Robert Ho May 9 2003, 2:56 am
Newsgroups: soc.culture.singapore
From:
[email protected] (Robert Ho)
Date: 9 May 2003 02:56:54 -0700
Local: Fri, May 9 2003 2:56 am
Subject: RH: Was Cheng San election result rigged?
'Proof'?
QUOTE: " You may be interested to know the following:
On the polling night of the Cheng San elections I was
with a lawyer
friend - quite prominent- sitting at a coffee shop
directly opposite
the etrance to the Anderson School where the counring
was to take
place for Cheng San.
Our vantage point was about 20' higher than the road
which fronted the
school gates. The school building was another 50
metres away from the
gates. The gates were closed with two uniformed police
as security.
The lights in the open coumpound up to the building
were off but the
building lights were well on.
The counting should have started at about 8pm but we
took our
positions about 8.30pm.
We had one eye on the Anderson School counting centre
and another eye
ahead of us on the coffeeshop TV monitor perched a
little above our
heads. We could keep watch on the TV to see the
results as they came
in and also on the school.
At about 10.30pm we noticed a small closed van
approach the gates and
gates opened after some inquiry by the security police
and the small
van drove straight to the building. This was unusual
as the other few
vehicles that entered the building that we saw all
turned to the left
upon entering to park. But this van was allowed to
proceed to the
building entrance.
We were interested and watched closely the driver and
his assistant,
both in army uniforms, went to the rear doors of the
van and took our
some boxes and proceeded to carry them to the
building. They did a few
trips each with a box. The boxes looked like ballot
boxes.
We would be about 80 metres away and noted that the
van had no
markings but was of one colour which in the darkness
could have been
grey. After carrying the boxes in and immediatly
after, the van drove
off with the same two persons.
Nothing untoward occurred further that night.
We waited at the spot until all other results were out
and announced
but not Cheng San which completed at about 1.40am or
so.
We were known to one of the Cheng San opposition party
candidates and
we asked him what took so long as he was in there and
also with the
two other scrutineers of the opposition party. This
was after they
emerged from the counting centre.
They were surprised themselves and said that the
counting took some
time because there was recount after recount.
But they said that what was stranger was that they
were well into the
counting when the Rreturning officer on duty said
there were another
few boxes - 8-10 more to be opened as they had just
arrived. This
approximated to the time we saw the van driving up to
the school
building.
The scrutineers and the candidate said they checked
the unopened boxes
and found that the opposition party seals were not in
place.They
informed the Returning Officer who then said that the
absence of the
opposition seal did not render them invalid as the
responsibility for
having the seal in posiiton was that of the opposition
party.
The boxes contents (votes) were counted and they noted
that the votes
composition was very much in favour of the PAP unlike
the other boxes
where they votes more or less balanced out.
We drove the two lady scrutineers home and upon oiur
inquiries we
learned from them in all their innocence that the
extra ballot boxes
wre only opened and counted after the initial counting
had taken
place. Also that the preponderance of PAP votes in
those boxes were
not following the trend of the earlier countings. We
know somebody had
been had.
The Returnoing Officer is duty bound to ensure that
all ballot boxes
are in place before allowing counting to commence. "
UNQUOTE