Political education: Teach our children the real meaning of the National Pledge first

OPINION

Singapore Law Minister K Shanmugam wrote a lengthy commentary in the PAP magazine Petir lately on the need to introduce some form of “political education” in Singapore schools to enable our students to make an “informed” choice on the type of political system which best suits Singapore.

Mr Shanmugam expressed his concerns that young educated Singaporeans may be mesmerized by the dominant political philosophy today – the Western model of liberal democracy to demand for political changes in Singapore without realizing the “trade offs”.

“Singaporeans are entitled to decide whether they want the trade-offs. And if the majority chooses slower development and a lower quality of life, and is willing to accept more tensions within our society in return for changes in the political system, then so be it. But that choice must be an informed choice,” he wrote.

Actually Mr Shanmugam need not spend so much money to come up with one entire textbook to “educate” Singapore students for they are already being “educated” daily by reciting the National Pledge.

From primary to secondary school, a Singapore student spends on average one minute a day reciting the National Pledge which amounts to 3650 minutes or two and a half days in one’s lifetime.

If the National Pledge is a “highfalutin aspiration” only as proclaimed by one geriatrician leader of the PAP, then why are Singapore students devoting so much time to recite it till it becomes etched permanently in their minds?

Before the students are taught the different types of political system in the world, they must first know their rights and responsibilities as citizens of Singapore as well as Singapore’s political system in the first place which are already found in our National Pledge.

Unfortunately, most Singaporeans grow up reciting the National Pledge blindly without ever realizing or understanding the meaning and significance of its words.

Let us dissect the hidden meaning of our National Pledge in full:

“We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society based on justice and equality so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.”

Rights as citizens of Singapore:

What does it mean to be a citizen of Singapore? What is the role of a Singapore citizen in building the nation? Are we merely digits in the economy or citizens with the power to change our collective destiny as a nation?

The fundamental rights and liberties enjoy by Singapore citizens are enshrined under Article IV of the Singapore Constitution which is hardly known by Singaporeans.

Ironically, Article IV bears close resemblance to the United Kingdom’s Bills of Rights and the United States’ First Amendment, both “western” liberal democracies so scorned by Mr Shanmugam and his colleagues.

Excerpts from Article IV of the Singapore Constitution:

9. —(1) No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.

12. —(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.

(2) Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens of Singapore on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.

14. —(1) Subject to clauses (2) and (3) —

(a) every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression;

(b) all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and

(c) all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations.

[Singapore Statutes]

Let us compare the above with the First Amendment of the United States of America:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Implicit in our Constitution are rights reserved for citizens to partake in the politics of the nation – they have the freedom to express their views including dissent, to assemble peacefully and protest against the government of the day and to form political organizations to advocate their beliefs and cause without interference from the executive.

The real meaning of democracy:

As stipulated clearly in our National Pledge, we the citizens of Singapore pledge ourselves to build a “democratic society” regardless of race, language or religion.

So what exactly is a “democratic society”?

Other than conducting relatively free, but not necessarily fair elections once every five years, Singapore does not qualify to be a “democracy” or “democratic society” at all.

Former Thai Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun outlined seven pillars of democracy which are widely acknowledged by political leaders over the world:

“In my view, there are seven main pillars of the architecture of democracy, namely, elections, political tolerance, the rule of law, freedom of expression, accountability and transparency, decentralization and civil society.”

Do we have political tolerance in Singapore? Is our political system based on the rule of law? Are Singaporeans are allowed to express their unhappiness with the government freely without any fear? Is there accountability and transparency in the ruling party? Does Singapore have an active civil society?

Only when Singaporeans themselves are educated on their rights as citizens as guaranteed under the Singapore Constitution will Mr Shanmugam’s “political education” bear any meaning and relevance for them.

One cannot teach a toddler to run when he/she can’t even stand up and walk. Similarly, Singaporeans are still considered as infants where political awareness is concerned and without first addressing their ignorance and misconception about politics, Mr Shamugam’s good intentions may turn out to be another form of political indoctrination we see so often in articles published by the Singapore media today.

Let the next GE be a primer for Singapore’s own political tsunami

OPINION

2010 will be a crucial year in the history of Singapore with the next general election most likely held sometime either in the middle of the year or towards the end.

The stakes are going to be high: not only are Singaporeans voting for a government to lead them for the next 5 years, they will also be sending a signal to the world if they will continue to condone and accept the one-party system promulgated by its strongman and de facto leader Lee Kuan Yew for fifty years since 1959.

While many opposition supporters have been hoping for a similar political tsunami which hit the shores of Malaysia in 2008, the likelihood is that the PAP will still win the election easily with its two third majority intact.

Though the status quo may appear more or less unchanged, any decrease in the percentage of votes garnered by the PAP nationwide, the loss of a single GRC or one more single seat in addition to Hougang and Potong Pasir may be a sign that we are finally seeing the beginning of the end of the PAP.

Some Singaporeans may ask: who else can we vote for besides the PAP?

The PAP may appear to be the “default” choice now because the opposition is too weak to mount a credible challenge to it, but that doesn’t mean the current imbalance will continue forever.

A political party is only as strong as its leaders are. Weak leaders will eventually bring about the downfall of any parties, no matter how strong they are.

The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) is the most powerful political entity in Japan with its intimate links with major conglomerates and lobby groups, but was defeated by a young upstart the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) in the recent elections.

Similarly, Malaysia’s Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) was dismissed by many as politically irrelevant before the 2008 general election when it was still headed by former DPM Anwar Ibrahim.

After it won 31 seats to become the largest opposition party in the Dewan Rakyat (Malaysia’s federal parliament), PKR saw its membership doubled in one month alone and it managed to attract former Health Minister Chua Jui Meng and Law Minister Zaid Ibrahim into its ranks.

Today, PKR is not just an opposition party, it is the government-in-waiting. Support for PKR among young Malaysians of all races is constantly higher than its chief adversary UMNO.

As we can see from the above examples, political fortunes wax and wane depending on the prevailing circumstances in the country. Nothing is certain in life, let alone politics.

Winston Churchill once said famously: “One week is a long time in politics.” We have less than a year to go before the next GE and anything can happen between now and then to dent the PAP’s superiority.

Singaporeans should not be afraid to vote for the opposition because the PAP is expected to win anyway.

By voting for the opposition, you will help to decrease the PAP’s winning margin which will send a message to them not to take us Singaporeans for granted.

Do you think the PAP will bother to show us any respect if we continue to give it an “overwhelming” mandate to lord over us?

Like the example of PKR in Malaysia, the biggest opposition winner in the next GE will be a magnet for young Singaporeans to join politics.

In a way, the next GE is more like a “primer” for what is to come in subsequent elections.

Singaporeans dare not join the opposition right now because it is too weak to challenge the PAP which is akin to “knocking an egg against a rock”.

Though the present opposition is less than ideal, there is still ample space for it to grow and develop so long Singaporeans are willing to lend support to it.

The opposition party of today may become the government of tomorrow. We need two teams of qualified leaders to manage Singapore, not only one.

It is foolhardy to put all our eggs into one single basket. What if the PAP fails or become corrupted one day, where can we find an alternative out of the blue to replace it?

Therefore it is of paramount importance that we start growing the opposition in the next general election.

Never mind what the PAP says, it is going to win anyway. All we need to do is to convince as many of our relatives and friends to cast a vote for the opposition.

