Much ado about Nordin

I've been awfully busy and have taken some time off blogging.  But, some pretty interesting things have been going on that warrant some commentary:  the questioning of a local cartoonist by the police, the judgment in one of the two s.377A cases and the General Elections in Malaysia, just to name a few. 

But, I figured that I'd get back to blogging by dealing with the 'gang-rape' analogy in relation to democracy that has raisede quite a storm.  PAP MP Nordin posted on his Facebook page a quotation from Terry Goodkind that kind of riled up the online community.  This kind of took me by surprise.  The more I read the quote, the more puzzled I became.  Why such an adverse reaction?

I first came across this issue when I saw a Facebook posting by "Rice Bowl" (Kenneth Jeyaretnam's alter ego):

"PAP Member of Parliament for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC Zainudin Nordin appears to be using his Facebook page to promote the view that democracy is akin to gang rape. Quote:

“People use democracy as a free-floating abstraction disconnected from reality. Democracy in and of itself is not necessarily good. Gang rape, after all, is democracy in action."

When questioned to rebut the opinion - which is ...presented as a quote by author Terry Goodkind - the MP clearly declined and deleted the relevant comment.

The Rice Bowl believes strongly in democracy and the rule of law. As such we reject the opinion published in the strongest terms possible. Primarily since rape is obviously illegal in all democratic countries, the stated opinion cannot possibly stand. Furthermore, by the rule of law, a supposedly "democratic" move to violate fundamental personal and human rights could never succeed as a free and independent judiciary would inevitably strike out such an effort. In fact the constitution of Singapore itself states that Singapore is a democracy - in light of this one wonders how the MP reconciles such a negative view of democracy with his own standing as an elected member of parliament.

Finally, the intent of democracy is such that the result of a free vote in a secret ballot will tend to reflect the opinion of a majority of participants. To us it seems obvious that citizens are wise and compassionate enough to ensure that a free vote to inflict suffering and harm on a minority would be rejected in a landslide. One wonders if Mr Zainudin agrees."

Even without reading the context of the quotation from Terry Goodkind, I didn't think that there was anything radical that was being stated in that quotation.  Democracy, if it is understood to be majority rule and majority based decision making, does involve at its base level the rule by a lynch mob.  Much would depend on how we seek to define democracy.  I decided to look at MP Nordin's Facebook page.  This is the context of the quotation: 

 

 

“People use democracy as a free-floating abstraction disconnected from reality. Democracy in and of itself is not necessarily good. Gang rape, after all, is democracy in action.

All men have the right to live their own life. Democracy must be rooted in a rational philosophy that first and foremost recognizes the right of an individual. A few million Imperial Order men screaming for the lives of a... much smaller number of people in the New World may win a democratic vote, but it does not give them the right to those lives, or make their calls for such killing right.

Democracy is not a synonym for justice or for freedom. Democracy is not a sacred right sanctifying mob rule. Democracy is a principle that is subordinate to the inalienable rights of the individual.”
― Terry Goodkind

Meanwhile, the "gang-rape" part of the quote was going viral and Nordin had to face the online lynch mob. 
 

Rather comically SPP's Lina Chiam put up a statement on the Facebook:

 

"In Singapore, we aspire to be a nation that is free to consider and tolerate different opinions in business, academic, political and to some extent religious spheres. However we clearly need to avoid outrageously chauvinistic statements tha...t condone rape culture. This is not a tall order, and our leaders should observe this.

I therefore regret that the MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh Mr Zainudin Nordin has reproduced on his Facebook page an abhorent quotation which characterises gang rape as 'democracy in action'. As a woman and an advocate of democracy, I urge Mr Zainudin to retract his statement and apologise to women in Singapore."


I guess that we have come to expect that a PAP MP is bound to speak disparagingly or in a less than flattering manner about democracy.  There has been a consistent pattern of PAP leaders speaking in favour of a model of government based on some degree of control and speaking against the wholesale import of Western-style democracy.  The messiness, the inefficiency and the chaotic tendencies of so-called liberal democracies is usually cited as a reason why Singapore's 'nannycracy' is a better model. 

I do, therefore, understand the reason why there was a knee-jerk reaction amongst many in assuming that Nordin had made an anti-democratic statement.  By posting a quote that referred to democracy as 'gang-rape in action', the MP appeared to many to be presenting democracy in a bad light. 

But, what does the quotation actually say.  What did Terry Goodkind intend to convey?  Making the right sense out of the quote would involve us understanding that the crudest form of a democracy is based on majority rule.  If one were to accept such a model of democracy, the will of the majority can be imposed on the minority.  If a majority of citizens in a country favour genocide, then genocide can be justified in such a version of democracy.  The Holocaust in Germany was, after all, carried out by a democratically elected government.  It is in this context that Goodkind referred to democracy as "gang-rape in action"

It is pretty obvious that the author intended to convey the view that rights of individuals must be allowed to trump the collective communal goals of society.  Majority rule must always be subject to the enlightened protection of the rights of the minority.  An individual is a minority of one.

The Terry Goodkind quotation presents Nordin as a liberal.  It presents him as someone that would advocate that whilst the majority of the country may demand a particular course of action, he would seek to ensure that the rights of individuals are not trampled upon.  I guess, that is the part that doesn't gell. 

I suspect that Nordin was going for another effect.  He probably found the quotation appealing for a different reason.  The PAP has been insisting for some time now that good leaders must resist adopting a populist approach to leadership.  The government should not pander to the demands of the crowd and it must be willing to take bold and unpopular decisions.  PAP's insistence on not going down the populist road is not based on a desire to uphold the rights of individual citizens.  In fact, often the PAP government's justification for compromising on individual rights is based on the importance of the community's collective goals.  The gang-rape version of democracy is what we get when majority moral sentiment is used as a basis for the rentention of laws that infringe upon the rights of individuals.  Communitarian goals trump rights in the gang-rape version of democracy. 

Nordin probably threw that quotation in because it appeared to justify the need to avoid populism.  But, Goodkind was in fact championing the rights of the individual.  That (championing individual rights), based on historical record, has not been the operating philosophy of Nordin's party. 

In the end, was there a need for Nordin to apologise for the quotation?  This is one incident that, I would unequivocally state, did not warrant an apology.  The quotation is against a majoritarian approach and is in favour of protecting individual rights.  I don't mind, and I approve of, this kind of infiltration into the mind of a PAP MP. 

(As for those that seek to read mysogyny into the 'gang rape' reference, please get a dictionary and look up the meaning of the word 'analogy')

 

If I were a Punggol East resident...

Firstly, I am not a Punggol East resident.  But, the dynamics of this by-election is quite different from the Hougang by-election and I was wondering how I would vote if I were a Punggol East resident. 

I have voted in three general elections so far and each time my vote was an anti-PAP vote rather than a genuine vote for the opposition party itself.  It is probably true to say that most Singaporean voters that vote for the opposition do so as a direct result of the need to keep the PAP's unbridled power under check. 

Judging from the online discussions, it is clear that this by-election is turning out to be as much about a vote in favour of an opposition party as it is about a vote against the PAP.  A developing issue of WP's performance in Parliament since the 2011 GE is capable of turning out to be the decider for some voters.  The issues as raised during the hustings have focused on PAP's policies, WP's performance in Parliament and the question of what SDA and RP might bring to the table if elected. 

PAP has clearly benefitted from this four-cornered fight as there has been (arguably) more discussion (amongst opposition supporters) about which opposition candidate to vote for rather than about the PAP's policies.  There is a possibility that enough disarray has been created within the opposition ranks to secure a PAP win even if the PAP polls less than 50% of the votes. 

If I were a Punggol East resident, I'd be worried about how my vote might affect the outcome.  All Singaporeans have experienced the effect of vote splitting in the First Past the Post system.  The Presidential Election in 2011 was a painful lesson for many of us.  Clearly, in a two-horse race, the non-PAP endorsed candidate would have won.  A resident in Punggol East voting for the opposition would be very wary about voting for either SDA or RP.  In the 2011 GE, WP had already picked up a sizeable chunk of the opposition vote in that ward with SDA's candidate losing his deposit. 

The only reason why a voter that voted for WP might vote otherwise in this by-election is because of the repeated noise in the mainstream media as well as online about the poor performance of WP in Parliament.  Much has been made about how they backed away from issues and failed to be combative or to provide ideas and about the fact that they have not tabled any motions for debate and have been satisfied with tabling Parliamentary questions.  (I have my reservations about some of the anti-WP rhetoric that is floating around on the net and although WP's performance can be improved, it is not as bad as it is made out to be.)

Some postings online (especially by individuals claiming to be Punggol East residents) seem to indicate that there's a possibility that SDA or RP would pick up some votes at the expense of the WP and also that there may be an increase in spoilt votes.  An increase in spoilt votes is a distinct possibility.  I was talking to a taxi driver yesterday and he was complaining about WP's performance and said that if he could vote, he would spoil his vote as a protest.  I chided him for his attitude and gave him a lecture about the importance of the vote.  We complain so much about the PAP.  But, when it comes to exercising the right to vote, we cop out.  That might have been just one taxi driver.  But, I think that it is indicative of a certain disenchantment that some voters are feeling about the WP. 

