 |
In a recent press statement (PDF), the Elections Department gave notice about the display of lists of electors who failed to cast their vote in the General Election of 6 May 2006. This routine exercise, in compliance with Section 43(4-11) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, was slightly enlivened by Paras 5-8 which hints at (non-sinister) administrative accidents at two polling districts in Aljunied GRC.
Although voting in Singapore is compulsory, failing to cast a vote seems more like an administrative lapse by a citizen (e.g. NSman forgetting to notify Mindef of an overseas trip) than a civil or criminal offence with their big fines and/or jail sentences. However the main consequence of not voting is serious enough - disenfranchisement i.e. losing the right to vote, one of the few rights that distinguishes a Singapore citizen from a Permanent Resident.
While many, including myself, have bellyached about our de facto disenfranchisement courtesy of walkovers, there seems to be a not insignificant number of Singaporeans who did not vote despite being legally obliged to do so: 97,000 Singaporeans (7.9% of the eligible electorate) failed to cast their votes in the 2006 GE. Or to put in other ways, more than twice the 45,634 votes received by the SDP or a percentage that could have resulted in a different result in Aljunied GRC (PAP 56.1% vs WP 43.9%). Indeed, compared to past GEs, the 2006 GE has seen the largest number and highest rate of Singaporeans not exercising their right and duty to vote for more than 20 years.
[In the 2001 GE, 36,403 (5.4%) Singaporeans failed to cast their votes; 31,332 (4.1%) in 1997; 42,123 (5.0%) in 1991; 76,774 (5.3%) in 1988; 52,458 (6.5%) in 1972.]
What has caused this increase from the past average of 5.3%? One possible factor could be that many more Singaporeans now work, study, live overseas as a result of globalization and the internationalization of the Singaporean economy. Perhaps this increase should not really be a cause for alarm. From a comparative perspective, it is not very much higher compared to those Western liberal democracies with compulsory voting such as Australia and Belgium.
Who forms the hard core of non-voters? Besides citizens who are overseas on polling day, I speculate this could include older citizens who cannot read their polling cards and do not have relatives to help them, others who are too ill or have chronic conditions, citizens who have changed address between the date of compilation of the electoral register and mailing out of polling cards and those who actively oppose the entire system and all the parties involved. (Aside: What provisions are made for prisoners who are not disenfranchised i.e. those who are not serving prison sentences for offences "punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding 12 months, or is under sentence of death imposed by any such court or is serving a sentence of imprisonment awarded in lieu of execution of any such sentence"?) For those with mobility issues, the option of postal ballots might ameliorate it - though, of course, guarding against electoral fraud is a more serious issue here.
How many electors get themselves reinstated and, cumulatively, how many Singaporeans have been disenfranchised over the years? Keeping in mind that the punitive measure of disenfranchisement also applies to Belgians, some punitive sanctions should be kept in place so that compulsory voting remains meaningful. [My normative position is that compulsory voting is good for democracy, legitimacy and community.] In other states, it can be even more draconian - apparently those who fail to vote in Peru and Greece may be deprived of the right to public goods and services, though it is enforcement may be patchy.
Given that the Elections Department has a complete register of non-voters, it would interesting to analyze their composition (e.g. distribution by electoral division, age, sex, ethnic group, dwelling type etc.) as well as the reasons given by those who choose to have their names reinstated in the electoral register (a SGD 5 penalty applies). This might reveal the feasibility and desirability of possible reforms to how we can vote.
Balancing the elements of rights and duties that come with voting varies widely across the world but at the end of the day, for the able-bodied voter, I think a recent campaign by a local council in London says it best: No vote? No voice? No excuse.