A vote against the PAP is not just a protest vote against its policies, but a vote for a Singapore where all citizens have a stake in instead of leaving the running of the nation entirely in the hands of a bunch of self-serving elites.

We have to reclaim our rights and places in our own country before it is too late. At the rate the PAP is mass-importing foreigners, we may find ourselves in the minority in not too long a distant future.

The new citizens will almost always vote for the PAP or at least it will take them some time before they see through their charade and start asserting themselves.

Singapore has more than enough talents who are willing to serve the nation, but are unwilling to do so because of the repressive political climate being perpetuated by the PAP.

Once the floodgates are opened, nothing will stop Singaporeans from participating in politics and dismantling the PAP system into pieces bit and bit.

Let 2010 be the year when we Singaporeans finally reclaim our rights as citizens of this country which we belong to!

MM Lee should clarify his remarks made in National Geographic magazine to the ethnic minorities in Singapore

OPINION

Though he admitted to a Japanese audience lately that he is “not doing much work” as the Minister Mentor of Singapore except “forecasting”, Lee Kuan Yew showed why many still consider him as the “hidden” hand behind the nation’s policies.

In a frank interview with journalist Mark Jacobson from the National Geographic magazine, Lee spoke about the ruling party’s liberal immigration and pro-foreigner policies as if he was their principal architect.

Though he said he was aware of the fact that “many Singaporeans are unhappy with the influx of immigrants”, he continued to insist that it is for “good” of the nation:

“Over time, Singaporeans have become less hard-driving and hard-striving. This is why it is a good thing that the nation has welcomed so many Chinese immigrants.” Lee was quoted saying.

Lee described the country’s new subjects as “hungry,” with parents who “pushed the children very hard.”

“If native Singaporeans are falling behind because the spurs are not stuck into the hide, that is their problem,” he quipped.

There is a racist undertone in Lee’s remarks on Chinese immigrants. Shouldn’t the acceptance and admission of immigrants into Singapore be based solely on meritocracy rather than race?

There are only four countries in the world with a Chinese-majority population – Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and China.

It is obvious that China is the primary source of Singapore’s Chinese immigrants for the last few years since the floodgates were opened.

By his outlandish statement, is Lee insinuating that mainland immigrants have a higher chance than other nationalities of being granted Singapore PR and citizenship even if they are less qualified?

It appears to be so judging from the large number of Chinese new citizens in Singapore, many of whom hail from the poorer inland provinces instead of the rich coastal cities which bear a closer resemblance to island’s ethnic Chinese such as Guangzhou, Xiamen and Shantou.

A Singapore PR and Chinese citizen Zhang Yuanyuan was granted her PR within 2 months of application.

There were news reports of Chinese construction workers, cleaners and masseurs being given Singapore PRs and citizenships.

How Lee manage to arrive at the conclusion that these new immigrants from China are more “hard-driving and hard-striving” than Singaporeans is anybody’s guess.

In the first place, they have no choice but to work hard here since they have to pay through their noses to an agent to get a job in Singapore, often ending up in huge debts.

It is both unfair and inappropriate to compare locals who need to spend time with their families with these migrant workers who are forced to work under inhumane conditions in order to repay their debts.

Lee should perhaps quote a few living examples to substantiate his statement that China immigrants “pushed the children very hard”.

A significant percentage of these children from the mainland studying in Singapore come from broken families.

They are accompanied to Singapore by their mothers who are known as “Pei2 Du3 Ma1 Ma1″, many of whom are separated or divorced from their husbands.

Common sense will tell us that few mothers will be so courageous to bring their children overseas to start life afresh without their husbands if there are no compelling reasons to do so.

As they are unable to work in Singapore, many of them end up in the sleaze trade to support their children’s education.

It is a challenge to bring up a child in the absence of a father under such trying circumstances.

Is Lee insinuating that children brought up by single “Pei Du Ma Ma” are more “hard-driving and hard-striving” than locals from traditional families?

Lee’s callous remarks is an effrontery and insult to the Malay and Indian ethnic minorities in Singapore.

Regardless of race and religion, all of us are Singaporeans and we should not be divided based on our skin color.

Though the ethnic Chinese in Singapore are descendants of immigrant Chinese as well, we have managed to forge a common Singapore identity over the years with the other races.

An ethnic Chinese Singaporean has more in common with a Malay Singaporean than a new immigrant from mainland China.

“Hard-driving and hard-striving” are not traits unique only to the Chinese. Does Lee mean to say that Malays and Indians are less “hard-driving” than the Chinese?

Lee’s actions are akin to a father adopting others’ children and praising them for being more hardworking than his own children. Which father in the world will do that?

Lee should clarify what he meant exactly by his statement.

What will the rest of the world think of Singapore’s ethnic minorities when they read the interview?

They may be misled into thinking that Singapore has no choice but to “import” Chinese immigrants from overseas because its own indigenous people are less “hard-driving and hard-striving”.

He should also explain to Singaporeans who are paying his multi-million salary on why he thinks that they are less “hard-driving and hard-striving” than the new immigrants from China.

Lee should realize the fact that he owes everything he has today to the people of Singapore and not the other way round.

And if it is not the “problem” of the elected government of the day to take care of the people who have “fallen behind”, then who should be responsible?

In any other Asian democracies like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and even Malaysia, Lee would probably be forced to apologize and resign from the government.

He is only able to get away in Singapore because its subservient people are too timid to tell him to “sit down and shut up” straight in the face.

It is time for Singaporeans to show what they think about Lee and his coterie of “department store dummies”, borrowing a quote from former president Devan Nair in the next general election and stuck some spurs into their thick hides.

Whether the PAP gets elected again is their problem, not Singapore’s. Singaporeans deserve a more humble, caring and compassionate leader who truly understand their concerns and work to safeguard their interests rather than this self-proclaimed “forecaster extraordinarie” who goes around the world offending the sensibilities of Singaporeans and foreigners alike with his half-baked bigotry.

Related articles:

1. MM Lee slammed by netizens for callous remarks

2. MM Lee: good to welcome Chinese immigrants as Singaporeans have become less “hard-driving”

3. The Singapore Solution

Singapore is more like Zimbabwe than Malaysia ever is under the PAP

OPINION

Malaysian constitutional law expert Abdul Aziz Bari sparked a furore lately for likening the state of “lawlessness” in Malaysia to that in Zimbabwe which was echoed by former Law Minister Zaid Ibrahim.

In an interview with Malaysiakini, Zaid said:

“Nothing will change unless those who know rise up to expose the vermin (that are) eating and destroying our national institutions and democratic values.”

If Abdul Aziz or Zaid , both lawyers by profession, had repeated the same remarks in Singapore, they would probably be sued for defaming the government and disbarred with their careers destroyed.

Besides no former Law Minister in Singapore will ever dare to criticize the system after being “retired” with a plume job in some government-linked companies to keep their mouths shut.

In a way, Singapore bears a closer resemblance to Zimbabwe than Malaysia is under the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) and we are not talking about the economic but the political situation in these two countries.

Of course in terms of economic progress, Singapore is way ahead of Zimbabwe and Malaysia, but our archaic, obsolete and repressive political system is not too far behind Zimbabwe.

In fact, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe  should learn from Singapore’s Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew on the art of masquerading a dictatorship as a “democracy” without incurring the wrath of the free world.