So, how would I vote?  Gaining opposition seats in Parliament as quickly as possible is of paramount importance if we are to claw back the PAP's total grip on power.  The magic number is 30 opposition seats to deprive PAP of its 2/3 majority.  Realistically, this should be the short-term goal (to be achieved by next GE or the one after that).  Every seat that is capable of turning opposition must be made to count.  Punggol East was close in the last GE.  PAP received 16,994.  The combined opposition vote was 14,164.  In terms of absolute numbers, that is a small difference to make up.  If every opposition vote goes to the WP, there is a realistic chance of displacing the PAP. 

Amongst the candidates fielded, I have to admit that Kenneth Jeyaratnam from the RP would be a very useful addition to Parliament.  (I was initially upset to see a multi-cornered fight developing and like many Singaporeans I considered RP, SDA and SDP as spoilers before changing my view on that http://www.article14.blogspot.sg/2013/01/punggol-east-opposition-win.html)   Given his background and with the budget debates coming up, one can expect some serious questions to be asked about our Executive's spending.  Personally, I'd like to have someone with finance background from the opposition to be in Parliament.  But, clearly, it is unlikely that RP would garner sufficient votes.  (Sometimes I feel that KJ needs some PR guidance.)  WP and PAP would be the frontrunners.  So, as a natural progression in the first past the post system, there will be a tendency to vote tactically.  That, in fact, is what I will do.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo


I'd go for WP, not because I am thoroughly convinced that their candidate is the best, but because they have the most realistic chance of winning the seat.  Tactical voting.  (In any event, they do have a down-to-earth, likeable candidate.)

In the end, if Punggol East were to turn against White, it would be because of a significant amount of tactical voting that turned the vote blue. 

What do I expect to see on Saturday?  There will be a swing against the PAP.  The question is as to how much of a swing it would be.  There might be an increase in the number of spoilt votes.  Who's going to win?  That is anybody's guess.  But, I'd be rooting for the Hammer.

Terminating Aljunied Town Council's Contract: What's their AIM?

Palmergate is yesterday’s news.  Let’s move on.  He’s human.  He erred.  He has resigned.  This is now a personal issue for him to deal with his family.  What remains to be sorted out is the vacant Parliamentary seat.  Even though the current judicial interpretation of the Constitution would result in a full discretion for the PM to decide whether or not to hold a by-election in Punggol East, it would be politically prudent for the PM to call for one in order to avoid the further hardening of moderate voters against the PAP. 

Amidst all this, and amidst online discussion about the undesirably close (though not necessarily improprietous nor unlawful) relationship between PA and PAP (with Michael Palmer and Laura Ong providing the useful metaphor of being in bed with each other), the Workers’ Party’s  Sylvia Lim has revealed that a certain Action Information Management Pte Ltd manages the computing and financial system for PAP run Town Councils.  This information has surfaced as a result of Sylvia Lim’s public clarification as to the reason for delays in her Town Council’s audited statements.  The following is from her statement:

"After the GE in May 2011, the Town Council was served with a notice that the Town Council’s Computer and Financial Systems will be terminated with effect from 1 August 2011 due to material changes to the membership of the Town Council. This Computer and Financial Systems had been developed jointly by the 14 PAP Town Councils over a period of more than 15 months but was in January 2011 sold to and leased back from M/s Action Information Management Pte Ltd, a company which was dormant. This effectively meant that the AHTC had to develop its own equivalent systems, in particular the Financial System, within a 2 months’ timeframe."

Sylvia Lim has brought this information up in the context of explaining delays to the audit of the Town Council.  She does ask the relevant question as to why the Computer and Financial System was sold to Action Information Management (AIM).   Although AIM director, S Chandra Das, has attempted to clarify that they were willing to grant a further extension if requested, he has not stated anything about how or why AIM was awarded this contract in the first place. 

At this point in time we do not know what is the price for which the 14 PAP run Town Councils sold their Computer and Financial Systems to AIM. 

Let’s assume that the System was valued at market value through an independent valuation process and sold to AIM.  AIM then leased it back to the Town Councils.  The Town Councils will now be contractually bound to pay a price to AIM under the terms of this leasing agreement.  What is the contracted price?  Is there a profit derived by AIM through the purchase by them of the System and the subsequent lease back to the Town Councils?  If so, what is the amount of profit so derived?

Whilst it is understandable that a Town Council might commission a third party to develop a system, it is indeed strange that a system developed by a Town Council should be sold to a third party only to be leased back to the Town Council.  But, perhaps the third party might have had particular skill and expertise that it could bring to bear in relation to the system.  If that were the case, what was the specific skill and expertise that AIM brought with it in order to justify this contractual arrangement.  Sylvia Lim claims that AIM was a dormant company.  (The company’s registration number is 199103607Z.  That would mean that it was incorporated in 1991.  Perhaps it was operational for some time.)

What was the process by which AIM was awarded this sale and lease back contract?  Was it done through a tender process?  Considering that the directors of AIM are ex PAP MPs, did the Town Councils invest in extra effort in going through a transparent process in awarding the contract (so as to avoid inviting unwarranted allegations of impropriety)?

On the assumption that AIM derives no profit from the contract, why would a private company want to enter into a contractual arrangement where it is not going to benefit at all?  That leads us to come up with a grand conspiracy theory (which was probably what Sylvia Lim was hinting at).  Anticipating that PAP might lose control of more constituencies at GE 2011 and therefore some Town Councils, the Computer and Financial System might have been sold off to a third party with a lease back arrangement.  The contract provided for termination by giving a month’s notice.   In the event that a Town Council management falls into the hands of an opposition party, AIM’s services could be withdrawn by giving 1 month’s notice.  There is nothing illegal about it.  Just some old-style politics.  The kind of politics that we hope to eventually see the back of.  

PAP leaders have recently lamented the increasing polarization of Singaporeans and expressed their wish that we don’t embrace divisive party politics.  The problem is that it is the PAP’s traditional approach of demonizing, maligning and disadvantaging opposition parties that has caused a certain degree of anger and frustration amongst many voters and led to the kind of online vitriol that we witness on and off. 

Expecting civility in politics would mean that one has to be civil in the first place.  It is not too late.  We can start afresh.  We can start by looking at all the aspects of our electoral and political system that creates a less than level playing field and seek to change that.  Right now, that looks like a mammoth task.  It may involve a systemic overhaul.  Many citizens are arguably ready for it.  But, is there the political will or desire for it?

 

 

Treating a person to induce him to attend an election rally is an offence

I know that for some time now, during election season, we have heard stories about residents being transported to PAP rallies and being given food and drinks.  There was even one youtube video (originating from the 2011 general elections) that appears to contain a "testimony" by a rally goer that she was asked to come to the rally and that food would be given to those that came. 

When the Hougang by-election campaign was going on, I blogged about whether something similar had taken place at the rallies.  Let me be clear on this.  My question is meant for both the PAP and the WP. http://article14.blogspot.sg/2012/05/any-food-drinks-or-vouchers-at-by.html

In my conversations with friends, and arising out of some comments that I have read online, it appears that many people consider 'treating' rally goers or voters as being underhanded and sometimes comically desperate.  Many people appear not to be aware of the fact that treating a person by providing food or drinks for the purpose of influencing that person's vote or inducing him to attend a rally is in fact an offence under s.58 of the Parliamentary Elections Act:

58. —(1) A person shall be guilty of treating if he corruptly, by himself or by any other person, either before, during or after an election, directly or indirectly gives or provides, or pays wholly or in part the expense of giving, any meat, drink, refreshment, cigarette, entertainment or other provision or thing or any money or ticket or other means or device to enable the procuring of any such meat, drink, refreshment, cigarette, entertainment or other provision or thing, to or for any person —

(a) for the purpose of corruptly influencing that person or any other person to vote or refrain from voting;

(b) for the purpose of inducing that person to attend or remain at any election meeting;

(c) on account of any such person or any other person having voted or refrained from voting or being about to vote or refrain from voting at the election; or

(d) on account of any such person having attended an election meeting.

As required under the law, Desmond Choo and Png Eng Huat have filed their respective Returns on election expenses.  On 2nd July 2012, the Returning Officer issued a notice under s.75 of the Parlimentary Elections Act stating that the Returns are available for inspection. http://www.eld.gov.sg/gazette/G_ParE2012/2012-07-02%20Notice%20under%20section%2075.pdf

Ordinarily, I wouldn't have been too concerned or curious about the expenses.  But, my eyebrows were raised when I read a ChannelNewsAsia article: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1210457/1/.html

There's a line in there that states: "Mr Choo said the main expenses incurred were for the rallies and meals."

Meals?  I hope that those were meals eaten by Mr Choo and his party workers that worked on the by-election campaign.  If these meal expenses went towards feeding rally goers, s.58 of the Parliamentary Elections Act could be triggered.  The Returns are available for inspection at the  Elections department for a 6 month period.  I might just pop down to take a look at the expenses if I can get away from work commitments.  (or some other blogger/reporter from TOC or TRE might do it. :-)  It would be interesting to see what sum of money was involved in relation to meals.  Similarly, it would be interesting to see if Png Eng Huat had expended such sums. 

