primer [globalization]

1
By LYDIA LIM DEPUTY POLITICAL EDITOR PRIMER L PEOPLE describe General Elec- tion 2011 as a watershed election. In what way did it mark a new phase in Singapore politics? SINGAPORE will hold its next General Election in about four years’ time. By then, 2016, most of you who are taking part in this year’s current affairs quiz will be of vot- ing age, that is 21. More likely than not, you will have a chance to cast your vote, and elect your Member of Parliament. You could say voting in elections is a new norm in the so-called “new nor- mal”. How so? In the decade from 1991 to 2001, the number of seats contested by the opposition in each election fell, from 40 out of 81 in 1991, to 36 out of 83 in 1997 and finally to just 29 out of 84 in 2001. That meant that two-thirds of eligible voters sat out the General Election of November 2001. They did not have a chance to vote because they lived in constit- uencies where there was no oppo- sition slate of candidates to take on the team from the ruling Peo- ple’s Action Party (PAP). In 2004, The Straits Times coined the phrase Generation Walkover to describe those Singa- poreans who reached voting age during those years. They were born between 1970 and 1980, grew up largely in the era of then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, and did not experience the turbu- lence of the early years of inde- pendence. The PAP was effectively the on- ly party they knew and their main form of political activism was in the giving and collecting of feed- back, the ST article said. The tide turned in 2006. That was the first General Election since 1988 in which the PAP did not immediately form the Govern- ment on Nomination Day. In GE 2011, 82 out of 87 seats were contested. It was the most keenly fought election since Singa- pore became independent in 1965. It was a watershed because it seemed to signal the start of a new era of political contestation. The presidential election that took place three months later saw four candidates – all surnamed Tan – vying to become Singa- pore’s head of state. It was the most fiercely fought since 1991, when the presidency became an elected office. How significant is this change? Political competition lies at the heart of democratic politics, which Ambassador Chan Heng Chee has said is about “groups of people uniting behind different leaderships to compete, bargain and negotiate in the shaping and sharing of political power and to influence or control policy direc- tions”. That definition is to be found in her seminal essay of 1975: “Sin- gapore the Administrative State: Where has all the politics gone?” In a recent interview, Ambassa- dor Chan, a political scientist, said what she had seen in the 1970s was “the steady and system- atic depoliticisation of a political- ly active and aggressive citizen- ry”. From 1968 to 1981, the PAP en- joyed a monopoly of seats in Par- liament. The opposition bench was empty during those years af- ter a series of walkouts by Mem- bers of Parliament from the Ba- risan Sosialis, an opposition party formed by a faction that broke away from the PAP over merger with Malaysia. In 1981, then Workers’ Party chief J. B. Jeyaretnam made histo- ry by winning a by-election in An- son. He was the first opposition politician to be elected in 13 years. Since then, the number of oppo- sition MPs has hovered between one and four, rising to six in GE 2011 when the WP finally succeed- ed in winning a GRC or Group Rep- resentation Constituency, namely Aljunied. Ambassador Chan said she now sees the return of politics to Singapore, in the form of a “more active citizenry, which is more de- manding of elected government and MPs’ performance”. Another change has been noted by opposition politician Yee Jenn Jong. The WP Non-Constituency MP said “professionals, civil serv- ants and business people are com- ing forward to help in the opposi- tion movement. The fear element is diminishing”. Change at the top ANOTHER major impact of GE 2011 was how it sped up change at the top tiers of Singapore’s politi- cal leadership. Two weeks after the election, on May 21 last year, Prime Minis- ter Lee Hsien Loong announced a new Cabinet line-up. The Cabinet is the team of ministers who gov- ern the country. The Cabinet shake-up was the most far-reaching since at least 1984, with movement of ministers at the helm of 14 of the 17 minis- tries. Mr Lee Kuan Yew stepped down as minister mentor after 52 years in government, 31 of them as Singapore’s first prime minis- ter. Mr Goh Chok Tong also re- tired from Cabinet. He was Singa- pore’s second prime minister from 1990 to 2004, and senior minister after that. PM Lee described the sweeping changes as “epochal”. He said the outcome of GE 2011 – which saw the PAP receive its lowest share of the vote since In- dependence – had shaped his thinking on the Cabinet. “I wanted a fresh start and that’s why I’m calling for radical change,” he said. Since then, the Government has acted to remedy policies gone wrong. The new ministers in charge of housing and transport have moved fast to increase supply of both, so as to ensure enough affordable homes for young Singaporeans, and reduce congestion on trains and buses. PM Lee himself ordered an im- mediate review of high ministerial salaries, which led to a sizeable one-third reduction in their pay. That marked a significant de- parture from the past, as the PAP government had for decades faced down criticisms of, and resentment against, its controver- sial policy of paying ministers top dollar. The sense is that the Govern- ment now feels a need to be more responsive to the views and senti- ments of the voting public. Certainly, it has, since last year’s polls, paid more attention to public engagement. The Prime Minister has even restructured the ministry in charge of information. To be called Ministry of Communica- tions and Information, it will over- see the Government’s efforts to improve public communications and engagement, which PM Lee said “are more important in the age of social media and a more active citizenry”. A new normal? IS THERE a new normal in Singa- pore politics? If new normal refers to a new status quo, then the answer is not quite. The PAP, which has governed Singapore continuously for 53 years, remains very much in charge. It still has 81 out of 