From stifled dissent to managed dissent
Filed under: Civil and political rights, Current Affairs, Political Discussions
A brief look at the PAP’s evolving strategy of “soft authoritarianism”
Written by Ng E-Jay
05 June 2009
On 21 May 1987, 22 Singaporean citizens, including young social workers, lawyers, businessmen, theatre practitioners and other professionals, were detained under the ISA on the accusation of being members of a dangerous Marxist conspiracy bent on subverting the Government by force and replacing it with a Marxist state. None of them were ever given a fair trial, and to this day, no evidence exists to support the accusations levied against them. Mr Francis Seow was also detained when he tried to provide these “Marxist conspirators” legal aid.
Other notable examples of arrests of political activists under the ISA include that of Chia Thye Poh who was detained without trial for 23 years and Said Zahari who was similarly detained for 17 years.
This excellent writeup which I recently found on the web entitled “A Chronology of Authoritarian Rule in Singapore” lists many more examples of oppressive tactics used to stifle political opposition over the decades, including defamation suits, police raids, censorship in the media, control of political films and broadcasts, and the use of the law to crack down on peaceful protests as well as legitimate political activity such as selling party newsletters.
In recent years however, the “hard repressive” tactics adopted by the Lee Kuan Yew regime has been slowly replaced, though not completely, by the “soft authoritarian” strategies of the Lee Hsien Loong administration. Stifled dissent is now increasingly being replaced by managed dissent.
Worker’s Party’s capitulation to PAP’s NCMP gambit is regrettable
Written by Ng E-Jay
01 June 2009
The Worker’s Party has capitulated to the PAP’s NCMP gambit. It is a regrettable move as it suggests that WP has opted for political expediency at the expense of democracy. My stand is that WP has missed the forest for the trees. As a voter, I feel let down.
Last week, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced in Parliament changes to our Parliamentary system, including reducing the size of GRCs, expanding the number of SMCs from the current minimum of 8 to 12, and expanding the NCMP scheme to allow a minimum of 9 opposition members to be in Parliament, with NCMPs making up the number should there be less than 9 oppositions MPs obtaining electoral victories.
My stand on this issue is that this is nothing more than a political “mind trap” set by the PAP, to allow more alternative voices into Parliament without making the playing field more level for the opposition, and at the same time psychologically steering people to avoid voting opposition using the guarantee that now there will be at least 9 opposition members in Parliament. Crucially, the PAP has refused to acknowledge that the electoral system is not transparent, and elections in Singapore are neither free nor fair, despite repeated criticisms from parties like the SDP.
The Real Political Change That Singapore Needs
By Dr Wong Wee Nam
29 May 2009
When the President opened the new session of the 11th Parliament last week, he said, “Our political system is not set in stone. Singapore politics must evolve over time, as the world and our society change. It must respond to new circumstances and goals and continue to deliver good government to Singapore.”
For the optimists, this statement gave a glimmer of hope that our political system is evolving for the better.
A few days later, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong gave a glimpse of what is to come when he outlined three principles that will guide the changes to be made to the political system. One, they must be fair to all political parties. Secondly, they should result in a strong and effective Government after an election; and thirdly, they must ensure that diverse views are represented in Parliament. Without the details, all these sounded reasonable.
Parliamentary roundup: Make no mistake, the ruling party has no intention of restoring democracy
Written by Ng E-Jay
29 May 2009
Lamenting the fact that the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) currently dominates the House, can amend the Constitution freely, and controls key levers of power in the country, Worker’s Party chief Low Thia Khiang told Parliament on Monday that only an elected opposition can provide effective checks and balances.
He was commenting on the opening speech made by President SR Nathan last Monday as well as remarks made by other PAP MPs on how Singapore politics had to evolve over time to accommodate the changing aspirations of the electorate.
Mr Low however hastened to add that “we cannot blame the ruling party” for its “winner takes all, loser is a bandit” mindset, because the electorate had given it a clear mandate at every election.
Just make elections free and fair, no need for wayang
By the Singapore Democrats
28 May 2009
Original link
If there is any indication that the Government is nervous about the unhappiness of the people, it is the latest increase in the number of NCMP and NMP seats.
Anxious to avoid facing an angry electorate, the PAP is desperately trying to divert the attention of the voters by telling them that they don’t have to vote for the opposition because seats will be allocated to opposing voices.
In the first place, Parliamentary seats are not for the Government to give out. They are legislative positions to be earned by competing parties and candidates whose power is derived from the voters.