Incidentally, for those that might be crying foul instantly and calling for the prosecution of Desmond Choo, take note of the fact that there is sufficient wriggle room in s.58 to argue that no offence was committed.  These phrases could afford some room for the benefit of doubt to be given:  "for the purpose of corruptly influencing", "for the purpose of inducing".  An individual could argue innocence on account of having provided the food or drink independant of the purposes in s.58(1)(a) or s.58(1)(b). 

Well, let us see what the explanation would be.

To SPP: Don't oppose the Bishan nursing home

The Ministry of Health plans to build a nursing home at Bishan Street 13. This is a good thing and it should be welcome. Too often, Singaporeans are found complaining that the current government is not doing enough for the elderly and the poor. I would, therefore, expect that a decision to build a nursing home would therefore be welcome.

However, as in the past, residents living near the affected area are unhappy with the idea of a nursing home being built in the vicinity of their homes. Whilst welcoming the idea of a nursing home, these residents are not happy that it would be in their own backyard. What's wrong with my fellow Singaporeans? Why such selfishness?

To be fair, it has been reported that some residents welcome the idea. Besides, those individuals that are opposed to the building of the nursing home might well be in the minority. But, the disconcerting fact is that this is not the first time that residents living in a particular locality have opposed the building of a facility that would have served a larger communal goal. Why is the narrow-minded asset-enhancement mentality so entrenched in us that we are so troubled by worthwhile welfare projects cropping us near our housing estates?

Whilst I was not too surprised by the fact that some residents were unhappy about the decision to build a nursing home, I was definitely surprised to read a statement from the Singapore Peoples Party about this issue:

28 May 2012

The proposed nursing home at Bishan Street 13

The SPP believes in a humane and just Singapore, where the disadvantaged such as the elderly will be looked after with dignity. The proposed nursing home in Bishan will be an essential facility towards this, but the residents most affected deserve consideration.

Alternative sites should be actively sought. The location of the nursing home in this case is still negotiable. A voting exercise similar to that for the Lift Upgrading Programmes should be conducted to determine the site for the nursing home. A more entrenched culture of greater consultative decision-making can only be good for Singapore in the long term.

From what we understand, the residents in Toh Yi Drive who faced a similar incident a few months ago were in fact more unhappy that they were not properly consulted before the plans were drawn up, rather than the plans for building the nursing home in itself.

The situation we are in is caused by the PAP Government’s policy of “asset enhancement”. It has been drummed into Singaporeans that their HDB flat is not only a home, but also an asset that they can cash-out in their old age. It is naturally a hard sell asking Singaporeans to accept anything likely to devalue their ‘retirement plan’. This situation will not be fully resolved until Singapore returns to when a HDB flat is affordable housing, when retirement savings are diversified and liquid, and when Community regains its importance in Singaporeans’ lives.

The SPP has observed the good work of the various Lions organisations among the elderly and poor in Bishan and Toa Payoh. We thank them and encourage them to persevere in their efforts. Going forward, we hope to be able to work closely with them in our service to Bishan-Toa Payoh residents.

Finally, we note that residents will need more information and will need to be consulted thoroughly throughout the planning, construction and operations for the nursing home, should it proceed. The SPP will be engaging Bishan residents for their in-depth views during our scheduled walkabout this Sunday, 3 June 2012, beginning 9am that will cover Bishan Street 13. The SPP will work constructively with the Government, residents and the Lions Home for the Elders on this issue.


CHIAM SEE TONG
Secretary-General, SPP

I believe that there was no necessity for the SPP to wade into this issue. I have to admit that statement is finely poised and nowhere in there does Mr Chiam See Tong rubbish the need for a nursing home. He takes issue with the lack of consultation. However, should any government really be held ransom to popular sentiment when making decisions about land use especially when the use of the land is for the greater good of the community? After all, we are not talking about residential property being acquired and destroyed in order to make way for a golf course or a highway. Nor are we talking about destroying a heritage site in order to construct a highway. Even in instances where people may feel justified in objecting to government decisions on land usage, I do not believe that government decision making should be tied to a issue based voting by citizens. The SPP's idea of having a voting exercise similar to the Lift Upgrading Programme is in my view undesirable.

I do not oppose the idea of consultation. In fact, I welcome the suggestion that the government should consult before making decisions on land use where there may be significant impact on the properties of citizens. But, such consultation should not result in an expectation that the government should be restrained from exercising its discretion and making a decision one way or the other. Democracy in the form of a general mandate to govern based on a package of policies is one thing. This should not be confused with an anarchic attempt to engage in popular decision making on every single administrative and policy task.

I have often taken a critical stance against the PAP on matters pertaining to the law and the Constitution and in relation to the rights of individuals. But, I welcome the building of nursing homes. They are needed. As much as we demand that our government be more compassionate, we should examine ourselves and ask whether we are even taking any effort to cast aside at least a minute amount of our money-faced selfishness.

This is Hougang

I am a Liverpool fan. There is a famous sign at Liverpool's stadium that reads: "This is Anfield". It is awe-inspiring for every football player that has worn that famous red jersey and for every fan around the world that has seen that sign. In the days when Liverpool dominated the league, piling up victory after victory, "This is Anfield" was an intimidating statement to be confronted with as opposing teams entered the couldron.

Our politicians are fond of footballing analogies. This is my footballing analogy:

THIS IS HOUGANG!

When it comes to election statistics, the national norm does not apply to Hougang. When it comes to voter behaviour, the national norm does not apply to Hougang. When it comes to standing up to intimidation, the national norm does not apply to Hougang. There is something strong, resilient and courageous about the people of Hougang. I know a few Hougang residents personally. The ones that I know have been voting for the Workers' Party repeatedly. Why did these friends vote for WP? Check and balance in Parliament! That is the answer. What is particularly sophisticated about this way of voting is that these friends did not consider their local municipal issues as the key determinant for voting during a Parliamentary election. They understand that essentially in our system of democracy, we are voting for representatives in Parliament so that if there is a sufficient majority, that party could form the government and if not, those representatives could act as an effective check and balance. These friends are fully aware that the PAP's parliamentary majority is not under any threat. These friends are also uncomfortable with the size of the PAP's Parliamentary majority where Constitutional amendments can be pushed through. For these friends of mine, a strong opposition presence in Parliament of between 20 to 30 members would serve as a way to push the PAP to implement more people friendly policies and to monitor the way that the government functions.

So, what do they think about upgrading and other bullying tactics? It doesn't figure in their voting. In fact, I suspect that it enrages them and entrenches the WP vote.

As I observed the campaign by the two sides during this by-election, I can't help but realise that the PAP has lost the plot when it comes to the 'new normal'. Here was a perfect opportunity to show everyone that they have emerged from GE 2011 wiser and are now willing to go down the road of clean politics. But, this has become an opportunity squandered with them attempting to make an issue out of Yaw Shin Leong's selection and then making an issue out of Png Eng Huat's non-selection for the NCMP position in the last GE. What we saw was the same old tactics. I doubt that the campaign approach is going to go down well with Hougang voters.

What do I think will be the outcome of this by-election? WP will win, of course. I am sure that if this was open for a bet, even the PAP leaders would bet on a WP win. What would be interesting is the % of the win. How wide a margin would the WP get? Would they lose some ground? Would they gain more?

Firstly, I always assume a core group of PAP supporters and opposition supporters exist in every constituency. These voters would not change their vote. Yaw-gate and NCMP-gate will not move the strong WP supporter in Hougang to vote for the PAP. PAP's bullying and dirty campaign tactics will not move the hardcore PAP suporter into feeling disgusted and voting for the WP.

So, it is the middle ground that we are looking at.

I also suspect that most of the middle ground had already voted for WP in GE 2011. The PAP's 35% in Hougang (during GE 2011) represents the hardcore PAP support that exists throughout the country. (I use the Dr Tony Tan voters during the PResidential election as a gauge of the 'PAP-whatever-the-situation' vote in Singapore.)

In GE 2011, WP was scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of middle ground voters. It will be an uphill task to convert more of them, unless new voters added onto the register this year turn overwhelmingly towards the WP. Even then, it would be a small number. Maybe, we might tweak the national average a little bit since this is Hougang. So, instead of a hardcore 35% PAP supporters, we might assume that there is a 30% hardcore support for PAP in Hougang. If that is the case, there may be some votes to be scraped away from the PAP by the WP.

The probability of an increase in WP's percentage is very low. On the other hand, there is a reasonably high probability of WP's vote share going down. Any shift downwards would be by 1% to 3%. Any shift upwards would be 1% at the most. Anyone seeking to get the impact of a referrendum out of this by-election would be severely disappointed. The way that the campaign has been reported in the media and the way the online media has focused attention on 'NCMP-gate', the more important national issues have not been given any prominence and I am pretty certain that this is not going to turn out to be a referendum on the policies of the PAP over the last year.

WP was attempting to make this into an election about national issues at its rallies. Personally, I felt at the outset that in a small country like ours, the national and the local gets merged together inextricably. But, the loudest news filtering through the media is about Png Eng Huat's selection (or non-selection for the NCMP post). (And inexplicably the loudest 'political' social media shared event today is the XiaXue fight back against some pretty nasty comments by Facebookers.) The middle ground voters in Hougang may be swayed against Png Eng Huat. But, this is bound to be marginal.

Whatever the outcome, Hougang will remain with the WP. Hougang residents will continue to shout out loud and proud:
THIS IS HOUGANG!

UPDATE:
In GE 2011, the voter turnout was 23,176 out of 24,560 eligible voters. 1,384 did not turn up for voting. WP had 14850 votes (64.8% of valid votes) and PAP had 8065 votes (35.2% of valid votes). 261 spoilt votes.

Based on a Channelnewsasia report today, there are 23,368 eligible voters. Those 1,384 that did not vote would have been removed from the electoral register. New voters added onto the register would therefore be: 23,368 - 23,176 = 192 (bearing in mind that a small segment of the 192 would be those that got themselves reinstated in the register)

If everyone voted without changing their votes and if WP picked up all 192 of the new votes, the result would be 15,042 for WP and 8065 for PAP. That would be 65.1% for WP and 34.9% for PAP.
Similarly, if PAP picks up all the 192 votes, the result would be 14,850 for WP and 8,257 for PAP. That would be 64.2% for WP and 35.8% for PAP.

Why is the PAP anxious to keep national issues out of the Hougang by-election?

For starters, let us not kid ourselves. WP is going to win in Hougang. This is an opposition stronghold and I am sure the PAP leadership and their candidate for Hougang, Desmond Choo, are under no illusions as to the outcome on 26th May 2012. The Hougang constituency has gone to the Workers' Party since 1991 and the election statistics are as follows:

1991 - 52.8% for WP
1997 - 58% for WP
2001 - 55% for WP
2006 - 62.7% for WP
2011 - 64.8% for WP

The demographic change between the last General Elections and this by-election is going to be miniscule and unlikely to have any impact on the voting pattern. There is no reason to believe that voters that went for WP last year would change their minds. There is not much that has changed in the national socio-political arena to suggest that significant change could take place in the voting pattern. There is no doubt that the PAP will put up a fight. But, they would be fully prepared for defeat on 26th May.

So, why are they keen to make this out to be an election about 'local' issues and not 'national'. (Incidentally, I don't buy into that 'local' v 'national' dichotomy. This is a false dichotomy in a country like ours where the 'national' morphs into, overlaps with and is indistinguishable from the 'local' in many instances.) I suspect that the PAP is worried about the prospect of a further swing towards the WP. Even a marginal 2 to 3% increase for WP can be interpreted as growing voter disapproval of the PAP government's performance in the last year. Though it is not fair to consider the Hougang outcome (whichever way the swing of votes goes) as a referrendum on PAP's policies, it is inevitable that WP MPs will attempt to paint the by-election as a referrendum in order to push the PAP on certain policies. For instance, transportation could be made into a major issue during this by-election and if there is a vote increase in WP's favour, WP would use that a leverage in its Parliamentary arguments on that issue.

I am pretty sure that the PAP does not want to be pushed into decision making on policy matters on the basis of the outcome in a by-election. It is therefore anxious to paint this election as one that concerns itself with constituency representation and about effectively taking care of Hougang residents. A by-election as a referrendum is clearly not in the PAP's best interest.

Is an unrestrained discretion compatible with the Rule of Law?

The official position in Singapore has always been that we respect the Rule of Law. When attempts by human rights organisations or foreign governments were made to run us down, our government has stood firm and insisted that we do respect the Rule of Law.

But, what does the Rule of Law entail?

A basic premise is the view that all exercise of power is subject to the law. I, as an individual, have no right to exert power over you in such a way that I might harm your property, your person or your life. Where I may attempt to do so, laws may legitimately be in place to prevent me from so harming you. This is reflected in a variety of criminal offences and civil liability. Equally, the state has no right to exert power over any of us except as it might have been lawfully authorised to do so.

At this juncture, we can take this in two directions. Firstly, the state is justfied in punishing us by depriving us of our life, liberty or property if we have breached a law that has been clearly stipulated. Secondly, the state is justified in exercising a general power of decision making in a way that affects our rights or activities so long as the same is done in accordance with the law.

The key here is the fact that the law is used as an objective and neutral intermediary between the state and the citizen. The state seeks justification for its actions in the law as predefined. The citizen demands that the state's power be exercised solely within the ambit of the predefined law.

This is all well and fine if the predefined law is in fact clearly defined. What if the law is vague? What if the law provides an area of discretion? What if the area of discretion is so wide as to render the law redundant?

Example 1:
In the event that a Parliamentary seat shall fall vacant, a by-election shall be held and towards this end a Writ of Election shall be issued by the President within 3 months of the date that the seat fell vacant.

Example 2:
In the event that a Parliamentary seat shall fall vacant, a by-election shall be held and towards this end a Writ of Election shall be issued by the President within a reasonable time.

Example 3:
In the event that a Parliamentary seat shall fall vacant, a by-election shall be held.

Example 4:
In the event that a Parliamentary seat shall fall vacant, the seat shall be filled by election.
In exercising his power to issue a writ of election, the President shall act on the advise of the PM.

All of the above examples contain discretion. The first example is restrictive and binds the President to issue a Writ of Election within 3 months. The second one restricts the exercise of discretion to a reasonable time. The third example doesn't stipulate a restriction. But, by requiring a by-election to be held, it does not leave it too vague to allow for an interpretation that might result in the election being postponed till the next general election. The fourth example appears to give a broad discretion for the seat to be filled and for this to be done in accordance with the PM's advise.

The broadest way of interpreting the 4th example is to say that the law provides that it is the absolute and unfettered discretion of the PM to determine when he would call for the by-election. Being an unfettered discretion as to timing, it might even be postponed all the way to the end of the Parliamentary term.

Although the 4th example is not on the exact terms as our Constitutional arrangement for by-elections, it is nevertheless similar. Our Constitutional arrangement is something that I blogged about here: http://article14.blogspot.com/2012/02/by-election-when-not-whether.html"

I beleive that the extent of discretion provided in the Constitution does not go as far as to permit the PM to decide whether a by-election should be held. But, it is however broad enough to be interpreted as giving him a broad discretion to decide when the by-election should be held. This is where the problem comes in. A discretion that is unrestrained and so broad is one that renders the rule nugatory. Unrestrained discretion is ultimately an afront to the Rule of Law.

Assuming that I am the King of this country and I were to declare that I will govern according to law, the expectation would be that my discretion would no longer be the basis of exercise of power. Power will now be exercised in accordance with law. But, what if I have a law that says: "Whatever the King determines to be the appropriate tax to be levied upon the people from time to time in his absolute discretion shall be the lawful tax." Such a law gives so broad a discretion to me that the law may as well not exist. The law negates itself.

Some of the broad interpretations of our Constitution as proposed by PAP leaders provide for such a possibility that the Constitutional guarantee of Parliamentary representation is rendered nugatory. Where possible, in upholding the Rule of Law, those that interprete the law (i.e. the judiciary) must adopt a restrictive interpretation on the exercise of discretion. Thankfully, in Singapore we have the Interpretation Act to assist us in relation to issues of timing. So, I believe that the PM's discretion to decide on the timing of the by-election should be restricted both by having regard to the Interpretation Act as well as by having regard to nothing less than the foundational and organizing principle of any rule-based society: the Rule of Law.

New Normal 101: How to react to a vacant Parliamentary seat?

There is general consensus that Singapore citizens have evolved. The old unquestioning attitude is still there in many quarters. But, a significant part of the population is questioning, demanding answers (often vociferously) and refusing to back down. Given the fact that the opposition vote in the 2011 Genereal Elections was slightly over 800,000 and that even amongst many PAP supporters there is a certain amount of disillusionment (that was partly reflected in the significantly small percentage of votes received by the "endorsed" candidate for the Presidential Elections), many commentators have boldly painted the picture of Singapore walking into a new era of politics.

There is no doubt that many citizens today have little tolerance for the politics of yesterday. 'More of the same' is no longer an option for the PAP. For a time after the General Elections last year, I started believing in the serious possibility that there might be a change of style in the way that PAP governs and seeks to govern in the future. But, recent events (threatened legal actions for defamation and refusal to call for a by-election in Hougang) appear to be an indication that it is difficult to teach an old dog new tricks. (For the avoidance of doubt, that is a figure of speech and not an insult in the vein of that PRC student's 'dog' remark.)

After the Yaw Shin Leong saga, I thought that the PM would play the game 'new-normal' style and affirm the Hougang residents' constitutional right. Instead, the knee-jerk reaction was to give an answer that was pretty much in keeping with the old approach. This has led me to ponder on how the PM could have reacted to the announcement of the Parliamentary vacancy. If I was the PM, this is how I would make a press statement:

"What has happened in Hougang is most unfortunate. Not only do we expect persons taking up public office to be of high competence and calibre but also to be possessed of good moral fibre. We do not know whether the rumours surrounding Mr Yaw were true. It appears now that when confronted by his own Party colleagues, he has failed to account to them on the truth or otherwise of these rumours.

Whatever may have happened, we do not seek to judge. The Parliamentary seat is vacant and the residents of Hougang have been deprived of representation in Parliament. This government is committed to the democratic franchise and the residents of Hougang have my assurance that a by-election will be held. I have not, as yet, made any decision as to the timing of the by-election. But, I will not stand in the way of the Constitutional rights of the citizens of this country. A by-election will be called expeditiously and a public announcement will be made in due course."

What has the PM got to lose by making the above statement? Nothing. The reality is that Hougang is a constituency that is not going to revert back to the PAP in a hurry. If the next General Elections are held in 2016, the PAP is bound to lose in Hougang barring some unforeseen developments. There is absolutely nothing to be gained in indefinitely postponing by-elections or in totally refusing to hold one. On the contrary, refusing to hold a by-election by relying on semantics does nothing more than alienate even the moderate voters.

How do you win political capital in a losing battle such as this? You change. You change your own operational philosophy. You recognise that political office is a privilege accorded to you by the electorate. You recognise that the right to vote and the right to have a representative in Parliament is too fundamental to be argued away. You internalise this concept more than any other partisan interests that you might have. Once you have done that, the words will come out naturally. People will notice the difference. People will begin to believe that change has not only taken root in the minds of the electorate but also in the minds of the political leaders. With that believe will come a willingness to engage in dialogue. With such dialogue, the groundwork for winning back votes can be laid.

You can't win back votes through perception management. You can do so if you change your thinking about democracy and the Constitution.

PA or PAP?

You can accuse us of political apathy. But, you can never accuse Singaporeans of stupidity.

I am amazed at the Peoples' Association's response to the Workers' Party assertions about WP MPs being deprived of an opportunity to be invited guests at the 7 month festivites. It has turned out that Chen Show Mao had been invited as a guest at a couple of 'Hungry Ghost' festival dinners. But, the organisers had to withdraw the invitation because the Peoples' Association informed that they would not grant future permission if the WP MP was invited.

This first surfaced via a facebook update by Mr Chen Show Mao and subsequently a press release by Ms Sylvia Lim indicating that HDB had granted leases at several places in the Alunied GRC to the Peoples' Association and taken away management of those parts of the estate from the Town Council. This had been done after the General Elections this year. This is in iself shocking as it suggests partisan politics at play in our public institutions. There is an important value that any self-respecting democracy must uphold: the independance and neutrality of the civil service.

But, I am totally stunned at the audacity of the PA's response.

"The PA and its GROs are non-partisan and do not allow any political party or MP to hold activities on PA premises or other facilities managed by the PA."

"This applies to all political parties and MPs, including the PAP"

There are so many things I can quibble about:
1. The Workers Party did not attempt to hold any activities on PA premises
2. The WP MPs did not attempt to hold any activities on the PA premises
3. Mr Chen was invited by civilian, non-partisan organisers to attend the function
4. Community Clubs are PA premises and PAP MPs have been invited as guests at functions held at CCs.

A simple google search reveals a wealth of information on PAP MPs attending activities or officiating as guests at events taking place on PA premises or facilities managed by the PA.
A sampling:
Eunos Heights Residents’ Committee organised a Chinese New Year Dinner on 20 February 2011 at Eunos Community Club Multipurpose Hall. MP for Aljunied GRC Mr Zainul Abidin was the guest of honour. http://eunoszone3.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/celebrating-the-year-of-the-rabbit/

Passion Nite: on 31st December 2009 at Cheng San CC
Guest of Honour: Dr Balaji Sadasivan, MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC http://www.pa.gov.sg/events/details/passion-nite-159.html

There are too many examples and they are easily available. When the PA decided to assert that they 'do not allow any political party or MP to hold activities on PA premises or other facilities managed by the PA', did they honestly believe that they can get away with that assertion?

I can imagine their response. Those events at PA premises where MPs were present involved MPs that were invited to attend and they were not activities organised by the PAP or the PAP MPs. Well, by the same token the hungry ghost event was not organised by the WP or its MPs. Mr Chen was invited to attend.

Please don't insult our intelligence.

And, by the way who is on the Board of Management in the Peoples' Association?
Lee Hsien Loong, Lim Swee Say, MG Chan Chun Sin, Grace Fu, Masagos Zulkifli, Janil Puthucheary, amongst others. (Interestingly, Mr Yam Ah Mee of GE2011 fame is also there)

Non-Partisan? My ***.

COE FOR THE PRESIDENT

The Presidential Election Committee must grant a Certificate of Eligibility to a candidate before he would be able to contest the Presidential Election.

So far we know that there are 3 serious contenders. Don't forget that there's a fourth chap who has collected the papers for submission, Mr Ooi Boon Ewe. He is likely to be rejected by the Committee (as he was when he applied to contest for the 2005 Presidential Election).

I wonder if the PEC will grant the COE to all the 3 Tans. I believe that there is little doubt that the hardcore PAP supporters will go for Dr Tony Tan. I suspect that the hardcore anti-PAP voter would go for Tan Kin Lian. Dr Tan Cheng Bock is inevitably the one that could be the vote splitter. Would he split the PAP supporters or the opposition supporters? It would be interesting to see.

Given the current political climate, I believe that if it was a straight fight between Dr Tony Tan and Tan Kin Lian or Dr Tony Tan and Dr Tan Cheng Bock, Dr Tony Tan would lose. If we take the general election result as a starting point, 60% voted for the PAP and 40% against. Whilst the 40% can be trusted to cast a vote against the PAP 'approved' candidate in the Presidential election, the same cannot be said about the 60% who voted for the PAP. Many amongst the 60% already showed unhappiness but were either unconvinced by the opposition, inspired by local constituency level issues, cowed by fear or swayed by last minute apologies. I believe that, in a Presidential Election, these voters would not hesitate to vote for the candidate that presents himself as 'non-white'. This would work to the advantage of the candidate racing against Dr Tony Tan.

If the COE is granted only to Dr Tony Tan and one other candidate, I strongly believe that the other candidate would win. If the 3 Tans get the COE, Dr Tan Cheng Bock would either split the pro-PAP or the pro-opposition voters.

Would the 3 Tans qualify for the COE?

Under the constitution the following criteria needs to be met (in addition to others that I feel is not really an issue for the 3 gentlemen):

The candidate must satisfy the Presidential Elections Committee that he is a person of integrity, good character and reputation.

For not less than 3 years, he must have been either a Minister, Chief Justice, Speaker of Parliament, Attorney-General, Chairman of the Public Service Commission, Auditor-General, Accountant-General or a Permanent Secretary;
or
Chairman or CEO of CPF Board, HDB, JTC or MAS;
or
Board Chairman or CEO of a company with paid-up capital of at least $100 million

If the candidate does not meet the requirement of 3 years' experience in those positions, he can still qualify if he occupied a similar position (based on seniority & experience) in any other organisation of equivalent size/complexity in the public or private sector. The criteria here is that the PEC must form the view that the candidate's position has given him experience in adminstering and managing financial affairs so as to enable him to discharge the President's functions effectively.


Given the background of the 3 gentlemen, I believe that the PEC ought to grant the COE to all three men unless the Committee for some reason decides to question or doubt one of them on the ground of integrity, good character or reputation. This, I believe is unlikely.

In all probability we are looking at a 3 horse race.

Where do we go now?

For the last 20 to 25 years, I have had this feeling that our country had lost its soul. I might even add that maybe we didn’t really develop a soul after independence in 1965. We had become mere digits in a giant GDP focused machine.

Many of my friends and some of my relatives have gone away to work overseas or have relocated and given up their citizenship. If you were to ask most of them what the reason for leaving was, one inevitable reason would be that our country was missing a soul. Some would talk about it in terms of the politics here. Others would lament the lack of a balanced lifestyle. Still others may speak of the lack of a creative environment.

To me, these are all interrelated reasons. Our politics has stifled our cultural environment. The ruling party’s overriding focus on economic growth at the expense of everything else has stunted our development as a nation. After all these years of independence, why are we still not a nation yet? (Mr Lee Kuan Yew asserted as much in 2009 when he insisted that we are still not a nation.)

The answer lies in the fact that for too long the PAP has relied on a top-down model of governance that has stifled the voice of the people. Whilst you are trying to lead a whole community, the voice of the people might feel like a cacophony that distracts you from your primary purpose. But, within that cacophony is a yearning for ownership. Each individual wants to have the dignity of being the creator of his own destiny. This collective yearning to be creators, and therefore co-creators of the community’s destiny, should not be shut out. But, this is what the PAP has done in all these years of governing this country.

The PAP leaders have acquired a ‘we know best’ persona and have refused to hear or accommodate dissenting voices or views. This has manifested itself in a range of ways. Letters written to the forum pages of the state media may not readily be published if they are overly critical of the government. Responses from government departments or ministers have adopted a ‘trust-us-this-is-good-for-you’ approach rather than to suggest that they would consider the complaints and look into how things could be improved. This may sound trivial. But, psychologically this is something valuable for the people. We can feel that we have expressed our frustrations and that these frustrations have not only been heard but that they may possibly be the basis on which policy decisions are made.

At the extreme end of the spectrum, too many Singaporeans have grown up with a sense of fear as to what could happen to them if they voiced their views in public. Detentions under the Internal Security Act had caused many of us to fear a government that we saw increasingly as being bent on retaining its grip on power through whatever means possible. The 1987 detentions under Operation Spectrum were pretty unconvincing in terms of the reasons supplied by the state. Roman Catholic church members, social workers and lawyers: these are hardly the kind of people that we consider to be dangerous communist insurgents. But, the government through the state media tried to sell that story to us. Some of us bought it. Many didn’t. But, amongst the many that didn’t buy into the reasons, we certainly got entangled in the state of fear that the arrests induced.

Singapore society fell silent. Social activists fell silent. The Law Society fell silent. We knew that it was not prudent to criticize the ruling party or to speak in support of opposition parties. I remember for a long period of time that any conversation critical of the PAP or its leaders had to be conducted within the privacy of our homes or if in a public place, with hushed tones so as not to attract the attention of some ISD operative. You could be in a coffee shop and the conversation could veer into politics and friends would uneasily glance over at other tables especially if there is a lone individual sipping his coffee for an endless period of time.

As a concurrent development in the 1980s, the youth of that time were displaying dissent at the ballot box. (Presumably it was the youth as LKY was pretty upset with the younger generation at that time.) At its peak the opposition managed to get 4 seats in Parliament and had reduced the PAP’s popular vote to 61%. That was in 1991. Since then the PAP has been effective through redrawing of boundaries and the extensive usage of the GRC system to effectively neuter the opposition and limit them to Hougang and Potong Pasir.

By the time we stepped into the 1990s, it was becoming clear that voicing your views against the PAP was not a prudent thing to do. In the 1990s, we moved from ISA detentions to defamation suits. In a country where the pursuit of wealth or at least economic survival is of penultimate importance, the threat of defamation suits was a powerful weapon against dissent.

But, the last five years have been different in many ways. Little by little people were voicing out their views and getting away with it (with the exception of the law extending its arm now and then to show who’s the boss). The internet gave us two things: an avenue for alternative news and an avenue for venting our frustrations. The 2011 general elections saw online criticism of the PAP reach fever pitch with some really nasty and heated comments being dished out by disgruntled individuals. For the first time in a general election we had policy issues to grumble about and the discussions were not merely about checks and balances in Parliament. (But, arguably the a sizeable percentage of voters have matured enough to realize that the best way to effect policy changes is to have an effective system of checks and balances in Parliament)

Ironically, the government’s decision to adopt a light-touch approach to the internet as well as the decision to allow the internet to be used as a campaign platform became a sword against the PAP. The opposition parties do not have the organizational strength of the PAP nor the kind of structural reach into the population through grassroots organizations. But, through the internet and the internet-savy youth, they penetrated well into the hearts and minds of a frustrated population. Alternative news could not be ignored. The mainstream media could not ignore the online chatter. The PAP leaders could not ignore the sheer anger that was being displayed by the population during the campaign period. All that led to that historic day of ministerial apologies and we felt that Goliath, whilst not slain, was made to have a good hard look at himself (even if he may find it difficult to really alter himself).

Polling day came. More than 800,000 people made their roar audible. A GRC fell. Several GRCs were close. A warning has been served.

We stand now at the threshold of a new dawn. This is liberation day all over again. Not liberation from a colonial power but liberation from the fear that had gripped our nation. Suddenly, we realize that there is nothing to fear. The mighty PAP is fallible. The present leaders are not going to come down on us with the ISA. They appear willing to let us have our say and not quash us or our views.

During the election campaign period, many volunteered their services for the opposition parties. To do this in Singapore takes tremendous courage and a sense of self-sacrifice. Many had to battle disapproval from family members or colleagues or superiors. After the elections were over, many came forward to volunteer their services. I know of many (usually younger than me) who have voiced the intention to serve on the ground with opposition parties either as members or simply as grassroots volunteers.

One thing is clear: Anyone who volunteers in this manner to serve opposition parties is not trying to gain some kind of benefit for himself. The unfortunate fact about most people who join existing grassroots organizations is that they seek some kind of benefit for themselves. I have a relative who urged me a long time ago to join the grassroots as I am bound to benefit through contacts and I could get better clients that way. When I first moved to Choa Chu Kang, a court clerk that I knew bumped into me and suggested that I join the RC in my zone (in which he was a member). His rallying cry was also about the benefits that I could get as a result of being a RC member. I know of many parents who volunteer their services to grassroots organizations in the hope that they will get preference for the primary school where they intend to send their kids. There is only one thing to say about this. It is pure selfishness and self-interest at play. There will surely be some who join purely out of a sense of service and I am not going to lump them up in this generalization.

Unlike the grassroots organizations from which the PAP draws its strength where sycophancy is often the order of the day, the volunteers that are now coming forward to help the opposition cause carry a serious message through their actions. They want change. They want to live their lives with a sense of purpose. This purpose is not in fulfilling their own narrow interests but in pursuing the greater good of Singapore. The political stranglehold that the PAP has had in our country has sucked out almost the last drop of the idealism and hope that we were born with. But now, something has changed. Something magical has happened.

People are rising up. There is a momentum created during the days of the campaign period that has not gone away. Many are carrying this flame in their hearts and surely more and more capable and passionate people will step forward to join the opposition parties. The next general elections will see the opposition fielding very strong candidates with tremendous passion. This is something the PAP is going to be lacking: passion. It already lacks this and it is failing to attract passionate individuals. Neutered unionists, technocrats and individuals climbing up the PAP-engineered meritocratic ladder are the types that the PAP can churn out. Individuals with a passion for the people are inevitably going to cross over the line and towards the opposition.

What do we do now? There is an important political milestone to be reached in our country. We have to prevent the PAP from amending the constitution whenever it deems it fit. Constitutional amendments must be done only when there is a cross-party support for such measures. To ensure this, the opposition must obtain sufficient seats in Parliament to prevent the PAP from having a 2/3 majority.

30 seats in Parliament for the opposition and the PAP’s stranglehold will be broken. That is the target.

This is achievable even by the next election. Those of us that are committed to building an active democracy must do our part. We could volunteer to assist in the grassroots activities of opposition parties. We could monitor the state media and expose any propaganda. We could continue to highlight the policy failures of the government and socio-economic issues encountered by Singaporeans. We could continue to campaign for the reform of the law and our legal system.

We want a just society. We want an equal society. We want a democratic society.

This is not too much to ask or too much to seek to accomplish. It is nothing more than what we have been pledging to do all those years in our school days. For once, the pledge can mean something. We now have a chance to cease to be hypocrites and really do what we have been pledging to do.

“We, the Citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society based on justice and equality, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.”

Change: My wish list (non-exhaustive)

PAP is singing the tune of change... As for myself, I would love to see the following changes. But, I already suspect that none of these would transpire until more opposition voices enter Parliament. (or the PAP is voted out of power)

1. Abolish detention without trial
2. Repeal the mandatory death penalty
3. Repeal s.377A of the Penal Code
4. Amend laws that reverse the burden of proof and place the same on the defendant. (e.g. Misuse of Drugs Act)
5. relinquish control over the local media by repealing the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act
6. Politicians should cease to institute defamation suits
7. Lay bare the accounts of Temasek Holdings and GIC and specifically set out the salaries of office bearers
8. Reveal the details of our national reserve
9. reveal the per unit cost of construction of HDB flats
10. what component of CPF monies are invested by the state and what are the returns on the investment
11. Amend the Films Act to make it compliant with the Constitution
12. Amend the Public Order Act to allow for peaceful assemblies
13. Abolish the GRC system and revert back to the single member constituency system
14. move the elections department out of the PM’s Office and create an independent Electoral Commission to administer elections
15. Legally constrain the Boundary Committee to redraw electoral boundaries only for the purpose of reflecting demographic changes and restrict such changes to once every 15 years
16. Remove restrictions on the arts scene

Change from within?

The catchword for GE 2011 has become ‘change’. Whatever else may or may not have happened and whatever change may be due to take place, the political landscape in Singapore has changed irrevocably in a noticeably powerful way. Our collective fear of the PAP has been smashed in a dramatic fashion. I know that a significant number of people still experience that fear. However, thanks to the social media, for many of us this general election campaign has enabled us to find a voice and a very loud one at that.

All of this noise making has, it appears, forced the PAP leadership to re-examine itself. It is too early to tell if the PAP leaders would in fact change their policies and modify their authoritarian style of government. I am still skeptical. We have heard before about the supposed change in the style of government. But, past actions do not bear out any real attempt at fulfilling those promises.

As it stands right now, it appears to me still that the leadership is engaged in perception management more than anything else. I am not convinced that they are really going to look at their policies to see how they may be changed. I suspect that they may try to explain their policies in a more palatable fashion.

