Singapore opposition make 'landmark' election gains

[Turborama]

Source: BBC

May 7 2011 Last updated at 23:10 GMT

The governing party in Singapore has won all but six seats in parliamentary elections, but the opposition has made significant gains.

The People's Action Party (PAP), in power for more than 40 years, won 81 out of 87 seats.

But the opposition described its own wins, including a seat held by the country's foreign minister, as a "political landmark".

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong agreed it was a "watershed election".

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13313695

[Kolesar]

1. What the article doesn't say is that the despotic Lee family fined the Singapore Democratic Party...

a half a million dollars, bankrupted it, and forced it to dissolve.

What the article doesn't say is that it is illegal to hold a public demonstration in Singapore. It will result in persecution in a kangaroo court staffed by Lee family appointees.

The press is censored. They fined WSJ-Asia and several other newspapers for printing stories about their dictatorship.

[Turborama]

3. Can you show the law which says "it is illegal to hold a public demonstration in Singapore" please?

Thanks in advance.

[Kolesar]

4. fines of S$20,000 (US$15,720) for "making an address in a public place without a license,"

http://hrrca.org/content/singapore-drop-charges-against-opposition-leader

(New York) - The Singaporean government should drop politically motivated charges brought in 2006 against opposition party leader Dr. Chee Soon Juan that will lead to a prison term on February 10, 2011, if he does not pay a fine, Human Rights Watch said today.

Chee faces a prison term of 20 weeks starting February 10 if he cannot pay fines of S$20,000 (US$15,720) for "making an address in a public place without a license," which was upheld by an appeals' court on January 20. Human Rights Watch said that the convictions violated Chee's rights to freedom of expression and assembly.

"The Singaporean government is once again abusing the justice system and trampling on basic rights to remove an opposition politician from the political playing field," said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "The government should end this persecution of Dr. Chee and show that free speech is not a dead letter in Singapore."

Chee, 48, is the secretary-general of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP). He was convicted four times, in each case for speaking in a public area with street vendors for four to five minutes about upcoming elections ultimately held in May 2006. He spoke to crowds that observers estimated ranged up to 40 or 50 people. In each instance, Chee encouraged people to purchase copies of the The New Democrat, the party newspaper, as a way to support his party. The courts convicted Chee of violating the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PEMA), which provides that "any person who provides ... any public entertainment without a license under this Act, shall be guilty of an offense and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000."
...more...

From Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/en/search/apachesolr_search/singapore

Search results:
Singapore: Drop Charges Against Opposition Leader
is not a dead letter in Singapore." Chee, 48, is the secretary-general of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP). He was convicted four times, in each case for speaking in a public area ... is currently prohibited under the Singaporean constitution from serving in Parliament. Section 45 of Singapore ...

News - 02/08/2011

Singapore: Court to Hear Appeal by Critic of Judiciary
(New York) - On April 11, 2011, the Singapore Court of Appeal will hear the case of Alan Shadrake ... of his contempt of court conviction could have important implications for free expression in Singapore, Human Rights Watch said today. The Singapore High Court found Shadrake guilty on November 3, 2010 ...

News - 04/08/2011

Singapore: Drop Charges Against Author Who Raised Rights Concerns
(New York) - The Singapore government should exonerate a British author who was convicted for contempt of court for his criticism of Singapore's justice system, Human Rights Watch said today. On November 9, 2010, the Singapore high court will impose a criminal sentence against Alan Shadrake, a 76-year ...

News - 11/08/2010

Singapore: Hocus Pocus Hides Rights Abuses
(New York) - Singapore's stated goal of updating its political system in time for the 2011 ... . In Singapore, during 2010, the government restricted freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly ... ;quot;Behind the facade of a dynamic and open Singapore promoted by the government is a more sinister reality ...

[Turborama]

5. Thanks. You said "it is illegal to hold a public demonstration in Singapore". Not the same thing...

...as holding a public meeting without a license.

