Singapore’s missing pillars of democracy (Part 2): What are we actually missing?
OPINION
Of the seven pillars of democracy outlined by Anand Panyarachun, Singapore has only one – elections and even then, they can hardly be considered as free and fair given the short campaigning period, the opposition’s lack of media access and the absence of an independent elections commission.
The bitter truth is, Singapore’s elections are merely a farce in which no alternative parties other than the ruling party will ever hope to win with the odds stacked so strongly against them.
The dearth of political tolerance, rule of law, freedom of expression, accountability and transparency and civil society in Singapore is best encapsulated by a damning report released by the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute on Singapore following its annual conference held here in 2007:
“The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) expressed concern about limitations on the freedoms of expression, assembly, and the press, and of the independence of the judiciary in Singapore…..‘As one of the world’s most successful economies, Singapore should be a leader in human rights and the rule of law, and should now have the confidence and maturity to recognise that this would be complementary, not contradictory, to its future prosperity,’ said Mark Ellis, Executive Director of the International Bar Association (IBA).
‘The IBAHRI has identified a number of areas in which Singapore falls far short of international standards. In particular, democratic debate and media comment are extremely restricted and government officials have initiated numerous successful defamation suits against both political and media critics.’
The IBAHRI report examines Singapore’s record on a range of human rights issues identified by the IBAHRI as a priority. This includes freedom of expression (for example, the use of defamation legislation to hinder opposition activities, and restrictions on freedom of the press and the internet), the independence of the judiciary (there have been allegations of executive influence), and freedom of assembly.”
Singaporeans are guaranteed freedom of speech and assembly under Article IV, Section 14 of the Singapore Constitution, but they are hardly put in practice with the ruling party introducing a series of draconian, if not repressive laws over the years to curtail the political and civil rights of citizens.
A solo protest anywhere other that the designated Speakers’ Corner at Hong Lim Park is now illegal under the law.
Though Singaporeans are now allowed to gather and protest at Hong Lim Park, the police had installed CCTVs at its premises specifically to discourage them from doing so.
Political dissent is criminalized by a variety of laws to prevent Singaporeans from expressing their dissatisfaction and disgust at the ruling party thereby breeding a sense of apathy, cynicism and despair in the citizenry.
Of late, five Singaporeans were charged in court for conducting an “illegal procession” when all they did was to walk in a group in a public place from one point to another without holding any placards or shouting slogans.
They were initially acquitted in court, but the Attorney-General Chambers amazingly found it necessary to appeal against the decision and seek to convict them.
A relatively free press is an important component of any democracy to promote political discourse and debate.
In Singapore, all the print media are controlled tightly by SPH, a government-linked company whose Chairman is always a former PAP minister.
The blatantly pro-government stance of the SPH publications will put the Soviet Union’s Pravda and China’s Xinhua to shame for it is completely devoid of any sort of independent thinking and analysis except for the endless spins, propaganda and half-truths to trumpet the achievements of the regime and hide its atrocious mistakes out of public sight.
Opposition leaders and activists are often portrayed as trouble-makers, crankpots and freaks to diminish their credibility and appeal while PAP MPs and ministers are worshiped as demi-gods incapable of making even the slightest mistake.
The opposition is given little coverage except when they are involved in some scandals or law suits. On the contrary, the papers are abound with news of PAP leaders, especially its strongman Lee Kuan Yew who just simply refuse to fade away from the political scene at the age of 86.
The infamous Singapore secret police, or the internal security department, a relic left behind by the British during the Communist Emergency in the 1950s, continues to cast a long shadow over Singaporeans and preventing them from being actively involved in politics and civil activism.
In 1962, the opposition Barisan Sosialist was decimated by a wave of arrests of its key leaders under “Operation Coldstore” conducted by ISD’s predecessor – the Internal Security Council.
Many of them were detained for a number of years without trial, the longest being Chia Thye Poh (32 years), Dr Lim Hock Siew (19 years) and Said Zahari (17 years).
