Red Dot United to pay $900 removal fee for election posters found within 50m of polling stations
Red Dot United to pay $900 removal fee for election posters found within 50m of polling stations
SINGAPORE - Opposition party Red Dot United (RDU) will have to pay $900 to the Elections Department (ELD) for 18 election posters removed on Cooling-off Day.
But ELD will consider waiving this fee if the posters prove to have been tampered with, as RDU had earlier claimed.
On May 9, Ms Liyana Dhamirah, one of RDU's candidates for Jurong East-Bukit Batok GRC, posted a video about how some of her party's posters in the constituency had been moved without their knowledge.
She said the posters had been deliberately taken down and re-tied in places that would breach guidelines, so the party would be fined. Traditional election advertising material, like election posters, are not allowed within 50m of polling stations to avoid unduly influencing voters.
RDU told The Straits Times on May 9 that Ms Liyana's post was 'a personal reflection of her own frustration', but added that tampering seemed likely from its preliminary checks.
In her post, Ms Liyana said she spent most of Cooling-off Day taking down posters.
'When we put them up, we used black zip ties. But when I went to take them down? White zip ties held them in place. That's not a coincidence,' she added.
In response to ST's queries, ELD said on May 26 that it has advised RDU to make a police report if it suspects sabotage or mischief. It is prepared to consider waiving the $50 removal fee for each poster, if police investigations find the claims to be true.
RDU said it will consult its central executive committee before deciding if it will pursue the matter.
ELD also said it had continued to get complaints about RDU's posters in prohibited areas between 9pm on Cooling-off Day and the early hours of Polling Day.
Between Nomination Day and 9pm on Cooling-off Day, parties have three hours to remove any posters that break the rules. On Polling Day, they have one hour to do so.
If such breaches are not rectified within the given time, Aetos Security Management (Aetos) will remove the materials.
ELD added that the Returning Officer waived the removal fee for posters removed on Polling Day, due to heavy rain that morning. The weather would have hampered parties' ability to rectify all breaches within an hour, and posed safety concerns for those doing so, ELD said.
But the fee was not waived for the 18 posters Aetos removed on Cooling-off Day, it added. ST understands that RDU's deadline for paying the $900 removal fee is May 27.
Join ST's WhatsApp Channel and get the latest news and must-reads.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
5 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Trump's deal-making with other elite US schools scrambles Harvard negotiations
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox WASHINGTON – By the start of last week, Harvard University had signalled its readiness to meet President Donald Trump's demand that it spend US$500 million (S$643 million) to settle its damaging, monthslong battle with the administration and restore its crucial research funding. Then, two days after The New York Times reported that Harvard was open to such a financial commitment, the White House announced a far cheaper deal with Brown University: US$50 million, doled out over a decade, to bolster state workforce development programs. The terms stunned officials at Harvard, who marvelled that another Ivy League school got away with paying so little, according to three people familiar with the deliberations. But Harvard officials also bristled over how their university, after months of work to address antisemitism on campus and with a seeming advantage in its court fight against the government, was facing a demand from Mr Trump to pay 10 times more. The people who discussed the deliberations spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing talks that are supposed to remain confidential. White House officials are dismissive of the comparison between Brown and Harvard, arguing that their grievances against Harvard are more far-reaching, including assertions that the school has yet to do enough to ensure the safety of Jewish students and their claim that the school is flouting the Supreme Court's ruling on race-conscious admissions. 'If Harvard wants the Brown deal, then it has to be like Brown, and I just think it's not,' Ms May Mailman, the top White House official under Mr Stephen Miller who has served as the architect of the administration's crusade against top schools, said in an interview in the West Wing last week. Ms Mailman, who graduated from Harvard Law School, pointed out that Brown, unlike Harvard, did not sue the administration. She challenged Harvard to reach an agreement that included terms that would allow the government to more closely scrutinise its behaviour. 'If Harvard feels really good about what it's already doing, then great,' she said. 