2. Secondly, Irene Ng said,
"Singapore has a hard-won international reputation for its high
standard of integrity and competence in its
politics."
This is where blind faith becomes evident. Admittedly, Singapore
has a high reputation for economic administration, it being
effective, rational and efficient. But our politics suffers a very
bad reputation. We are well known for our constraints on liberties,
for arbitrary rules regulating political activity and for the
misuse of defamation suits.
We weren't rated 140 out of 167 in the Reporters Sans Frontieres'
Press Freedom Index for nothing.
For a Member of Parliament to make such a bald assertion as Ng did,
is nothing but a refusal to see reality, hardly a trait that sits
well with "integrity" or "competence".
3. In relation to defamation suits, she said, "In such a
clean and transparent system, all allegations are investigated and
lies refuted."
This is too easy an argument. Nobody seriously says that scurrilous
slander should be given free rein. However, there still remain the
questions of whether the damages assessed by the courts should be
as high as they are, and whether some judgments really stretch
logic.
In the next post is a Straits Times report of a defamation suit
dismissed by a judge in Thailand. He said the Prime Minister as a
public figure, had to be open to public discussion and
criticism.
A mature electorate is usually able to see that in politics,
sometimes allegations are exaggerated. With public figures, there
are many other points of reference, all on the public record, for
people to judge whether the allegations are well-founded or not.
That is to say, a public person's reputation is more resistant to
damage by wild allegations compared to that of a private
person.
For private persons, it is in fact harder for bystanders to judge
if allegations made against them are true or false, since private
persons leave fewer marks on the public record. It could therefore
be argued that, for the same libel, damage done to the reputation
of a private person is more severe, because he is more vulnerable.
Thus the argument that Singapore courts have used, that public
persons deserve higher damages, should be quite the other way
around.
But beyond the question of fairness, there is also the issue of
harm done to Singapore's long-term interest by the PAP's use of
defamation suits and their reliance on hefty damages. Far from
convincing people that the allegations are false, and restoring the
reputation of the plaintiffs, such court cases are seen as
iron-fisted attempts to silence opposition. They merely augment the
widespread fear of political participation. No society can be
healthy in the long run if its people are too fearful to be
politically engaged.
4. Then Ng denigrates the US and the UK in her attempt to
praise the PAP and its MPs. "The PAP Government and its MPs," she
said, "have gained the respect and trust of the people over the
years. This is something special."
"In the United States and Britain -- where political debates and
scandals dominate -- cynicism with the political system has become
widespread, resulting in declining voter turn-outs in their general
elections. Politicians rank lower than used-car salesmen in public
esteem."
It's interesting how she used voter-turn-outs as indicators of
political cynicism.
Conveniently for her, in Singapore, like in Australia, it is
compulsory to vote, so we always have turnouts in the high
nineties.
But the latest Straits Times' survey of voters aged 21 34 found
that about 60% of them said they would not be disappointed if there
was a walk-over in their constituency and they didn't get to vote.
Do we seriously believe that these 60% would still bother to vote
if there weren't any penalties for not voting? What would our voter
turn-out then be like?
Would it then mean, per Irene Ng's logic, that Singapore's
political system is even worse than the the US and Britain's,
"where political debates and scandals dominate" (funny how debate
is seen as a bad thing)? That politicians here rank lower than
used-car salesmen too?
5. "Indeed, if the PAP wants to silence dissent, why should
it introduce the Non-Constituency MP scheme to give opposition
members at least three seats in Parliament?"
Does she take us all for fools? We all know that the PAP uses the
argument that voters should elect a PAP candidate because
"alternative views" will still be available in Parliament, either
through a PAP MP who is allegedly "non-conformist" or through the
guaranteed 3 seats for Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs).
It takes no great intelligence to know that the legitimacy of NCMPs
is rather less than that of fully elected MPs. The people see it
that way and the PAP can simply dismiss NCMPs' views as
"representing no constituency".
The NCMP scheme serves to improve the PAP's vote-share by making
voting for the opposition redundant, thus marginalising
dissent.
6. Next, she said, in politics, "we all have to play by the same
rules."
Yes, but the issue that she sidesteps is that the rules are
loaded.
For example, how are constituency boundaries drawn? Why is TV
airtime for the PAP more than for other parties? Why are the MPs in
PAP-held wards the "advisors" to the Citizens' Consultative
Committees in those wards, but not the MPs in opposition-held
wards?
7. And then she puts on her brass knuckles. "Mr Cai could
even consider putting these ideas to the people by contesting in
the forthcoming elections himself."
This is an old tactic long used by Lee Kuan Yew: A challenge to an
electoral fist-fight, with the implication that if you decline to
accept the challenge, then you're a coward and all that you have
said have no merit. Politics is only for politicians. If you don't
enter the electoral arena, you have no right to speak up.
But is this kind of attitude helpful to Singapore's political
development?
In a time of an increasingly sophisticated electorate, Ng does us
no favours by responding to David Cai in the manner that she
has.
Source: Yawning Bread
