Singapore’s missing pillars of democracy (Part 2): What are
-
Of the seven pillars of democracy outlined by Anand Panyarachun, Singapore has only one – elections and even then, they can hardly be considered as free and fair given the short campaigning period, the opposition’s lack of media access and the absence of an independent elections commission.
The bitter truth is, Singapore’s elections are merely a farce in which no alternative parties other than the ruling party will ever hope to win with the odds stacked so strongly against them.
The dearth of political tolerance, rule of law, freedom of expression, accountability and transparency and civil society in Singapore is best encapsulated by a damning report released by the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute on Singapore following its annual conference held here in 2007:
“The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) expressed concern about limitations on the freedoms of expression, assembly, and the press, and of the independence of the judiciary in Singapore…..‘As one of the world’s most successful economies, Singapore should be a leader in human rights and the rule of law, and should now have the confidence and maturity to recognise that this would be complementary, not contradictory, to its future prosperity,’ said Mark Ellis, Executive Director of the International Bar Association (IBA).
‘The IBAHRI has identified a number of areas in which Singapore falls far short of international standards. In particular, democratic debate and media comment are extremely restricted and government officials have initiated numerous successful defamation suits against both political and media critics.’
The IBAHRI report examines Singapore’s record on a range of human rights issues identified by the IBAHRI as a priority. This includes freedom of expression (for example, the use of defamation legislation to hinder opposition activities, and restrictions on freedom of the press and the internet), the independence of the judiciary (there have been allegations of executive influence), and freedom of assembly.”
Singaporeans are guaranteed freedom of speech and assembly under Article IV, Section 14 of the Singapore Constitution, but they are hardly put in practice with the ruling party introducing a series of draconian, if not repressive laws over the years to curtail the political and civil rights of citizens.
A solo protest anywhere other that the designated Speakers’ Corner at Hong Lim Park is now illegal under the law.
Though Singaporeans are now allowed to gather and protest at Hong Lim Park, the police had installed CCTVs at its premises specifically to discourage them from doing so.
Political dissent is criminalized by a variety of laws to prevent Singaporeans from expressing their dissatisfaction and disgust at the ruling party thereby breeding a sense of apathy, cynicism and despair in the citizenry.
Of late, five Singaporeans were charged in court for conducting an “illegal procession” when all they did was to walk in a group in a public place from one point to another without holding any placards or shouting slogans.
They were initially acquitted in court, but the Attorney-General Chambers amazingly found it necessary to appeal against the decision and seek to convict them.
A relatively free press is an important component of any democracy to promote political discourse and debate.
In Singapore, all the print media are controlled tightly by SPH, a government-linked company whose Chairman is always a former PAP minister.
The blatantly pro-government stance of the SPH publications will put the Soviet Union’s Pravda and China’s Xinhua to shame for it is completely devoid of any sort of independent thinking and analysis except for the endless spins, propaganda and half-truths to trumpet the achievements of the regime and hide its atrocious mistakes out of public sight.
Opposition leaders and activists are often portrayed as trouble-makers, crankpots and freaks to diminish their credibility and appeal while PAP MPs and ministers are worshiped as demi-gods incapable of making even the slightest mistake.
The opposition is given little coverage except when they are involved in some scandals or law suits. On the contrary, the papers are abound with news of PAP leaders, especially its strongman Lee Kuan Yew who just simply refuse to fade away from the political scene at the age of 86.
The infamous Singapore secret police, or the internal security department, a relic left behind by the British during the Communist Emergency in the 1950s, continues to cast a long shadow over Singaporeans and preventing them from being actively involved in politics and civil activism.
In 1962, the opposition Barisan Sosialist was decimated by a wave of arrests of its key leaders under “Operation Coldstore” conducted by ISD’s predecessor – the Internal Security Council.
Many of them were detained for a number of years without trial, the longest being Chia Thye Poh (32 years), Dr Lim Hock Siew (19 years) and Said Zahari (17 years).
In 1988, over 20 Catholic activists were arrested and detained by the ISD for a “marxist conspiracy” to subvert the state under “Operation Spectrum”. One of the political detainees was a former Solicitor-General of Singapore, Mr Francis Seow who later went to exile in the United States.
These chilling examples of Singapore’s political history persists to this very day to strike fear and apathy in the hearts of every Singaporean. Few are willing to pay the price that these pioneers of Singapore had paid for their political beliefs.
The use of defamation lawsuits to cripple the opposition have the unwanted effect of detering young Singaporeans from joining politics.
The late opposition scion J.B. Jeyaretnam was implicated in many defamation lawsuits and bankrupted twice in his long suffering political career.
SDP Secretary-General Dr Chee Soon Juan was an assistant professor in psychology at the National University of Singapore before he joined politics.
He was sued for defamation first by P Vasoo, a PAP MP, followed by various PAP leaders in subsequent years, the latest being the Prime Minister and his father who were awarded damages of over $600,000 in a summary judgement.
Though the PAP leaders have defended their ligitatious tendencies on the grounds of protecting their reputations, the astronomical sums awarded to them inevitably raise suspicions if they are intended to cripple their opponents financially as well as to demolish their standing in society completely.
