Tag: Elections

Forcing Racial Rotation For Presidency Is Racist And Anti-Meritocracy

I welcome the proposal by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to tighten the criteria for the Elected Presidency (“Key changes to refresh political system”; Jan 28).

But I believe it is superfluous to force a rotation among the races for the Elected Presidency. Such a policy also assumes inherent racism, as it presupposes that the Chinese majority in Singapore would not elect a minority candidate to the Elected Presidency even if he or she were the best candidate in an election. It assumes that minorities in Singapore are so incapable that they require such affirmative action in order to be elected. It is saddening that after more than 50 years of nation-building, such attitudes could persist in our society.

Such a system will also shut out highly qualified persons simply because they are of the wrong race. Enforcing minority representation for the Elected Presidency flies in the face of Singapore’s policy of meritocracy, as it will no longer be about choosing from among the best and most qualified candidates because of the rigidity of such a system.

Moreover, the pool of qualified persons from minority races is naturally smaller, due to their smaller numbers. This may increase the likelihood of walkovers and reduce the strength of the Elected President’s mandate, in an era when Singaporeans are used to exercising their right to vote in elections. The competitiveness of the election is reduced.

On Thursday, Member of Parliament Rahayu Mahzam, who is Malay, said in Parliament that “we would like to see representation from our community, but we want Malays to be chosen because he or she is the best, and not because of his or her race”. As we move beyond our first five decades of nation-building, we should refrain from enacting policies based on the crutch mentality that minorities will always need a helping hand because of their race.

This view by Dennis Chai Hoi Yim, was published in Voices, Today, on 30 Jan 2015.

Source: www.todayonline.com

January 30, 2016
SDP: Government Should Focus On Enhancing Whole Democratic System, Not Cosmetic Touch-Ups To NCMP System

This is the SDP’s response to media queries about Mr Lee Hsien Loong’s proposal to increase the number of NCMPs:

The proposals by PM Lee serve only to distract the people from the real problems that plague elections in Singapore. A democratic election system requires a free media, freedom of speech and assembly, and a transparent electoral process. If the PAP is genuinely interested in a democratic system, it should take the following measures:

1. Amend the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act and the Broadcasting Act. The control of the media by the PAP is what has kept it in power all these decades.

2. Abolish the GRC system. The GRC system has enabled the PAP to draw constituency boundaries to its advantage.

3. Repeal the Public Order Act. The police stop the opposition from speaking and meeting freely with the people while PAP MPs have free access to the electorate.

4. Lengthen the campaign period. The election period should be lengthened to at least 3 weeks. The short campaign period makes it unnecessarily difficult for the opposition to mount a meaningful campaign.

5. Remove the Elections Department from the control of the PMO. A genuinely free and fair elections can come about only if there is an independent body to conduct and monitor elections

Source: Chee Soon Juan

January 28, 2016
Digital Consultants Helped Six MPs Shine Online In GE2015

It is a job which may not have existed a decade ago, but one now finding increasing currency, particularly among those in the public eye.

Meet digital consultants Natasha Zhao, 29, and Freda Kwok, 27. Among their clients are six People’s Action Party MPs – three of them holding ministerial portfolios including one Senior Minister of State.

This month’s election results were a culmination of a year’s hard work for the MPs who hired them. All six clients were elected. “We worked on their online reputation,” says Ms Zhao. “A good digital engagement plan is best implemented early, during times of peace.”

The MPs identify and recruit residents who support them early on. The digital consultants then advise these advocates on the dos and don’ts of online campaigning.

They use social media monitoring tools to “listen” in on online conversations, then let them know when action is needed. “Part of the battle involves picking the right battlefield. It may not make sense to have supporters go into overly hostile territory,” says Ms Kwok.

Guidelines include having these supporters post replies from a genuine account, maintaining an objective tone, sharing personal experiences and refraining from personal attacks on other netizens.