In 1988, over 20 Catholic activists were arrested and detained by the ISD for a “marxist conspiracy” to subvert the state under “Operation Spectrum”. One of the political detainees was a former Solicitor-General of Singapore, Mr Francis Seow who later went to exile in the United States.
These chilling examples of Singapore’s political history persists to this very day to strike fear and apathy in the hearts of every Singaporean. Few are willing to pay the price that these pioneers of Singapore had paid for their political beliefs.
The use of defamation lawsuits to cripple the opposition have the unwanted effect of detering young Singaporeans from joining politics.
The late opposition scion J.B. Jeyaretnam was implicated in many defamation lawsuits and bankrupted twice in his long suffering political career.
SDP Secretary-General Dr Chee Soon Juan was an assistant professor in psychology at the National University of Singapore before he joined politics.
He was sued for defamation first by P Vasoo, a PAP MP, followed by various PAP leaders in subsequent years, the latest being the Prime Minister and his father who were awarded damages of over $600,000 in a summary judgement.
Though the PAP leaders have defended their ligitatious tendencies on the grounds of protecting their reputations, the astronomical sums awarded to them inevitably raise suspicions if they are intended to cripple their opponents financially as well as to demolish their standing in society completely.
To quote from the IBA report as criticizing Singapore’s judiciary is a hazardous affair:
“Another area in which the independence of the judiciary is of concern is the cases involving the courts hearing defamation claims initiated by PAP officials……the slim likelihood of the successful defence of an action, combined with the extraordinarily high damages awarded in defamation cases involving PAP officials sheds doubt on the independence of the judiciary in these cases. The courts in defamation cases have substantial discretion in awarding judgment and damages.
Under Orders 14 (Summary Judgment) and 78 (Defamation Actions), the court has substantial discretion to resolve the case without a hearing in open court and to permit the quantum of damages to be determined by a Registrar in chambers.”
The recent furore over the announcement of the Lift Upgrading Program (LUP) is another timely reminder that almost all institutions of the state are under the influence or control of the ruling party.
Through the People’s Association, a supposedly apolitical statutory board funded by taxpayers’ monies, the ruling party has built a vast network of grassroots organizations in the form of residents’ commitees and community centers covering every constituency in Singapore.
Even in non-PAP wards, the PAP is able to parachute its rejected candidates to serve as “grassroots advisers” to interfere and hijack the daily running of the estates from their legitimate MPs.
With the Registrar of Societies under the Ministry of Home Affairs having the arbitrary power to refuse registration of any society deem to be against “public interest”, civil society is almost non-existent in Singapore.
This explains the perennial weakness of the opposition parties and the lack of an alternative power center emerging from the grassroots itself to challenge the regime because all resources on the ground are firmly in the hands of the PA, a quasi-PAP organization.
The above factors have combined over the years to de-politicize the citizenry to the extent that politics is now shunned by most young Singaporeans who prefer to pursue material comforts and possessions in life rather than to serve their fellow countrymen.
The pervading and sometimes overwhelming sense of apathy, scepticism and fear of participating in politics is the biggest stumbling block to Singapore becoming a healthy and functioning democracy for there is no democracy without participation from the people.
Until Singaporeans realize the importance of democracy and start demanding for it from the regime, the status quo is likely to remain for a long time to come for there is simply no impetus on the part of the incumbent to reform the archaic system which has served their interests so well over the years.
