Last week on 4 September, the Elections Department announced that the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) had been formed and is “in the midst of deliberations”.
The announcement caught everyone’s attention as the formation of the EBRC is usually a sign that elections are just around the corner.
On Facebook, vocal opposition politician and former member of the Singapore People’s Party (SPP) Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss pointed out that when Worker’s Party MP Pritam Singh had put forth a question in Parliament in July about the formation of the EBRC. MP Chan Chun Sing said in response that it had not been formed yet.

However, Mr Chong-Aruldoss noted that the ED announced that the EBRC had in fact been formed ‘last month’, or sometime in August 2019. As such, she questioned why the formation of the committee wasn’t announced as soon as it was formed.
She highlighted how before the GE2015, the EBRC was only announced two months after it had been formed, and only in response to a question in Parliament.
Ms Chong-Aruldoss said, “Under Singapore’s electoral rules, there is no requirement for an announcement to be made when the EBRC is formed.”
“Perhaps there should be such a requirement, given the paramount importance of GE and the public’s keen interest in and anticipation of the next GE,” she suggested.
Ms Chong-Aruldoss further remarked, “Is the ruling party serving the citizenry to be reticent about the formation of the EBRC, only revealing its formation when asked in Parliament or at the time of the ruling party’s choosing?”
The practising lawyer asserted that Singaporeans are entitled to choose their leaders via free and fair elections.
She added, “In the interest of free and fair elections, it should be made a rule that the EBRC’s formation must be announced upon its formation, rather than its formation only being revealed to the public when the ruling party is asked in Parliament or at the time of the ruling party’s choosing.”

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

张媛容:最后遗嘱似乎李显龙比李显扬受益较多

在野政治人物张媛容律师: 我取得了纪律审裁庭的报告,现在仍在阅读中。 有好多事项令我困惑。例如,审裁庭指林学芬“误导”已故李光耀,让后者以为最后一份遗嘱等同最初遗嘱,但实则两者有不同。 然而,最后遗嘱和第一份遗嘱的区别,仅在两方面: 首先,最初版本有“赠予”条款(Gift-Over Clause),说明若三名子女中有人比他早逝情况下的条文;但最终版本没有。事实上,所有最终版本前遗嘱都有“赠予条款”(第三版本有不同条文),吊诡的是最终版本却删除之。 其二,第一版本有附加条款允许李玮玲可以免租金继续住在欧思礼路38号,李显龙则需承担该故居的维修保养费用。最终版本同样允许李玮玲住在该处,但没有注明“免租金”和李显龙“在李玮玲居住期间承担维修保养费用”等字眼。 我从审裁庭报告的资讯得出,除了上述两处不同,基本上最后遗嘱和最初版本是相同的。 审裁庭报告未说明“赠予条款”的内容。一般上,赠与条款可规定,若任何受益人比立遗嘱者提前逝世,那么相关份额将由有关受益人的子女继承;若无子嗣,则份额将分配给其他尚在世的受益人。 假定“赠予条款”的性质如上述,实则有三个子女的李显扬,能从中受益,因此在最终版本排除掉“赠予条款”,并不符合李显扬的利益。 至于最终版本没有“免租金”和“承担欧思礼38故居保养费用”等字眼,实则对李显龙有利,至于李玮玲的受益则减少。 我看不出上述两种差异,能显示林学芬有任何不良意图。指林学芬故意修改第一版本作出上述两处更动,是荒谬的。若是我会排除掉这种可能。…

Straits Times and Channel NewsAsia limit news circulation of Leong suing PM Lee by not posting their stories on Facebook

Following the news of veteran Singaporean blogger’s Leong Sze Hian defence and countersuit…

AHPETC responds to latest MND town council rating

Workers’ Party releases statement in response to the FY2012 Town Council Management Report…

Explaining why masks were not sent via post, Minister Wong says govt is worried about wastage as some households will not need the masks

The Government is distributing four surgical face masks to each Singapore household…