- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Points
- 0
Prime Minister Lee took the trouble to announce the new electoral rule of "cooling off period" half a globe away recently. The main reason is that PAP is afraid that voters will vote irrationally after being emotionally charged in opposition rallies the day before.
PAP actually preempted questions about such act as self-serving by pointing out that there are other places who practice such cooling off period as well. However, Singapore is a rather unique political entity with its mass media being ranked side by side with many ill-democratic third world countries. How could it make comparisons to first world political entities in this instance? There are certain pre-requisites for such rule to be applied FAIRLY. Singapore will fail for the two conditions:
1) An independent Press. All local press is tightly controlled by the government via holding controlling management shares in these entities.
2) Independence of civil service and statutory boards. PAP has openly declared that PAP = government and government = PAP in the past. It would mean that it will not see itself differently from the civil service and statutory boards. Even the tax-payer financed People's Association has shameless declared that it has symbiotic ties with PAP as the ruling party.
It is only reasonable to expect PAP to utilize all the machineries under its control to do up last minute campaigning on its behalf. eg. getting grassroot organizations like RC and CCC to canvass for votes on their behalf. PAP candidates who are usually appointed as heads of such organizations could well attend all activities organized by these organizations during that cooling-off day to continue their campaigning under the guise of "grassroot activities". It has happened before in 2006 whereby PAP candidates have been attending various activities organized by PA grassroot organizations during election campaigning time.
Thus it is only reasonable to conclude that such electoral rules under such ill-democratic political system here in Singapore is only self serving for PAP.
If PAP is that serious about rational and informed voters' choice during polling time, it should have declared the election date 3 or even 6 months in advanced. This is to allow the mass media to give enough exposure to each political parties the opportunities to present their parties' positions on various political issues so to allow voters to have closer scrutiny on them.
Most modern democracies, even parliamentary democracies, have stipulated dates for elections well in advanced. The practice of announcing snap elections just less than 4 weeks before going to poll is not an act that augur well with the notion that the ruling party is concerned about "emotional" or even "irrational" voting.
Workers Party Chief MP Low Thia Khiang has it right on the dot that PAP could use its position as the government to make additional announcement on policies to counter opposition parties' attacks on its past policies failures in its effort to sway voters opinion. This will not be surprising as PAP has always put that arrogant view that Singapore government = PAP and vice versa. I mean it could only happen in Singapore that a ruling party could arrogantly announce that voters will only priority in HDB upgrading as means pork barrel politicking even before the elections is being concluded!
I mean, slightly more than 50% of seats have been contested in GE 2006 but yet, PAP has been putting out such arrogant call to voters that they will only get priority in various government upgrading services if and only if they voted for them! Does PAP really care about "rational" and informed choices? Apparently not. They are only interested in "FEARED" and "SCARED" votes, that's all.
This is all evident with the track record of PAP's past campaigning, right from 1988 to 2006. Their only campaigning tactic is to take one opposition candidate as whipping boy and start to use all machineries available to go into gutter politics of painting them black, putting labels on them etc. 1988, Francis Seow targeted as "womanizer". 1991, Jufrie as "Malay Chauvinist". 1997, Tang Liang Hong as "Chinese Chauvinist". 2001 Dr Chee as "liar" and the "where is our money" saga. 2006, the all famous James Gomez saga.
PAP actually preempted questions about such act as self-serving by pointing out that there are other places who practice such cooling off period as well. However, Singapore is a rather unique political entity with its mass media being ranked side by side with many ill-democratic third world countries. How could it make comparisons to first world political entities in this instance? There are certain pre-requisites for such rule to be applied FAIRLY. Singapore will fail for the two conditions:
1) An independent Press. All local press is tightly controlled by the government via holding controlling management shares in these entities.
2) Independence of civil service and statutory boards. PAP has openly declared that PAP = government and government = PAP in the past. It would mean that it will not see itself differently from the civil service and statutory boards. Even the tax-payer financed People's Association has shameless declared that it has symbiotic ties with PAP as the ruling party.
It is only reasonable to expect PAP to utilize all the machineries under its control to do up last minute campaigning on its behalf. eg. getting grassroot organizations like RC and CCC to canvass for votes on their behalf. PAP candidates who are usually appointed as heads of such organizations could well attend all activities organized by these organizations during that cooling-off day to continue their campaigning under the guise of "grassroot activities". It has happened before in 2006 whereby PAP candidates have been attending various activities organized by PA grassroot organizations during election campaigning time.
Thus it is only reasonable to conclude that such electoral rules under such ill-democratic political system here in Singapore is only self serving for PAP.
If PAP is that serious about rational and informed voters' choice during polling time, it should have declared the election date 3 or even 6 months in advanced. This is to allow the mass media to give enough exposure to each political parties the opportunities to present their parties' positions on various political issues so to allow voters to have closer scrutiny on them.
Most modern democracies, even parliamentary democracies, have stipulated dates for elections well in advanced. The practice of announcing snap elections just less than 4 weeks before going to poll is not an act that augur well with the notion that the ruling party is concerned about "emotional" or even "irrational" voting.
Workers Party Chief MP Low Thia Khiang has it right on the dot that PAP could use its position as the government to make additional announcement on policies to counter opposition parties' attacks on its past policies failures in its effort to sway voters opinion. This will not be surprising as PAP has always put that arrogant view that Singapore government = PAP and vice versa. I mean it could only happen in Singapore that a ruling party could arrogantly announce that voters will only priority in HDB upgrading as means pork barrel politicking even before the elections is being concluded!
I mean, slightly more than 50% of seats have been contested in GE 2006 but yet, PAP has been putting out such arrogant call to voters that they will only get priority in various government upgrading services if and only if they voted for them! Does PAP really care about "rational" and informed choices? Apparently not. They are only interested in "FEARED" and "SCARED" votes, that's all.
This is all evident with the track record of PAP's past campaigning, right from 1988 to 2006. Their only campaigning tactic is to take one opposition candidate as whipping boy and start to use all machineries available to go into gutter politics of painting them black, putting labels on them etc. 1988, Francis Seow targeted as "womanizer". 1991, Jufrie as "Malay Chauvinist". 1997, Tang Liang Hong as "Chinese Chauvinist". 2001 Dr Chee as "liar" and the "where is our money" saga. 2006, the all famous James Gomez saga.
