In theory, Singapore has a democratically elected government based on the Westminster system. In practice, however, the electoral laws are biased in favor of the ruling PAP, to the extent that though 33% of the electorate voted for one of the three opposition parties at the 2006 general election, the government won all but two of the 84 seats up for grabs. Even so, most Singaporeans quietly accept the status quo, figuring that political freedom is a fair trade-off for the high standard of living they generally enjoy.
The current unicameral parliament has 84 elected members, with nine of the MPs from single-member constituencies and the 75 others from group representation constituencies, which are supposed to ensure the representation in parliament of members of the Malay, Indian and other minority communities. A side effect of having several MPs for a single seat is that it’s harder for opposition parties to field enough candidates to contest the seat.
Voting in elections is compulsory and governments are elected for five years, but a ruling government can dissolve parliament and call an election at any time.
Singapore also has a popularly elected president, who at the time of writing is SR Nathan. The position is largely ceremonial.
The PAP argues that since it listens to all opinions and is happy to take on good ideas no matter where they originate from, there is less need for political plurality.
It also asserts that, relieved of the tiresome task of answering to a strident opposition in parliament, it has more time to focus on running the country, citing the chaotic democracies of countries like India, Thailand and Indonesia to (somewhat convincingly) support its case. TV news reports display punch-ups in the parliaments of South Korea and Taiwan with a certain satisfied relish.
Vocal opposition does exist, but those who have chosen to follow that path, like Chee Soon
Juan, JB Jeyaretnam* and Francis Seow, have found themselves subject to vilification, legal harassment and ridicule, and ignored by the media, unless there is something negative to report. The government’s favored means of dealing with these intrepid souls is to run them through the courts and ruin them with lawsuits. This is a tidy means of removing them from the political process, since bankrupts are forbidden from running in elections.
The legal system is based on the British system and the judiciary’s independence is enshrined in the constitution, but in practice many judges are appointed on short tenure and their renewal is subject to party approval. Rulings that have gone against the government have seen new laws enacted by parliament to ensure the government’s victory.
Singapore’s Internal Security Department keeps records of its citizens, and there is a widespread (albeit unverifiable) fear that criticizing the authorities will cost people their jobs, promotional opportunities or contracts.
As elsewhere, the internet has effected a sea change in the area of political and social debate and there has been a minor explosion in blogs expressing dissent and criticism of the government.
Singapore does have an extensive local council machinery, which organizes public meetings to listen to ideas on various issues of neighborhood concern and domestic policy. The massive ‘e-government’ network, which enables citizens to perform all sorts of transactions online –from booking football pitches to filing income tax – also has a channel through which people can express opinions on certain issues.
The most notable recent example was the year-long debate over the building of the two casino resorts, which involved ordinary citizens, religious and grassroots leaders, charities and social services. Though there was a widespread belief that the government had made its mind up well before the ‘public consultation’ period, it was marked by some surprisingly outspoken views.
*JBJ
JB Jeyaretnam is Singapore’s most famous dissenting voice, and his experiences are burned into the country’s collective unconscious as a kind of cautionary tale.
A lawyer by profession, JBJ led the Worker’s Party in an effort to challenge the all-powerful PAP. In 1981 he became the first opposition candidate in 13 years to win a seat, taking the Anson constituency in a by-election.
He was re-elected in 1984, but shortly afterwards was dragged into court to face charges relating to the party’s accounts. Found not-guilty on all but one charge, he was sentenced to three months in prison and fined $5000, enough to have him disqualified from elections for five years and disbarred from legal practice.
JBJ appealed to the British Privy Council, which overturned his disbarment (leading the government to change the law relating to such appeals). He then asked the President of Singapore to overturn his conviction, but was refused.
Banned from the 1988 election, he nevertheless campaigned for the Worker’s Party, but uttered comments about Lee Kuan Yew that, with a little creative legal interpretation, enable the prime minister to sue him. Lee Kuan Yew was awarded $260,000. Another 1995 lawsuit saw him hit for $465,000 in damages. Then, after he was appointed to parliament as a ‘nonconstituency MP’ in 1997, a further 11 defamation suits were filed against him for referring to police reports made against PM Goh Chok Tong.
The judge said the PM had overstated his case, but nonetheless awarded him $20,000. On appeal, this was raised to $100,000 – and the judge was later dismissed.
JBJ resigned as party leader in 2001 and in his last days scratched a living selling his two books – Make it Right for Singapore and The Hatchet Man of Singapore – on the street. He died on 20 September 2008, a few weeks after launching a political comeback under his newly created Reform Party, and his passing was marked by tributes and obituaries in media around the globe. Even in death, he remained a thorn in the government’s side.
Singapore BACKGROUND: Government & Politics
No comments:
Post a Comment