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

社媒爆龙山寺住持涉丑闻 寺方称报警促查假网站

名为“龙山寺”的脸书专页声称该寺庙住持涉丑闻,惟该寺负责人受询时表示那是一冒名网站,已报警调查。 庙宇负责人指那是冒名网站,不过有关署名“龙山寺”的脸书用户自昨日(11月14日)下午开始就有人连续发出12个帖文,指传文法师并非首次嫖男妓,更扬言要放出照片和视频。 发帖者自称自己是龙山寺的拥护者,珍惜该寺庙的贡献。他指出曾经接获匿名者提供的资料,要求揭发龙山寺主持的恶行。 “我想了很久也核对了很久其内容的真实性,以免造成佛教的衰败,经过我沉思了这几天,我很痛心地把{龙山寺传文法师性丑闻}的内容给公布于世。” 但是,他随后表示,基于脸书上的限制,有关的视频和照片无法公布。 一系列帖文中,他也表示已经报警、通知慈善理事会、佛教总会,并指佛总不愿回应,因此才帖文公布。 传文法师自2016年中风后,左半身瘫痪,且患有肾病,以轮椅代步,常常出入都有类似看护的男子贴身照顾。 《联合早报》在一则报导也声称,有一名45岁的商人举报传文法师,指对方涉及嫖男妓,且附上了照片和视频。 该商人表示已经就此事报警,也同样通知贪污调查局、佛教总会和慈善理事会。 媒体随后向慈善理事会求证,当局表示已经在调查,警方受询时也表示已经接获投报,但是暂未有进一步行动。 在龙山寺办事处的职员受询问时,指出传文法师目前在马来西亚求医,并澄清“龙山寺”的名义遭人盗用设立脸书户头,更帖文爆料,惟这些爆料内容并不属实。 一系列的帖文立刻引起网民“轰炸”,纷纷帖文谴责,有者谴责传文法师的行为可耻,已经破戒了;有者谴责帖文者的行为,既然爱护佛教,更不应该在这里公布任何的讯息,改用其他管道;有者则认为这名帖文者行为可疑,“若非恶意中伤,就不要匿名,光明正大的公布自己姓名吧”。…

Happy People Helping People Foundation – helping the less fortunate elderly in Singapore

At a tender age of just 32 years old, Nafiz is one…

TOC sports new look, keeps same vision

TOC undergoes more changes.

Vincent Wijeysingha: Or perhaps they will torture us to produce a false confession?

~pictures: Terry Xu~ excerpt from Channel NewsAsia ‘Police investigating SDP Forum‘: The…