Changes to Parliamentary system: Don’t be lulled into the political “mind trap” set by the PAP
Written by Ng E-Jay
28 May 2009
Changes to the Parliamentary system were announced by PM Lee Hsien Loong on Wednesday. They include:
- Amending the Constitution to allow for up to nine Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs);
- Amending the Parliamentary Elections Act to increase the stipulated minimum number of opposition MPs, including NCMPs, to nine;
- Amending the Parliamentary Elections Act to set a cap of 2 NCMPs to come from any one GRC, so as to spread out the NCMPs more evenly;
- Fine-tuning the NMP scheme to broaden representation of various interest groups;
- Fine-tuning the implementation of the GRC and SMC scheme to allow for fewer 6-member GRCs, and at least 12 SMCs up from the current 9.
According to PM Lee, the reason for the changes to the Parliamentary system was to “encourage a wider range of views in Parliament, including opposition and non-Government views“, because Singapore faces more complex policy choices and Singaporeans want national issues to be more fully debated.
Dr Chee’s response leaves CJ, AG and Law Minister in the dust
Filed under: Chief Editor, Civil and political rights, Current Affairs, Political Discussions
Written by Ng E-Jay
07 Jan 2009
At the opening of the legal year in the Supreme Court last week, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, Attorney-General Walter Woon and Law Minister K Shanmugam launched an all-out offensive against civil rights activists campaigning for democratic change in Singapore as well as foreign media which have criticized our judiciary and the rule of law here.
In particular, CJ Chan insinuated that activists in Singapore have attempted to undermine public confidence in the courts by making “false and scandalous allegations“, and AG Woon said that “that there appears to be a campaign by certain people both here and abroad to attack the integrity and independence of the Singapore courts“, that “it is not permissible to undermine the courts and judiciary for political or ideological reasons“, that these “appear to be part of a broader campaign to force a change in our laws by extra-legal means“. (ST link)
K Shanmugam, which is also the Second Minister for Home Affairs, noted that “in the last few years, there have been people who did not like certain laws and the way they showed it was to go out there and protest“, but he countered that “the way to change the law is to get elected politically and argue in Parliament why the law should be changed“. Denouncing civil rights activists who have sought to highlight the unfairness of certain laws and how the Constitution has been violated by selective application of these laws, Shanmugam remarked that “… an aggressive small group of people think they can change those laws by going out there and protesting and the courts have repeatedly emphasized they will apply the law as it is.”
The remarks and comments made by the Chief Justice, Attorney-General, and Law Minister are consistent with the way the mainstream media has portrayed civil rights activists working for democratic change in Singapore as “radicals” who prefer to break the law and attract attention to themselves rather than work within the law and effect change by winning elections and arguing their case in Parliament — see for example this ST article by Peh Shing Huei entitled “The partitioning of the opposition”, my response to Peh’s article, and Dr Chee Soon Juan’s response to Peh’s article. This time round however, the rhetoric has been notched up to a new all-time high.
A tighter democracy?
In the article “A Public Enemy in Singapore“, Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post quoted Singapore’s ambassador to the United States, Chan Heng Chee, as saying: “In an aircraft carrier, you can be playing soccer in one corner and have jets taking off in another, and the carrier remains stable … … In a rowboat, it makes sense for everyone to row in the same direction.”
Ambassador Chan was discussing the reasons why she thought Singapore must have a “tighter democracy” than America’s — because it is a small, multiethnic city-state in a challenging region — a rowboat next to America’s aircraft carrier.
A tighter democracy?
By that, I guess Ambassador Chan means a pseudo-democracy in which individual rights and civil liberties can be willfully subverted by the Government in the advancement of its own selfish political agenda.
A tighter democracy, indeed.
Meanwhile, enjoy the following contribution made by someone who, like me, took an instant liking to Ambassador Chan’s remarks:
The Need for a Multi-Party System
Filed under: Current Affairs, Dr Wong Wee Nam, Political Discussions
Written by Dr Wong Wee Nam
04 December 2008
It has been broached in the past. Now Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said it again. A multi-party system is not good for Singapore. For someone who had, during the 2006 General Elections, said that the government would have to waste time fixing the opposition if too many are elected into Parliament, such a view should not come as a surprise.
The reason he gave for not having more than one dominant party other than the PAP is that Singapore is too small and does not have enough talents to have a multi-party system. Israel is a small country, perpetually at war and yet they have a parliament of diverse views. Hongkong, New Zealand and Denmark do not have a population much bigger than ours. So was ancient Athens, the cradle of democracy. Even Singapore in the early years, when its population was less 2 million, had many dominant parties. Thus this reason cannot be valid.
It is not that we do not have enough good people. After all, with only 84 seats to contest, surely our country, with such a well-educated population would be able to find 168 candidates or more to make our elections a meaningful exercise and give our voters a decent choice.
Continued one-party rule by PAP or multi-party democracy?