By and large, Mr Mugabe is shunned by the international community for being a despot. His ruling party is nothing more than a band of thugs who resort to harrassment, intimidation and even murders to silence the opposition.

On the other hand, Lee is no less a despot than Mr Mugabe, but he is welcomed by the international community everywhere he goes. Even President Obama granted him a rare audience at the White House lately though he is officially not the leader of Singapore.

The opposition is allowed to exist in Singapore provided it stays “constructive” (a Singapore euphemism for “doing nothing”) most of time and avoid crossing the path of Lee in the event of which they will be fixed, arrested and bankrupted till they “fall on bended knees and beg for mercy.”

The effectiveness of both methods is clear for all to see: Mr Mugabe’s rule is wobbling towards the end of his reign and he had to share power with his adversary in order to maintain his grip on power.

Lee does not have to concede any ground to Singapore’s non-existent opposition. Still being revered by some as the “founding father” of Singapore, he can win a free and fair election easily hands down anytime.

But Lee is not merely interested in winning elections, he wants an “overwhelming” mandate which means winning all the seats in parliament and if not, losing no more than two in the exising opposition wards.

Lee’s ruling PAP has won 10 consecutive elections from 1959 till 2006, a feat not seen or achieved in any other democracies in the world.

Of course one can argue that Singapore isn’t a democracy to begin with, but the fact remains that relatively free elections are conducted on a regular basis and though there are rampant gerry-mandering and unscrupulous practices such as the use of the state media to discredit and demolish the opposition, there were few complaints of fraud or vote-buying.

Now back to Malaysia – it may not be as developed as Singapore economically, its GDP per capita is much lower than ours and it ranks a pathetic 56th position by Transparency International compared to Singapore’s position as the 3rd least corrupt nation in the world and yet its people enjoy more political freedom than Singaporeans.

The Malaysian Bar Association can criticize the government freely and protest against decisions made by the Chief Justice without any repercussions.

The Singapore Law Society is muzzled by a law which disallows it to comment on legislation and policies unless its opinion is specifically sought after by the government.

Singapore lawyers are expected to toe the official line. Few would dare to go against the Chief Justice or Attorney-General openly. A former Singapore citizen Gopalan Nair questioned a decision made by then Attorney General Tan Boon Teck in the 1980s and was disbarred for two years.

The Malaysian opposition can lambast the Prime Minister openly without being sued for defamation. Democratic Action Party (DAP)’s Tony Pua, who slammed PM Najib recently over his GST proposal would have been bankrupted a long time ago had he been in Singapore.

Another voracious critic Lim Kit Siang, who hammered the government relentlessly would probably be detained under the Internal Security Act by the PAP and exiled elsewhere like Singapore’s former Solicitor-General Francis Seow, once Lee’s blue-eyed boy who had fallen out with him.

For all his diatribes against Dr Mahathir, Badawi and Najib, Lim should consider himself fortunate that he is still able to speak his mind relatively freely in Malaysia. Lee would never tolerate such public show of dissent against him.

The irony is: DAP was an offshoot of the PAP, regrouped from the Malaysian branch of the PAP after Singapore was booted unceremoniously out of Malaysia in 1965.

The three opposition MPs in Singapore’s parliament are largely ineffectual and dare not challenge the ruling party. When asked point-blank by PM Lee last year if Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng should resign over the escape of terrorist Mas Selamat, opposition MP Low Thia Kiang was stunned into silence, earning him the nickname “Silent Low” among netizens.

Low could possibly be more vocal in Malaysia, but not in Singapore where a single wrong word may cause him to lose not only his MP seat, but his entire fortune as well which was what happened to his mentor, the late J.B. Jeyaretnam.

To be fair, we cannot blame Lee or the PAP completely for the state of political freedom in Singapore. It takes two hands to clap and Singaporeans have to shoulder part of the responsibility as well.

The Barisan Nasional is no less repressive than the PAP, but the Malaysians dare to go against it to express their displeasure publicly.

The anti-ISA protest held in August this year was supposed to be illegal, yet 30,000 concerned Malaysians still turned up in the streets to show their support which helped raised public awareness of the issue. Did the police arrest all 30,000 “illegal” protestors? They arrested only a few leaders and they are still not charged to this very day.

As a result of public pressure, the Barisan Nasional is forced to “review” the ISA and it will be less inclined to use it on political dissenters and opponents in the future out of fear of incurring the wrath of the people.

A similar “protest” against the ISA in Singapore held at Speaker’s Corner in May this year attracted only a motley crowd of less than 30, the same few opposition members and activists. If you ask 100 Singaporeans in the street, probably only two or three are aware of the existence of the ISA.

The political ignorance, apathy and inactivity of Singaporeans is the greatest obstacle to genuine political progress in Singapore.

Most Singaporeans are too obsessed with the pursuit of material possessions and comforts in life that they fail to realize that it is impossible to have economic rights without political rights first.

Singaporeans slog hard day in and out for their entire lives just to earn enough money to pay for inflated public housing after which they are probably left with little money for their retirement.

Worse still, they may find themselves being retrenched and replaced in the prime of their lives by some foreign “talent” who is more “hard-driving” as according to the words of Lee.

Singaporeans have no choice but to live a perpetually stressful life dictated to them by the ruling party because they are not aware of the fact that as citizens, they have certain rights and privileges and if the ruling party cannot safeguard their interests, they can always boot it out of office and find a replacement which is more amendable to their requests.

Without political rights, Singaporeans are like lambs waiting to be slaughtered, forever at the mercy of the dominant PAP which controls every aspect of their lives from cradle to grave.

While it looks increasingly likely that Malaysians will vote out the incumbent by the next election, Singaporeans will probably be stuck with the PAP for the new few decades.

After all, our “forecaster extraordinarie” Lee did make a bold prediction not too long ago that the PAP will remain in power for the next two terms at the very least.

PAP members and supporters reading this article will surely challenge the author to leave for Malaysia if he is so disenchanted with Singapore, but he is a Singaporean by birth and he has every right to demand changes in the way his nation is being governed for the sake of his children’s future.

(The author is proud of Singapore and being a Singaporean. What he abhors is the way the ruling party has been manipulating and ruining the lives of ordinary citizens in order to serve its own selfish partisan interest. Singapore is much larger than the PAP itself!)

He wants a Singapore where everybody has a stake in, not just one controlled by the ruling party and its close associates or worse, a particular family using the ruling party as a legitimate political vehicle to perpetuate “dynastic” rule.

Some Malaysian Chinese consider themselves as “second class” citizens in Malaysia, but true blue Singapore Chinese are becoming “second class” citizens in Singapore too.

In a recent interview with National Geographic magazine, Lee Kuan Yew was quoted as saying:

“Over time, Singaporeans have become less hard-driving and hard-striving. This is why it is a good thing that the nation has welcomed so many Chinese immigrants…..If native Singaporeans are falling behind because the spurs are not stuck into the hide, that is their problem.”

As the ruling party continues to embark on its massive PR branding exercise to showcase Singapore as the “Switzerland” of Southeast Asia, the unsavory truth is that it is probably closer to being the “Zimbabwe” of Southeast Asia.

(Myanmar doesn’t count as it is officially a military dictatorship while both Singapore and Zimbabwe are still “democracies” in name. Zimbabwe also conducts regular elections which are always won by Mugabe’s party with overwhelming majorities like the PAP.)

