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

被指试图干预对死囚司法程序 马国部长斥毫无根据

我国上诉庭在本月23日批准,暂缓对涉及毒品案的马来西亚籍死囚潘尼尔执行死刑,以对向总统申请特赦遭驳回作出上诉。 不过,律政部长暨内政部长尚穆根,在上周五针对此事认为,对马国毒贩“宽限”的做法不可行。 他说,自去年马国希盟政府上台以来,意识形态上有意废死,我国也会尊重该国立场,但是我国仍实施死刑,为此希望对方尊重。 尚穆根指出,自去年至今,我国已接到马国三次要求暂缓处决马国死囚的要求,其中两人是毒贩。 他指出,在去年被捕的毒贩中,就有30巴仙来自马国,而30巴仙搜出的海洛因也是马国人带来的,“面对这些统计,我们如何能纵容马国人,如果这么做,法治意义何在?如果他们有要求,我们就放任之,将会成为笑话,这不是新加坡的做法。” 刘伟强:未试图干预新加坡法庭决定 对此,马来西亚首相署部长拿督刘伟强则在昨日发文告,否认他试图干预新加坡对马国死囚执行死刑,反驳这种指控是“毫无根据的”,并表示他和所有马国人民一样,尊重新加坡法庭的决定。 他说,目前新加坡法庭仅批准潘尼尔缓刑,允许他聘请律师提出上诉。 他指出,在上周三针对潘尼尔案件,在获得外交部同意下,依据新加坡法律向我国政府陈情,当时律政部长尚穆根不在,于是便与律政部资政商谈此事。 他表示为避免混肴视听,为此必须发声明反驳,指他干预新加坡司法的指控毫无根据的,更以不点名方式抨击这完全是某些人的想象,乃是“长提对岸对他作出的严重指控。” 针对新加坡法院批准缓刑的决定,他相信这是法庭已考量了当前情况和法治适用于此案,何来他干预新加坡的司法程序? 他也强调,如果潘尼尔连基本上诉的权利也被否决,“未被聆审的情况下被行刑,对司法而言绝对是可憎的。”…

NUS Business School joins forces with Chicago Booth to develop Asia’s human capital

SINGAPORE – In a landmark collaboration between two leading business schools from the East…

提振国人士气 本地民间组织发起挂国旗运动

为了能够提振士气,本地民间组织发起张挂国旗的运动,以对抗冠状病毒19 。 早前,文化、社区及青年部亦发表文告,即日起修订悬挂国旗的相关条例,允许公众在住家、办公室、建筑范围等地点挂上国旗直至9月30日。 本地民间组织We Are Majulah也随之呼吁国人参与张挂国旗的活动。 组织发言人谢凤娟表示,他们将活动命名为“爱的力量”,希望公众能够参与。 针对家中没有国旗的国人,谢凤娟也表示,不必特地去买国旗,可以自制DIY的国旗或以其他的行动取而代之,并将照片上传至社交媒体,并标签着#homebutnotalonesg和#stayhomeforSG。 We Are Majulah也将在劳动节当天,通过多个社交媒体平台上传短片,记录国人在这段期间张挂国旗的情况。