Written by Ng E-Jay
27 November 2008
By now, most readers would be aware of the recent debate in the Straits Times forum page over whether Singapore is better off with a one-party or multi-party political system, ending with Mr Li Hong Yi writing that no one had made a convincing case why a multi-party system would be better for Singapore.
The standards arguments for and against multi-party democracy have been repeated many times by many people ranging from your average joe to senior politicians. At times like these when we seem to be going round in circles, it is good to take one step back and distill the essence of what both sides are trying to convey.
Dr Tan Wu Meng’s letter entitled “Why Singapore’s political system works” published on 21 Nov captures the fundamental political beliefs held by those who are in favour of continued one-party rule by the PAP. Essentially, those political beliefs are:
- The PAP has done a good job governing Singapore thus far.
- In all likelihood, the PAP will continue to govern well as the ruling party.
- Multi-party politics elsewhere has often degenerated into the politics of obstruction, replete with indecision and paralysis, with short-term sectarianism trumping long-term national interests, and with the undue influence of special lobby groups. As such, Singapore is better off without it.
Once these fundamental political ideas are distilled and fleshed out explicitly, with the unnecessary jargon and rhetoric removed, it becomes much easier to decide if one agrees with them.
My response to the TOC article “SDP: Misunderstood, misguided or misaligned?”
Written by Ng E-Jay
25 November 2008
This is my response to the TOC article entitled “SDP: Misunderstood, misguided or misaligned?” written by Mr Kelvin Lim and published on TOC’s website on 25 Nov.
Mr Lim begins his article by describing SDP as a party which is “arguably Singapore’s most controversial political party, boasting a colourful history involving ideological clashes with the government, inter and intra-party disunity and facing an inundating surge of legal lawsuits and charges.”
I have no qualms with SDP being described as colourful or controversial, since throughout history many initiators of great social and political change have invariably been described thus by their fellow men, but I take issue with Mr Lim’s inclusion of the phrase “inter and intra-party disunity”.
Perhaps by “intra-party disunity”, Mr Lim was referring to Mr Chiam See Tong’s disagreements with Dr Chee Soon Juan’s over the latter’s hunger strike as a means of protesting against his high-handed and unjust sacking from the National University of Singapore as a lecturer. In 1993, Mr Chiam had called for the Party to censure Dr Chee, who had been elected to the post of assistant secretary-general earlier in February that year. However, none of the Central Executive Committee (CEC) members supported Mr Chiam’s motion, whereupon the former Party leader tended his resignation, citing that he had lost the confidence of his colleagues.
Tan Kin Lian’s political ambitions or lack thereof
Written by Ng E-Jay
24 November 2008
On 23 Nov, the Sunday Times published an article written by Nur Dianah Suhaimi entitled “Tan Kin Lian eyes elected presidency“. The subtitle was “Ex-NTUC Income’s chief will run if he has 100,000 people willing to support him“. (Link)
The Sunday Times article said that he is considering standing as Singapore’s next elected president or contesting in the next general election as an independent candidate, and that “he made no bones about his political ambitions in an interview with the paper”.
But the article also stated that Tan Kin Lian first wants to see at least 100,000 signatures and names of Singaporeans who are willing to give him their support.
“I will only do it if enough people want me to lead. If Singaporeans want change, they must have a stake in it and show their commitment by putting down their names. I cannot do this without strong support,” Tan Kin Lian told the Sunday Times.
Tan Kin Lian first talked about wanting at least 100,000 signatures in his interview with the TODAY newspaper on 18 Oct.
It is high time for multi-party democracy to take root in Singapore
Written by Ng E-Jay
17 November 2008
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong told PAP activists on Sunday that a two-party political model could not work in Singapore. He said that change had to take place not between parties, but within the PAP. (Channel News Asia, “PM Lee says two-party political model cannot work in Singapore”, 16 Nov 08)
PM Lee explained why he thought tackling the economic crisis needed both a policy and political response. He said: “We cannot sail through this storm on autopilot. The government has to lead, watch the changing environment, implement the policies needed, mobilise Singaporeans and mount a national response to get us through. It’s the party’s business to provide this leadership for Singapore.”
Unfortunately, recent events have shown yet again why the one-party political model for Singapore is no longer appropriate or relevant in the 21st Century.
Without a strong Opposition in Parliament to keep the ruling party on its toes, point out the potential flaws in its policies, and offer concrete alternatives, the ruling party can do as it wishes with scant regard for the needs of the people.
The recent case of the Lehman-linked structured products fiasco demonstrates this point beautifully: The Government has thus far failed to provide prompt redress to investors who have obviously been mis-sold flawed investment products, and it has failed to establish an independent panel to handle investors complaints. By its words and deeds, the Government in fact appears to be siding with the financial institutions. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew himself said that if banks followed the rules strictly, the case would in fact be closed. To him, investors have no case whatsoever.
