EC erred on Singapore voting rules, says high commission


The Election Commission's claim which Singaporeans residing abroad contingency stay in a country for 3 months inside of a specific duration to validate to opinion was inaccurate, according to a Singaporean High Commission in Kuala Lumpur yesterday.

In a press release, a tall commission's press military officer Filbert Tay pronounced underneath Singapore's choosing rules, a single contingency stay during least thirty days in Singapore for 3 years in sequence to validate as an "overseas elector".

NONETay was responding to anews reportpublished byMalaysiakini, quotingBernamain its interview with EC emissary arch Wan Ahmad Wan Omar (left).

According to Singapore's Election Department, to validate as an "overseas elector", he or she contingency have resided in Singapore for a "total of no! t less than thirty days during a 3 years immediately before Jan 1, 2011".

Registration open

Wan Ahmad had toldBernamathat a stipulation for Malaysians residing abroad to validate as "absentee voters" if they stayed in Malaysia for during least thirty days inside of a duration of 5 years.

He pronounced which this stipulation was reasonable as well as which it was practiced in Commonwealth countries such as Canada, Australia as well as Singapore, claiming which a latter had a "three month" requirement to validate to opinion while abr! oad.

NONECurrently, a EC has opened up registration for Malaysians residing abroad to sign up as "absentee voters", following demands by a Bersih bloc for it to do so.

To validate to expel their ballots, an "absentee voter" contingency have stayed in Malaysia for during least thirty days in a 5 years prior to a retraction of ! Parliamen! t or state legislative assembly.

Previously, only full-time students as well as polite servants as well as their spouses based abroad were authorised to opinion as "absentee voters". Read More @ Source



More Barisan Nasional (BN) | Pakatan Rakyat (PR) | Sociopolitics Plus |
Courtesy of Bonology.com Politically Incorrect Buzz & Buzz

No comments: