Ever since the People’s Action Party seized power in 1959 after an electoral process, they have continued their single party domination unabated ever since.
From my personal observation, they have today become an authoritarian democracy to keep them in power and to ensure the country’s political and economic stability.
In Singapore, general elections are very much a democratic process. But the issue is that majority of the constituencies are won by a walkover; there is hardly any opposition parties to contest the incumbent. This is a stark contrast to the days of pre-independence, where the political scene was full of fervor. This can be due to Singaporeans being socialized from a young age into fearing to challenge the PAP. Over the years, many opposition leaders such as Chee Soon Juan and the late JBJ Jeyaratnam have been successfully sued many times by the PAP for defamation.
The constituency of Potong Pasir is one of the last bastions of opposition presence. It is presided over by veteran opposition leader Chiam See Tong’s Singapore Democratic Alliance since 1984. As a result, the estate is underdeveloped compared to other constituencies in Singapore. Roads have potholes, only one bus service plies the estate and there is a lack of sheltered walkways for residents. The estate is neglected because it is not under the rule of the PAP.
If one equates democracy with civil society, Singapore definitely does not qualify as a democracy. The state rules with strict laws and limits on freedom of expression.
Under Singapore law, any public protest of at least five people without a permit is deemed illegal, meaning demonstrations seldom occur (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gP4BVw4tGYmwMGtdLfjp0YQyZlAQ). The only state-designated outdoor free speech venue is Speakers’ Corner at Hong Lim Park. Speakers must register with police and abide by a list of rules which forbid discussion of religion or topics that might provoke racial tension. The venue does not attract many speakers nor listeners.
In 2005, the state decided not to open the Buangkok MRT station with the other stations on the North-East Line due to an insufficient population base in the area. A group of grassroots leaders lobbying for its opening placed eight cardboard cut-outs of white elephants near the MRT station in protest, to coincide with a visit by Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister Vivian Balakrishnan. They received stern warning from the police.
The state’s uptightness on protests has also irked international bodies. During the annual International Monetary Board and the World Bank Fund meeting held in Singapore in 2006, protesters were only allowed to protest at a designated indoor area, and an undisclosed number of civic organizations were barred from entering the country. This was despite the World Bank and IMF having invited these groups to attend and requesting that outdoor protests be allowed. In their defence, the state stated that it did not want to compromise the security of the nation as protests could be used as cover by terrorists.
This brings me to another point. In light of post-911 terrorist threats, the state has stepped up its use of the Internal Security Act (ISA), and in turn reduced human rights. The ISA allows the indefinite detention of suspects deemed as threats to national security. In December 2001, thirteen suspected Islamic militants, believed to be members of the Jemaah Islamiyah group, were detained under the ISA for allegedly plotting to blow up the US embassy and other diplomatic missions in Singapore. Some of the ISA’s aspects have been criticised by human rights groups as draconian (www.singapore-window.org/sw02/020413a1.htm). However, the state has to enforce the act in order to prevent damage to national security.
There is hope yet, though. In August this year, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong called for the ban on political videos and outdoor demonstrations to be eased as part of a gradual liberalisation of society.
Even then, Singaporeans in general strangely have a lack of motivation to air dissatisfactions or their views, and have an insouciance of the political scene. This may be because Singapore has prospered over the years and is politically stable under the PAP. Multiple parties competing for control may be highly democratic, giving voices to many voices and groups, but the government may be weak and based on shifting coalitions and complex electoral alliances (Sernau, 2006). And also, marginalized groups lack the knowledge of their rights. The citizens also have a fear of speaking out against the ruling party, as mentioned earlier.
One more interesting point is how the state even seeks to control the citizens’ money. From the age of eighteen, Singaporeans have to set aside 20% of their monthly income and accumulate till retirement when funds can be withdrawn. In between, the fund can be used to buy HDB flats built by the government. This may actually be a plot to make Singaporeans buy flats built by the state.
References
Agence France Presse. 12 April 2002, “Singapore to raise public awareness
about Internal Security Act”, Singapore Window, http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/020413a1.htm
Agence France Presse. 21 August 2008, “Seven charged in Singapore over IMF-World Bank protests: activist”, http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gP4BVw4tGYmwMGtdLfjp0YQyZlAQ
Arnold, Wayne. 12 September 2006, “Singapore tightens cordon on protest”, International Herald Tirbune, http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/08/news/sing.php
Au Yong, Jeremy. 26 September 2008, “Whatever happened to the white elephant station”, The Straits Times, pg A36
Sernau, Scott, 2006, Global Problems: The Search for Equity, Peace and Sustainability, Pearson Education
No comments:
Post a Comment