Freedom-loving nations in the world should stop appeasing the Singapore dictatorship and start speaking up against it by exposing its spins, fallacies and hypocrises.

The late South Korean President Kim Dae Jung once rubbished Lee’s “Asian values” as a “lame excuse for dictatorship”. The leaders of other democratic nations should emulate him and not be afraid of “calling a spade a spade”.

The Singapore system is a menace to the free world, more dangerous than Zimbabwe, Myanmar and North Korea now that the ruling parties of Russia and China are studying its model and adopting some of its undemocratic practices to entrench themselves in power under the guise of democracy, thereby corrupting its good name.

Singapore’s one-party state-capitalist autocracy may survive and prosper for a while, but as history has shown, it will seldom outlast the dictator and his successor and will never become a viable alternative to a democratic system based on the rule of law, clear separation of powers between the executive and legislative and power in the hands of the people.

Copyright © 2009 · All Rights Reserved · The Temasek Review

EDITORS’ NOTE:

Please join our Facebook here

and our tweet here

Who will gain and what’s at stake – Additional day of non-campaigning for next General Elections

By Bhaskaran Kunju

After concluding his attendance for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Trinidad and Tobago early last week, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong made a surprise announcement regarding the next general elections.

PM Lee proposed a change to the pre-electoral proceedings by including an extra day of non-campaigning just before the polling day. As it stands campaign proceedings are carried out all the way till the polling day itself when no campaign activity is allowed.

One of the reasons, cited by PM Lee for the change was for voters to take time out to think rationally before making their decision on whom to vote for after an emotionally charged campaign period.

He said,” I think 24 hours after the last excitement of the election campaign period, the rallies, the door-to-door campaigning, the adrenaline flowing, the clash in the mass media as well as in person, perambulating vans blaring away loud speakers, it’s good to have 24 hours to just calm down, think about it – tomorrow we vote.”

The brief campaign period during General Elections is easily the most active period in Singapore politics and it wouldn’t be wrong to state it as being emotionally charged as well. So while there is some truth in that, it would be quite off the mark to conclude that the voters are just as emotionally affected to the point where they are judgement is clouded and rationality impaired.

The last two elections have seen it’s fair share of emotional highs from Dr Chee Soon Juan’s public tangle with then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in 2001 and the highly charged battle with Worker’s Party candidate James Gomez in 2006.

While these events were widely carried and reported in the mainstream media and in cyberspace there was very little emotional spillover into the electorate. If anything the only resultant from the latter, was a largely negative turnover for the PAP for their role in the James Gomez saga with the public mostly being put off by the constant taunting by the incumbent party while the Worker’s Party carried on with their duties.

It was a miscalculated strategy that very nearly backfired. But most importantly it showed how discerning the voters were in setting aside emotions and logic.

Nevertheless the worry over emotional spillovers is something that has been present for the PAP quite sometime especially given the relatively large turnouts the opposition rallies command as opposed to that of the PAP. Just one day before polling day in 2006 PM Lee acknowledged this phenomenon but brushed it aside as nothing more than mere curiosity.

He said, “”Coming back from Pasir Ris-Punggol last night, I saw my son at the dinner table and asked him ‘where have you been?’ ‘Ang Mo Kio Workers’ Party rally.’ ‘What were you doing there?’ ‘Wanted to know, brought friends, 20 of them from school in uniform and went to hear.’ I asked him ‘what did you hear?’ Don’t know what they were talking about but every time they said something, they cheered – he said that. I said ‘why don’t you come to the PAP rally?’ He said ’so boring and logical’. So I think it’s okay. Many more (are) like that, want to hear but when it comes to the moment to vote and decide, I think they know what’s in their interest.”

However even within the realm of curiosity it will be difficult to discern between emotions and rationality and that’s something that the PAP has been able to catch on to.

In a P65 Blog entry one of the writers, Fredric Fanthome, criticised those who had found fault with PM Lee’s proposal. He suggests, that “opposition mouthpieces” who cry foul at the new proposal, since political broadcasts and news reports during the cooling off day will be in favour of the government as the media is “in the hands of the government”, are insinuating that voters are not aware of the media ‘misuse’ and in the process belittling voter intelligence.

Firstly, his drawing of conclusion is one that is clearly lacking in understanding of the socio-political scene of Singapore, as seen in his rudimentary argumentation process. However he is always free to choose to write whatever he wants in his blog.

But notably, going by that run of conclusion, then low ‘voter intelligence’ is also being insinuated by the PAP since there is now apparently a need to ‘cool off’24 hours before polling day lest they be so irrational that they get taken in by emotions and theatrics and not vote lucidly.

The actual truth could be much more mundane, that is that no one, neither the opposition nor the incumbent party, really has anything tangible to benefit from it. The opposition parties on one hand have always favoured the internet as the medium of choice, something that will be difficult to regulate outside of official party broadcasts.

Even PM Lee acknowledged it, “On the Internet, it’s grey and also the policing is not so straight-forward but even then, in principle we should say today is a quiet day. I cannot control several million videos on youtube but your website, what you’re putting up in your own name, I think that should end the day before the cooling-off day,”

But the possibility that state owned media, which will be fully functional regardless of the election period, still holds the upper hand in the dissemination of information, tilts discourse in favour of the establishment. How effective this will be however will only be seen in practice. A 24-hour period may ultimately not even be enough for a cooling-off period should the concerns of emotional highs be in fact real.

The only telling sign of this new arrangement is that the PAP is indeed playing safe over the possibility of emotional envelopment of issues by the opposition. Especially given the fact that, relatively enough leeway is being given in the next elections as opposed to the last when podcasts were disallowed and the Internet treated with much dread.

With the changes in the electoral system as proposed earlier this year coupled with the domestic worries over immigration and financial woes, there is every likelihood that the next elections could be quite unpredictable all the way till polling day.

Copyright © The Temasek Review, 2009

Other articles by Bhaskaran Kunju:

>> The saga of (dethroned) beauty queen Ris Low

>> Is there room for more foreigners in Singapore?

>> Why social cohesion is at the forefront of the Prime Minister’s National Day Rally

>> Changes in political system to allow more alternative voices

>> The untimely departure of Chip Goodyear

>> Should universities be re-politicized?

About Author:

Bhaskaran Kunju is a political science undergraduate in a local varsity. He is a regular contributor to the Straits Times Forum and TODAY Voices.

50 reasons why I will NOT vote for PAP.

Contributed by a TR reader who calls himself Bitter Singaporean.

1. I want to buy a house without paying a Cash-Over-Value of $100,000

2. I don’t want to be accused of being fussy if I don’t want to live on the first floor or basement bomb shelter, or ulu ulu places like Kusu Island

3. I don’t want keep hearing that flats are “affordable” when I really cannot afford flats.

4. I don’t want to see foreigners flood our condos, HDB estates, MRT trains, buses, schools, EVERYWHERE

5. I don’t want to know about how ministers are getting lots of landed and prime property both local and overseas when I have trouble getting a 3-room flat.

6. I don’t want ministers who get multi-million dollar salaries when I do odd jobs and some months I don’t make more than $2,000.

Ministers in other countries may take bribes and embezzle. My ministers are smarter, they get more money claiming more MILLIONS in salary LEGALLY.