It's not illegal to hold public demonstrations, it seems you do have to get a license to have public meetings, though. HRW missed out the "meetings" part and chose to just go for the "entertainment" angle: http://agcvldb4.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?actno=REVED-257&doctitle=PUBLIC%20ENTERTAINMENTS%20AND%20MEETINGS%20ACT&date=latest&method=part">PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENTS AND MEETINGS ACT (CHAPTER 257)

Why didn't he just get one? :shrug:

In a lot of countries you have to get permission to hold a protest. The UK being one of them, as I learnt recently: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4782485#4782642

We've been through this before but here's what the law in Singapore's constitution says, again...

Freedom of speech, assembly and association

14. —(1) Subject to clauses (2) and (3) —

(a) every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and
(c) all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations.

(2) Parliament may by law impose —

(a) on the rights conferred by clause (1) (a), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence;
(b) on the right conferred by clause (1) (b), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof or public order; and
(c) on the right conferred by clause (1) (c), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, public order or morality.

(3) Restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by clause (1) (c) may also be imposed by any law relating to labour or education.

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_getdata.pl?actno=1999-REVED-CONST&doctitle=CONSTITUTION%20OF%20THE%20REPUBLIC%20OF%20SINGAPORE%0a&date=latest&method=part&segid=931158659-000271#931158659-000271

With regards to the Wall Street Journal's problems, you told me it was because they accused the Judiciary of being corrupt. Well, again, that's really ironic...

Considering that Singapore has been consistently rated as one of the least corrupt countries in the world and it was a Murdoch paper accusing them of being corrupt.

Denmark, New Zealand and Singapore top list of least corrupt countries(2010)
Expats living in Denmark, New Zealand and Singapore can rest assured they are residing in the least corrupt countries in the world, according to this year's Corruption Perception Index (CPI).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/offshorefinance/8089876/Denmark-New-Zealand-and-Singapore-top-list-of-least-corrupt-countries.html

Singapore ranked world's 3rd least-corrupt country(2009)
http://www.webcitation.org/5lNuOECiW

Singapore has moved up a notch to third place<2009)[br />http://www.webcitation.org/5lNuEvvco

Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer
In addition to the CPI, Singapore was also included in TI's Global Corruption Barometer (or the Barometer), a yearly public opinion survey, in 2004 and 2005. The survey was carried out to assess the public's perceptions and experience of corruption in a country. In Singapore a total of about 500 respondents took part in the survey. Participants of the survey were asked to grade the degree of corruption, on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being not at all corrupt and 5 extremely corrupt), for 15 keys political, social and economical institutions/sectors in a country and also the country's corruption outlook in the next three years. Notably, the survey outcome revealed that Singapore residents, compared to residents in other countries, perceived very little corruption in the various institutions and sectors in the country.

More: http://app.cpib.gov.sg/cpib_new/user/default.aspx?pgID=147

[hack89]

6. Singapore is a Neocon's dream state

HONG KONG - What do you call a country that takes 35% of salaries to finance a state investment fund run by the prime minister's wife? Where the government controls companies responsible for 60% of gross domestic product and 85% of its citizens live in public housing? And a country with stringent restrictions on the media and public information, limits on freedom of expression and assembly, and courts that help perpetuate the domination of the only ruling party the country has ever known?

You call it the second-freest economy on Earth if you're the Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal. The country described above is Singapore, runner-up to Hong Kong for the 17th consecutive year in the US conservative icons' joint Index of Economic Freedom for 2011, released last week

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/MA20Ae01.html

Freedom House rates Singapore as "partly free".

http://www.freedomhouse.org/images/File/fiw/FH_rMOF_AP_2011_2.pdf

[Turborama]

7. Gov. controls companies responsible for 60% of GDP & 85% of its citizens live in public housing?

Sounds like a form of Communism or Socialism to me.

Thanks for those recent stats, I didn't know about them.

