~ By Eddy Blaxell ~

The biggest message of the Bukit Brown campaign has nothing to do with cemeteries, highways, heritage or development.

It is about Singaporeans’ right to participate in their own political processes, to have their views heard, understood, and seriously considered in national debates.

Modern democracy traces its roots back to ancient Greece and Rome, where public forums were at the heart of the democratic process. Citizens were free to attend, speak and vote in the assemblies that were the forerunners to the parliaments of today. Democracy was created in direct opposition to earlier systems of anarchy, monarchy, oligarchy and timocracy. Its distinguishing feature was the idea of equality; that all citizens should have a say in the decisions that affect them.

Yet in Singapore the views of the citizens are often sidelined in the name of progress or growth. The most serious issue in recent years has been the growth in the number of foreigners living and working in Singapore. The views of the public were sidelined when that decision was made, and the PAP is now facing a widespread public backlash. The views of the public are frequently sidelined to allow for gerrymandering or defamation lawsuits (each designed, in their own way, to limit public opposition). Until recently politicians’ wages were set with no regard to those of the people they serve; now they are only slightly less out of touch, pegged to the salaries of the top 1000 earners.

The Bigger Picture

The Bukit Brown campaign has served as a rallying point for disaffected Singaporeans who would like to be given a greater say in the decisions that determine the nation’s future. Many of its members have no great connection to the cemetery itself; indeed many had never visited the site until the past year. Instead they are driven by a burning desire to ensure that the views of their fellow Singaporeans are heard. Bukit Brown is the present cause, but is a symptom of something much larger. The government would be foolish to see the current expression of discontent as a one-off occurrence that will soon go away.

In response to calls for greater democratic freedom the PAP has always reminded voters that Singaporean democracy is unique and cannot be expected to follow western methods. The argument has validity, but not to the extent usually claimed by the ruling party. Singapore’s democracy must remain unique just as Australia’s is unique from the USA, the USA from Finland, Finland from South Africa, South Africa from India and India from Japan. Being unique does not in itself set a democracy apart from the rest: all democracies are unique, but all retain the ability to learn from each other.

Public consultation is an area in which Singapore has great opportunities to learn from democracies the world over. Opportunities for feedback, discussion and debate between politicians and their constituents are an irreducible feature of other democratic systems. In the modern world these often take the form of public debates, inquiries, reviews or formal consultations. MPs in most countries are full time representatives – when they’re not in parliament they are meeting constituents, hearing their concerns and working on small issues in and with the community.

All these forms of engagement are lacking in Singapore, where politicians are no longer seen as the direct representatives of the community that elected them. The gerrymandering that takes place before each election means that few Singaporeans know where they’ll be voting in the next election. Some citizens have voted in five or six different constituencies while those in Tanjong Pagar haven’t voted since 1988. Outside election time the opportunities for citizens to contribute to the political process are limited. Most feel that contributing is too difficult to warrant the time and effort. Some feel so marginalized that they choose to ignore politics completely, focusing only on working hard while the world changes around them. This makes no-one happy, but too many people see no other way.

Bukit Brown is Litmus Test

If the Bukit Brown campaign gives us a good idea of public sentiment, it also shows us what the PAP government thinks of citizens who have opinions and are willing to fight for them. When a meeting called by the government turned out to be closer to a lecture than a consultation, Minister Tan Chuan-Jin explained that it was “never intended to be the type of dialogue desired and claimed by these [environment and heritage] groups”. He saw no need for consultation, and that was that: the decision had been made.

But it is not too late for the PAP to change its tune. The government still enjoys tremendous support, and has extensive resources at its disposal. It could begin by sending its highly paid ministers, MPs and civil servants to talk to ordinary Singaporeans about the issues that are important to them. Reading online forums is not enough; citizens are feeling a need for direct interaction with their elected representatives. Community forums are a good place to start; building public reviews and consultative periods into decision making processes would be a logical follow-up. Beyond that, the democratic world offers an endless range of solutions which Singapore could consider. Trade unions, local governments, citizens’ assemblies, independent commissions, review boards and ombudsmen exist in different countries to increase the ability of citizens to participate in the process of democracy. All should be considered.

In recent years Singaporeans have taken tentative steps towards engaging with their government and taking part in the nation’s political debate. Rather than fearing the criticism the government should take this as a positive development and make their own move towards cooperation. Instituting and institutionalising a system of consultation and public discussion is the next step for the PAP if it wants to move towards a mature democracy. Developing a system that makes citizens and government feel invested in each other would show that the PAP is still interested in the people it set out to serve. And that, more than anything, is what Bukit Brown is all about.


