Saturday, March 25, 2006
"S'pore political system far better than many others"
Letter to the forum taken from The Straits Times Interactive. All comments in italics is my own.
March 25, 2006
S'pore political system far better than many others
"IN HIS letter, 'Politics in S'pore suffers from an image problem' (ST, March 23), Mr David Cai claims that the 'image problem' is due to the ruling party's 'hardline management of political dissent' that results in a 'deep-seated mentality that speaking out against the Government is analogous to treading on a minefield - one miscalculated step and you could be joining the ranks of J.B. Jeyaretnam or Chee Soon Juan'.
I am glad he felt free to speak up on this at length for The Straits Times. But the key issue is not the right to voice our views, which all of us enjoy, but the quality of the political system, the substance of the political debate and how decisions made can improve the lives of ordinary citizens."
Actually, I personally think that the right to voice our views is an integral quality to a good political system. The idea of the fundamental right to the freedom of expression is supposed to be inalienable, and to dismiss this as being a non-key issue worries me. And you wonder why S'poreans are all kiasee and never want to say anything? But yes, I do agree that we enjoy this right to voice our views. I am relying on this right right now to publish my own views as to this letter, after all.
"Singapore has a hard-won international reputation for its high standard of integrity and competence in its politics. The PAP ensures this by insisting on honest, capable political leaders who fulfil their promises to the people. This has served Singapore and Singaporeans well."
'Honest' and 'capable' are normative statements. I think that these 2 qualities should be judged by an objective 3rd-party, otherwise there tends to be an element of bias. Just a comment. And so is the statement that "[it] has served Singapore and Singaporeans well".
"In such a clean and transparent system, all allegations are investigated and lies refuted. Politicians who make scurrilous remarks must be able to back them up with facts. This applies both to the PAP as well as the opposition. This way, voters can decide better to whom they can entrust their future. Mr Cai forgets that Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low Thia Khiang have been in politics for over 20 years without suffering any consequences."
Erm... This is kind of like treading on dangerous ground, because I don't think the idea of 'truth as an absolute defence' does not apply to our legal system in defamation cases. In fact, the truth of comments made is rarely ever discussed in defamation cases. There seems to be an immediate presumption of falsehood already, and all that is being assessed is the so-called 'damage' made to a politician's (the right ones) reputation. Even so, we don't even need to prove actual damage to rule that damage has been made. Also, since defamation cases have always been made from 1 party to another (and not the other way around), we can't effectively judge the truth of these statements. Well, I guess Mr. Chiam and Mr. Low have both been in Parliament for over 20 years each, but I guess it has been because they are extremely conservative opposition party members, and people who vote them in have to live with the fact tt they may probably never get any housing estate upgrades.
"Our system is not perfect, but it is far better than the chaotic and dirty politics found in many other countries. Would Mr Cai prefer the political ferment in Thailand and the Philippines, where distrust of the ruling party's action and public conflict are ever present? Or the corruption of so many Asian countries, which have 'freer' political systems and media than Singapore?"
I don't think it is wise to label the politics in many other countries 'chaotic' and 'dirty'. This can only be discovered through exposure from the relevant sources, say the media. But the thing about Singapore is that our national media 'safeguards the state's interests', and foreign medias are discouraged from reporting on our state by threats of fines, defamation suits and circulation restrictions. So if there is a lack of information, it is difficult to present a conclusion so simply. In any case, even though these 'freer' political systems may have more political ferment, I would consider this the basis of a democracy. In any place where there is people power, there is bound to be some kind of chaos. This is a trade-off, because you have a whole plethora of views, and rulers that the people find lacking are necessarily removed by the system.
Even in the Thailand, I respect the situation that is going on. The people are protesting against Thaksin for selling out Shin Corp to Singapore, and although it might not seem like a big issue to us, I see in this not merely unrest and disorder, but inherent Thai nationalism. Thai pride for the national company and what the Thais believe belongs to them and thus and fight for, even if it means getting rid of a strong leader who they feel has otherwise betrayed them. This is how it should be. The revolutions of Russia and France might have been violent and bloody, but they were not in vain. If a government is found to be corrupt, there should be mechanisms with which to remove it. Although our current government has not been found to be so, I don't believe this negates the need for a mechanism to so remove a corrupt government.
"The PAP Government and its MPs 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."
I agree that the PAP and its MPs have gained the respect and trust of the people over the years. Some of them at least. I don't include in this statement the MPs who rode on the coat tails of the ones who were elected when the GRC system was put in place, such that by voting for 1 MP you necessarily vote for all 5 or 6 in his team, regardless of whether you wanted them all to get into Parliament in the first place (or even known who they were to begin with). Anyway I don't think this is anything special either. If the PAP had a strong opposition - like how the Conservatives in Canada always had the Liberals to contend with - and they were able to beat them conclusively on trust, I would consider whatever "this" is supposed to be special. But since the PAP does not have an equivalent of a Liberal party to stand head to head with, I can't agree with the "something special" thing. In any case, political debates and scandals are rife in any system. If Singapore is any different, it is to me, more a question of a lack of information. And just because the majority of the population does not say anything too public about its politicians, might not necessarily mean that its view of its politicians is very much better than the views of the Brits and Americans of their politicians. In any case, there has not been a declining turn-out in the general elections of the U.S, and definitely not in Canada. Here, voting is an innate right to be exercised, and not a mere privilege as in some other countries. And people here take these rights very very seriously. It doesn't matter if you're young (you need only be 18 and older to vote), old and infirm, or even a convicted felon; the right to vote extends to everyone. The Canadian kids here all seem to have voted more than me. But not tt it's difficult - I've never exercised this right in my life. And whether I will in future is still a huge question mark.
"According to the book, The Vanishing Voter, by Mr Thomas Patterson, a key reason for the voters' cynicism in the US is that political campaigns seem more like theatre or entertainment than something to be taken seriously. In Singapore, we take our politics seriously."
Oh yeah. You need a permit and a licence to hold a rally if you're an opposition member; your manifestoes get slammed by the opposing party for being 'dangers to the national interests', your party members are often in the newspapers only for bankruptcy suits and jail terms for things like defamation and contempt of court... And the media tends to take potshots at blogs for being frivolous and paling in comparison to the quality of news offered by itself...
The PAP is not afraid of different views and, in fact, encourages this. When I was interviewed to be a PAP candidate for the last general election, I made it clear that I disagreed with some of the PAP's policies. Still, I was selected, and I still maintain these views.
For the first sentence, I give you 3 names: Francis Seow - former Attorney-General and President of the Law Society of Singapore; JB Jeyaratnam - former District Judge in Malaysia and Senior Counsel in Singapore, and Chee Soon Juan, PhD in Neuropsychology and former lecturer at NUS. For the second, I give you "party whip". I'm not sure how much money an MP will earn right now, so I can't comment on that.
"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? Because of this scheme, Mr Steve Chia, who lost in the last general election, could still enter Parliament as the 'best loser'."
Because we have no opposition. It is called "mian zi" aka 'face'. Idea is to make yourself look marginally better (when you have no opposition). Anyway NCMPs cannot vote on anything. So it doesn't matter how many we put in anyway.
"All Singaporeans are free to voice their opinions and form associations and, indeed, are encouraged to engage actively in politics if they feel so inclined. However, we all have to play by the same rules and be held accountable for our words and actions."
Yup. All you need is to apply to the police for a licence or a permit that is usually rejected, and if you still want to go ahead, you can if you don't mind going to jail for being a public nuisance, a threat to national security, or being a member of an unlawful assembly. It's all good lah. It's called 'accountability'. I mean, unless you join the ruling party. Then it really *is* all good. :)
"If Mr Cai has specific laws that he would like changed, he should put forward his suggestions, and get either the PAP or opposition politicians to raise them in Parliament. Mr Cai could even consider putting these ideas to the people by contesting in the forthcoming elections himself. After all, this is a democracy."
Boy is that a challenge is I ever did see one. If you're a citizen of Singapore and you care enough, you get asked to try to publish your own thoughts in a newspaper or to run for elections. The amount of money, publicity, and threat to yourself and your family nonwithstanding. Aiyah, with this kind of money right, it might actually be wiser to just buy your PR in Canada, where you can tell your Liberals or Conservatives anything you want without the members of either party telling you tt you ought to run against them. A bit kua zhang, right?