7. I don’t want to pay ERP just because foreigners’ cars are clogging my roads. Especially, when ERP do not solve congestion problems!!! We still have terrible traffic jams!

8. I don’t want to do NS and reservist to protect my country against foreign invaders when:
(A) I don’t have a house to protect
(B) I cannot afford to start a family to protect
(C) I have to protect foreigners and their property with my life when they run away during war.
(D) Foreigner PRs do not have to serve
(E) I get paid worse than a Bangala worker. To think that National Service needed people donation’s in 1967, after a year, it gathered S$ 3 million from Singaporeans when we were all so poor.

9. I do not want to see PRs and New citizens flashing their blue and pink ICs on their national days.

10. I do not want to see the shamelessness of importing foreign athletes and claims that Singapore won when a foreigner won. Oh yes, we pay these foreigners millions of dollars so that Singapore can claim that it won. WOW!

11. I do not want to hear jeering against the SG local soccer teams from foreigner spectators when we play against other countries IN OUR OWN COUNTRY!

12. I don’t want to pay 7% more for everything I buy in my whole life when the government gives my $200 in “compensation” handouts!

13. I want to see a local student being the top student. Not some China kid. Not hearing from ours kids that there is no point to work hard as some foreigner is going to squeeze them down inevitably.

14. When there is public curiosity, I expect my government (especially Law minister) to be transparent enough let us know about Temasek and HDB cost to build a flat, etc.

15. I want my country to be known as a COUNTRY. My country is NOT just a city like some idiot claims.

16. I don’t want LHL’s son to be the next succeeding prime minister.

17. I don’t like how China suckered us in the Suzhou park initiative and we still have to kiss their assess.

18. I cannot understand why local siblings cannot buy flats when foreigner PR siblings can buy flats.

19. Singles are not allowed to buy flats before 35? Are singles supposed to be forced into marriage just because of this? By the time singles reach 35, the flat prices will be higher by $100,000 to $300,000. These singles worked very hard to scrimp and save only to see savings ERODED away by inflation!

20. I do not want to read the paper when it is pro-PAP and there is major censorship and selective publishing and late publishing for what cannot be hidden.

21. I don’t want my life-savings to be belittled as the salt on the “peanuts”.

22. I don’t like it when my country’s reserves lost tens of billions of dollars and the PM’s wife can still head Temasek!

23. I want important national assets key to our security like power stations to BELONG to our country, not sold to foreigners.

24. I like to add hum to my mee siam by the way.

25. I want a president who actually DOES more. Not one which who I seek shakes hands, seldom speaks, does not even pardon and spare a 19-year-old kid his life. Not a president who kids confuse with Mas Selamat (Many kids who know Mas Selamat do not EVEN know Nathan)

26. I don’t want to have my next national day parade at the silly riverside place….AGAIN! How long does it take to make a stadium? We are a country but we don’t even have a national stadium?? How about loaning Malaysia’s Merdeka Stadium for Singapore’s National day?

27. I want job security. A contract for 1 or 2 years, Then look for work again. The cycle repeats. We have to worry for our jobs and livelihoods on a daily basis. When we are over 40 years old, who want us anymore? I might as well join the army as sign on. But wait, that is contract TOO!

28. I don’t want the next generation to suffer like me in university. I had to work part-time to support my uni fees in NUS, while foreign students get free uni education thanks to MOE PLUS $500 allowance every month. After that, NUS still has the cheek to call me up and ask me to donate to NUS. Why they need money? They lost hundreds of millions of endowment in the financial crisis. I can still remember working and saving for 3 months before I could afford a 2nd hand laptop.

29. I want to protest in the streets to voice my discontent without being put to jail by the ISA act or made bankrupt. For goodness sake, I don’t even dare to accept Singtel’s offer of giving me free 6 months internet if I switch from Starhub to Singtel, because I am scared that my IP address and my name will be blacklisted by the government. (considering Singtel’s afflictions with the govt)

30. I want an opposition party in power. Any opposition is welcome. As educated and smart as my current and soon-to-be-ex ministers may be, I want people who CARE and LISTEN. Even if it is a guy who had graduated from kindergarten would be welcomed if he cares.

31. Elites who have been born with a silver spoon, who never had trouble finding a job, who never had money difficulties, who never went hungry, who breezed through NS, do NOT deserve my respect nor should they be in the government. We need people who UNDERSTAND what it is like at the pits and bottom! Not some shortie who claims to understand hardship with a childhood living in 3-room flat but marries an angmoh and lives in a landed mansion.

32. I want a better electoral system! I don’t want WALK-OVERs again. Some of the seniors did not even get to vote ONCE in their whole lives. How is that democracy?

33. I want fairness. Is it a coincidence that certain estates under certain members of our government are especially well-cared for with upgrading etc incentives? Is this fair? Are residents of areas under the opposition similarly cared for? I quote a resident from Potong Pasir “the lifts here are so old and I can’t climb the flight of stairs to reach my place anymore.” I supposed the 60 year old aunty would be forced to vote for PAP to get new lifts.

34. I want a limit to the number of years the PM can hold office, so that as bad and as lousy as the PM is, we can at least have a chance to start afresh.

35. I want small quotas/ratios legislated for foreigners.

36. I want foreigners to be restricted to less than 20% of our population instead of 36%.

37. Horsie actually said that foreigner PRs were under-represented in HDB flats. Pah! No more than 2 flats in a block should be sold to PRs! Otherwise, how can the many old uncles and aunties have pocket money for retirement by renting out flats?

38. I want their CPF contribution percent to be much higher and that their CPF to be forfeited if they leave SG.

39. I want higher income taxes and property taxes for foreigners.

40. I want NS for foreigners.

41. Foreigners who bought HDB flats cannot be allowed to rent their flat out EVER!

42. I want the SGD to be moderated downwards! A higher SGD may benefit those who can afford to holiday overseas, those who are rich enough to send kids to overseas for studies, or PRs and foreigners when they remit money home. BUT overly high SGD deters investments into Singapore.

43. I want curbs on inflation. To that effect, we need to install restrictions on property speculation, raise reserve ratios in banks, and have more stringent criteria before loans are issued. AND OF COURSE, GST lower back to 3%

44. When foreign talent enters my country. I want these people to be REALLY foreign talent. I don’t want my country’s pink IC and PR to be handed out like toilet paper.

45. I want more heavily subsidized birth-delivery, child-care, pediatric health and education care to boost local numbers. If S.Korea can do it, why not us? The practice of replacement diminishing local numbers with foreigner number MUST STOP.

46. Instead of always saying Singapore does not have enough talent, will the government spend more money and effort in education and grooming the young? Every time they say that there is not enough of certain type of people, the government will import these people in masses and hordes.

47. I expect government-affiliated institutions to not indulge themselves with luxuries when other citizens have bread-butter problems:

When NTUC income unilaterally announced major cuts in its bonus for insurance-policy-holders, the MAS allowed this to happen. NTUC income claimed financial woes, but took HUNDREDS of agents to Australia for an exorbitant expense-paid holiday as they made the announcement earlier this year!!! Do they think about the widows and orphans when they dine fine with wine???