'Let's sign this deal tomorrow.' Harvard said on Aug 4 that it had no comment. But the White House's recent record of deal-making threatens to complicate the settlement talks, according to the people familiar with the talks. University officials were sensitive to the possibility that a deal with the government – after Harvard spent months waging a public fight against Mr Trump – would be seen as surrendering to the president and offering him a political gift. The terms of the Brown agreement, though, added new complexity to Harvard's internal debates about the size of a potential financial settlement. For many people close to those discussions, spending US$500 million is less of a concern than what forking that money over would signal on the Cambridge, Massachusetts, campus and beyond. For those close to the discussions, Mr Trump's demand is far too large and they argue that acquiescing to it would be seen as the university scrambling to buy its way out of Mr Trump's ire. They contend that Harvard has taken far more aggressive steps than Columbia University – which agreed to a US$200 million fine in July – to combat antisemitism. They also note that Harvard, unlike Brown, did not publicly agree to consider divesting from Israel as a condition of ending campus protests lin 2024. (Brown's board ultimately voted not to divest.) Others at Harvard regard Mr Trump's proposal as a bargain for the school to get back billions of dollars in funding that make much of its society-shaping research possible. Before the Brown deal, Harvard leaders and the school's team were studying settlement structures that could insulate the nation's oldest and wealthiest university from accusations that it caved to Mr Trump. In their stop-and-start talks with the White House, they are expected to maintain their insistence on steps to shield the university's academic freedom. To that end, they are also likely to remain equally resistant to a monitoring arrangement that some fear would invite intrusions and stifle the school's autonomy. But Harvard has been exploring a structure in which any money the university agrees to spend will go to vocational and workforce training programs instead of the federal government, Mr Trump, his presidential library or allies, according to the three people briefed on the matter. Harvard officials believe that such an arrangement would allow them to argue to their students, faculty, alumni and others in academia that the funds would not be used to fill Mr Trump's coffers. Harvard's consideration of putting money toward workforce programmes aligns with some of what Mr Trump has espoused. In a social media post in May, the president talked up the prospect of taking US$3 billion from Harvard and 'giving it to TRADE SCHOOLS all across our land. What a great investment that would be for the USA, and so badly needed!!!' But no matter the structure, White House officials have made clear that an extraordinary sum will be required to reach a settlement. Last week, after the Times reported the US$500 million figure, a journalist asked Mr Trump whether that amount would be enough to reach a deal. 'Well, it's a lot of money,' he replied. 'We're negotiating with Harvard.' Although Brown and Harvard are among the nation's richest and most prominent universities, the schools have significant differences, especially around their finances. The Trump administration has repeatedly castigated Harvard for its US$53 billion endowment, which is loaded with restrictions that limit how it may be used, but it has made far less fuss about Brown's similarly tied-up US$7 billion fund. Harvard also has much more federal research money at stake. The Trump administration has warned that it could ultimately strip US$9 billion in funding for Harvard; it threatened US$510 million in funding for Brown. One reason the Brown deal has so miffed Harvard officials is that some terms look much like those they expected for themselves. The government agreed, for instance, that it could not use the deal 'to dictate Brown's curriculum or the content of academic speech.' Brown avoided a monitoring arrangement, and the university won the right to direct its US$50 million settlement payment toward workforce programmes of its choosing. But Harvard has a more antagonistic relationship with the Trump administration, as the university has sued the administration to stop its retribution campaign against the school. That dynamic has fuelled worries at Harvard that the White House is seeking a far higher financial penalty as a punishment for fighting, not because the school's troubles alone warrant US$500 million. After Harvard refused a list of Trump administration demands in April, the university sued. In July, a federal judge in Boston appeared skeptical of the government's tactics when it blocked billions in research funding from Harvard. Before and after the July 21 hearing, the administration pursued a wide-ranging campaign against the university. In addition to its attack on Harvard's research money, the government has opened investigations, sought to block the school from enrolling international students, demanded thousands of documents and tried to challenge the university's accreditation, which is essential for students to be eligible for federal student aid programmes, such as Pell Grants. Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services told Harvard that it had referred the university to the Justice Department 'to initiate appropriate proceedings to address Harvard's antisemitic discrimination.' 