Politically Speaking: Lessons for Singapore on democracy, civil liberties, and South Korea’s martial law

The declaration and subsequent repeal of martial law in South Korea by President Yoon Suk-yeol have sparked widespread debate about the fragility of democratic systems and the risks of authoritarian overreach. The move, initially justified as a response to threats from “pro-North Korean anti-state forces” and legislative paralysis, temporarily disrupted parliamentary operations and heightened military oversight in the country’s capital, Seoul.

This contentious incident was the focal point of the latest episode of The Online Citizen’s new series, Political Speaking.

Hosted by Terry Xu, the panel discussion featured Dr Thum Ping Tjin, historian and founder of New Naratif, and Sean Francis Han, former editor of Wake Up Singapore.

Through their dialogue, the panellists drew vital lessons about democracy, civil liberties, and governance, reflecting on parallels and contrasts between South Korea and Singapore.

South Korea’s Martial Law: A High-Stakes Crisis and Swift Repeal

On 3 December 2024, President Yoon invoked martial law amid claims of national security threats and political deadlock between his conservative administration and a left-leaning parliament.

Legislative activity was suspended, military presence in Seoul was amplified, and the nation was thrust into political turmoil.

The response from South Korea’s lawmakers and civil society was swift and resolute.

Opposition leaders stormed the National Assembly, where 190 lawmakers unanimously repealed the martial law decree, describing it as unconstitutional and a betrayal of democratic principles. Hours later, President Yoon issued a public apology and vowed not to reinstate martial law.

Despite the repeal, the incident has left deep political scars. Protests continue to rage across South Korea, with opposition parties leading efforts to impeach President Yoon.

Francis, reflecting on the episode, praised the determination of South Korean lawmakers: “The image of parliamentarians scaling fences to access the Assembly is a striking reminder of the lengths required to protect democracy. It’s a testament to their courage.”

Dr Thum critiqued the motivations behind the martial law declaration, calling it “an absurd response to political deadlock.”

He attributed the crisis to the polarisation between South Korea’s conservative executive and its progressive legislative branch. “Democracy is inherently messy,” Dr Thum explained.

“It demands compromise, patience, and inclusivity—qualities often at odds with the efficiency authoritarian governments prioritise.”

Lessons for Singapore: Authoritarian Tendencies and Barriers to Participation

The panel turned to Singapore, exploring parallels between the two nations’ governance structures.

Xu highlighted the dominant position of Singapore’s People’s Action Party (PAP), which holds a parliamentary supermajority that effectively neutralises opposition efforts. “In Singapore, if a similar scenario occurred, opposition lawmakers would lack the numbers to overturn such a decision,” Xu noted.

Dr Thum elaborated on Singapore’s systemic challenges, particularly its restrictive civic space. He pointed to the 2009 Public Order Act amendments, which require police permits even for one-person protests, as a stark example. “The irony is glaring,” he observed.

“The PAP once relied on mass protests during the colonial era to gain political power. Today, it systematically dismantles the very freedoms it once used.”

Francis criticised Singapore’s reduction of democratic engagement to voting in elections every four or five years.

“Democracy is not just about casting a vote,” he argued. “It’s about creating spaces for public dissent and civic engagement. Without these, democracy becomes hollow.”

Xu shared personal experiences of attempting to secure permits for solo assemblies, all of which were denied. “When even a one-person protest is labelled a threat to public order, it shows how far the system is stacked against civic participation,” Xu remarked.

Hasty lawmaking in Singapore undermines due process and democratic principles

Civil Society and the Role of Protests

Both Dr Thum and Xu criticised the lack of due process in Singapore’s legislative system, pointing out how laws are often passed hastily with minimal debate or public engagement.

Xu highlighted the stark contrast with other democracies, where bills typically take weeks or months between readings to allow for deliberation and public consultation. In Singapore, the second and third readings of a bill often occur consecutively in a single parliamentary session, leaving little room for meaningful discussion or opposition.

This practice, he argued, undermines the democratic process by accelerating decisions without proper scrutiny or input from diverse voices. He described Singapore’s system as a “fast-track democracy,” where decisions are made swiftly but at the expense of transparency and inclusivity.

Dr Thum elaborated on this by emphasising that the rapid passage of laws reflects an authoritarian mindset that prioritises efficiency over representation.

He criticised the overwhelming PAP majority in Parliament, which effectively renders the legislative process a rubber-stamping exercise. Dr Thum argued that genuine deliberation and representation are vital for democracy, but Singapore’s legislative practices often sideline these principles.

Drawing a parallel with South Korea, Thum highlighted how its National Assembly’s power to repeal martial law served as an important check on executive overreach.

Singapore, he noted, lacks similar institutional safeguards, allowing laws to be passed retroactively or with little accountability. This system, according to both Xu and Thum, creates an environment where public participation is stifled, and laws are passed in a manner that prioritises control and expedience over democratic values.

The panel emphasised the vitality of civil society in maintaining democratic accountability. Francis noted the stark contrast between Singapore’s restricted civic space and South Korea’s vibrant culture of public protests.

“Protests in South Korea are not chaotic,” he explained. “They are well-regulated and function as critical outlets for public sentiment. Singaporeans could learn from this model of active civic engagement.”

Dr Thum praised South Korea’s structural safeguards, such as the National Assembly’s ability to repeal martial law. “This case demonstrates the importance of institutional checks and balances,” he said.

“Singapore, by contrast, lacks mechanisms to counter executive overreach effectively. Laws can be passed retroactively, emergencies declared unilaterally, and public dissent criminalised.”

Reframing Democracy for Singapore

The discussion culminated in reflections on Singaporeans’ perceptions of democracy. Xu observed that many prioritise stability and efficiency over democratic ideals, often dismissing democracy as “messy” or impractical. “Democracy requires effort and sacrifice,” he argued. “It’s not about convenience. It’s about active engagement and taking responsibility for the governance of your society.”

Francis offered a more optimistic view, describing democracy as a source of personal and collective empowerment. “Democracy is not just about sacrifice; it’s about having a stake in your country and a voice in shaping its future. Without it, you’re merely an observer in your own society,” he said.

Dr Thum underscored the structural barriers that discourage political engagement in Singapore. “Singaporeans are not apathetic; they are exhausted,” he remarked. “The system stifles opportunities for meaningful participation. But when given a chance, Singaporeans can be incredibly passionate and effective.”

South Korea’s martial law episode serves as a stark reminder of democracy’s fragility and the necessity of vigilance in safeguarding civil liberties.

The panel discussion on Political Speaking highlighted critical lessons for Singapore, particularly the importance of public participation, institutional safeguards, and the need for balance between efficiency and inclusivity in governance.

As Singapore reflects on its own political trajectory, the South Korean experience offers both cautionary and inspirational insights into the enduring struggle to uphold democratic principles.