At first I could not believe NTUC Income to be capable of this, then I checked on the web and saw the NTUC CEO hugging 2 BIKINI girls and drinking champagne in Australia too.
(i) http://ms-my.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1550459&id=36541001838&ref=mf

(ii) (ii)http://ms-my.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1549575&id=36541001838&ref=mf

48. I expect the MAS to protect citizens financially too:

When thousands of investors lost their life savings in the mini-bond fiasco, where was the government?? Unlike the Hong Kong government which had exerted pressure on its local banks to compensate a minimum sum to its minibond holders, the Singapore authorities chose to stay out of the matter….. MM Lee Kuan Yew even chided Singapore investors for “walking in with their eyes open” and therefore did not deserve a compensation. (quote from Temasek Review 1st Dec)

49. I have 1 more issue with the state Media Press. HOW can they publish photos of people suspected of crimes when they have not EVEN been convicted?? Imagine the tarnishing to the poor suspect’s reputation if he were innocent! It is not as if the guy can sue ST and get $400,000 in defamation compensation.

50. Anyone can give the 50th reason??????????????? Come on my fellow locals. If I can say so much, you can at least say something! Few thousand people viewing this article and so little comments???

Editor’s note: Contributed by a TR reader who call himself Bitter Singaporean on Sun, 13th Dec 2009 8:20 pm

Why democracy is crucial for good governance and strong leadership

OPINION

During a speech made at the fifth Asia Economic Summit two days ago, Singapore deputy prime minister Wong Kan Seng said that good governance and strong leadership are the critical elements which underpins how the Singapore government steers its future forward.

According to Mr Wong, the Singapore government has distilled a set of principles on governance and leadership to guide its decision and policy-making over the years.

He listed five principles that the island republic applied successfully to run the city-state, namely, “Good, Clean Governance”, “Integrity and Meritocracy”, “Anticipate Change and Stay Relevant”, “Do What is Right, Not What is Popular” and the final one is “Leadership is Key.”

There was no mention about the collective will and rights of the people. What if the people do not agree with the government? Will it still go ahead and do what it thinks it is right? And how can we be sure that it is right all the time?

Mr Wong’s views encapsulate the mindset of the PAP which has promulgated a patriarchal if not autocratic form of government during its reign for the last fifty years – that the (economic) welfare of the people takes precedent over their political rights.

In the 1986 National Day rally, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew said of his priorities in nation-building:

“What are our priorities? First, the welfare, the survival of the people. Then, democratic norms and processes which from time to time we have to suspend.”

The misperception that democracy is not compatible with good governance was perpetuated over time by the state media leading to a gradual numbing of the political consciousness of the citizenry which has grown to be completely clueless about their political rights as citizens.

Lee was to lecture a Japanese audience in Tokyo 6 years later that “Western” values of freedoms and liberties of the individual are not relevant to Asian societies:

“With few exceptions, democracy has not brought good government to new developing countries…What Asians value may not necessarily be what Americans or Europeans value. Westerners value the freedoms and liberties of the individual. As an Asian of Chinese cultural backround, my values are for a government which is honest, effective and efficient.”

He was soon proven wrong a few years later when South Koreans voted for a democrat Kim Dae Jung to be its president and Taiwan made the final transition from a one-party state to a two-party system when Chen Shui Bian from the opposition Democratic Progressive Party won the presidency.

In 2004, Indonesia held its first free presidential elections which saw a former general Susilo Bambang-Yudhyono winning it and ushering a series of democratic reforms into the nation’s political system. Malaysia’s ruling Barisan Nasional coalition was denied its traditional two-thirds majority in the 2008 elections and just this year in Japan, the Liberal Democratic Party was voted out of office after more than fifty years.

As the above examples have shown clearly, “democracy” isn’t a western value, but a universal one which is critical to good governance and strong leadership of every nation.

Democracy is not an ideal form of government, but it is the least of all evils because it allows the people to partake actively in the political life of their nation, to have their opinions heard and reflected in the policy-making process and more importantly, to enable a diversity of views from across the political spectrum to be expressed within the constitutional set-up of the nation which facilitates sharing and orderly transfer of power from one group to another.

An aware, alert and active citizenry, supported by a free press, a robust civil society and an independent judiciary is the cornerstone of “good, clean” governance.

The government deliberates and decides on policies which will affect countless of people who are therefore in the best position to assess its performance.

What a government thinks is good for the nation may not be shared by its citizens. A government which does not listen to the people will tend to make mistakes with disastrous consequences for future generations.

For example, the government introduced the “Stop at two” policy in the 1970s to decrease the ballooning population of Singapore. It faced opposition from Singaporeans who were keen to have larger families back then, but was able to push the unpopular policy through because the people had no power to resist it and neither was there an opposition in parliament to force the ruling party into a debate on the issue.

Families who had more than two children were fined and denied education subsidies for the third child. Women with little education were encouraged not to have children and to get themselves sterilized.

The policy was implemented rather hastily and its spectacular success turned out to be a catastrophe now that our fertility rate has dropped below the replacement level and we have to import large number of foreigners to boost Singapore’s population thereby creating another set of problem altogether.

Had the government taken a step back then, solicited more feedback from the people and studied the long-term implications in detail, it might have tweaked the policy to avert the situation we find ourselves in today.

In the same speech, Mr Wong said that Singapore had also been consistently ranked among the top five least corrupt nations the past few years, and the scores in the survey were the result of a systematic effort by the government over the past 50 years, to weed out corruption.

While the efforts of the Singapore government to tackle corruption deserved to be praised, it is achieved largely because its founding leaders are honest, clean and incorruptible themselves rather than the strength of the Singapore political system itself.

When the father is in the house, every child will be quiet and obedient but the moment he leaves, all hell will break loose.

Human nature is unpredictable. Greed is inherent in every man and woman. The best bulwark against corruption is to have an institutionalized system of checks and balance in place to detect, expose and punish corrupted leaders and civil servants. It cannot be based solely on trust alone, as according to Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugarathan.

It is highly worrying that there is no opposition in parliament to hold the ruling party accountable, no free and independent media which dares to publish the wrong-doings of government leaders and no civil society to keep the people abreast of the current affairs of the nation.

The Singapore opposition is perenially weak, divided and ineffectual. There is only one print media company in Singapore which is controlled by the ruling party. All the grassroots organizations are under the charge of the Prime Minister who is the Chairman of the People’s Association and the Home Affairs Minister has the power to shut down any NGOs deemed “detrimental” to the nation’s interest.

Furthermore, the independence of the Singapore judiciary has been questioned by the esteemed International Bar Association Human Rights Institute and the economy of the nation is dominated by major state-linked companies owned indirectly by the government via its two sovereign wealth funds.

The over-concentration of power in the hands of a few in Singapore is a ticking time bomb. So long as its leaders are decent, honest and well-meaning individuals, Singapore will be able to practice “good governance” backed by “strong leadership” because it will be a breeze running a country when everybody sings to its tune including the subdued “opposition” in parliament.

What if a scheming, unscrupulous and dishonest leader is allowed to slip through into the establishment undetected in the future after our senior leaders have left the political stage? Who is going to expose him/her from power when he/she potentially controls every single institution of the country?

Until Mr Wong or the Prime Minister answers this crucial question, nobody can guarantee for sure that Singapore will continue to enjoy years of good governance in the next few decades.

Singapore’s archaic one-party system is grossly incompatible with its exalted status as a first-world economy. We are a long way off from building a system with clear separation of powers between the executive and the legislative as well as independent institutions outside the government which can check on possible abuses of power.

Absolute power may lead to good governance and strong leadership temporarily, but it will also corrupt absolutely in the absence of democratic principles and practices.