[Kolesar]

8. IBAHRI expresses concern about human rights and the independence of the judiciary in Singapore

http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=0081C460-4B39-4ACB-BB40-8303FCEFDB31

In a report released today, the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) expressed concern about limitations on the freedoms of expression, assembly, and the press, and of the independence of the judiciary in Singapore. The report, Prosperity versus individual rights? Human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Singapore, makes 18 recommendations (pages 67-68), which the IBAHRI urges the Singapore Government to implement as a matter of priority.

‘As one of the world’s most successful economies, Singapore should be a leader in human rights and the rule of law, and should now have the confidence and maturity to recognise that this would be complementary, not contradictory, to its future prosperity,’ said Mark Ellis, Executive Director of the International Bar Association (IBA). ‘The IBAHRI has identified a number of areas in which Singapore falls far short of international standards. In particular, democratic debate and media comment are extremely restricted and government officials have initiated numerous successful defamation suits against both political and media critics.’

The IBAHRI report examines Singapore’s record on a range of human rights issues identified by the IBAHRI as a priority. This includes freedom of expression (for example, the use of defamation legislation to hinder opposition activities, and restrictions on freedom of the press and the internet), the independence of the judiciary (there have been allegations of executive influence), and freedom of assembly.

Investigations for the report began in the lead-up to the IBA’s 2007 Annual Conference in Singapore. Strong debate between the government and its critics took place during the IBA’s inaugural Rule of Law Day; an open public forum on human rights which was the first such discussion at an international conference in Singapore.

Emilio Cárdenas, Co-Chair of the IBAHRI, stated: ‘The IBAHRI has conducted a very extensive review in preparing this report, and has sought the views of all the major stakeholders concerned, including the Singapore Government and the Singapore Law Society. The report is unprecedented in its efforts to understand, respond to, and reflect the views of all sides to the debate.’

Download the full report: Prosperity versus individual rights? Human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Singapore.

http://www.ibanet.org/Document/Default.aspx?DocumentUid=93326691-C4DA-473B-943A-DD0FC76325E8

For further information please contact:

Romana St Matthew - Daniel
Press Office
International Bar Association
10th Floor
1 Stephen Street
London W1T 1AT
United Kingdom

[Turborama]

9. Responses to IBA Human Rights Institute's Report

Response to IBA Human Rights Institute's Report
Jul 9 2008 Posted in Press Release

1. The Ministry of Law has received various media requests for the Singapore Government's comments to the report released by the International Bar Association Human Rights Institute on 8 July 2008. It is a 72-page report.

2. From a quick perusal of the Executive Summary, we note that IBAHRI has not taken into account http://app2.mlaw.gov.sg/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=uybc0xb_3m4%3d&tabid=204">our comments on their draft report, sent on 9 April 2008. We release a copy of our comments previously given to the Chairman of the IBAHRI on the draft report, for your reference.

3. The IBAHRI Report questions the independence of the Singapore Judiciary. This is contradicted by Mr Fernando Pombo, President of the IBA, who stated in his opening speech at the IBA Conference in Singapore last October that lawyers the world over were coming to Singapore because:

"this country has an outstanding legal profession, an outstanding judiciary, an outstanding academical world in relation to the law".

4. Other independent observers agree. The Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC), which rates Asian countries on their business and legal environments, regularly rates the Singapore judiciary highly. PERC's Asian Intelligence Report 2006 explained that this was because the Singapore judiciary demonstrated three essential elements of judicial independence. First, the courts and individual judges within the system are publicly perceived to be impartial in their decisions. Second, judicial decisions are accepted by contesting parties and the larger public. Third, judges are perceived to be free from undue interference from other branches of government. The IBAHRI Report failed to acknowledge these facts.

5. The IBAHRI Report did acknowledge that "Singapore has a good international reputation for the integrity of their judgments when adjudicating commercial cases", but it alleged that for cases that involve "the interests of PAP members or their associates", there were "concerns about an actual or apparent lack of impartiality and/or independence". Instead of substantiating this grave allegation with evidence, the Report argued that "regardless of any actual interference, the reasonable suspicion of interference is sufficient". This is a feeble justification.

