C'da,
> *** What rights curtailing are you talking about? Which rights are> curtailed
> in Singapore now that is available in other functioning> democracies?
About Singapore's democracy, here is an artile from one of its own.
"In the elections in 1997, the PAP announced that if the voters didnot vote for
its candidates, their housing estates and apartmentswhich are all
government-owned, would not be refurbished and wouldeventually turn into slums."
I suppose that should suffice regarding any questions of a fullyfunctioning
Democracy in Singapore. The rest of the article/speech isbelow, and I will
answer your other questions shortly.
--Ram
*****************Reality of the state of democracy in Singapore Excerpts of
the speech Dr Chee Soon Juan gave when he was presentedthe Defender of
Democracy 2003 award by the Parliamentarians of GlobalAction (PGA) September
16, 2003Washington DC USA
WHENEVER one mentions Singapore, a few things come to mind: the firstis clean
streets, the second a nice airport and the third Lee KuanYew. Mr Lee has been
ruling Singapore since 1959 when he first becamethe prime minister. His
dictatorial grip on society remains to thisday.I am not sure if you had an
underlying message when you chose this dayto give me this award. But you will
agree that this delectable ironycannot be left unmentioned: You see, today is
Lee Kuan Yew's birthday.
What you don't know about Singapore
Allow me to give you a little bit of the reality of the state ofdemocracy in
Singapore. We still have the Internal Security Act (ISA)which allows the
Government to arbitrarily arrest citizens and detainthem without trial. We had
many oppositionists, trade union leaders,journalists and activists imprisoned
under the ISA for opposing theruling PAP. The longest-serving prisoner is Mr
Chia Thye Poh who wasdetained for 23 years without ever given a trial.
All newspapers, TV and radio stations are owned and run by the Government.
Even the foreign press has come under control when it was suedrepeatedly or had
their circulation curtailed by the SingaporeGovernment.
And as for the labour movement we have one umbrella trade union calledthe
National Trades Union Congress, which is headed by a cabinetminister.
And if all this does not ensure total control by the ruling party,there is the
judiciary. I am sure you have heard how Governmentsleaders continue to take
opposition members to court infinancially-debilitating lawsuits.
Francis Seow, Singapore's former solicitor-general now living in exilein the
US, said: "Supremely confident in the reliability of hisjudiciary, the prime
minister Lee Kuan Yew uses the courts as a legalweapon to intimidate, bankrupt
or cripple the political opposition,and ventilate his political agenda. He has
distinguished himself innumerous legal suits against dissidents and detractors
for allegeddefamation in Singapore courts, and has won them all. The idea that
hecould possibly lose is so fanciful that it could be dismissed out ofmind.
Which judge would be so reckless or foolhardy to award adecision against him?"
Australian Queen's Counsel, Frank Galbally, who observed a trialinvolving
student leader Tan Wah Piow, reported: "In Australia, thecase would be laughed
out of court...the evidence andprocedure...would have aborted any trial in
Australia...The threeaccused persons did not get a fair trial... In my opinion,
it is justa political trial."
The New York City Bar Association, after a fact-finding mission toSingapore led
by the late Robert B. McKay, then dean of the New YorkUniversity Law School,
observed: "What emerges...is a government thathas been willing to decimate the
rule of law for the benefit of itspolitical interests. Lawyers have been cowed
to passivity, judges arekept on a short leash, and the law has been manipulated
so that gapingholes exist in the system of restraints on government action
towardthe individual."
Amnesty International wrote: "Civil defamation suits are being misusedby the
Executive to intimidate and deter those Singaporeans holdingdissenting views…In
fact the government's resort to civil defamationsuits to intimidate and deter
those Singaporeans seeking to dissentingviews may well have a more subtle and
insidious effect than the ISA,in that such suits are not so likely to provoke
domestic andinternational protest."
The International Commission for Jurists observed that defamationlawsuits have
"done little to overcome the courts' reputation asimproperly compliant to the
interests of the country's ruling People'sAction Party (PAP)."
Then you have all this talk about Singapore being open andtransparent. Mr Lee
Kuan Yew chairs the Government of SingaporeInvestment Corporation, or GIC,
which takes all of the country'sfinancial reserves and invests it all over the
world. The organisationdoes not give an account of these investments. His son,
Lee HsienLoong , is the prime-minister-to-be, the chairman of the
MonetaryAuthority of Singapore and also the finance minister. His wife, LeeKuan
Yew's daughter-in-law, controls one of the biggest groups ofcompanies
controlled by the Government. Lee Kuan Yew's second son isin charge of the
biggest government-run corporation, SingaporeTelecom.