Time to make public the KPIs of Singapore ministers

OPINION

Singapore’s famous blogger Mr Brown received a rude shock last week when his article “mrbrown and the flood” was removed abruptly without warning a day after it was published on the widely read Singtel digital media – insing.com.

His editor told him upon asking that the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) had lodged a complaint to the Ministry of Information, Communication and Arts (MICA) which got Singtel (owned by Temasek Holdings) to remove the disagreeable article in double-quick time.

In an unusually heavy downpour two weeks ago, Bukit Timah was flooded and became submerged in water damaging many properties and cars as a result.

The minister in charge Dr Yaacob Ibrahim told the media that the flooding is a “freak” event which occurs once in fifty years without realizing that he had used the same excuse two years ago during a similar flooding in Thomson.

Mr Brown’s article poked fun at the minister’s comments and poured scorn on the authorities for not having the foresight to prevent the flood from happening in the first place.

What are the reasons behind MEWR’s complaint? The article is critical of Dr Yaacob and the ministry.

In other first world countries, nobody would have batted an eyelid at Mr Brown’s article, but in Singapore where its highly paid ministers are extremely sensitive to criticism, it is considered a “heretical” piece to be kept out of sight in the public domain.

The state media, which is tightly controlled by the ruling party predictably run a series of articles subsequently to highlight the measures taken by the ministry to prevent a repeat of the flooding. Nothing was mentioned about its possible oversight.

How are Singaporeans able to assess the performance of its ministers objectively when the mass media has become its mouthpiece which only knows how to sing its praises and make them appear better than they really are?

The ruling party believes in paying its ministers a salary which is pegged to the private sector because they are supposedly the best talents available in Singapore.

According to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, the ministers’ performance are judged on a yearly basis and a variable component of their salaries is dependent on it. Ministers who have not performed up to expectations will be given a “pet talk” in private.

Singapore’s ministers are the highest paid in the world. The annual salary of PM Lee is five times that of U.S. President Barack Obama.

Who is paying their astronomical salaries? Of course it’s the Singapore taxpayers. If we are paying so much for their “service” to the nation, then should we have the right to know if we are getting value for our money?

Singapore leaders claim that there is a price to pay for good government. Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong once remarked famously that his government cost only five plates of “Char Kway Teow” during his time as Prime Minister. The five plates must have ballooned to fifty plates by now.

Self praise is no praise really. The only people with the right to judge the performance of Singapore ministers are the citizens who are paying their salaries! However with the compliant and sycophantic media shielding the government from any negative publicity and trumpeting its minor achievements now and then, there is no way for the people to find out the truth.

Since the ruling party wants to run the government like a corporation, then it should adhere to the practices adopted in the private sector where there is intense scrutiny of the performance of the top honchos. Those fail to perform up to expected standards are fired immediately while top performers are rewarded with hefty bonuses and perks.

Just like nobody is born with ten fingers of equal length, there will bound to be ministers who perform better than their fellow colleagues. If non-performing ministers are not singled out for criticism, there will be no political pressure or impetus on their part to improve since their performance will always remain classified as a state secret.

PM Lee should reveal to the public the key performance indicecs (KPIs) for each minister including himself in order for the public to assess the performance of his team in a fair, balanced and objective manner especially since the next general election is around the corner.

He cannot expect Singaporeans to vote again for his team without first reporting to us what they had accomplished over the last five years or so since the 2006 general elections.

Malaysia’s Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak recently named Malaysian Airlines chief executive officer Datuk Seri Idris Jala as a minister to implement his administration’s Key Performance Index (KPIs) in addition to a minister who is in charge of crafting and monitoring the KPIs of all the ministers in his cabinet.

Surely Singapore which is famed for its good governance can do better than our neighbours by instilling a bit more accountability and transparency in the government?

If the ruling party is indeed as capable, efficient and honest as it proclaims itself to be, then it should not be afraid to put the performance of its ministers under intense scrutiny which should be the case in the first place.

Perhaps PM Lee can consider setting up a “KPI committee” under the civil service to assess the performance of each individual minister with the results made known and easily available to the public.

Only then will the government be able to justify the multi-million pay package of its ministers. The use of GDP growth as an index to gauge its performance is both inappropriate and inaccurate as GDP growth is generated by all Singaporeans and foreigners working here and not by the government.

Furthermore, it can always be artificially increased by importing large number of cheap foreign workers to keep business costs low while suppressing the wages of locals. High GDP growth does not translate directly to a higher standard of living to ordinary Singaporeans.

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said lately that he can easily earn more than his current pay in the private sector. He should corroborate his claims by revealing the present monthly salaries of former ministers who are now working outside the government such as Yeo Cheow Tong, Yeo Ning Hong and David Lim.

Empty rhetoric alone is no longer sufficient to convince an increasingly sceptical and restive citizenry that Singapore ministers need to be paid so many times the median salary of an average Singaporean ($2,600) in order to keep them in government.

A strong, secure and confident government need not resort to censoring unflattering remarks about its performance and discouraging political discourse and debate in the public domain to keep its citizens ignorant and apathetic. It should be able to rebuke the criticisms directed at it with ease so as to prove its real worth.

How will the “cooling off” law be enforced in cyberspace?

OPINION

The “cooling-off” day proposed by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to be introduced in the next election has stirred considerable interest in blogosphere with many netizens wondering how the new law will be enforced in cyberspace.

All mass rallies, door-to-door visits and public display of party symbols will be banned on the “cooling-off” day on the eve of polling day itself to enable voters to make a “calm” and “rational” decision.

Prime Minister Lee did not spell out clearly the circumstances under which the offenders will be prosecuted under the law or its penalties except that he hoped the spirit and principle of the “cooling-off” period would be upheld by Internet users.

“I can’t control several million videos on YouTube. But your website, what you are putting out in your own name, I think that should end on the day before cooling-off day,” PM Lee added.

Does the new law cover the following: -

1. Political commentaries posted on personal blogs.

2. Discussions on the elections in internet chatrooms.

3. Photos of the elections.

4. Videos of rallies, interviews and documentaries uploaded on Youtube.

5. Cartoons, parodies and satires.

For all intent and purposes, the law will be impossible to implement on the ground unless the PAP moves in to close down all the offending sites either overtly or covertly.

Anonymous bloggers will still be writing articles on the election, netizens will be flaming one another in the forums and Youtube will be filled with video clips recorded days before the “cooling-off” day.

It is far more practical to target the websites of political parties as well as established blogs with a sizable readership whose owner’s identity is already known.

Among the political parties’ websites, only SDP has a substantial readership to speak of.

SDP is the first political party in Singapore to make use of the new media to get its message across.

Soon after it announced its decision to utilize podcasts to reach out to the media, the government banned the its use during election time (the ban has now been lifted)

The readership of SDP’s website has increased since the last election and is expected to doubled on the eve of the election.

The “cooling-off” day will probably have a detrimental impact on the SDP’s campaign since the mainstream media is unlikely to give it much publicity, if any at all.

During the 2006 elections, blogger Mr Brown caused the PAP considerable embarrassment with his “Bak Chor Mee” parody which went on to be one of the most watched videos during the campaign period.

Under the new law, Mr Brown will be banned from posting any such satirical pieces on his popular blog on the eve of polling day to prevent it from “swaying” public opinion.