Loading ...
x12831 on Tue, 27th Oct 2009 9:57 am
The article has captured the political reality in Singapore. The odds are stacked against the opposition; and it is a pipe dream for the opposition to win a general elections with the current electoral and political system in place. Having elections alone is no indication of democracy; again it is a myth perpetuated by the government; just a facet trumpeted by the PAP as a cover for its iron fist rule.
temasekpatriot on Tue, 27th Oct 2009 10:06 am
how long does the PAP think they can stage this drama?
how long do singaporeans think they can continue to support a totalitarian regime out of fear though they dont like it?
how long do supporters of PAP think they can profit from PAP?
most of all singapore is such a fragile country with with a fragile society
its gonna eventually end up as story of the man who tried to save wear on his $10 shoes by taking such large steps that he tore his $500 designer pants.
singapore is like an expensive designer, crystal fish bowl…. the keeper wants to put his hand into every little thing that the fish does that he is going to eventually push the bowl off the table….
now the cynics will be so arrogant about their system and mock those who criticise… lets see where they will hide in 2021
Burden of Proof on Tue, 27th Oct 2009 10:22 am
The problem in my view is not the lack of talent sufficient for the formation of a strong team of opposition BUT the lack of these talents JOINING them.
As simple as that.
So, if people lament singapore opposition is weak because of lack of talent, they are only half right.
The other half is as explained.
When talents sit on one side of a see-saw, its inevitable to have an imbalance.
So, now, who still thinks that there is a lack of talents?
In numbers alone, there is no lack of talent to form 2 party system. we are only talking about 1 strong opposition party.
China’s model may seem feasible.
But we need to think long term.
Who can assure with their lives that the future of China political system will remain as it is eternally?
China was closed to the world for long time and then they suddenly opened up. Their opening up is short compared to its history of a closed door system. It is changing rapidly and everything is possible in china. Its my view that China system can change in future.
UD on Tue, 27th Oct 2009 11:51 am
“The bitter truth is, Singapore’s elections are merely a farce in which no alternative parties other than the ruling party will ever hope to win with the odds stacked so strongly against them.”
It’s sad, but I know many people who have given up their rights to vote precisely because they feel it is pointless. MiW really have done an incredible job in cultivating absolute apathy or simply silent resentment.
Steve Wu on Tue, 27th Oct 2009 3:31 pm
I disagree with the author that Singapore has at least pinned down ELECTION, out of the 7 pillars. I list the following (non-exhaustive) issues:
1. The vacated MP position in Jurong remains unfilled today. The failure to have a by-election is unconstitutional (just read the Constitution). The PM’s parliamentary statement/argument on the issue is weak at best. JBJ had intended to challenge this decision but he passed on. That no one takes it up after him does not mean that the matter is resolved.
2. That the election rules may be so easily changed by the ruling party, particularly the introduction of the GRCs is an expression of contempt of the People. Any such constitutional amendment MUST be effected by a referendum. But it WASN’T.
3. The extensively documented gerrymendering and pre-election pork barrel politics (notably the lift upgrading program) is again unconstitutional, regardless of how many times PAP says it is alright. It is NOT.
4. Selective application of election laws. Most notably the nonsensical explanation of the law by the then AG Chan Sek Keong (now chief justice) to exonerate the unauthorized trespass by Goh Chok Tong, Lee Hsien Loong and a few others at the Cheng San polling station.
5. I am unaware of any provision to allow independent observers (e.g. civil societies instead of political parties) to monitor the entire election process. In any case, it has never been the standard practice even though it should be.
So I remain unconvinced that Singapore has any of the seven pillars of Panyarachun’s version of democracy.
btan on Tue, 27th Oct 2009 4:27 pm
One the one hand, I really hope despite all the obstacles piled on opposition candidates, they can win a GRC, since they can at least win one SMC (and even then, they still get short-shifted), and make life better for Singapore by being part of a 2-party system
On the other hand, I really hope Singapore will be continually oppressed by PAP until finally people are DESPERATE enough to say “I cannot take it anymore!” and rise up in civil disobedience (a la million man march).
The MAIN reason Singaporean are apathetic is because they are still not desperate enough. Life is tough but there is still food to eat and work for most people, albeit it is not much different from slavery to job. Couple with lack of balls, not many dare to say anything.