Next, why should we assume that the necessary changes and reforms will take place within the PAP, when the PAP has governed in the same authoritarian fashion for the past four decades, denying Singaporeans basic civil liberties such as freedom of assembly (Speaker’s Corner, as playwright and blogger Alex Au has opined, is but mere tokenism), and in recent years, enacting policies that disenfranchise working class Singaporeans in terms of job prospects vis-a-viz foreigners.
Certainly, as PM Lee has mentioned, tackling the economic crisis needs both a policy and political response. But in this day and age where the electorate is becoming more educated and more exposed to the global environment, the top-down approach to governance is no longer appropriate. There must be a robust system of constructive debate and consensus building in the political process, and this can only happen in a multi-party democracy.
Certainly, the Government of the day must take the lead and provide a national response to the current crisis. The efficacy of this leadership will be enhanced if we have a strong Opposition in Parliament that actively voices the concerns on the ground and strives to prevent groupthink or a herd mentality from forming in the political arena.
PM Lee opined that Singapore is much better off with one dominant party, as long as the PAP provides clean and good government. He also said: “If the party doesn’t work, if something goes wrong with the party, you can be sure new parties will come, new contests will come. People will spring up to take on the government in no time at all.”
My response is: Whether the PAP provides good and clean Government is for the electorate to decide and for this collective view to be expressed through an election system that is fair and transparent. As it is, our current electoral system is severely deficient and is in need of urgent reform.
Also, given the PAP’s high handed tactics of dealing with the Opposition, who is PM Lee to proclaim that people will “take on the government in no time at all” should the PAP go awry? Has he forgotten how the Government has jailed political activists under the ISA or hauled peaceful protesters to Court? Has he forgotten that he said he would have to spend time “fixing the Opposition” should more than 10 of them get into Parliament?
PM Lee said that as a small country, Singapore depends critically on an outstanding team of leaders to make up for the many limitations. I would suggest that he remove DPM Wong Kan Seng from his cabinet post, as this minister clearly does not make the cut.
PM Lee has certainly added fuel to the fire of speculation that the Government might call for snap elections by coming up with all this rhetoric in an obvious bid to sway voter sentiment.
However, with the litany of security lapses committed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the poorly-timed Government policies that have exacerbated the inflationary situation in Singapore through multiple fare hikes, and more recently, with the Government’s poor handling of the structured products fiasco, Singaporeans should wise up to such rhetoric and as Mr Goh Meng Seng of NSP has urged, “vote with their eyes open”.
Singapore’s political system should do more than evolve — it should undergo fundamental change
Written by Ng E-Jay
11 Sept 2008
In an email interview with MM Lee Kuan Yew ahead of his 85th birthday, the day when Singaporeans would have been eligible to receive payouts under the original CPF Compulsory Annuity scheme, the Straits Times quoted him as saying, “Our political system has to evolve to be in sync with the changes in the world, and in our society.” (ST, “MM: Political system has to evolve”, 10 Sept)
But our political system should do more than evolve. It should undergo fundamental change. We need free and fair elections, not a GRC system that entrenches the incumbent under the guise of multi-racialism. We need a free and independent press, not one that sings the tune of the Executive to the exclusion of other voices. And we need profound changes in our laws, some of which are outdated and irrelevant in the digital age. Laws such as those barring the assembly of 5 or more persons without a permit issued by the authorities, and draconian instruments of power such as the ICA, are archaic instruments of fear and intimidation handed down from our colonial past, and serve no purpose other than to silence dissent. Singaporeans are denied their civil liberties through selective application of the law, under which even the distribution of flyers is considered an offence if the authorities decide so.
Moves to liberalize political space, such as the easing of bans on political films, and other measures described by PM Lee in his National Day rally, amount to mere tokenism that fails to recognize that citizens have fundamental rights and that it is the job of the Government to safeguard these rights rather than subvert them for its own political agenda.
MM Lee also said that Singapore’s economic model combining a good social safety net with low tax rates is not easily copied as each country has a different starting point. (ST, “MM: We’re not easily copied”, 11 Sept)
What about Hong Kong?
There are many good things we have achieved economically, but there are also many negatives that other countries would do well to avoid. The Government’s top-down approach to economic management, the entrenchment of GLCs in major sectors of the economy, and our overly-liberal import of foreigners have resulted in declining labour productivity and stagnating wages for the lower income, who have had to bear the full brunt of rising inflation.
