Thursday, August 18, 2005

Suffrage and Elections

What is "Election"? In general, it is a decision-making process whereby citizen (of a country) voted for preferred political candidates or parties to act as resprentatives in the government.

What is "Suffrage then? It is the citizen (of a country) civil right to vote without discrimination with regard to race, ethnicity, class or gender; or the exercise of that right.

What do we have in Singapore? Our country is known as the "Republic of Singapore". And we have an elected democratic government with the constitutional rights to govern the country. And we practised compulsory suffrage, that is, we have a system whereby any citizen who is eligible to vote is required by the law to do so.

In Singapore, we have a Westminister System where the Prime Minister is the person who holds the most power, and is formally appointed by the head of state (Elected President in Singapore's case) and in reality chosen by the legislative parliament or within the party/parties in power.

Our Elected President is NOT a head of state with ceremonial role <Explanation>. Under the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the Elected President is empowered to veto government budgets and appointments to public office, on the advice of the Council of Presidential Advisors.

Our first Presidential Election was held on 28th August 1993 and the late Mr Ong Teng Cheong (with 952,513 electoral votes) was elected after a contest with Mr Chua Kim Yeow (with 670,358 electoral votes). Was it a contest? Mr Ong belonged to the government and Mr Chua was asked by the government to stand in the election, thereby, was seen as another government-endorsed candidate. Candidate A or B does not matter to the voting citizens afterall. Both of them are government-endorsed candidates and it is a matter of choosing the one whom you know much more details about and is confortable with. Mr Chua was a relatively unknown figure to the general public. Even that, he obtained about 38%<Link> of the electoral votes!

The current President, Mr S R Nathan, won the Presidential Election in 1999 without a contest. And on the 17th August 2005, he was returned uncontested again for the 2nd time.

Elections are FREE and FAIR! Are Singapore elections free and fair? Singapore elections are considered to be fair - the best candidate with the highest electoral votes wins the contest. Freein the Presidental Election? If the prospective candidate has to meet criteria A, B, C, ....., Z in order to contest the election, then it is not so free afterall. In other words, not everyone can contest the election. Therefore, that priviledge (to contest) belongs to certain categories of qualified citizens only.

Taking a leaf from the famous book "Animal Farm" by George Orwell, there is a famous verse that everyone knows of - "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others!". Deduce that idea yourself as I shall not defame anyone here! But I am as annoyed as anyone in Singapore who find oneself having the suffrage without the suffrage! That is, we have the equal rights to vote freely, but we are prevented from exercising that rights to vote!

Nonetheless, the result (of the no-contest election) is as expected by most of us. Refer to my earlier blog on that predicted endgame <Link>.

Oh ya! I have forgotten my manners! Congratulation, Mr Nathan! Congratulation to you becoming the [s]Elected President again!

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Even if there's an erect.. erm sorry.. election, Andrew Kuan's candidacy was doomed right from the beginning with all the smearing going on - some guy suing him for libel (now isn't that familiar?), his ex-bosses coming up to talk about his disastrous performance at work, , mini$ter$ telling us not to look for an election for the sake of one etc etc.

BTW, I am still waiting for the PEC or whatever crap they called the selection committee to explain why Andrew Kuan does not qualify. And I doubt any will be forthcoming.

K.S. said...

No doubt that even if Andrew Kuan managed to get the certificate of eligibility, he will most likely lose - after all these propaganda against him, the weak-minded have been converted many times over.

What is important for the contest to happen is not about Andrew Kuan winning! Neither is it about having a holiday due to the elections!

The point here is to encourage other potential candidates that are highly qualified and eligible to contest in the subsequent elections. In that case, the people of Singapore get to choose the right candidates - the government-endorsed candidates, independent candidates, etc.

And this is precisely what the government cannot afford to do and allow. Remember the case when ex-President Ong started to question (through the media) the usage of the budget reserves? Whatever and however the replies from the government, the impression is always negative and detrimental to the governing party! That's the essence of the whole issue in discouraging independent and eligible candidates to come forward.

Anonymous said...

I don't recall the case of President Ong Teng Cheong questioning about tbe usage of budget reserves, but I do remember when he asked for a list of the assets of the Singapore gover-min, some clown told him that it would take 54 man-years to get it done. What gall!

I recalled telling my friend, if the clown tells me that I will ask him to put 108 men on the job and give the list to me in half a year. Otherwise he can go find alternate employment.

And if I read you correctly, I agree absolutely with you that the essence of the whole issue in discouraging independent and eligible candidates to come forward is to prevent the ruling party itself from looking stupid when confronted with intelligent questions.

K.S. said...

Yes, you are right. The late-Mr Ong asked about the list of assets and complained to the media.

And you are right about the 'essence' of the whole issue too. Do you have the same line of thoughts as myself?

Please read my latest blog on the my analysis on 'what if' if there is a hypothetical elections. Assumptions not supported by facts! haha.

Anonymous said...

"In Singapore, we have a Westminister System where the Prime Minister is the person who holds the most power, and is formally appointed by the head of state (Elected President in Singapore's case) and in reality chosen by the legislative parliament or within the party/parties in power."

you live in a dictatorship. The UK is a democracy because they can remove those in power, you can not, therefore you live in a dictatorship. realise it and accept it.

Anonymous said...

To K.S.

I have other some crazy conspiracy theories myself which I would never share in the public domain, and I do have the same line of thought here. One other thing to note is that the [s]Elected Presidency's term generally overlap that of two parliaments, and IMO what the Tali-PAP has in mind isn't someone who can ask sensible questions but rather to serve as a speed bump to the next gover-min should the Tali-PAP loses power (which isn't ever likely to happen!).


To Anonymous:

There is no real democraZy anywhere on this planet, be it the UK or even the U.S. because a real democraZy would have the people vote to make every single decision. What we do have is a republic system, in which we vote for the representatives who will best serve our interest.

And in reality, Singapore is more an oligarchy than a dictatorship. You can go ahead and realise and accept it for all I cared, just do it on your own.

K.S. said...

I agree with Nelson that there is not real democracy in the real world. In the USA, there is this Bush family, Kennedy family all ruling in some branches of the government - executive, judical, legistrative, etc.

To claim that Singapore has a dictatorship is absurd! What is a dictator? They wield absolute authority, usually to the detriment of the people. Are we that blind or stupid to allow that in Singapore? What do we have? We have a judical system that can check the government isn't it. Whether it is biased or not is up to your imagination. But we do have a law society whereby Mr Philips Jeyaratnam (son of the famous ex-WP Secretary-General) is the head (if I am not wrong) that can question the system publicly. With all the information on hand, through the media or otherwise, are you (Mr Anonymous) saying that we are stupid not to realise what is happening?

Do UK have a real democracy? Are you able to remove those in power? Hello, may I ask you, Mr Anonymous, who is the head of state of the United Kingdom? If you are a British subject , I am ashamed for you. Please enlighten yourself the differences between a CITIZEN and a SUBJECT!. Understand the government of UK well please, you have the British Monarchy <Link>! Are you able to remove them? Please teach me! Are they really that moral? Read the classic illicit romance between The Prince of Wales, The late Princess of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall. Can you sack them?

K.S. said...

To Nelson,

Likewise, I also have some crazy conspiracy theories myself too! Like you had said, what we can write are those stuffs that can see the daylight.

Some names are conspiciously ommitted and some facts are purposely summaried and made vague for one reason or another.