From assembly without
permit to organisation trade fair without licence, the PAP government
once again wants to show its establishment might. It even wants to
right and guide the political development here: if the opposition
town council is in the wrong side of the law, the institutions have
the right to correct it and bring it to the court. Will this work in
the new political norm with a better informed voters?
For the recent NEA vs.
AHPETC#1, the PAP is taking a political risk that there are no gains
but loses. In the 'assembly without permit' era, it had an upper hand
as the media was under PAP control and people have few access to
alternative news and views. Furthermore, most people listen to the
PAP side of the story and were more willing to give the 'benefit of
doubts' to them in exchange for economic prosperity. Unfortunately,
this 'give and take' model has gone. Voters are more calculative now
and good jobs are not easy to get.
However, in the era of
social media and new norm in politics, using the same old bottle to
contain the new political movement is an outdated model. The model
works very well in the past will not guarantee another success for
the PAP. If NEA wins the case, it just shows the high hand of the PAP
but no high return in votes. It shows the bully side of the PAP. Not
to mention if NEA loses the case.
Just imagine the case of
Singapore institutions vs. JBJ, voters still wanted to vote him in.
If a bankrupt can stand for election in Singapore, voters will still
give JBJ the chance.
So, why does the PAP want
to engage in this political adventure? It looks like a non-brainier
committing a political suicide. Perhaps, PAP MP Baey Kam Seng gave an
indirect answer when he told a group of NUS students that “ this is
the system here”.#2 The system works well for the PAP and so why
doesn't the PAP continue to do it, be it an illegal assembly or an unlicenced trade fair?
This shows how ignorance
the PAP is. They fail to catch up with the time and changes. They
still think 'the system' can be used and re-used forever.
If PA has a close
relationship with the PAP, so do NEA and the PAP. Let's see how MP
Baey explains it:
[Responding,
Mr Baey acknowledged that some feel the close ties between the PA and
PAP are unfair. But while the system may have “evolved or may be
planned for certain objectives and motives”, what matters at the
end is how it can be used to benefit people. “At the end of the
day, does the CCC serve the people? It has to serve the people,” he
said. ] #2
MP Baey brings out a tall
order: serving the people. PA is serving the people even though it is
political connected with the PAP, so do the NEA.
Here, I want to refer to
my previous post of 'Institutional Challenges and Constitution
Struggles'. PA, NEA and other government agencies are facing the
institutional challenges. They should restrict themselves in serving
the people and not involve in party politics. If they continue to act
like the past, they will do more damages to Singapore as well as to
the PAP. The PAP needs to learn new skills to engage Singaporeans
rather than overly depending on 'strong institutions'. There is a
day the 'over used system' will bring more harms than goods to the
PAP.
In fact, the strong
institutions have to have strong support from the people. And the meaning and enacting of the Constitution needs the backing of the people.
The official representatives of people will debate and enact the
meaning of the Constitution in Parliament. We have seen more
oppositions MPs now. We are going to see more as MP Baey acknowledged
the PAP only scored 6 out of 10. At least 4 out 10 have to go to the
oppositions to debate and enact the meaning of 'illegal
assembly' and 'unlicenced trade fair'.
Will people agree with the interpretation of 'this is the system here'? In fact, the system has
already changed since GE2011 and PE2011. According to MP Baey, the
PAP is only entitled for 60% of parliamentary seats if based on
proportional representation. However, they have already had more
than their share. Why do they still need to rely on 'strong
institutions' to protect their legitimacy?
Singapore
Constitution has
yet to show its spirit and
new meaning. It is inherited from the colonial time and is derived
from the Constitution of the State of Singapore 1963, provisions of
the Federal
Constitution of Malaysia made
applicable to Singapore by the Republic of Singapore Independence Act
1965 (No. 9
of 1965, 1985 Rev. Ed.),
and the Republic of Singapore Independence Act itself. #3
For
example,
Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, specifically Article 14(1), guarantees to Singapore citizens the rights to freedom of speech and expression, peaceful assembly without arms, and association. However, the enjoyment of these rights may be restricted by laws imposed by the Parliament of Singapore on the grounds stated in Article 14(2) of the Constitution.#4
The
mindset of 'this is the system here' does a disservice to the
original meaning of the Constitution. We need more oppositions or
even a change of government to correct this mindset.
#1
http://www.singapolitics.sg/news/town-council-taken-court-organising-fair-without-licence
#2
http://www.singapolitics.sg/news/four-highlights-young-guns-forum
#3
#4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_14_of_the_Constitution_of_Singapore
Should be Baey Yam Keng not Baey Kam Seng.
ReplyDelete