Irene Ng (Miss)
Member of Parliament
Of course.
now playing: hotel costes - cafe de flor
March 25, 2006
S'pore political system far better than many others
"IN HIS letter, 'Politics in S'pore suffers from an image problem' (ST, March 23), Mr David Cai claims that the 'image problem' is due to the ruling party's 'hardline management of political dissent' that results in a 'deep-seated mentality that speaking out against the Government is analogous to treading on a minefield - one miscalculated step and you could be joining the ranks of J.B. Jeyaretnam or Chee Soon Juan'.
I am glad he felt free to speak up on this at length for The Straits Times. But the key issue is not the right to voice our views, which all of us enjoy, but the quality of the political system, the substance of the political debate and how decisions made can improve the lives of ordinary citizens."
Actually, I personally think that the right to voice our views is an integral quality to a good political system. The idea of the fundamental right to the freedom of expression is supposed to be inalienable, and to dismiss this as being a non-key issue worries me. And you wonder why S'poreans are all kiasee and never want to say anything? But yes, I do agree that we enjoy this right to voice our views. I am relying on this right right now to publish my own views as to this letter, after all.
"Singapore has a hard-won international reputation for its high standard of integrity and competence in its politics. The PAP ensures this by insisting on honest, capable political leaders who fulfil their promises to the people. This has served Singapore and Singaporeans well."
'Honest' and 'capable' are normative statements. I think that these 2 qualities should be judged by an objective 3rd-party, otherwise there tends to be an element of bias. Just a comment. And so is the statement that "[it] has served Singapore and Singaporeans well".
"In such a clean and transparent system, all allegations are investigated and lies refuted. Politicians who make scurrilous remarks must be able to back them up with facts. This applies both to the PAP as well as the opposition. This way, voters can decide better to whom they can entrust their future. Mr Cai forgets that Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low Thia Khiang have been in politics for over 20 years without suffering any consequences."
Erm... This is kind of like treading on dangerous ground, because I don't think the idea of 'truth as an absolute defence' does not apply to our legal system in defamation cases. In fact, the truth of comments made is rarely ever discussed in defamation cases. There seems to be an immediate presumption of falsehood already, and all that is being assessed is the so-called 'damage' made to a politician's (the right ones) reputation. Even so, we don't even need to prove actual damage to rule that damage has been made. Also, since defamation cases have always been made from 1 party to another (and not the other way around), we can't effectively judge the truth of these statements. Well, I guess Mr. Chiam and Mr. Low have both been in Parliament for over 20 years each, but I guess it has been because they are extremely conservative opposition party members, and people who vote them in have to live with the fact tt they may probably never get any housing estate upgrades.
"Our system is not perfect, but it is far better than the chaotic and dirty politics found in many other countries. Would Mr Cai prefer the political ferment in Thailand and the Philippines, where distrust of the ruling party's action and public conflict are ever present? Or the corruption of so many Asian countries, which have 'freer' political systems and media than Singapore?"
I don't think it is wise to label the politics in many other countries 'chaotic' and 'dirty'. This can only be discovered through exposure from the relevant sources, say the media. But the thing about Singapore is that our national media 'safeguards the state's interests', and foreign medias are discouraged from reporting on our state by threats of fines, defamation suits and circulation restrictions. So if there is a lack of information, it is difficult to present a conclusion so simply. In any case, even though these 'freer' political systems may have more political ferment, I would consider this the basis of a democracy. In any place where there is people power, there is bound to be some kind of chaos. This is a trade-off, because you have a whole plethora of views, and rulers that the people find lacking are necessarily removed by the system.
Even in the Thailand, I respect the situation that is going on. The people are protesting against Thaksin for selling out Shin Corp to Singapore, and although it might not seem like a big issue to us, I see in this not merely unrest and disorder, but inherent Thai nationalism. Thai pride for the national company and what the Thais believe belongs to them and thus and fight for, even if it means getting rid of a strong leader who they feel has otherwise betrayed them. This is how it should be. The revolutions of Russia and France might have been violent and bloody, but they were not in vain. If a government is found to be corrupt, there should be mechanisms with which to remove it. Although our current government has not been found to be so, I don't believe this negates the need for a mechanism to so remove a corrupt government.
"The PAP Government and its MPs 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."
