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

Please calm down

I want you all to understand that people are tired, egos have…

“林学芬从未担任李光耀律师” 李显扬抨击总检察署浪费公共资源

“我的妻子从未担任李光耀的律师。父亲的遗嘱在五年前就执行。当父亲完成遗嘱后,告知全家和他的律师,遗嘱由李&李律师事务所保管。” 李显扬在昨晚九时,于脸书贴文回应总检察署投诉林学芬失职一事。他指出,五年前父亲李光耀重新签署遗嘱,当时部长尚穆根也有参与。 他提及,在1995年立下第一份遗嘱以来,都是由李&李事务所担任律师。第一份遗嘱是由母亲柯玉芝草拟,她也是遗嘱的主要受益人。 他说,没有人在父亲签定最终遗嘱的过程提出投诉—包括父亲自身、任何受益人、以及咨询黄鲁胜(现任总检察长)的李显龙。 在没有任何一方提出异议的情况下,遗嘱在2015年得到法庭认证,自那时以来,各方都依遗嘱意愿行事。 他在昨日回应英媒《今报》时,重申林学芬的事务所未参与草拟遗嘱,提到遗嘱中第七项,有关拆除欧思礼路故居的嘱咐,乃是由妻子依据父亲的指示下起草的,父亲随后要求柯金梨将之放入遗嘱中。 然而,李显龙在2017年6月作出的法定声明,声称李&李事务所的柯金梨,负责起草了除了最终遗嘱以外的所有遗嘱。 李显扬也抨击总检察署时至今日重提此事,为其家族的私人事务浪费公共资源,“许多都是各方已知的事实,但为何选择在2019年仓促重提此案?” 他反驳总检察署称妻子林学芬拒绝回应是不实的,并呼吁总检察署公开完整往来信件。 总检察长黄鲁胜早前声称,自2018年10月已数次致函给林学芬要求后者解释其在订立最后遗嘱过程中的角色,惟后者未回应,为此才向律师公会投诉。 总理妹妹李玮玲医生,在昨日揭露揭露总检察署针对林学芬为李光耀准备遗嘱一事,向新加坡律师公会提呈逾500页的投诉信。 李玮玲认为,这是史无前例地在涉及私人遗嘱事项上,动用司法程序。…