The tools also determine what type of content resonates with netizens. For instance, posts containing personal thoughts and insights into a candidate’s personal life get up to three times more likes, comments or shares on social media compared to ones on policies.

The consultant might also suggest responses to issues or a cause.

Ultimately, however, the client decides what information goes out.

One candidate, who declines to be named, says residents of all ages follow her on Facebook: “Amid rising expectation from voters and the fact that many may not have time for face-to-face engagement, social media becomes a more important platform for reaching out to these residents.”

Ms Zhao and Ms Kwok, both from QED consulting, decline to reveal how much the MPs paid. Digital consultants can charge up to $150 an hour.

Professor Ang Peng Hwa, an adviser at the Singapore Internet Research Centre, says social media matters can get out of hand: “That some candidates are using consultants shows they are playing it safe. You can’t respond to everything, so you’ll need to be smart about what you reply to, and what you say.”

So how do the other parties handle their social media?

The Workers’ Party declined to be interviewed, while questions sent to the Singapore Democratic Party went unanswered.

People’s Power Party founder Goh Meng Seng says his party does most things on its own. “Our time and resources are limited and our supporters understand that. Our content also feels more authentic.”

Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) chairman Desmond Lim says his party’s efforts include actively monitoring comments on its Facebook page, which is regularly updated. “It is important that comments do not steer mindsets in the wrong direction and dilute the essence of what SDA stands for,” he says.

Some politicians, says Ms Kwok, also rely on help from volunteers, who are not digital professionals but are enthusiastic and savvy about social media use.

“The danger is that sometimes they might not fully understand the complexities and sensitivities involved in digital communications,” she adds.

That is one reason Prof Ang thinks the political dimension on social media here has space to grow, compared to campaigns like US President Barack Obama’s in 2008.

“There was more social media buzz this time round compared to the last election, but nothing really stood out,” he says.

The consultants, however, are optimistic. Says Ms Kwok: “How an item trends on social media will continue to be an important marker in tracking how critical it is.”

Source: www.straitstimes.com

September 27, 2015
Gilbert Goh: Official Complaint To UN – Unfair General Election Ethics In Singapore 2015

To:

United Nations Bangkok

12th Floor, United Nations Building,
Rajdamnern Nok Avenue, Pranakorn
Bangkok 10200, Thailand

Dear Sir/Mdm,

I want to formally lodge a complaint to the United Nations for our country’s recently-held general election.

For the record, I also stood for general election twice – Tampines GRC in 2011 and Ang Mo Kio GRC this year.

For the recent election, the ruling party PAP won by a landslide majority percentage of 70% – a huge increase of 10% over the previous GE 2011 result of 60%.

Many opposition parties suffered from bad losses – right down to the unprecedented 20s percentile mark.

My fear is that if the following unfair unethical practices are to go unchecked, it will be the accepted norm and we may see a one-party rule for a very long time – something which many Singaporeans are uncomfortable with.

Many are willing to accept the mandate of the majority but if the ruling party won it unfairly then the international community such as the United nations needs to step in so that future elections can be conducted ethically and above board.

We hope that independent assessors be sent in by the UN so that the population is ensured of a fair and ethical election from now on.

Moreover, Singapore is a internationally-renowned economic powerhouse with a huge multi-national presence but it is seriously lacking in democratic rights and freedom of speech.

Those who spoke out against the authorities were frequently questioned by the police with some facing lawsuits and jail sentence.

I have listed down the following unfair unethical ways in which our government has won the recent election:-

1. Injection of new citizen voters

New citizens were injected yearly so that they can usher in to vote for the ruling party out of loyalty.

They were mostly hailed from third world countries such as Philippines, Malaysia, China, India and Indonesia and know no other party besides PAP.

An average of 25,000 new voters are added in annually since 2006 and by this election, more than 200,000 new citizens are eligible to vote – mostly for the first-time.

Though we acknowledged that voters are swayed by the SG 50 jubilee celebration and the death of patriach Lee Kuan Yew to vote for the ruling party, new voters from third world countries will be the new force to be reckoned with.

