Elections 06

To the people who actually read this page to be intellectually stimulated or for various alternative perspectives, despite the irregularity of updates, I salute you and apologise for my cowardice. I really should have written a piece on the elections earlier, but for fear of persecution I waited fir the polling to end. Oh wait a minute, that should have been prosecution. Nevertheless, I shall persevere with this piece.

Before we begin the analysis of Singapore's electoral processes, we should first establish a basis for comparisons of Singapore vis a vis other countries in terms of democratic elections. To this end, I put forward to you that we should stop comparing Singapore's democratic elections with the elections of our fellow ASEAN nations, if they have them at all. This is justified for the simple reason that neither in terms of prosperity nor literacy is there any spheres of parity between Singapore and its neighbours. Therefore, to point at riots in the Phillipines or demonstrations in Thailand and then say we are doing better than they are really does not prove how developed a democratic society we are. It is merely akin to a graduate declaring that he is more educated than a primary school student, obvious and without any point.

Let us begin with one of the silliest pieces of advice ever given by man: put first things first.

(NB: The incidental problem with this statement is that whatever you prioritise as most important to you you will automatically put first, since it is of primary importance to you. The actual idea this statement is trying to convey is to correct your view of what takes priority in life. On its own, the statement is redundant. On another note, what you put first is by defintion first. Hence you cannot put first things second. Its impossible.)

The first phase of elections in Singapore is not the campaigning but the defamation lawsuits. Now in every developed democracy, there always exists a mild degree of mudslinging involved in elections. The school of thought that prescribes discrediting your opponents in advance is rather ubiquitous. In most developed nations, both sides merely counter these 'accusations' over the airwaves. Unique to Singapore is the use of the courts as a countermeasure by the ruling People's Action Party.

Regardless of whether or not there is actual defamation involved or not, the use of the judicial system not merely in defense but in an offensive capacity creates the impression that the judicial system is beholden to the ruling party and as such compromised, because not everyone equal before the eyes of the law any longer. While rather extreme in my opinion, merely demanding justification for its accusations from opposing parties is more than enough. By taking the aggressor's role in suing political opponents, the ruling party instead gives an impression that their opponents have struck a nerve.

Secondly, defamation laws are subject to interpretation, especially when defendants are accused of not directly stating certain ideas but insinuating them. Add to this the fact that the ruling party has never lost a suit, and in winning them often seek to destroy its opponents through bankruptcy, and the fairness of the courts can be called into question.

The second phase of the elections is in the nomination process. It was here where I spotted something rather quaint, before the entire James Gomez saga, which I will deal with later. But back to the rather odd observation. I realised that there were permanent secretaries who were members of the PAP and running for election. This occurred to me as rather weird, as the permanent secretaries are supposed to be senior officials of the civil service, and the civil service is supposed to continue to put into motion government policies regardless of which party is in power. It seemed to me that that the line between policy-mkaing and bureaucracy had beenblurred, whereas they are supposed to be independent entities. What would the world be like if Alan Greenspan were a card-carrying member of the Republican Party?

Now to actually discuss the James Gomez saga. The issue was that the candidate failed to submit a declaration that he was of a minorty race along with his nomination form. The elections department raised the matter, he denied it and then proceeded to make a big fuss. Ultimately, a security video proved the case in favour of the elections department. Now, the ruling party has every right to question his integrity after such an episode. However, to let the issue drag on for three days is uncalled for. It is actually embarrassing to have such a big fuss made out of such a minor issue. Assuredly the demonstrations in Thailand are more socially damaging, but at least when they do make a fuss, its about something rather more significant.

Also on this note, it would not be fair if I did not point out that the Worker's Party could have been disqualified from the polls at Aljunied GRC simply because James Gomez could have been disqualified for not submitting all his forms. And without James Gomez who is of a minority race, they could not contest a GRC at all. So, in a sense, it could be argued that James Gomez made a political gamble and lost, which in the opinion of this writer is no big deal.

At the end of the day, as the polling results come in, a few thing still have not changed. The PAP still rule Singapore, and will continue to do so with good results, as they have in the past. The state of democracy in Singapore is still tellingly infantile, in comparison with our peers. Of course, it has been the most exciting election in a while.
Comments