October 27, 2009 by admin
Filed under Opinion
Leave a comment
OPINION
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.
Source:
http://www.temasekreview.com/2009/10/27/singapores-missing-pillars-of-democracy-part-2/