If, in MM Lee’s own words, Singapore must “re-position itself to ride East Asia’s transformation”, then we must first get our own backyard in order. To quote Anwar Ibrahim, “a level (economic) playing field can never be level unless and until the poor and the marginalized are taken out of the vicious cycle.” (spoken at a keynote address on 20th May 2008 at the CLSA Corporate Access Forum in Singapore)
THE GREAT SHAME: Excuses given why WP cannot cycle, but PAP can
The following ST forum letter was published today:
DSP Paul Tay, 09 Sept. ST link
I REFER to last Thursday’s letter by Mr Tan Ghee Gay, ‘Why ‘no’ and ‘yes’?', regarding police decisions with respect to the Workers’ Party’s (WP) proposed mass cycling event last year, and the carnival on Aug 31.
Police do not issue permits for outdoor political events in public places due to the potential for disorder and unruly behaviour. This applies to events organised by all political parties. For this reason, police rejected WP’s application to hold a mass cycling activity in East Coast Park, to commemorate its 50th anniversary in September last year.
The event on Aug 31 was very different. The permit was issued after taking into account the organiser and the nature of the event. It was organised by the PAP Community Foundation, which is a registered charity and not a political party. The event was not assessed to have the potential for disorder and unruly behaviour. It was a carnival that involved children and families from various kindergartens and educational institutions. The Prime Minister, as guest of honour, and a few other guests, made their entrance by cycling a short distance. During the event, a sum of $664,000 (which had been raised earlier) was distributed to 17 charities, including Beyond Social Services, Children’s Aid Society and Chung Hwa Medical Institution.
DSP Paul Tay
Assistant Director (Media Relations)
Singapore Police Force
It is a great, great shame that the authorities have chosen to whitewash the matter with lame excuses.
First and foremost, why is there the outrageous and totally unjustified ASSUMPTION that events organized by political parties have a greater tendency for “disorder and unruly behaviour”?
Secondly, to say a permit can be granted in this case because it is organized by PAP Community Foundation, which is not a political party, is taking the general public for FOOLS.
Thirdly, is there a need to state that the PM cycled a “short distance“, just to assuage readers that the event was no big deal?
Fourthly, why is there a need to mention the amount raised and examples of charities that were beneficiaries? Are these facts relevant to the application for a police permit?
This ST forum letter is a load of hogwash. Enough said.
Cherian George’s article on tolerating political diversity
Written by Ng E-Jay
14 Aug 2008
Cherian George, assistant professor at the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, has written a timely article on the need to tolerate political diversity in Singapore.
Published on 10 Aug in the Straits Times, his article entitled “Time to tolerate political diversity” starts off by asserting that Singapore has tolerated diversity in the areas of race and religion, differences in individual ability, and even differences in wealth, but Singapore has not tolerated diversity in the political arena. In his own words, “Attitudes towards different political beliefs and practices remain immature and intolerant. Singaporeans seem not to have learnt from the way our society has handled diversity in other realms and become richer for it.”
I would agree that Singapore has tolerated, and even made some limited attempt at celebrating diversity in race and religion, although Constance Singam, President of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), has a very different take on this. And certainly intolerance towards political opposition is still near all-time highs. This intolerance is manifested to the greatest possible degree by the PAP Government, and year and in year out, every attempt is made to filter this intolerance down to the masses through the complaint state-controlled media.
Here are some key quotes from Cherian George’s article:
- No group is spared this culture of intolerance. In some circles, joining an opposition party brands you as a dangerous element, and about as welcome in Singapore as dengue-bearing mosquitoes and H5N1-infected chickens. But, in other Singaporeans’ eyes, if you enter the ruling party’s ranks you must be a self-serving sell-out, consumed by ambition and craving patronage.
- It seems that the only escape from this careless stereotyping is to retreat entirely from public affairs. Abject apathy is the only ideological stand that is immune to Singaporeans’ political bigotry — even though it is the most anti-social and the most deserving of criticism.
- In dealing with ethnic diversity, Singaporeans are learning that it is wrong to apply racial stereotypes to entire communities. Perhaps, then, it is not too much to ask that we should stop imprisoning individuals of whatever political persuasion inside the cages in our mind.
- The resulting political culture may have hurt the PAP itself. There are many reasons for the chronic difficulty it faces in getting the ablest Singaporeans to serve in politics, but surely one of them is their reluctance to enter an arena that they perceive as lacking in civility.
- If people who are engaged in public affairs from whatever angle sow intolerance instead, they will reap cynicism and apathy from the wider public. Nobody should be surprised when either bully talk by those with power or histrionics by those without leave the broad middle ground turned off.
- Singapore also needs some good people to join the opposition, as a long-term insurance policy for the day it needs an alternative government. Theirs is a lonely enough path; they do not need stones thrown at them.