Blogger and gay activist Mr Alex Au whose photos of the huge turnout at the opposition rallies will also be prevented from posting similar photos on his blog “Yawning Bread” on the “cooling-off” day.

While no details have been divulged yet, the penalties for such offenses may be a hefty fine or even imprisonment to deter potential “trouble-makers” from breaking the law.

After all, an election is a “serious business” according to PM Lee whose outcome should not be left entirely to chance or determined by raw emotion.

The PAP can well afford to ignore blogs run by anonymous bloggers with a low readership and those set up during the election itself because they are not going to have exert any influence on the electoral result.

As the Malaysian experience have shown, the new media is only able to have an impact if it has a readership which is comparable to that of the mainstream media.

For example, Malaysiakini has a higher online readership than all the other mainstream newspapers controlled by the government such as New Straits Times, The Star and Utusan Melayu.

Besides Malaysiakini, there are also other semi-professional and amateur sites with a high enough readership to challenge the mass media – Malaysia Today, The Malaysian Insider, Merdeka Review and The Nut Graph to quote a few.

Though the Singapore new media still lags far behind its Malaysian counterparts, “freak” events do happen during the election as Mr Brown’s “Bak Chor Mee” which took the PAP entirely by surprise had amply demonstrated.

In fact, given the “kiasu” nature of the PAP, it will not be a surprise if the “cooling-off” day is extended to another two to three days before polling day itself to give it an additional cushion from the expected storm of negative publicity in the new media.

Mr Brown, Alex and other Singapore bloggers will have to decide for themselves if they are willing to pay the price by posting politics-related stuff on their blogs on the “cooling-off” day.

Despite another blatant attempt to manipulate the electoral system to its benefit, the new law will only affect swing voters who have not made up their minds.

To the many Singaporeans who have already decided who to cast their votes for, it will matter little if the “cooling-period” is a day or a week.

“Cooling-off” day for voters to reflect “calmly” on their decisions or for the PAP to do last minute campaigning?

OPINION

With elections looming around the corner, the ruling party is again making use of the power of its incumbency to change the rules of the game and shift the goal-posts in order to “engineer” another electoral result which will ensure their continued political hegemony.

In other modern democracies, the best result a political party can achieve is a simple majority to form the government without having to enter into a coalition with another party.

Under the unique Singapore political system, the PAP has set such high “standards” for itself that anything less than the status quo (winning 82 out of 84 seats) is considered a failure or in the words of MM Lee Kuan Yew, a “freak” result. (according to Dr Yaacob, this will be a “once in a fifty year” event)

Throughout the years, the PAP has cleverly manipulated the system to maximize its chances of winning in every elections, be it through rampant gerrymandering via the GRC system, serving a dose of pork-barrel politics to threaten the electorate or using the state media to discredit and demolish their opponents. Nothing is left to chance.

The latest announcement by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong that an additional “cooling-off” day will be introduced in the next election should not be dismissed as something trivial for it is a reflection of the behind-scene preparations which have been going on for the last few months.

The “cooling-off” day is supposed to give voters more time to “calmly” reflect on their decision and to prevent public disorder from breaking out.

All campaigning including mass rallies, door-to-door visits and display of party logos and symbols in public places will be banned on the “cooling-off” day which is extended to cyberspace as well, but there is one exception: the news reporting on the election in the state media and the traditional broadcasts of political parties will not be affected.

The PAP’s greatest fear lies in the electorate being swayed by charismatic speakers and articles in the new media which lies beyond their control. The additional day is actually an “insurance policy” for them to attempt to influence the outcome of the election in the last minute should things turn out not the way they wanted or expected.

During the 2006 elections, the opposition rallies are attended by tens of thousands of Singaporeans while the PAP rallies only managed to attract a paltry crowd. Even PM Lee’s son admitted that the opposition rallies are more exciting.

Though the new media did not play a major role then, blogger Alex Au of Yawning Bread still managed to embarrass the state media which censored photos of the huge turnout at opposition rallies by posting photos of the large crowd attending the Workers’ Party’s rallies on his blog.

Mr Brown’s “Bak Chor Mee” parody which poured sarcasm on the PAP’s constant harping on the Gomezgate issue was a hit among netizens and exposed the hypocrises of its leaders.

Despite their recent forays into the new media, the PAP has literally no conceivable presence in cyberspace which is dominated by blogs critical of the establishment or sympathetic towards the opposition cause.

The “cooling-off” day will help to counter the advantage enjoyed by the opposition in these two aspects and to tap on the inherent strengths of the PAP which will be given longer air time on TV and favorable coverage in the state media.

In other words, this means that only pro-government voices are allowed to heard in the public domain on the eve of polling day which will surely tilt the playing field in favor of the PAP.

For those who have already made up their minds long before the election, they do not require an extra day to make a “rational” decision.

The target group is voters with no political affiliations and have not decided who to cast their votes for. Due to the general apathy pervading the entire nation, a significant proportion of Singaporeans may fall into this “swing” group which have the potential to determine the final result in closely fought contests.

With Singapore voters becoming more politically astute and demanding coupled with the emergence of the new media as an alternative source of information to counter the official propaganda from the mainstream media, the odds of a “freak” result happening in the next election is not as remote as it seems.

While it is highly unlikely that the PAP will be booted out of government or even denied their customary two-thirds majority due to the ineptitude and weakness of the opposition, there is a good chance that they may lose a GRC which will deal a psychological blow to its aura of invincibility.

GRCs are considered as impregnable “fortresses” of the PAP which had never lost a single one since the scheme was first introduced in the 1988 general elections.

Once a GRC falls into the opposition hands, the floodgate will open with more and more Singaporeans joining the ranks of the opposition to challenge the PAP as predicted by MM Lee himself the likely scenario in the post-LKY era.

The Malaysian opposition party Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) founded by former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim was considered a “goner” before the 2008 general elections. After it won an unprecedened 31 seats to become the largest opposition party in parliament, its membership shot up by more than 100 per cent in less than a year.

The stakes are getting higher and higher for the PAP. The loss of a GRC or a few more single wards in addition to the two opposition wards of Potong Pasir and Hougang will herald a new dawn in Singapore politics.

No amount of gerrymandering, propaganda or repression, let alone a ”cooling-off” day can deter a politically aware, educated and informed citizenry for supporting alternative parties to break the political monopoly enjoyed by the PAP continuously since the 1966 elections when the opposition Barisan Sosialist made a colossal blunder by boycotting it.

The real battle will not be fought during the campaigning period or on the eve of polling day, but on every single day after Singaporeans gave the PAP another “overwhelming” mandate in 2006.

From the ministers giving themselves a big pay rise, the relentless influx of foreigners, sky-rocketing prices of public housing, investment losses of Temasek and GIC, rising cost of living to a series of repressive laws introduced to curtail the civil liberties of Singaporeans, the PAP’s “track record” is for all to see. Can we afford to give them another blank cheque to do as they please for the next five years?

By the time the next election is held, the PAP would have been in power for more than 5 decades. The time is ripe for a “freak” election to occur.

Related articles:

>> SDP opposes “cooling-off” day and calls for a genuine electoral process

>> Low Thia Kiang: Cooling-off period will give PAP an extra day of campaigning

>> PM Lee: 24 hour “cooling-off” period at next GE

>> Websites of political parties will be bound by cooling-off day rules

Next Page »