New-citizen voters is the main reason why our government allows in so many foreigners on the pretext of economic expansion but behind there lies a more sinister motive to stay in power forever as they are loyal to the ruling party.

We urge the government to consider that new citizens can only vote after staying with us for 5 years and beyond so their votes can never be manipulated at the onset to help the ruling party.

2. Boundary changes

Boundary changes is the norm of every election but for this recent election it is more pressing as the ruling party faces some unresolvable national issues such as transportation and over-crowding.

It’s share of the crucial majority votes have been slipping since two elections ago.

For this election, boundary changes is also more critical as it allows the government to flood certain opposition-held wards with new citizen voters. It is almost a sure-win way to ensure that they can hold on to their own constituencies and yet able to possibly remove a opposition-held ward or reduce its winning margin.

WP’s Aljunied GRC is one such ward as it saw the winning margin reduced from a five-figure majority victory in 2011 to a narrow 1900 votes (50.95). There is a 3.7% swing against the opposition giant.

In 2011, Aljunied had 143,000 voters whereas for the recent election it has 148,000 voters – an increase of almost 5000 voters.

In 2015, it polled 70,000 votes against the 2011 election’s 72,000 causing it to slip 3.7% to 50.9% of majority votes or 12,000 winning votes in 2011 to the current 1900 votes after counting in the PAP’s share of the votes.

The PAP’s share of the votes, on the other hand, jumped from 59,000 to 67,000 – probably a combination of new citizen voters (5000) and swing voters (3000).

There is thus this fear that WP may not be able to hold on to Aljunied GRC in 2020 when the ruling party pours in more loyal new citizen votes with all things remaining equal.

The government roughly knows whether certain precinct is pro-government or pro-opposition according to the polling station and this is public knowledge by now.

By removing or adding certain precinct from a constituency, it can ensure that the area has a majority of government voters with the awful unfair boundary change that comes with every election.

We urge that any boundary changes in future be effected in consultation with the opposition to ensure that the playing field is levelled.

3. Demarcation of PA from PAP

The heavily-funded People’s Association (PA) is the arm and leg of the ruling party and its reach into the masses is one main reason why it won so handsomely.

It is also unfair as PA is a statutory board which is supposed to be non-partisan but its activities is all along very pro-PAP.

It has a yearly funding of $500 million and its budget is going to be ballooned to $1 billion soon. Its accounting practice is also suspect and is one of the many statutory board that is flagged by our Auditor-General’s office for malpractices.

This is unfair to the opposition as the government is using our tax payer money to fuel it’s own campaign by using unethical means.

Moreover, the chairman of PA is none other than the Prime Minister himself.

We urge that the PA be disbanded or distance itself from the ruling party in everything that it does to ensure that the playing field is levelled.

4. Election Department falls under the Prime Minister Office (PMO)

The Election Department now falls under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister Office (PMO).

This is most unfair as it gives the ruling party a huge advantage especially when the ED can influence significant boundary changes and when it can call for a election after consulting the PM giving little time for the opposition to prepare it’s ground.

We urge that the ED will be independent of the PMO so that it is impartial and just.

5. Control of mainsteam media during election

Our press rankings have been slipping down yearly with the latest rating at a historic low of 153 out of 180, according to Paris-based watchdog Reporters Without Borders.

The government has controlled our press and TV so that it can influence the masses especially during the crucial general election. Information is mostly slanted to benefit the ruling party and this press behaviour is not unlike that of communist bloc countries like China or Russia.

Propaganda messages were played and re-played again during the recent election so that the large middle ground is influenced to vote for the ruling party.

We urge that the government frees up our mainstream media so that the population has a balanced access to information on a impartial basis.

Let the public decide what kind of government they want without improper propaganda through unfair means.

Conclusion

I am willing to speak with the United Nations personally on all the above mentioned matters so that our country can have a fair and ethical election in GE 2020.