The lock-down is complete when you consider that the gathering of fiveor more
persons for political purposes is considered illegal assemblyand that the
Government outlaws public rallies and protests.
Voting for autocracy
But the PAP insists that it is democratic because it conductselections once
every four to five years. We had elections in 2001during which voters were told
that the Government was giving themshares and that they could convert these
shares into money. The trickwas that these shares could be cashed in the day
before voting. InThailand, Cambodia, Philippines, and so on votes are bought
withsandals, rice, and oil. In Singapore the commodity is different butthe
corruption reeks just as foul.
In the elections in 1997, the PAP announced that if the voters did notvote for
its candidates, their housing estates and apartments whichare all
government-owned, would not be refurbished and wouldeventually turn into slums.
We have no independent electoral commission. The campaign period islimited to
nine days and the boundaries, after some very creativeredrawing, is announced
the day before elections are called.
Even then the government is already thinking ahead. It is going tointroduce at
the next elections electronic voting. I don't have totell you how much that
opens up the elections to fraud andmanipulation.
All this means that however adverse government policy affectsSingaporeans
there's not a thing that we can do about it. There isabsolutely no way that we
can hold the Government accountable, no waythat we can affect the
decision-making process.
The march of democracy
If any country can democratise, it is Singapore. When you look atTaiwan, Hong
Kong and South Korea, and see these countries make thetransition to democracy,
I don't see why Singapore cannot do the same.
But why Singapore? Why should you pay attention to this little island?Because
the autocrats in Singapore hold themselves out as some sort ofmodel for the
developing world. As a result leaders such as China'sDeng Xiaoping, Hong Kong's
Tung Chee Hwa, and lately, Thailand'sShinawatra Thaksin have all indicated that
they would like to emulatethe dictatorial ways of the PAP.
And when you think about what Singapore does in the region as far asinvestment
is concerned, there is much reason for us to worry. TheSingapore Government -
mind you, I'm not talking about privateenterprises but the government itself -
is one of the biggest, if notthe biggest investor, in Burma. Much of this money
was reported to beinvested in projects with Burmese drugs lords.
It is my hope and goal to turn Singapore into the hub of democracy inSoutheast
Asia, if not Asia.
Working with the international community
I am humbled by the fact that you have decided that I should be therecipient of
this year's Defender of Democracy. I thank you. As muchas you honour me, you
honour all those who have paid the price for thestruggle for freedom in
Singapore, in particular Mr Chia Thye Poh, whowas imprisoned for 23 years
without ever given a trial. It is on theirbehalf that I receive this award.
It is also on their behalf that I ask for your fellowship indemocracy.
Singapore has laboured under British control for almost 150years since then
early 1800s and then under an autocratic PAP foranother 40 years. Clearly the
waiting for freedom must end, and thelabour for democracy begin. To do this we
need your help. Change willultimately have to come from us in Singapore, but
history tells usthat the international community is the consummate spouse when
itcomes to bringing about political change.
Whether it is through resolutions, statements, or meetings with thecity-state's
officials, I urge you to send an unmistakable message tothe Singapore
Government that it is in everyone's interest thatSingapore joins in the
expanding family of free and democraticnations. Projects and initiatives that
would assist democratization inSingapore would be a great welcome.
I cannot tell you how or when our effort is going to bear fruit, butit would
take someone very reckless, foolish even, to bet againstdemocracy coming to our
shores. As Mahatma Gandhi said: "Remember thatall through history the ways of
truth and love have always won. Therehave been tyrants, and murderers, and for
a time they can seeminvincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it
... always.
On 5/20/05, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Ram:> > > >You are right,
must have confused Singapore to some other country.> >Asides that, though the
facts still remain., ie solutions that work in> >Singapore may not work for
country like India, specially the> >curtailing of 'rights' part.> > > *** What
rights curtailing are you talking about? Which rights are> curtailed in
Singapore now that is available in other functioning> democracies?> > > > >I
agree with you on the autonomous part. Though, I am not sure if the> >'govern'
part will work well for some states (like Bihar).> > > *** I can't say anything
about Bihar or others. But Look at Tamil> Nadu--is it governed well to your
knowledge? How about Andhra? And> Gujarat?> > > >Autonomy for the sake of
better goveranace, I agree, but> >NOT autonomy for autonomy's sake.> > *** Who
is arguing here about autonomy for autonomy's sake? In fact> if I remember
correctly, other than your very faulty response, other> suppor!