The following is an article that appeared in the Today paper on 13th May 2011 entitled “I wondered how leaders would react: Tan Chuan-Jin”:

BG Tan said what needs to be done is to change the perception that the PAP is a long—time ruling party that is quick to look past public views — even though it has made policy decisions with the best of intentions.
"It’s sometimes hard to pinpoint what exactly sparked that perception. But perception is reality and it’s important because if that perception is widespread, it will erode that sense of support ... and the mandate where the people trust you to make long—term strategic decisions," he said.

My worry is that in the end, the next five years becomes an endless exercise in underlining the official narratives that continue to keep the majority of Singaporeans convinced that this country cannot survive without the PAP. We are a small island with no natural resources. We are surrounded by hostile or potentially hostile neighbours. Our economic progress was solely due to the enlightened economic policies of the PAP. That such economic progress is not compatible with ‘confrontational’ politics. That our society is so fragile that it is just poised to break into chaos if freedoms are given to Singaporeans. That the past track record of a previous generation of leaders is indicative of the present and future performance of PAP leaders. I could go on.

The election campaign on the last day and the subsequent comments by the PAP leaders as well as forum page letters in the Straits Times all indicate a trend where:
a) the PAP leadership has realised that the level of unhappiness on the ground borders on anger and hatred;
b) they have decided that an apology and a promise to change would be the best way to limit the fallout;
c) they don’t appear thoroughly or even mildly convinced that their policies are wrong or may be wrong;
d) they seem to have a sense that Singaporeans have not fully understood government policies and explanations and that there is a breakdown in the communication

What I worry the most is that the campaign of perception management that the PAP leadership may engage in over the next few years might achieve the objective of pulling back the popular vote in PAP’s favour without any real change that the some of us desire; i.e. a change in failed policies, greater accountability for policy decisions and transparency through an effective system of Parliamentary checks and balances.

Ministerial Responsibility, the PAP and the General Elections

We are in a rather curious position in Singapore whereby the General Elections this year could become a referendum on the performance of individual Ministers.

There exists in Commonwealth countries and more particularly in the United Kingdom, the convention of Ministerial Responsibility. The basic premise of the convention is that Ministers are individually accountable to Parliament for their personal conduct, the policies they device and the failures of their respective Ministries. This accountability manifests itself in the form of Parliamentary scrutiny and questioning and often calls for Ministers to demonstrate such responsibility and accountability by resigning from their posts. This would often depend on the severiity of the Ministerial failing.

Three ministers in Singapore could be said to be in line to be held accountable for policy failings or mismanagement: Wong Kan Seng, Mah Bow Tan and Vivian Balakrishnan. Their respective failings in terms of the Mas Selamat escape, the Housing issue and the YOG budget could have been occasions for some blood-letting in countries like the UK. Ministerial resignations may have been in order based on the constitutional concept of Ministerial responsibility.

In Singapore, the 3 Ministers have escaped unscathed. Given that the PAP has an overwhelming majority in Parliament, it is virtually impossible to operate some sort of Ministerial responsibility convention in Singapore. But, Ministerial responsibility in countries like the United Kingdom is a practice that evovled from political pressures rather than a rule that was created for deliberate and consistent enforcement. Given that we are following the Westminster model of government in Singapore, one might expect the convention to apply here as well. However, the political reality of one party dominance has meant that Ministerial responsibility is not a concept that is alive and well.

But, given the way that the election battles are shaping up and the way that opposition teams in the GRCs are angling their arguements, I wouldn't be surprised if Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, Tampines GRC and Holland-Bukit Timah GRC results represent a form of referendum on the performance of the Ministers. The opposition parties have not been pushing on such an agenda. Nevertheless, it is clear that in many of the rally speeches, the YOG budget, the Mas Selamat escape and the affordability of housing has become a constant refrain.

Assuming the voters are listening carefully and getting the relevant access to information, the aforesaid three GRCs could be turned into a battleground to assess and deliver verdicts on the performance of the 3 ministers. I don't see such a concerted strategy to raise direct Ministerial accountability to the electorate as a GE issue. Some speakers have called upon Ministers to answer for their failings. This is being used as a method of highlighting the fact that the high and mighty PAP has its own flaws and failings. But, the opposition parties could convert the general election agenda into an opportunity for the voters to judge the performance of individual ministers.

Afterall, the PAP has been using the GRC system to scare voters that if they vote out a GRC team, they would lose a Minister. Well, there is nothing stopping us then from considering the election as an opportunity to carry out a performance appraisal of the Minister concerned and throw him out if he has underperformed or made mistakes or his ministry has committed grave errors. The GRC is won on the strength of a Minister. On the strength of a Minister, unknown, untested, inexperienced individuals enter into Parliament. Why can't we then sack the entire GRC team if the Minister has failed in his functions?

Ministerial Responsibility can be ensured by a voter backlash. The opposition parties could ramp it up over the next few days and turn the election in those three GRCs into a referendum. That would be interesting.

Graduating from a Spare tyre to a co-driver to a slap on the face!

I must say that Low Thia Khiang is really good with his imagery. His driving analogy started sheepishly by likening the opposition to a spare tyre. But, the truth is that in political terms an opposition should not merely be a spare tyre. I would characterise the parts of the vehicle as procedural safeguards in the system of governance.

Shanmugam was quick to pick up on the analogy and pointed out that in fact what the opposition wants to do is to become the co-driver. But, the analogy came unstuck. He suggested that the co-driver would tussle for the wheel. Wouldn’t that be unsafe for both the driver and the co-driver? Why would the opposition want the country to crash? That would be suicidal.

So, Low Thia Khiang’s rebuttal at last night’s rally using the same analogy was simply brilliant and to really add sting to it he threw in a slap.

"Bear in mind that just putting on a safety belt and hope that the driver will drive you to your destination is not enough. A co-driver is essential, especially as road gets tougher to navigate. The co-driver is there to slap the driver when he drives off course or when he falls asleep or drives dangerously," said Low Thia Khiang reminding us that we are all in the car together.

As the analogy has progressed from a spare tyre to a co-driver, I find that correspondingly more and more people that I speak to are not merely unhappy with the PAP. Many are willing to put their votes where their mouths are. Come the 7th of May 2011, the PAP could be in for a rude shock.

Could the co-driver become the driver?  Wishful thinking.

Gridlock? In the Singapore Parliament? – That’s a red herring

Ms Indranee Rajah made a rather curious assertion in the course of her attack on the WP’s slogan to create a First World Parliament. She wants to convey the impression that with a strong opposition in parliament, policies may be blocked. This is echoed by the Law minister Mr Shanmugam as well. He says that what WP really wants to do is ‘to block constitutional amendments. They will also block other policies they disagree with.”

I’ll leave aside the main bone of contention in the to-and-fro between the WP and the PAP over WP’s slogan. But, an impression being given to the electorate is that a first world parliament as envisaged by the WP would involve the opposition effectively blocking government policies.

Let’s get this clear. If the PAP won 50 seats in this election and the opposition gets the remaining 37 seats, then any Bill tabled by the PAP will still get passed because it has the simple majority. No policy proposal is going to be blocked as the PAP has a majority. The gridlock scenario in the US is unlikely to happen here as our system is modeled on the Westminster Parliament.

Any government of the day is only formed because it has a majority in Parliament. Even in the event that there is a hung Parliament, a minority government or a coalition government must demonstrate the support of the majority in Parliament. Therefore, during any Parliamentary term where the ruling party has a majority, it is always able to implement all its policies. In fact, in the UK context it has even been asserted that the near complete fusion of the Executive and Legislature is the efficient secret of the British Constitution. The efficiency is a result of the fact that a government elected through a Parliamentary majority has the legitimate expectation of implementing its policies and in fact has the sufficient numbers in Parliament to be able to do so.

So, on the assumption of my earlier example of PAP winning 50 seats and the opposition getting a sizeable 37 seats, the opposition will not be able to cause the kind of gridlock that arose in the US. What the opposition will be able to do is to prevent Constitutional amendments from taking place. With 50 seats in Parliament, the PAP would not have a 2/3 majority and they would need opposition consent before amending the constitution. What is wrong with that? It is good to have an effective check in Parliament to prevent frivolous, partisan, imprudent, negligent or self-serving constitutional amendments from taking place.

So, if any PAP minister or candidate were to raise the gridlock issue if there is a sizeable opposition in Parliament is either naïve about the constitutional matters or is ‘throwing smoke’.

Papmandering alert: SPH will brief Singaporeans on the right way to vote on the day before polling day. Every other person: Shut up and Sit Down!

The PAP is at it again: Papmandering - a form of gerrymandering unique to Singapore.

As I defined it in an earlier blog article: Papmandering: 'The art/science of redrawing electoral boundaries, electoral laws and/or the constitution for the purpose of maintaining overwhelming control of Parliament through the mechanics of clearly articulated arguments in favour of an inclusive form of democracy'.

The Prime Minister has chosen to announce, curiously from a faraway place, that a 'cooling off' day would be incorporated into the election process. This, it appears, is to prevent irrational voting. We the voters might be swayed by uplifting, exciting but misleading rhetoric and we might vote against the PAP erroneously. We the voters might be whipped into a frenzy of anger against the PAP and might commit the grave error of delivering a 'freak' election result.

