A Singaporean by the name of Joshua Selvakumar had written to the Straits Times Forum today sharing his views on why Singapore doesn’t need a cooling-off day yet.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced lately that a cooling-off day on the eve of polling day when all forms of public campaigning will be banned to allow voters to reflect on their choices “calmly”.
The opposition has lambasted the latest move as a ploy to score an unfair advantage for the ruling party as the mainstream media is still allowed to report on the elections on the cooling-off day.
The Singapore media is tightly controlled by the ruling party and is largely pro-government.
Mr Johsua wrote that the cooling-day is unnecessary because compared to neighboring countries, Singapore’s “democracy exercise is a quiet one” due to the lack of genuine political competition between the different parties.
He poured scorn on the opposition’s ability to give the PAP a run for its money:
“You weigh the PAP players’ strength, teamwork, game strategy, professionalism and brand image against the opposition players’ lack of strength, teamwork, strategy, brand image and track record on the national front with only emotional support from fans. You know the winner even before the game has started,” he said.
Very few Singaporeans dare to join the opposition to challenge the ruling party due to its inherent risks and “dangers”.
The boundaries between the state and party are blurred in Singapore which is ruled continuously by the same party – the PAP for five decades since 1959.
MM Lee Kuan Yew said in an interview with Petir in 1984 when he was the Prime Minister that he is not afraid to admit that the PAP is the government of Singapore and vice versa.
With the ruling party in control of all major institutions such as the media, police and civil service, it is nearly impossible for any other political party to challenge its monopoly on power.
The litigious nature of Singapore politics which saw a few opposition politicians being bankrupted by ruinous defamation lawsuits also deter potential candidates from joining the fray.
As such, it is hardly surprising that the caliber and quality of opposition candidates are always a notch below the PAP’s though there is some improvement in the last election.
The PAP’s accomplishment of transforming Singapore from a third to first world country within one generation is also difficult to match.
While there are growing calls from the ground to have more opposition voices in parliament, most Singaporeans who only know the PAP government in their entire lives still prefer the status quo to remain.
The recent reforms introduced by Prime Minister Lee to allow more non-PAP voices into parliament may work against the opposition, with or without the cooling-off day.
Pragmatic Singaporeans will be more inclined to vote for the PAP knowing that they will still get the opposition candidate as the “best loser” in parliament to speak up for them.
Mr Joshua seems to epitomize the mindset of ordinary Singaporeans in the last paragraph of his letter:
“We should not have opposition parties for the sake of having them, but rather different voices from a cross-section of society. The move to have nearly one-fifth of non-PAP voices in Parliament is good enough. Too many cooks spoil the broth.”
Despite its clear-cut advantage, it is obvious that the PAP still does not feel secure about its position given the emergence of the new media as a “wild card” which is capable of throwing up surprises on the eve of polling day.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced lately that a cooling-off day on the eve of polling day when all forms of public campaigning will be banned to allow voters to reflect on their choices “calmly”.
The opposition has lambasted the latest move as a ploy to score an unfair advantage for the ruling party as the mainstream media is still allowed to report on the elections on the cooling-off day.
The Singapore media is tightly controlled by the ruling party and is largely pro-government.
Mr Johsua wrote that the cooling-day is unnecessary because compared to neighboring countries, Singapore’s “democracy exercise is a quiet one” due to the lack of genuine political competition between the different parties.
He poured scorn on the opposition’s ability to give the PAP a run for its money:
“You weigh the PAP players’ strength, teamwork, game strategy, professionalism and brand image against the opposition players’ lack of strength, teamwork, strategy, brand image and track record on the national front with only emotional support from fans. You know the winner even before the game has started,” he said.
Very few Singaporeans dare to join the opposition to challenge the ruling party due to its inherent risks and “dangers”.
The boundaries between the state and party are blurred in Singapore which is ruled continuously by the same party – the PAP for five decades since 1959.
MM Lee Kuan Yew said in an interview with Petir in 1984 when he was the Prime Minister that he is not afraid to admit that the PAP is the government of Singapore and vice versa.
With the ruling party in control of all major institutions such as the media, police and civil service, it is nearly impossible for any other political party to challenge its monopoly on power.
The litigious nature of Singapore politics which saw a few opposition politicians being bankrupted by ruinous defamation lawsuits also deter potential candidates from joining the fray.
As such, it is hardly surprising that the caliber and quality of opposition candidates are always a notch below the PAP’s though there is some improvement in the last election.
The PAP’s accomplishment of transforming Singapore from a third to first world country within one generation is also difficult to match.
While there are growing calls from the ground to have more opposition voices in parliament, most Singaporeans who only know the PAP government in their entire lives still prefer the status quo to remain.
The recent reforms introduced by Prime Minister Lee to allow more non-PAP voices into parliament may work against the opposition, with or without the cooling-off day.
Pragmatic Singaporeans will be more inclined to vote for the PAP knowing that they will still get the opposition candidate as the “best loser” in parliament to speak up for them.
Mr Joshua seems to epitomize the mindset of ordinary Singaporeans in the last paragraph of his letter:
“We should not have opposition parties for the sake of having them, but rather different voices from a cross-section of society. The move to have nearly one-fifth of non-PAP voices in Parliament is good enough. Too many cooks spoil the broth.”
Despite its clear-cut advantage, it is obvious that the PAP still does not feel secure about its position given the emergence of the new media as a “wild card” which is capable of throwing up surprises on the eve of polling day.