6. The cases brought by PAP members usually relate to scurrilous and completely untrue allegations of corruption made against them. Providing clean and efficient governance is a longstanding cornerstone of the PAP Government's policy. Thus defamatory allegations cannot be allowed to rest. The accuser has to prove his allegations. The decisions of the Courts in these cases are matters of public record, and can be analysed. Anyone questioning these verdicts should try to do so by examining these decisions properly, rather than making vague unsubstantiated allegations. What the western media continually criticise is that Singapore does not adopt Western, i.e. American, defamation laws that give the media freedom to report libellous untruths without liability to pay damages. It is also absurd to suggest that honourable and upright judges in commercial cases become compliant and dishonourable when dealing with defamation cases involving government ministers.

7. The human rights allegations in the Report also have no substance. Singapore had responded in detail to them in our 9 April response to the draft report. Singapore, like nearly all countries, subscribes to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Human rights are interpreted and implemented according to the specific histories, cultures and circumstances of each country. Every society must find and decide the appropriate balance between rights and responsibilities for themselves. Human rights groups in IBAHRI have closed ranks with other Western human rights NGOs to prescribe for Singapore and all new countries, especially China, Western norms of liberal democracy as the only way to bring stability and prosperity. They believe that free market policies cannot succeed without Western liberal democracy, and it is their mission to make other societies adopt the Western model.

8. No NGO has greater interest and understanding of Singapore's history and internal balance than Singapore's leaders, to be able to set norms that will work for Singapore. Whatever the shortcomings of the Singapore government, from our record no one has doubted that our overriding objective has been to get Singaporeans better educated, to understand and be exposed to the globalised world we are now in. So we adjust our laws and systems to maximise the benefits from global forces to make Singapore a thriving cosmopolitan city, where Singaporeans and foreigners live and work in a peaceful, safe and open environment. We listen carefully to all advice and then decide the right balance for ourselves. So far we have not done badly.

JULY 9 2008

http://app2.mlaw.gov.sg/News/tabid/204/ctgy/Press%20Release/currentpage/4/Default.aspx?ItemId=50

Detailed Response to IBAHRI's Report
14 Nov 2008 Posted in Press Release

The Singapore Government issued a detailed response on 14 November 2008 to the International Bar Association Human Rights Institute's (IBAHRI) 72-page Report, which was released on 8 July 2008. This followed the earlier Singapore Government's response issued on 9 July 2008. We note that the IBAHRI's Report has a number of inaccuracies. There are many new points in the Report which were not mentioned in the 20-page draft, that we were previously asked to comment on. A copy of our detailed response to IBAHRI is released for reference.

Attachment

http://app2.mlaw.gov.sg/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=gDkKt5ebvTY%3d&tabid=204">MinLaw's detailed response to IBAHRI's Report (41 Page PDF)

[Kolesar]

2. Wall Street Journal: Opposition Makes Gains in Singapore's Election

WSJ should rightly be pissed about they way they were treated:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576310774027709228.html?mod=WSJAsia_hpp_LEFTTopStories

Excerpt:
The People's Action Party will continue to dominate Parliament. Many key ministers including Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam remain in place, as do many of the controls on media and free speech that have stifled the growth of a more robust opposition in Singapore in the past.
...
But critics say Singapore's economic success isn't fully benefiting many middle- and lower-income residents, and comes at the expense of individual liberty, with controls on freedom of speech and assembly that have helped stymie the development of Western-style democracy—which the elder Mr. Lee has said isn't appropriate for all nations. Many Asian political theorists have looked upon Singapore as a template for maintaining one-party control over time.
...

[Jeneral2885]

10. Hate them or not

The West has never criticised Singapore as much as they do for Burma,North Korea and now Libya, Egypt and Syria. in fact, Obama has praised the de facto leader of Singapore

See

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/president-obama-meets-with-singapore-minister-mentor-lee

So as much as outsiders and insiders push for democrachy there, no one will lift fingers as much as they have done in other one-party states.