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

WP : No point debating or arguing over hawker centres issues

In response to the statement released by the Prime Minister Office on…

一人被诊断染肺结核 武吉巴督一幼儿园学生员工接受检查

武吉巴督一间幼儿园日前被诊断出染上肺结核,目前幼儿园内部分儿童和工作人员已被安排做肺结核检查,而受感染的病人在确诊后已请休,正在医院内接受治疗。 卫生部发言人表示,卫生部和肺结核控制部门(Tuberculosis Control Unit,TBCU)于上个月26日接到投报,Sparkletots幼儿园内出现肺结核病例。 他也解释,结核病并不会透过所接触的物体表面感染,而是长时间与受感染者近距离接触而传播。而病人在发现病情后,也立即申请休假开始接受治疗,因此学校不存在传染的风险。 《海峡时报》报道,其中一名家长表示上周四接收到来自幼儿园的通知,便质问幼儿园为何是在有关当局知情两周后,才被告知。 对此,幼儿园发言人回复,截至上周二才被通知幼儿园内有出现肺结核的病例,他也表示目前所有接触过该名病患的孩子也正在接受检查,大部分都是同班的孩子。 此外,儿童发展局也表示除了孩子以外,一些院内的工作人员也正在接受检查。 针对受感染的病患,行动党社区基金会(PCF)则表示无可奉告。 无扩散无需关闭幼儿园 由于结核病并没有进一步扩散,导致他人患病的风险,因此肺结核控制部门已指示他们无须关闭幼儿园。 曾是被世界卫生组织誉为是全球十大死因之一的肺结核,由经常感染肺部的细菌(结核分枝杆菌)引起,结核病通过空气在人与人之间传播。当患有肺结核的人咳嗽、打喷嚏或吐痰时,就会把结核菌喷到空气中。人们只需要吸入少数几个这类细菌就会获得感染,如不加适当治疗,结核病患者会失去生命。 结核病分为活跃型和潜伏型(latent tuberculosis),相较于活跃型结核病,潜伏型结核病不会传染,不过肺结核控制部门仍会继续与他们联系。

Singaporeans seniors will receive letters by end April 2019 informing their eligibility for the Merdeka Generation Package

The Ministry of Finance says that almost 500,000 Merdeka Generation seniors will…

Shame on you TNP! Shame on you!

Blogger DK is incensed at the New Paper’s irresponsibility over H1N1 report.