By Donovan Choy
To call the electoral process in Singapore free, is akin to saying a prisoner is free because he gets a whole hour in the courtyard daily to do whatever well he wishes.
The department that conducts elections is a department under the Prime Minister’s Office itself. Whether it be drawing constituency boundaries, monitoring campaign spending limits, designating rally locations or allocating manpower for the elections, every facet is subject to the Prime Minister Office’s discretion.
Not only does this decision-making process not include oppositional input, the entire process is done behind closed doors – as if the PAP was taking part in the elections all by themselves.
Consider for a moment or two the public uproar if the planning of the entire 2014 FIFA World Cup tournament were dictated solely by a German committee (they won the cup); if a pet contest judge had his very own chihuahua running in the contest; if the United Nations, an organisation pledged to promoting international cohesion, was really run by one nation?
The Elections Act allows a period of as little as 9 days to a maximum of 8 weeks for campaigning. Opposition parties have never been afforded any more above the bare minimum of 9 days since 1963. What better way to demonstrate this than to look at the ongoing Bukit Batok by-elections: Nomination Day was on 27th May, Cooling and Polling Day is on the 6th and 7th of April respectively. You can count the days with your fingers.
In the U.S., we hear politicians campaigning and rallying months and years before even any actual polling takes place. In “democratic” Singapore, citizens are expected to make up their mind and cast a vote that will determine their leaders based on a 9-day crash course of rallying.
The Films Act restricts opposition parties (and filmmakers) from producing political films or videos, amended in 2009 to outlaw the filming of “illegal” events – meaning unapproved public demonstrations – but perfectly acceptable if filmed by the licensed broadcast media.
The Political Donations Act, enforced by the aforementioned Elections Department, obstructs foreign funding not only for political parties, but for organisations that the government deems to be “political in nature” (news sites, activist groups etc) – a convenient tool that must come in handy for silencing and crippling inconvenient political forces. Large donations must be registered in name, deterring donors who prefer anonymity.
The Public Order Act deters parties from making public speeches unless they go through a vigorous, bureaucratic process to apply for a police permit, approved mere days in advance, leaving them with little to no time to organise speakers, send out invitations and so on.
What about our media? Anyone who’s even bothered to take a look at the state media apparatus now and then needs no further elaboration. For those who don’t, just take a look at the orgy of frenzied, gung-ho attacks on Chee Soon Juan that were published yesterday (1st May) in the Straits Times.
On page four of the main section, the entire page (split into two) is dedicated to the Prime Minister’s precious opinions, one of Chee’s “hypocritical” character, another fanning the non-existent flames of voters voting based on race.
PMLee_notchanged
race
An entire page!
On page two of the section Insight, there is a juxtaposition of Murali “back on familiar ground” to Chee’s so-called “test of his political makeover”.
papers_chee
While the PAP candidate is portrayed to be right at home in Bukit Batok, the opposition candidate must first surmount this imaginary political test of character. Murali must be beside himself with rapture considering how half the Central Executive Committee is getting involved in his campaign for him.
This extensive coverage dedicated to rehashing and attacking Chee Soon Juan’s history by the PAP’s higher-ups all across the board of the print and broadcast media has been particularly effective at framing the by-election debate around “Is the opposition candidate even fit to run?” instead of “Who has the better policies?”.
No doubt, PAP jingoists like Calvin Cheng will gleefully endorse these political attacks while denouncing “Western liberal media” for its adversarial nature with the very same hypocritical breath and birdbrained mentality.
All of the above and much, much more unmentioned aptly demonstrates the farcicality of democracy in Singapore. For one to say with a straight face that our elections are free, is for one to be either truly ignorant or downright dishonest.
Chee Soon Juan said that he had a mountain to climb in order to win. He wasn’t exaggerating.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

TikTok’s Rise: What does it mean for Facebook and Snapchat?

by ValueChampion TikTok’s viral growth has been superbly impressive. But what does its…

选区划分检讨委会成立 毕丹星处之泰然

随着选举局在昨日宣布,总理已召开选区检讨委员会,朝野政党打起十二分精神,坊间也奔走相告。工人党秘书长毕丹星表示,自己昨晚还没开始访问居民,就一直收到居民和支持者转告此消息。 毕丹星昨晚分享一则脸书贴文,打着“冷静,继续前行”的标题,似乎体现自己对选举局的公布不感到惊讶,尽管这意味着选举蛩音近,惟他仍继续做好服务选民的工作。 他在帖文中不忘揶揄,有趣的是选举局似乎也没有说明,上述委会是在八月的什么时候召开? 事实上,毕丹星此前已经两次在国会询问委员会是否已成立?第一次是在今年3月1日,第二次在今年7月。 他曾质问,为何不在上述委会成立后政府自行作出宣布,但贸工部长陈振声则代总理回答,惯例是让委会专业地进行工作,不受不必要媒体关注或公共压力影响。 在2006年和2011年,选区范围检讨委会用了四个月时间提交报告。但在2015年,从委会公布新的选区地图,到9月1日的提名日,只有39天。 帖文中毕丹星也描绘和选民之间的情谊,有84虽但心态年轻、人见人爱的朱女士;有一家聚餐从不看手机诚意交谈的家庭;也有服役34年的退休警察,在1981年安顺补选期间,驻扎在皇后镇,回忆那个时候的热烈情况。相信他也见证了反对党强人暨工人党前秘书长惹耶勒南当选。 毕丹星说,自己拜访选区时,自己的妻女都在耐心等候,“就像我拜访的那些家庭一样,来自我家人的爱,促使我继续前行–管他选举是在今年还是来年!”  

Election officials share their ordeals on Polling Day, say ELD should have done a better job

Last Saturday (11 July), Redditor u/hosehliao post a thread on a Reddit…