I agree that the PAP and its MPs have gained the respect and trust of the people over the years. Some of them at least. I don't include in this statement the MPs who rode on the coat tails of the ones who were elected when the GRC system was put in place, such that by voting for 1 MP you necessarily vote for all 5 or 6 in his team, regardless of whether you wanted them all to get into Parliament in the first place (or even known who they were to begin with). Anyway I don't think this is anything special either. If the PAP had a strong opposition - like how the Conservatives in Canada always had the Liberals to contend with - and they were able to beat them conclusively on trust, I would consider whatever "this" is supposed to be special. But since the PAP does not have an equivalent of a Liberal party to stand head to head with, I can't agree with the "something special" thing. In any case, political debates and scandals are rife in any system. If Singapore is any different, it is to me, more a question of a lack of information. And just because the majority of the population does not say anything too public about its politicians, might not necessarily mean that its view of its politicians is very much better than the views of the Brits and Americans of their politicians. In any case, there has not been a declining turn-out in the general elections of the U.S, and definitely not in Canada. Here, voting is an innate right to be exercised, and not a mere privilege as in some other countries. And people here take these rights very very seriously. It doesn't matter if you're young (you need only be 18 and older to vote), old and infirm, or even a convicted felon; the right to vote extends to everyone. The Canadian kids here all seem to have voted more than me. But not tt it's difficult - I've never exercised this right in my life. And whether I will in future is still a huge question mark.
"According to the book, The Vanishing Voter, by Mr Thomas Patterson, a key reason for the voters' cynicism in the US is that political campaigns seem more like theatre or entertainment than something to be taken seriously. In Singapore, we take our politics seriously."
Oh yeah. You need a permit and a licence to hold a rally if you're an opposition member; your manifestoes get slammed by the opposing party for being 'dangers to the national interests', your party members are often in the newspapers only for bankruptcy suits and jail terms for things like defamation and contempt of court... And the media tends to take potshots at blogs for being frivolous and paling in comparison to the quality of news offered by itself...
The PAP is not afraid of different views and, in fact, encourages this. When I was interviewed to be a PAP candidate for the last general election, I made it clear that I disagreed with some of the PAP's policies. Still, I was selected, and I still maintain these views.
For the first sentence, I give you 3 names: Francis Seow - former Attorney-General and President of the Law Society of Singapore; JB Jeyaratnam - former District Judge in Malaysia and Senior Counsel in Singapore, and Chee Soon Juan, PhD in Neuropsychology and former lecturer at NUS. For the second, I give you "party whip". I'm not sure how much money an MP will earn right now, so I can't comment on that.
"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? Because of this scheme, Mr Steve Chia, who lost in the last general election, could still enter Parliament as the 'best loser'."
Because we have no opposition. It is called "mian zi" aka 'face'. Idea is to make yourself look marginally better (when you have no opposition). Anyway NCMPs cannot vote on anything. So it doesn't matter how many we put in anyway.
"All Singaporeans are free to voice their opinions and form associations and, indeed, are encouraged to engage actively in politics if they feel so inclined. However, we all have to play by the same rules and be held accountable for our words and actions."
Yup. All you need is to apply to the police for a licence or a permit that is usually rejected, and if you still want to go ahead, you can if you don't mind going to jail for being a public nuisance, a threat to national security, or being a member of an unlawful assembly. It's all good lah. It's called 'accountability'. I mean, unless you join the ruling party. Then it really *is* all good. :)
"If Mr Cai has specific laws that he would like changed, he should put forward his suggestions, and get either the PAP or opposition politicians to raise them in Parliament. Mr Cai could even consider putting these ideas to the people by contesting in the forthcoming elections himself. After all, this is a democracy."
Boy is that a challenge is I ever did see one. If you're a citizen of Singapore and you care enough, you get asked to try to publish your own thoughts in a newspaper or to run for elections. The amount of money, publicity, and threat to yourself and your family nonwithstanding. Aiyah, with this kind of money right, it might actually be wiser to just buy your PR in Canada, where you can tell your Liberals or Conservatives anything you want without the members of either party telling you tt you ought to run against them. A bit kua zhang, right?
Irene Ng (Miss)
Member of Parliament
Of course.
# posted by Kitana @ 3/25/2006 10:36:00 AM 
