it had made some changes to electoral procedures as a result of experience gained in the 2023 Presidential Election:

—–

To: Elections Department, Prime Minister’s Office

Maruah is gratified that you are responding to public feedback and providing more space on ballot papers for voters to indicate their choice. During last year’s Presidential Election, ELD also introduced two new methods of voting – postal ballots and special polling stations at nursing homes. More voters were able to have their voices heard thanks to these new procedures, but there is room for improvement in these procedures.

In the case of postal balloting, over 40% of postal ballots received were rejected, mostly due to illegible or missing postmarks, or late delivery. These were not the fault of the voters, and I urge ELD to adopt more reliable ways of validating the dates of dispatch instead of relying solely on the vagaries of foreign postal systems. The forms and instructions for voting should also be improved to reduce the chance of inadvertent errors such as voters signing their forms at the wrong place or posting multiple ballots in the same envelope.

In the case of nursing homes, residents were pre-selected for participation based on the homes’ assessments of their ability to vote. Unfortunately, from my own observations as a polling agent, a large proportion of the selected residents did not appear to have the mental capacity to vote or to clearly indicate their choice. This was alluded to by Minister Chan Chun Sing in a written reply to a Parliamentary Question on 4 October 2023, where he said “election officials did face challenges including managing voters who may lack the mental capacity to vote”. To prevent any disputes in future over the validity of votes at nursing homes, ELD should tighten and standardise the criteria used to assess the mental capacity of residents before they vote. ELD should also evaluate the usefulness of mobile polling stations at nursing homes.

Maruah would like to thank ELD, and the thousands of elections officials and public servants involved in elections, for their continual efforts to improve the voting experience and making it easier for Singaporeans to exercise their right and duty of voting.

MARUAH Singapore

June 2024


[Repost] The Big Read: Transporting migrant workers on lorries — why can’t we stop the unsafe practice after so long?

20 August 2023

https://www.todayonline.com/big-read/big-read-transporting-migrant-workers-lorries-why-cant-we-stop-unsafe-practice-after-so-long-2235726

SINGAPORE — Sometime in 2021, migrant worker Miah Mohammad Afzal saw a traffic accident before his very eyes — a motorcycle crashing into a stationary lorry that was picking up a group of his colleagues.

It happened by the roadside where he was waiting with his other colleagues to be picked up by another lorry, which arrived minutes after that accident.

“At that time I was thinking, if this accident happened two minutes later, then I’d also be on the lorry, and I also would have been injured,” he told TODAY, adding that while he felt grateful for narrowly escaping harm, he felt “very sad” for his fellow workers.

Little did he expect that a similar misfortune would befall him just months later, when a car crashed into the lorry that was ferrying him and a colleague as they sat in its rear deck.

While the other man managed to hold on to the side of the vehicle, Mr Afzal, then 28, was flung a few metres out of the lorry.

The accident, which struck Mr Afzal at the prime of his life, resulted in over 250 days of hospitalisation leave and left him with mild cognitive disability and retrograde amnesia, and a permanent injury to his hip and pelvis.

With his mother unwell and the injury claim process dragging out, Mr Afzal returned to his hometown in Bangladesh, where he now tries his best to get by with helping out at his family farm.

“I cannot do hard work like before… Right now, I feel like I’m 40 or 50 years old,” he said, adding that people around him could also notice the decline in his health and ability to do physical work.

Mr Afzal is just one among thousands of workers who have been injured, maimed or killed in accidents involving lorries the past 10 years or so, while the practice of ferrying workers on the rear decks of such vehicles have been endlessly debated on for at least over a decade with nary a progress.

A few other migrant workers who spoke to TODAY recently — mostly under anonymity due to fear of reprisals — lamented how their pleas to employers were met with indifference at best or on many occasions, threats of deportation.

“I cannot open (my) mouth…boss will say: ‘This one, I will send back already’,” said one worker from India who worked as a lorry driver in the construction industry for five years, before recently moving to a different industry. He added that riding on the back of lorries “is not just dangerous, it’s very, very dangerous”.

The long-running debate on the issue of safer transportation for foreign workers was reignited recently, following two such accidents and a parliamentary adjournment motion filed by Member of Parliament (MP) Louis Ng in July, asking for a timeline towards legislating a ban on ferrying workers at the back of lorries, and some interim measures in the meantime.

Two petitions were also raised by members of the public and non-government organisations (NGOs) in July, followed by a joint response on Aug 1 by 25 business and trade associations.

While reiterating the business fraternity’s commitment to workers’ safety, the statement by the business groups cautioned against any form of immediate legislation, warning people to brace themselves for traffic jams, higher costs and “a change in social compact” if they insist on hastily changing the way workers are transported.

The statement inevitably drew flak from members of the public, with some accusing businesses of prioritising profits over human lives, trying to push the bill (and blame) on society, and dragging their feet given that the debate has been going on for so long. 

Singapore’s Ambassador-at-Large Tommy Koh also reacted negatively to the statement, saying that the business groups “are resorting to scare tactics to support their cause”.

“We should not be misled by their campaign,” he wrote in a Facebook post.

On the Government’s part, the Ministry of Transport (MOT) and government partner agencies issued a joint statement on Aug 2, reaffirming their commitment to workers’ safety while highlighting that a big push that threaten the ability of businesses to stay open may put employees’ jobs at risk, besides other “knock-on effects” on society like more expensive or delayed infrastructure projects. 

“We want to safeguard both safety and livelihoods of our workers, and have worked closely with stakeholders on a suite of additional safety measures,” the joint statement said, highlighting incremental steps taken over the years.

Amid the renewed debate, a few local companies shared with TODAY the extent of their cost concerns, and other operational challenges they had experienced in trying to switch to safer transport modes.

At the same time, most parties lobbying for better treatment of workers —  including NGOs focusing on the welfare of migrant workers  — said they empathised with the challenges faced by businesses.

Ms Jewel Yi, co-lead of ground-up movement Covid-19 Migrant Support Coalition, acknowledged how difficult it is to be an employer in Singapore and that cost issues would “affect the rice bowls of people on the ground”.

While “we definitely do not and should not demonise” employers in this debate, she stressed that the main point that safe transport proponents are making is “whether the cost concerns of employers should outweigh the lives and limbs of workers”.

While the issue is pressing, and perhaps even overdue, the advocates are not demanding an instant overhaul of the long-running practice.

Please visit Todayonline.com to access the rest of the article – https://www.todayonline.com/big-read/big-read-transporting-migrant-workers-lorries-why-cant-we-stop-unsafe-practice-after-so-long-2235726