Eddy Blaxell is an Australian national who has lived and studied in Singapore – he regularly writes on his blog, Blaxell in Words

Headline photo courtesy of Gomes Consulting

__________________________

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

诈骗集团冒用吴作栋名义 诱骗民众投资比特币

日前诈骗集团涉嫌冒用荣誉国务资政吴作栋的名义,诱骗民众投资比特币。 金融管理局今日发表文告警惕公众,日前有网站冒用吴作栋的名义,称吴作栋为该网站的资深顾问。 网站在取得民众信任后,将要求民众于交易平台Bitcoin Loophole存入约250元作为最低投资基金,而平台声称将自动为投资者进行投资。平台亦会要求投资者填入提交信用卡或银行账户信息。 金管局澄清,网站的声明存在误导或虚假的信息,并提醒民众勿轻易将重要个资如个人或财务资料透露给网站,而若收到类似的诈骗信息,可向通报警方。 诈骗集团经常利用名人或政治人物的信用,取得民众信任。近年来,已有不少诈骗集团以类似的方式骗取民众的信任,甚至获得钱财。他们通常以公众人物的名字或照片先获取民众信任,再进一步诱骗民众。 如同日前的金管局局长和国务资政兼社会政策统筹部长尚达曼也遭遇骗徒冒用名义,向公众招揽比特币投资。 此外,今年5月网上流传关于副总理王瑞杰以600万元投资新公司的不实报道, 王瑞杰随后亦脸书发文驳斥并提醒民众勿提供个人和信用卡号码和密码等财务资料;同样于今年5月,诈骗网站冒用人力部长杨莉明照片, 误导用户并索取信用卡与银行信息,杨莉明亦在得知消息后脸书发文澄清。 欲知更多密码货币(cryptocurrency)详情,可前往MoneySense咨询更多相关意见。

Full-time serviceman dies after Bionix vehicle reversed into the Land Rover he was in

Ministry of Defence announced on Saturday (3 Nov) that a Singapore Armed…

【选举】陈振声反驳没“空头支票” 称行动党“需为国人负责”

行动党两名原部长:陈振声和英兰妮称,行动党并没有“为所欲为的口头支票”,须为国人负责。 他们是针对工人党盛港集选区候选人林志蔚,于周三(7月1日)的电视直播辩论中,促请我国选民投票给工人党,并拒绝行动党“口头支票”一说,这么表示。 陈振声在接受《海峡时报》采访时指出,这并非本届大选的正确描述,并补充行动党会对选民、对人民的福祉负责。“在治理方面,行动党始终为人民负责,无论是选举(时期)与否。” “我不认为有空白支票这回事,就好像行动党可以不负责地做任何事情。我不认为这是正确的描述。我们所做的每一件事、每一个脚步,都要为新加坡人、他们的福祉和他们的安宁生活负责,我们必须为国家的持续发展负责。” 陈振声与英兰妮,以及行动党新人陈圣辉及蔡瑞隆,在丹戎巴葛集选区上阵。 林志蔚于周三的辩论上指出,行动党辩称选举其实是赋予他们权利,让国家摆脱次困境,而且他们需要被委托才能这么做。“事实上,在选举结束前,行动党可能就已有了这个权利……我们不是否认行动党已经被授权,而是否认他们可能会为所欲为。” 以非选区议员制度进行牵制 英兰妮同时也引述非选区议员的存在,来反驳林志蔚的说法:“行动党永远没有空白支票,因为不管发生什么事情,宪法保证了至少有12个反对议席”。 她补充道,非选区议员具有和议员一样的投票权,即表示他们可以对宪法修正案、补助和金钱法案,以及信任票等课题上都有投票权。 我国在1984年采用非选区议员制度,以确保国会内拥有最少人数的反对党成员,而在大选中获得最高票数的反对派候选人将可成为非选区议员。非选区议员制度在2016年经过修改,被赋予更多权力,并从原本的九人增加到12人。 这12人中可以包括胜选议员或非选区议员。这也表示,若胜选的反对党议员超过12人,那么就不会有非选区议员的席位。 英兰妮随后在脸书上帖文补充道,虽然保证了反对党议席,却不能保证“拥有明确授权的强而有力政府,去执行任务以度过难关”。“这些(选择)都在选民的手中。”…

Public can enter the Istana for the first time at night on 6 October

In conjunction with the Istana 150 Commemorative Event, members of the public…