Only when a man has nothing to lose will he rise up to rebel.
qussl3 on Tue, 27th Oct 2009 4:55 pm
The current situation one party system will likely last much longer than most here surmise, as there is currently no structure in place for any form of transition from it.
It is likely that it will take a movement like that seen in the Philippines “People Power” before we will see real politcal change here.
However, is change what we really want?
For better or worse, it is reasonable to generalise that we singaporeans are a materalistic bunch, where creature comforts take precedent before idealogical pursuits, if the current system can provide said comforts, what does it matter that we have a one party system?
It is possible that singapore is at a tipping point where the wrong policies can tip our economy over the knife edge it currently is balanced on.
I suggest that we in aggregate dont really want political change (though this is likely due to cultivated apathy, which doesnt make the point less true) but rather the vitriol commonly expressed here is more a call for an account of our leadership and a desire to see consequences for poor performance.
Alan Wong on Tue, 27th Oct 2009 5:55 pm
Can we then say that basically LKY or PAP has CHEATED and ROBBED us of our very basic constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression ?
Is that not itself a contempt of the RULE OF LAW of the highest degree ?
Anonymous on Tue, 27th Oct 2009 8:27 pm
Until the GRC contraption is removed out of the way, any talk of democracy here is medieval and hypocritical. We have NOT even a single pillar of democracy here.
fair and square on Tue, 27th Oct 2009 9:49 pm
I guess some of you guys may be as amazed as me and wonder why the same people who laud foreign talents in the name of fair
competition do not understand that GRCs system goes against
the veiws they hold so dearly on FAIR COMPETITION?
i truly need some enlightenment.
If we don’t allow for competition,how can we have “CBF” ministers for taxpayers?
Primal Fear on Tue, 27th Oct 2009 10:18 pm
“Until the GRC contraption is removed out of the way, any talk of democracy here is medieval and hypocritical.”
I agree with most views here that while Change is wanted by many, ‘many’ is a growing number that is unfortunately not the Majority.
I see things simplistically. There is just 1 historical event that need to happen before the new beginning.
Till then, status quo.
Waht is great about the system is many of the leaders got to where they are without use of prejudice nor favor as they have risen to their positions base on meritocracy and without nepotism and kangism.
u believe me right , readers?
Amanda on Tue, 27th Oct 2009 11:16 pm
Any one realised that the US took years itself to become democratic while it is forcing other countries to do so immediately (See Ha Joon Chang’s book)
for singapore on Tue, 27th Oct 2009 11:56 pm
@Amanda
well blame it on globalisation!!!
same answer should apply to the above: foreign talents???
Anonymous on Wed, 28th Oct 2009 1:00 am
Primal Fear on Tue, 27th Oct 2009 10:18 pm
..”u believe me right , readers?”
No!!
Meritocracy DOES NOT exist when there are so many unsackable deadwoods around and these allowed parasitic ( maybe toxic as well???) mushrooms to grow on them.
citizenofSG on Wed, 28th Oct 2009 3:03 am
What I observed about people here is that they are striving for an ideal? To some people election must be absolutely in a form that should benefit the opposition specifically. When the opposition are unable to gather enough resource to contest in a GRC, there is lack of democracy. When PAP is unwilling to yield to the outcry demand, there is no democracy.
This discussion of democracy is not real because pragmatism has no place in their ideal democracy. Democracy is an ideal and will remain as one. It is prone to abused because people can never be settled or find real consensus.
So what if there is discrepancies, gerrymandering and chicanery, we must not be cowed by this. Knowing that we will get nowhere by demanding for that absolute democracy why don’t we just be practical and see how we can do our best within the set piece situation.
Every Asian country is the same, election is never ideal and people in power will not yield to petty demand.
The pillars of democracy is at best a guide, test it on every Asian countries and you may have mostly the same result with most failing the mean test.
Yes we can push on for it, meantime the way to achieve all pillars of democracy is to plot and chart the treacherous journey. The end of the search will not even be there even when the opposition finally populate the parliament.