To quote from the IBA report as criticizing Singapore’s judiciary is a hazardous affair:
“Another area in which the independence of the judiciary is of concern is the cases involving the courts hearing defamation claims initiated by PAP officials……the slim likelihood of the successful defence of an action, combined with the extraordinarily high damages awarded in defamation cases involving PAP officials sheds doubt on the independence of the judiciary in these cases. The courts in defamation cases have substantial discretion in awarding judgment and damages.
Under Orders 14 (Summary Judgment) and 78 (Defamation Actions), the court has substantial discretion to resolve the case without a hearing in open court and to permit the quantum of damages to be determined by a Registrar in chambers.”
The recent furore over the announcement of the Lift Upgrading Program (LUP) is another timely reminder that almost all institutions of the state are under the influence or control of the ruling party.
Through the People’s Association, a supposedly apolitical statutory board funded by taxpayers’ monies, the ruling party has built a vast network of grassroots organizations in the form of residents’ commitees and community centers covering every constituency in Singapore.
Even in non-PAP wards, the PAP is able to parachute its rejected candidates to serve as “grassroots advisers” to interfere and hijack the daily running of the estates from their legitimate MPs.
With the Registrar of Societies under the Ministry of Home Affairs having the arbitrary power to refuse registration of any society deem to be against “public interest”, civil society is almost non-existent in Singapore.
This explains the perennial weakness of the opposition parties and the lack of an alternative power center emerging from the grassroots itself to challenge the regime because all resources on the ground are firmly in the hands of the PA, a quasi-PAP organization.
The above factors have combined over the years to de-politicize the citizenry to the extent that politics is now shunned by most young Singaporeans who prefer to pursue material comforts and possessions in life rather than to serve their fellow countrymen.
The pervading and sometimes overwhelming sense of apathy, scepticism and fear of participating in politics is the biggest stumbling block to Singapore becoming a healthy and functioning democracy for there is no democracy without participation from the people.
Until Singaporeans realize the importance of democracy and start demanding for it from the regime, the status quo is likely to remain for a long time to come for there is simply no impetus on the part of the incumbent to reform the archaic system which has served their interests so well over the years.
http://sgblogs.com/entry/singapore-missing-pillars-democracy-part-what-actually/365865
-
Singapore is not a democracy so there's no point in discussing democracy. That is until lky regime go away
-
There isn't even a roof to protect the citizens, the pillars are redundant.
-
Some Americans Perceive Singapore A Repressive State - Law Minister and Second Minister for Home Affairs K. Shanmugam
Some Americans have wrongly perceived Singapore as a repressive state after reading only unfair reports by American newspapers, according to a Singapore minister.
Law Minister and Second Minister for Home Affairs K. Shanmugam said the American readers were not getting the right picture of prosperous Singapore and its strong adherence to the rule of law if they read about Singapore in some American journals.
Speaking at a reception for the New York State Bar Association International Section here last night, he said these journals portrayed the republic as a repressive state "that controlled the people's thoughts as if that was possible in a modern, successful, wired and internationally connected city like Singapore, and that it unfairly targets the press."
Shanmugam said Singapore's stand on press reporting was simple in that the press could criticise the government and its policies but it demanded the right of response to be published in the journal that published the original article.
"We do not accept that they can decide whether to publish our response," he said, adding that if the press crossed the line from attacking its policies and making allegations of fact against someone then there would be a libel suit and the factual accusation must be proven.
"If allegation is proven, the plaintiff will lose the case and pay legal costs. Otherwise the accuser pays damages and legal costs," he added.
The minister said the government allowed tough debate and criticism of policies in the political arena but it believed that such debate should avoid untrue and scurrilous personal attacks.
"Personal reputation is no less valuable than personal property," Shanmugam said, adding that public discourse did not have to descend into the gutter.
He said if untrue statements were made that a person was corrupt or that he lied, or that he tried to help his family or friends, there would be a suit.
"Let the accuser prove it. But if it is said that someone is stupid or that policies make no sense and the policies are attacked vigorously, then you can't sue. There is public prerogative, to comment on policies," the minister said.
Shanmugam said that over the years this had resulted in the government and ministers having several tussles with newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal, Far Eastern Economic Review and others.
He said the press were not used to this anywhere else in the world, and it would be no surprise they did not like it one bit.
"So every law suit is met with the same reaction, we are out to silence the press," the minister said, adding that the feeling had been pervasive and had coloured the general reporting on Singapore.
Shanmugam also questioned the objectivity of assessments made by some organisations such as Reporters Without Borders which ranked Singapore 144 out of 173 countries on press freedom, somewhat below Ethiopia, Sudan, Kazakhstan, Venezuela, Guinea, Haiti, and others.
The Freedom House rankings for 2009 placed Singapore together with Iraq at 151 out of 195, below Haiti, Colombia, Kenya, Moldova, Guinea, Pakistan and others, he added.
The minister said the government approach to such rankings was to ignore the criticisms which made no sense, and it continued to do what was better for the city-state, and Singaporeans also knew better.http://sgblogs.com/entry/shanmugam-some-americans-perceive-singapore-repressive-state/365879