We also welcome independent assessors into our country for the next general election to ensure that the best political party wins – on its own merits!

Thanks & Warmest Regards,

Gilbert Goh

Source: www.transitioning.org

September 23, 2015
Singapore: Popcorn Democracy?

Confrontational politics, social media and political apathy — some of the issues raised during MARUAH’s post-election forum What’s at Stake?

After the unexpected landslide victory of 69.9% of the popular votes by the People’s Action Party (PAP) in this year’s Election, pundits, academics and other politically-minded individuals shared their analyses of the result and its implication for Singapore.

Against this backdrop, MARUAH, a human rights group, held a forum called What’s at Stake? on Saturday, 19 September. It comes eight days after polling day

Speaker Alex Au who was one of six speakers at the forum, avoided giving a mere explanation of the result. Instead he posed “provocative” questions for people to consider,among which was the state of opposition politics. Speaking directly to Workers’ Party’s dip in performance — he touched on their reluctance to “boast” of their performance in Parliament and questioning PAP on a number of issues. He felt their inability to score on such matters may have backfired.

Confrontational politics

The writer behind the blog Yawning Bread spoke about the importance of party branding. To differentiate themselves from each other, opposition parties should not just criticise the PAP, but each other, he said.

According to him, in people’s minds, the opposition parties are all the same. Hence, opposition parties should “forget about opposition unity” and be unafraid of contesting each other.

When an audience member questioned the need for “confrontational politics,” Au said, this is “unavoidable”.

Disputing this point, political analyst Dr Derek da Cunha pointed out that the Workers’ Party (WP) had actually performed well over the years because it took a moderate stance.

Role of social media

Dr da Cunha also took to task social media’s role in determining election outcomes. He said it had “zero impact” and that he has been saying this “forcefully for six years.”

Terry Xu, Chief Editor of The Online Citizen (TOC), said that prior to this year’s Election, he would not have agreed with Dr da Cunha, but now does. He noted that despite the satires of PAP politicians his publication put out, voters were hardly swayed by them — presumably to vote for the opposition.

Xu took issue with new sites like SIX-SIX.COM, Mothership and The Middle Ground, urging the audience to ask where funding for these sites comes from, even implying, without any proof, that they may be backed by the Government.

Author and blogger, Sudhir Thomas Vadaketh pointed out the question of funding and the need to moderate one’s content is an issue all media outlets deal with. He added that readers should decide for themselves the credibility of a news site.

Dr da Cunha questioned TOC’s credibility after putting out articles from anonymous sources. He said that while he used to think the site was good, it has over the years become “more extreme.”

In reply, Xu said the people who write the anonymous articles are teachers and academics who are afraid their positions in the workplace might be compromised when they are associated withTOC.

Death of the new normal

Au said that the one point all the speakers could probably agree with is that “the new normal” of higher political engagement after the WP won a Group Representation Constituency (GRC) in the 2011 election “was a figment of our imagination.”

In the same vein, Thomas said the 2011 result might have just been a “blip” and the presumed “death of the apathetic Singaporean” was false.

Singaporeans might be interested only in “popcorn democracy” where they engage with politics once in every four or five years during election season, instead of actively engaging with politics every day, he said.

“Maybe Singaporeans just want the veneer of democracy.”

Going forward?

As per its discussion theme, What’s at Stake?, MARUAH’s forum laid out issues of concern for Singaporeans after the recent election.

Braema Mathi, President of MARUAH, had asked the speakers to provide some ideas for electoral reform as well. Dr da Cunha suggested that GRCs be of “uniform size,” following the practice in 1991 where there were four-members each for every ward.

He also said that the EBRC should publish its report on boundary shifts no less than four months before polling day and that policy changes like the introduction of sample count this election should not be announced “just days before polling day.”

Besides Dr da Cunha, Au seems to have been the only other person to have sketched out some steps forward, with his suggestion that opposition parties brand themselves better and that opposition parties collaborate more with civil society.

Source: http://six-six.com

September 22, 2015