Looks like the PAP has decided that the SPH in its infinite wisdom would be the sole source of information for us all. SPH would 'analyse' the campaign, 'summarise' the issues and present a profile/caricature of all the candidates in the elections. There will be no campaigning on the day before elections. But, will blogosphere remain silent?

The PM has left the Internet as a grey area for now. We would discover once the draft legislation is released. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that they may get so kiasu that they would prevent all unauthorised commentary on the elections either online or through other means. The other real possibility is that recognising that the internet does not possess a sufficient outreach to influence voters, they would take a hands-off approach to bloggers.

Any law that seeks to prevent commentary on elections (where such commentary is not pursuing a party objective but intended to be informative or insightful or even plainy supportive of a political party) would be undermining Article 14 of our Constitution, which provides for the Freedom of Speech. This freedom may be limited under the following circumstances:

Art 14(2) Parliament may by law impose —
(a) on the rights conferred by clause (1) (a), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence;

It would be interesting to see the justification raised in parliament for such a limitation on free speech. The usual public order and security rant may not be viable. A clever argument could be constructed along the lines of 'the privileges of Parliament' vis a vis the electoral system and that might become the basis the restriction.

I don't know. I'm just speculating.

On the assumption that they do restrict online discussion on the day before polling day, the interesting question is: Will blogosphere remain silent?

Uniquely Singapore: Papmandering

Papmandering: 'The art/science of redrawing electoral boundaries, electoral laws and/or the constitution for the purpose of maintaining overwhelming control of Parliament through the mechanics of clearly articulated arguments in favour of an inclusive form of democracy'

We are familiar with the concept of gerrymandering. It is the process by which electoral boundaries are redrawn to produce a distinct advantage for a candidate. Gerrymandering is possible in a first-past-the-post system whereby voting districts that appear to strongly favour an incumbent can be made to swallow up adjacent voting districts that appear to support opposition candidates.

In most countries employing the first past the post system, the principle governing redistricting or redrawing of constituency boundaries is based on the idea of equal representation for voters. Absolute equality in representation is impossible to achieve. However, boundary commissions/committees attempt to find approximate equality in terms of the MP to voter ratio. Considering that the key reason for boundary changes is to take into account demographic changes either due to migration of voters between constituencies or due to voters reaching the age of majority for voting, one finds it unethical that boundary changes could be used to ensure that an incumbent obtains the right number of votes to secure an election victory.

The word gerrymander itself is a combination of Gerry and Salamander. Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusets (USA) redistricted his state in 1812 to benefit his party. In particular, a district in Essex County resembled a Salamander because of the artificial redrawing of boundaries. The editor of the Boston Gazette referred to it as ‘gerrymander’ and the name entered the English lexicon through repeated usage.

The beauty of gerrymandering is that nobody can really prove that the redistricting was a purely political exercise as opposed to the legitimate exercise of ensuring equality in voter representation. In Singapore, many observers view boundary changes cynically even though, to be fair, the voter to MP ratio has been kept reasonably proportionate. Based on current practice, district population deviation is kept to a limit of 30%.

Notable amongst electoral regions that fell prey to redistricting would be Eunos GRC. In the 1997 elections, Eunos GRC was eliminated from the map and its residents were split up into neighbouring districts. In the previous elections, Eunos was hotly contested and the PAP team beat the WP team by 45,833 votes to 41,673 votes. In the 1997 elections, it was Cheng San GRC that was hotly contested and although not quite near the close battle of Eunos GRC, the WP managed to obtain approximately 45% of the votes cast. Cheng San GRC did not feature in the 2001 elections.

I don’t propose a detailed study of boundary changes undertaken in Singapore. There are other studies on this phenomenon. What is fascinating about ‘goal post changing’ in Singapore is not gerrymandering. Obviously, it is a practice that is inevitable and at the same time impossible to prove in the first past the post systems around the world. The fascinating twist in Singapore is the use of the following devices:
a) NCMP
b) NMP
c) GRC

In my opinion, the PAP’s strategy in relation to the trend in the 1980s of increasing opposition support was to provide dissenting voices a platform in Parliament. The PAP rightly sized up the general mood of the public as one that did not seek a change in the status quo overnight. There were hardcore opposition supporters. There were the PAP loyalists. There were those who felt intimidated by the perceived lack of secrecy of the ballot and would therefore vote for the PAP. There were then the voters who occupied the middle ground. These voters have existed in the 1980s and I suspect that they continue to exist. This segment of the population can be persuaded to vote for the opposition. They see the merit of a continuation of the PAP government but have thirsted and still do thirst for a greater diversity of views and voices in Parliament. Psychologically, the ability to vent one’s frustration in the public sphere is a necessity in any society. It is a case of letting off steam.

I suspect that the PAP assessed that by providing a platform for opposition voices in Parliament without allowing these opposition members from becoming fully empowered members of the Parliament they would be able to release some of the pressure that was building up in the 1980s. The Non Constituency MP scheme was a device to permit losing opposition candidates an opportunity to speak in Parliament. By doing this, PAP could tell the people: Look. You wanted us to form the government and you wanted opposition voices in Parliament. We have changed our electoral laws to allow you to continue to vote PAP MPs into Parliament and at the same time have your wish of hearing opposition voices in Parliament.

In the same vein of airing diverse views and in order to prevent public disquiet, the PAP tinkered with Parliamentary composition by introducing the Nominated MP scheme. This time, non partisan individuals could be introduced into Parliament and they could raise the quality of the debate through their knowledge in their respective fields. The PAP would have seen that this would be a way of assuring the public that a multiplicity of views can and will be aired in Parliament. Besides, the PAP might have hoped that the NMPs would appear to be of a ‘better’ calibre than the opposition MPs thereby diminishing the need for people to vote for the opposition.

I see the current proposal of increasing the number of NCMPs to be the latest in this line of tinkering with Parliamentary composition. Given the noticeable social activism in Singapore over the last few years, the PAP must have realised that they risk the possibility of losing a few more seats to the opposition in the next elections. One pre-emptive strategy would be to assure the people that more opposition MPs will get to sit in Parliament through the NCMP scheme. Indirectly, they are telling the electorate again that you don’t have to vote in an opposition MP for your constituency. All you need to do is to continue to have your PAP MPs and as a bonus you will get an increased number of opposition MPs in Parliament. These guys can bark. But they can’t bite.

From a strategic standpoint, PAP would have calculated that the hardcore opposition supporters would continue to vote for the opposition. But the segment of the population that thirsts for a voice can be persuaded to vote for the PAP candidates as they would be assured that there will be a minimum number of opposition candidates who will end up in Parliament even though they lost.

Part of the process of Papmandering therefore involves tweaking Parliamentary composition through amendments to the electoral law as well as to the Constitution. The other part of the process is to magnify the distortion normally produced by the first past the post system. In the first past the post system, it is possible for a party to gain a disproportionately high percentage of seats in Parliament when compared to the popular vote. For instance, a party can get 65% of the popular vote and still manage 80% of the seats in Parliament. In the United Kingdom for instance, every post WWII government with a Parliamentary majority has failed to obtain more than 45% of the popular vote.

Given the lack of proportionality that is inherent in the system, layering the GRC over it helps to aggravate the disproportionality. With the introduction of the GRC system, it is possible that some MPs that may have lost their individual seats are rescued by stronger candidates in other constituencies. The practice of having a Minister head a GRC team places an apprehension in the minds of voters that if the team loses, the Minister would no longer be able to serve in his office. Weak candidates within the GRC would benefit from the presence of a Minister on their team.

Let us take the Eunos GRC example. In the 1988 elections, Eunos GRC was a 3 member ward. The votes in favour of PAP – 36,500. The votes in favour of WP – 35,221. If the 3 constituencies that were a part of the GRC were single member constituencies in that elections, it is highly likely that at least one of the PAP candidates would have lost his seat. It is likely that Francis Seow would have won a seat in his constituency. In fact, with a vote difference of 1,279 votes, I would not be surprised if 2 PAP MPs had in fact lost to the opposition in the Eunos GRC(if only the Elections Department were to release the detailed results).

The same analysis can be applied to the Eunos GRC of the 1991 elections. This time around it was composed of 4 constituencies. PAP obtained 45,833 votes as opposed to 41,673 for the WP. With a vote difference of 4,160, again it is likely that at least one of the PAP candidates would have lost the seat in a conventional single member seat.

Through the GRC system, the PAP has managed to keep some of its MPs in Parliament where they would otherwise have found it tough going in a single member constituency. The growth in the size and number of GRCs was accompanied by the disappearance of most of the single member constituencies. This is another unique form of electoral management that has ensured the PAP’s continued super-majority in Parliament.

To accomplish this feat, the PAP has utilised not only electoral boundary changes but also changes to the electoral law and the Constitution. At every step of the way, the PAP has utilised innovative arguments to substantiate the need for such changes (the need for guaranteed minority representation being one). Many of us are cynical in the way that we view the reasons. But, there are many amongst the electorate who are convinced by the stated reasons.

This process of electoral management is uniquely Singapore and uniquely PAP. It warrants being called Papmandering. Of course, the point to remember is that none of this is unlawful or illegal or unconstitutional.