I am in agreement with most of the points raised. And I would like to add that Singapore needs good people — good leaders — to join the ranks of the opposition, not just as an insurance policy for the day when an alternative government is needed (to me, that day has already arrived), but also for the greater good of political plurality, the advancement of democracy, and the sheer and urgent need to play the role of nation building that no ruling party, no matter how competent, can play alone.
I would also like to emphasize this message by Cherian George once again: “Theirs is a lonely enough path; they do not need stones thrown at them.“
My thoughts on Chua Lee Hoong’s article “Why they hate Singapore”
These are some of my off-hand thoughts on Chua Lee Hoong’s article “Why they hate Singapore” published in the Straits Times on 8 Aug.
- A nation is not a corporation that is run for just a profit motive.
- Singapore succeeded economically not because it lacks basic rights, but in spite of the fact that it lacks basic rights. There is a crucial distinction here.
- Good government policies may have led Singapore to become economically successful in the past, but the success is also due to hard work of working class Singaporeans. The Government should not take all the credit for it. It was the people, not the govt alone, who made Singapore great.
- The end does not justify the means. Economic prosperity should not be pursued at the expense of basic rights. A nation built on material considerations alone is like a house built on sand.
Exerpts from Chua Lee Hoong’s article:
SINGAPORE is small enough to be a suburb in Beijing, but it has something in common with the mammoth People’s Republic. The little red dot and Red China are both countries the West loves to hate.
What’s eating them? The easy answer is that both China and Singapore are authoritarian states. The freedoms taken for granted in the West – freedom of speech and assembly – come with more caveats in these two places.
The real sin: Singapore and China are examples of countries which are taking a different route to development, and look to be succeeding.
Read these lines from British journalist John Kampfner, writing in The Guardian last month, lamenting the spread of what he calls the Singapore model. ‘Why is it that a growing number of highly-educated and well-travelled people are willing to hand over several of their freedoms in return for prosperity or security? This question has been exercising me for months as I work on a book about what I call the ‘pact’.
In an interview with Business Times, the Japanese management consultant who first became famous as author of The Borderless World, said Singapore should ‘replicate’ itself in other parts of the world. What he meant was that Singapore should use its IQ, and IT prowess, to help organise effective economies in other regions, as its own had succeeded so well. To be sure, his reasoning was economic, not political. But for those who hate Singapore, a Pax Singaporeana would be something to work against and head off.
An open letter to Lim Kit Siang of Malaysia Democratic Action Party (DAP)
Written by Ng E-Jay, 09 Aug 2008
Dear Mr Lim Kit Siang,
I am a political blogger from Singapore, with a special interest in Singapore and Malaysian politics, particularly the Anwar case. My official politics blog is http://www.sgpolitics.net/ and I also have a personal blog, http://www.ngejay.com/ where I archive media articles as well as most of my personal writings.
I refer to your blog entry entitled “At 84, the fire still burns!” posted on 31 July 2008, written by Ahmad Mustapha, http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2008/07/31/at-84-the-fire-still-burns/.
The article by Ahmad Mustapha correctly identifies what is going wrong with Malaysia’s ruling party and how they are dragging the nation into ruins. But in his haste at criticizing the Barisan National vociferously, he has mistakenly made Singapore’s Government out to be much better than it really is, and has put Singapore’s ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) on a pedestal that it simply does not deserve. As they say, the grass always appears greener on the other side. I’m afraid Ahmad Mustapha has had the wool pulled over his eyes, as far as the track record of Singapore’s PAP is concerned.
Ahmad Mustapha said that Mr Lee Kuan Yew “was the man who outsmarted the communists in Singapore (with the innocent help of Malaya then and the willing help of the British) and who later outwitted the British and outpaced Malaysia in all spheres.”
That statement is at odds with history. Early in Lee Kuan Yew’s political career, he worked in close collaboration with the communists who had widespread support of the Chinese working class, and made use of the communists to propel himself into power. After Lee Kuan Yew took power, he allied with the British to betray the very communists who had worked with him, and whom he had used as a stepping stone to power. After Singapore gained Independence from the Federation of Malaya, Lee Kuan Yew used the oppressive ISA to detain members of the Barisan Socialis and end once and for all the political careers of his opponents. At every step of the way, Lee Kuan Yew treated all his allies as pawns in his political game, to be used, abused and discarded as he deemed fit.
Approved Oppositions and Second Awakenings: My response to Paul Jacob’s article
Written by Ng E-Jay
04 Aug 2008
In a Straits Times Insight article entitled “Watching, waiting for a second awakening” published on Sat 02 Aug, Paul Jacob offers an alternative theory to the view that the PAP will spare no effort in winning back Hougang and Potong Pasir SMC, as seen from Dr Ng Eng Hen’s vociferous criticism of the Worker’s Party in a recent editor of Petir and SM Goh Chok Tong’s latest salvo at a National Day celebration dinner.