'Rather than voluntarily comply with its obligations under Title VI, Harvard has chosen scorched-earth litigation against the federal government,' Ms Paula Stannard, the director of the health department's Office for Civil Rights, wrote on July 31, referring to the section of federal civil rights law that bars discrimination on the basis of race, colour or national origin. 'The parties' several months' engagement has been fruitless.' As Harvard President Alan Garber and other university leaders face the White House's fury, they are also confronting campus-level misgivings about a potential deal with a president many at the school see as bent on authoritarianism. At best, many at Harvard view him as duplicitous and believe it would be risky for the university to enter a long-term arrangement. 'I think even the simplest deals with untrustworthy people can be challenging,' said Professor Oliver Hart, an economics professor at Harvard who won a Nobel Prize for his work on contract theory. 'But a continuing relationship is much, much worse, much harder.' Prof Hart warned that, no matter the written terms of a settlement, the federal government would retain enormous power with effectively limitless financial resources to take on Harvard. Ms Mailman, who recently left the full-time White House staff but remains involved in the administration's higher-education strategy, all but dared Harvard to stay defiant. 'I think there's still a deal to be had, but from our perspective, at the end of the day, Harvard has a US$53 billion endowment,' she said. 'They don't need federal funds. And even if they win a lawsuit, great. But what happens next year? What happens the year after?' NYTIMES
Straits Times
35 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Badly bruised elite US universities are rushing to cut deals with Trump
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox WASHINGTON – As a growing number of the wealthiest US colleges capitulate in their battles with the Trump administration, the strain from lost and frozen federal funding is putting pressure on the remaining holdouts to cut a deal. Universities targeted by Mr Donald Trump's crackdown on diversity programmes and other policies he says show a liberal bias are essentially bleeding at the negotiating table after taking on debt, laying off hundreds of staff and slashing spending. As the fall semester approaches, they may be increasingly eager to ink accords that will stanch the flow. Cornell and Northwestern, both of which announced steps to address major budget shortfalls this year after the federal government suspended research funds, are now close to agreements with the White House, Bloomberg News has reported. Brown, Columbia and the University of Pennsylvania reached accords over July. But amid those settlements, new universities are being targeted. Most recently, the University of California at Los Angeles and Duke joined Harvard, Northwestern, Princeton and others in losing access to federal grants that are the financial lifeblood of large research institutions. It all adds up to an unprecedented pressure campaign that's roiling the world of higher education, reverberating through faculty, student and alumni groups and clouding the outlook for the type of medical and scientific research that takes place at the colleges. The multitrillion-dollar tax law signed in July also hikes the tax on income from endowments for some of the wealthiest private schools . As the Trump administration gains leverage, colleges' bruised budgets could drive them toward making agreements quicker. 'It seems like they want to get deals done now,' said Professor Brendan Cantwell, a professor at Michigan State University who focuses on the political economy of higher education. 'It's almost like a dam is broken. I would not be at all surprised if we saw a cascading set of agreements.' Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Asia What's it like to deal with brutal US tariffs? Ask Malaysia Singapore Singapore launches review of economic strategy to stay ahead of global shifts Singapore A look at the five committees reviewing Singapore's economic strategy Opinion Keeping it alive: How Chinese opera in Singapore is adapting to the age of TikTok Life Glamping in Mandai: Is a luxury stay at Colugo Camp worth the $550 price tag? Sport World Aquatics C'ships in S'pore deemed a success by athletes, fans and officials Singapore Strong S'pore-Australia ties underpinned by bonds that are continually renewed: President Tharman Federal funding has been used as a cudgel by the Trump administration, which has criticized what it says is a failure by academic institutions to crack down on antisemitism during campus protests over Israel's war in Gaza. The moves also come amid a broader campaign against diversity efforts and accusations of political bias. The fallout has already started. Northwestern said it would cut more than 400 jobs to save 5 per cent on labour costs, with university officials calling the past few months some of the most difficult in its 174-year history. The Trump administration in April paused US$790 million (S$1 billion) in research funding for the Evanston, Illinois-based school because of potential civil rights violations. At Cornell, leaders in June warned that drastic financial austerity measures were on the table after hundreds of millions of dollars in federal research contracts were terminated or frozen. 