ters of autonomy could not articulate a single sentence why> they propose
autonomy for Assam. They would be the ones who fit your> description, and they
usually argue from your side of the divide :-).> > c-da> > > > > > > > > > > At
8:29 AM -0500 5/19/05, Ram Sarangapani wrote:> >C'da> >> >> Are you getting
into the Texas shhotiong from the hip mode too?> >> >Yup! we Texans shoot
first, ask questions later :-)> >> >You are right, must have confused Singapore
to some other country.> >Asides that, though the facts still remain., ie
solutions that work in> >Singapore may not work for country like India,
specially the> >curtailing of 'rights' part.> >> >The closest we came to
something like that was during Indira's> >emergency. Few liked it, and during
those 2 years, India actually lost> >productivity (I read this some years ago,
could be wrong)> >> >>That is why those who want to govern themselves better
ought to be> >able to do >so, as either smaller independent units or tr!
uly> >autonomous smaller entities-- >like Assam.> >> >I agree with you on the
autonomous part. Though, I am not sure if the> >'govern' part will work well
for some states (like Bihar). Maybe,> >autonomy should be given in small
portions, and see how it works.> >> >You know, 'give a man enough rope, and he
will hang himself' shouldn't> >be the motto. Autonomy for the sake of better
goveranace, I agree, but> >NOT autonomy for autonomy's sake.> >> >--Ram> >> >>
>> >On 5/19/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> >> Ram:> >>> >>
Are you getting into the Texas shhotiong from the hip mode too?> >>> >> >--
its a country by itself and is ruled basically by a dictator.> >>> >> Look up:
http://www.travelblog.org/World/sn-gov.html> >>> >> Singapore is a
Pariliamentary Republic, with the President, the CEO, elected> >>
democratically. The Parliament is too.> >>> >>> >> You also complained that
Singapore is very small--thus not fair to> >>compare it> >> with Indi!
a. Well, duh! Why do you think some of us have been attempting to> >> explain,
to no avail, that India's size and diversity is an> >>impediment to its> >>
governance and its progress. That is why those who want to govern> >>
themselves better ought to be able to do so, as either smaller independent> >>
units or truly autonomous smaller entities-- like Assam. And in areas where> >>
size is an advantage, they can have treaties, such as for trade,> >>or
defense, as> >> a federation.> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > From:
Ram Sarangapani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> > Date: 2005/05/19 Thu AM 01:42:00
EDT> >> > To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> > CC:
Assam@pikespeak.uccs.edu> >> > Subject: Re: [Assam] It takes a village> >> >>
>> > KJD,> >> >> >> > In the case of Singapore, its a country by itself and
is ruled> >> > basically by a dictator. Thus the government is answerable to
itself,> >> > and people have no rights, and bureaucracy is c!
ut-short.> >> >> >> > As for Guwahati, the size may be small compared to a
Singapore, but> >> > the City is answerable in some capacity to the the DC,
the GOA, which> >> > in turn to the GOI.> >> >> >> > Its not as if the mayor
of Guwahati can rule with an iron fist to> > > > enforce cleaniness.> >> > In
Singapore even chewing gum is banned (so I have heard). Do you> >> > think its
possible for the mayor, the CM, Governor or even the PM ban> >> > tamul-paan
chewing?> >> >> >> > --Ram> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 5/18/05, [EMAIL
PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > Sarangapani,>
>> > >> >> > > What disadvantage does the city of Guwahati have ,in terms of
size,which> >> > > renders it to remain so unclean? I wonder!!> >> > >> >> >
> KJD> >> > > _______________________________________________> >> > > Assam
mailing list> >> > > Assam@pikespeak.uccs.edu> >> > >
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam> >> > >> >>!
> > Mailing list FAQ:> >> > >
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html> >> > > To unsubscribe or
change options:> >> > > http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam> >> >
>> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >
_______________________________________________> >> > Assam mailing list> >>
> Assam@pikespeak.uccs.edu> >> >
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam> >> >> >> > Mailing list
FAQ:> >> > http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html> >> > To
unsubscribe or change options:> >> >
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam> >> >> >>> >>> >
_______________________________________________
Assam mailing list
Assam@pikespeak.uccs.edu
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
Mailing list FAQ:
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html
To unsubscribe or change options:
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