Paul Jacob opines that the brand of politics offered by Low and Chiam is something the PAP can live with, as evidenced by Low and Chiam being described by the PAP as “responsible” and “non-confrontational”, and by their having received kudos for working “within the system”.
While Paul Jacob makes the insinuation that such a compliment could actually be embarrassing, he is quick to assert that neither Low nor Chiam have tried to distance themselves from it. Furthermore, Paul Jacob reiterated Low’s opinion that he is comfortable serving as a check on the Government but not as an alternative to it.
PAP’s monopoly on political space and political ideology
Written by Ng E-Jay
01 Aug 2008
Yesterday, the Straits Times reported Opposition MP Low Thia Khiang as arguing that if the PAP expected more from the Opposition, it should give them more political space. “The PAP should allow the Opposition more space in political participation, and not anyhow redraw the (electoral) boundaries,” the MP for Hougang SMC was quoted as saying (ST, 31 July).
In my opinion, Low is asking the wrong person and missing the point. We do not ask our political opponent, the PAP, to grant us more space. We create that space for ourselves. Furthermore, it is not up to the PAP to decide what kind of results the Opposition should deliver. It is up to the Opposition to decide how they want to contribute to society and what they want to achieve for Singapore.
The issue of the PAP’s monopoly on political space in Singapore cropped up again in an article written by Chua Mui Hoong entitled “Move politics beyond a spectator sport”, published in the Straits Times Review column on 01 Aug.
In this article, Chua explains how the PAP has traditionally claimed for itself and other political parties the sole right to participate in the political arena. Civic groups and other non-political organizations are frequently curtailed from dabbling in political issues. For example, in 1986, legislation was introduced to forbid the Law Society from submitting proposals on law reform to the Government on its own initiative, after the society openly questioned laws curbing foreign publications that commented negatively on Singapore’s domestic politics. Till today, it is only acceptable for lawyers to speak up on political issues as individuals, but not under the auspices of the Law Society.
To me, it is impossible to separate law from politics as it is Parliament that has the ultimate authority to make broad sweeping changes to the law. The people don’t just vote in politicians; they vote in law-makers who are directly responsible for the evolution of the law over time. As it stands, the Law Society has been effectively gagged so that the ruling party can avoid having its own interests in the legal arena challenged.
Chua said that in recent years, the Government has made some pronouncements indicating it might have softened its stance. She quoted then-DPM Lee Hsien Loong as saying in January 2004 that the Government “would clarify, give out information in a timely manner, allow time for proper debate, promote diversity of views, and close the loop with the public to account for decisions taken” with regards to public policy.
To some extent, the Government has tried to seek feedback from the public when formulating policies. For example, a wide spectrum of professionals and experts from many walks of life comprising unionists, academics, community grassroots leaders, and insurance professionals were consulted in the formulation of the CPF Life policy. However, given the Government’s entrenchment in the labour union and in almost all sectors of the economy and the grassroots, one wonders whether such supposed broad-range participation is genuinely independent and non-partisan. Also, apart from specific government policies, the broader issue of the PAP’s monopoly on political space and political ideology remains unaddressed.
It is clear that the PAP has used all means at its disposal to entrench itself and preserve its political hegemony, including implicitly declaring itself as the ultimate referee on political debate.
To quote Chua, “other groups and individuals enter the political arena on the sufferance of the PAP Government, like in a patron-client relationship.”
Even Opposition MPs like Low Thia Khiang appear to respect, rather than challenge, this “patron-client relationship”.
The truth is that rights are not decreed or conferred. They are exercised. (See SG Human Rights article.)
If we need more political space, we need to create it for ourselves, rather than ask the Government to give it to us.
Chua stated at the beginning of the article that the PAP’s claim that only political parties have the right to enter the political arena has left citizens with merely the role of spectators with voting rights.
But this need not be so. We are spectators only if we accept that label and abide by it.
It is only when an active citizenry stops accepting the labels and roles designated by the PAP and starts exercising their civil and political rights that the PAP’s monopoly on political space and political ideology can end.
Articles by E-Jay
Dr Wong Wee Nam
Productivity: Senior Minister, is it that simple?
Economic Strategies Committee: Real Change or Just Words?
What is a General Election about?
SDP's "Let's Talk With Dr Wong Wee Nam"
Loyalty and the Singaporean
We, the Citizens pledge …
The Real Political Change That Singapore Needs
The Spectre of Death
Do We Care?
The Control of Election Campaigning
The Singapore Change - Real or Illusion?
The Need for a Multi-Party System
All That Glitters is Not Gold
The Politics of Madness
Exemplary Leadership: People First
Where Are the Potential Prime Ministers?