'The spring semester was unlike anything ever seen in higher education,' they wrote in a letter to students and staff. 'We have been using institutional resources to try to plug these funding holes in the short term, but these interim measures are not sustainable.' Late in July, the government froze US$108 million in research funding to Duke University, or about 20 per cent of its federal revenue, three Trump administration officials told Bloomberg. Duke is in talks with government officials on a settlement, according to an administration official. Duke's press office didn't provide a comment on the funding loss or the status of government talks. A Duke official, who asked not to be identified discussing internal deliberations, said the school is reconsidering its budget amid the funding loss, but that it hopes an end to the freeze will come soon. Cornell and Northwestern have declined to comment on any settlement talks. Trump agreements On July 23, Columbia University agreed to pay US$221 million in a deal that was promptly criticised for infringing on academic freedom at the school. Brown announced a deal on July 30, agreeing to give US$50 million over 10 years to workforce development organisations in its home state of Rhode Island in exchange for the reimbursement of at least US$50 million in unpaid federal grants. Shortly before reaching the deal, Brown took out a US$500 million loan – a sign of how strained the school's finances had become. Brown, the least wealthy of the Ivy League schools with an endowment of US$7.2 billion, had previously warned in June of 'significant' cost-cutting measures to offset the federal funding. The Trump administration's higher-education crackdown has exposed just how dependent some of the elite, research-focused universities are on the government. They're essentially 'major federal contractors' and stopping the stream would be catastrophic for many of them, according to Prof Cantwell. 'Think about Booz Allen or Raytheon,' Prof Cantwell said. 'If they said, 'All your federal funding will be frozen for 9 months,' you can imagine how those firms might react.' The Trump administration has dealt a harsher financial blow to Harvard than any other university in its crosshairs, freezing billions of multiyear research grants and contracts. The school estimates that the moves by the administration, as well as the endowment tax increase, will cost about US$1 billion annually. Harvard's Kennedy School already cut staff. 'The unprecedented challenges we face have led to disruptive changes, painful layoffs, and ongoing uncertainty about the future,' Harvard President Alan M. Garber said in a letter to the campus. Dr Garber has told faculty that a settlement with the government is not imminent and the university is considering resolving its dispute through the courts, the Harvard Crimson reported on Aug 4. Mr Larry Ladd, who served as Harvard's budget director and now advises schools at the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, said he cannot criticise any college for coming to a deal with the Trump administration given what is at stake for their campuses. 'Schools are likely facing pressure to use endowment and tuition revenue, which are typically used to support students, to support some of their research enterprise instead,' Mr Ladd said. 'They don't want to do that because they want to continue to support students. There's that pressure as well.' Ms Lynn Pasquerella, president of the American Association of Colleges and Universities, said campus leaders are being put in an 'untenable position' and worries that federal funds will continue to be weaponized by the Trump administration, even if schools make deals. 'The concern is the more we capitulate through making these agreements, the more the administration will be empowered to continue along these lines,' she said. BLOOMBERG
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
White House readies order to fine banks for dropping customers for political reasons, WSJ reports
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox The order directs bank regulators to investigate whether any financial institutions might have violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The White House is preparing an executive order that would fine banks for dropping customers for political reasons, the Wall Street Journal reported on Aug 4. The order directs bank regulators to investigate whether any financial institutions might have violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, antitrust laws or consumer financial protection laws, the Journal reported citing a draft text of the order. The order, which could be signed as early as this week, provides for monetary penalties, consent decrees or other disciplinary measures against violators, the report added. The order also directs regulators to strike policies they have that might have contributed to banks dropping certain customers and requires the Small Business Administration to review the practices of banks that guarantee the agency's loans, the Journal said. Reuters could not immediately verify the report. The White House did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment. REUTERS