Featured Archives
Featured Videos
Dr Chee Soon Juan's message to President Obama (20 Jan 09).
Singaporeans arrested for protest in support of Burmese Activists (12 Jan 09).
Roo Boys (Isrizal) hip hop from Queenstown Prison (19 Dec 08).
Roo Boys (Shafi'ie) hip hop from Queenstown Prison (19 Dec 08).
Burmese in Singapore says NO to constitution drafted by junta (26 Apr 08).
The Police State I - SDP's World Consumer Rights Day Protest (15 Mar 08).
The Police State II - SDP's World Consumer Rights Day Protest (15 Mar 08).
Singaporean started 5 days fasting against ISA on Hindraf 5 (31 Dec 07).
SDP's petition letter to Malaysian High Comm (17 Dec 07).
Petition to Law Society (10 Dec 07).
SG Human Rights celebrates Human Rights Day at speakers corner (09 Dec 07).
SG Human Rights petition card to ASEAN (20 Nov 07).
Burmese demonstration (20 Nov 07).
NUS International Students Vigil Walk (19 Nov 07).
Free Burma, Free Singapore forum (18 Nov 07).
Featured Blogroll
Internet Deregulation
Channel News Asia: SG News- Changes to dual ownership leave some home owners in a bind September 2, 2010
- High demand for students under Singapore-MIT GAMBIT internship programme September 2, 2010
- Police issue alert on cyber extortion via "love traps" September 2, 2010
- DPM Teo thanks Oman for support to facilitate SAF in Gulf of Aden September 2, 2010
- New ovarian cancer test kit expected to be available in S'pore by year-end September 2, 2010
- Thousands hoping to name on-loan pandas September 2, 2010
- FairPrice's new house brand features juicier veggies September 2, 2010
- Committee to chart Singapore's cultural development September 2, 2010
- Man pleads guilty to armed robbery September 2, 2010
- Mercy Relief sends 2nd team, supplies to Pakistan September 2, 2010
- Singapore Democrats
- Singapore's elderly at risk of malnutrition September 2, 2010
- Need for foreign workers "strong" in S'pore September 2, 2010
- Chinese, Singaporean trade unions pledge closer ties August 31, 2010
- S'pore population tops five million, 36 pct foreigners August 31, 2010
- Vessel detained for smuggling sand August 31, 2010
- Chia Ti Lik
- Jaslyn Go’s blog
- Rumours??? April 2, 2010
- My Thoughts on SDP’s Dazzle with the Democrats: A night to remember March 2, 2010
- The Mystery of The Missing Banner :) February 21, 2010
- Seelan Palay
- MDA questions Seelan over Francis Seow video September 1, 2010
- I will start my 1st prison term on Aug 11 August 10, 2010
- SDP's National Day Message 2010 - The Young Ones August 5, 2010
- Singapore News Alternative
- OPINION: Singapore’s Useful Peasants - Joseph B. Atkins September 2, 2010
- Singapore Airlines curbs crew's Facebook musings September 2, 2010
- Singapore delays cross-carriage pay-TV rules September 2, 2010
- SINGAPORE: New Universities Trust to ensure funding September 2, 2010
- Video: Opposition leader responds to PM Lee's National Day Rally address September 2, 2010
- Singapore ranked as world's 4th largest foreign exchange center September 2, 2010
- Spending On Visa Card Touches S$154 Million During Young Olympic Games September 2, 2010
- Freedom House Report: Singapore ranked 'REPRESSIVE" in workers' rights violations September 1, 2010
- Survey: Singapore's elderly at risk of malnutrition September 1, 2010
- EC probe drives biodiesel trading in Singapore to a halt September 1, 2010
- Vietnamese officials sent to dodgy ‘foreign training courses’ in Singapore September 1, 2010
- Singapore Jurong Bird Park Gives Ticket Discount To Malaysians September 1, 2010
- Singapore's Economy May Expand 14.9% This Year, Central Bank Survey Shows September 1, 2010
- Imperial College to establish medical school in Singapore September 1, 2010
- Retailers to submit bids for Carrefour Asia units-sources September 1, 2010
- Singapore Rebel
- The art of violent metaphors - by Lee Kuan Yew August 29, 2010
- Videos : Pleading for death row prisoners at the Istana August 27, 2010
- Alan Shadrake held in Singapore - Aggregated News (updated 24 Aug) July 21, 2010
- Singapore Peak Oil
- S.Iswaran Does A 180 Degree Turn on Peak Oil April 21, 2010
- Beyond Green Growth: Why We Need a World Without Economic Growth April 21, 2010
- Recent Peak Oil Headlines Ignored by Singapore Media April 21, 2010
SiteMeter