87 elected seats in Parliament and faces no immediate threat to its dominance. Most Singaporeans do not yet see in any of the opposition par- ties a credible alternative. Young Singaporean Tay Jie Ming, 25, eloquently summed up the post GE 2011 landscape: “We have taken mere baby steps and, as a young democracy, we have some way to go before we can seri- ously consider if there is indeed a new normal.” [email protected] SIX student teams will compete in the semi-final round of the Big Quiz on Wednesday. They are: Hwa Chong Institution, Pioneer Junior College, Anglo-Chinese Junior College, Raffles Institution, River Valley High School, and NUS High School of Mathematics and Science. The top four teams will proceed to the final round next Friday at Raffles City Convention Centre. The teams will compete for the top cash prize of $5,000 and a trophy. The next best teams will receive $3,000, $1,000 and $500 respectively. The competition is open to students in the first year of junior college or the equivalent, such as Year 5 of a six-year integrated programme. The Big Quiz started last month with a preliminary round involving 23 school teams, and a quarter-final involving 18 teams. Quiz questions are based on reports in The Straits Times. For more information, go to www.straitstimes.com/thebigquiz. View clips from the quiz rounds and school talks at www.razortv.com.sg. By DAMIEN D. CHEONG FOR THE STRAITS TIMES M INISTER for Infor- mation, Communi- cations and the Arts Yaacob Ibrahim has once again appealed to Singapore’s online community to develop an Internet code of con- duct (ICoC) to help foster a more civilised cyberspace behaviour here. He made his call at the Harmo- nyWorks! conference, organised by OnePeople.sg, last month. The minister first called for the development of an ICoC or “neti- quette” last year, following inves- tigations of several Singaporeans who had posted derogatory and re- ligiously insensitive comments on- line. The Government has now also established the Media Literacy Council (MLC) to help “promote a safe, secure and civil media envi- ronment through public educa- tion”. The Council is also tasked with advising the Government on media issues. These initiatives are arguably in response to increases in: (a) “trolling”, that is, the posting of inappropriate, uncivil and offen- sive comments online; (b) inflam- matory postings about religion or ethnicity or any sensitive issue; and (c) contentious postings relat- ed to Singapore politics, the pub- lic sector and the Government. Such posts are often highly pro- vocative, and have the potential, as the Government believes, to provoke disquiet. This in turn may undermine social cohesion and confidence in the public sec- tor as well as the Government. As existing legislation cannot be effectively applied in cyber- space, with the exception perhaps of anti-defamation and national security laws, and as censorship of the Internet is not a viable op- tion, the establishment of an IC- oC and an MLC, from the Govern- ment’s perspective, does have some merit. However, many in the online community see such moves as yet another attempt to regulate the In- ternet. It is useful to seek a mid- dle ground on Internet govern- ance, where both sides appreciate the other’s concerns. The Internet has come to be re- garded by many as the last bas- tion of free speech. So any at- tempt by governments or private companies to censor or regulate the Internet is often met with fierce opposition. In Asia, where freedom of speech is not a universal shared value, cyberspace represents the only space where people can free- ly express themselves seemingly without fear from the authorities. In reality, this is obviously not the case but as an ideal, cyber- space freedom resonates strongly among many, particularly in the Singaporean online community, who are determined to protect this space from any real or per- ceived intrusion from the Govern- ment. To many bloggers and online users, trolling, while objectiona- ble, is a small price to pay for free- dom of expression. This group would rather avoid having online “OB markers” to regulate behav- iour in cyberspace, as this would curtail freedom of expression and stifle creativity. They would prefer a self-polic- ing community approach to deal with errant bloggers and users. Such self-policing includes repri- manding or seeking remedial ac- tion from the offender; and ignor- ing the culprit(s) in the hope that they would eventually be discredit- ed and shunned by other users. In extreme cases of so-called “online vigilante justice”, as in the recent XiaXue example, the “targets” of offensive posts may hit back at their attackers by ex- posing and humiliating them in cy- berspace. The first two options assume that most users are discerning, so- phisticated and courageous enough to detect, reject and repri- mand the offending blogger/user. But this might not always be the case. The last option – vigilante action – is controversial and may even result in the vigilante’s prose- cution. The Government perforce takes a wider view of society and adopts policies that protect all citi- zens, not just those who are active online. From this perspective, it adopts a more pre-emptive and cautionary approach to matters that impact on security. If inflammatory comments can- not be contained in cyberspace and have the potential to ignite problems within the wider com- munity, then online behaviour may have to be heavily regulated. However, the Government real- ises that heavy regulation is not a viable solution, nor is permitting inflammatory comments to be posted online unabated. Its compromise solution has been to appeal to users to develop their own netiquette to guide on- line behaviour and educate cur- rent and future generations of Sin- gaporeans on how best to use the Internet, with emphasis being placed on how to be discerning about what is posted on social me- dia and other online channels. The proposed ICoC may not be the best way to manage online be- haviour since it is difficult to en- force and to ensure compliance. Perhaps the only way to get us- ers to abide by a code is to have the international community rati- fy and accept a universal Internet code of conduct. But such an out- come is virtually impossible. At this juncture, if an ICoC is to be enforced in Singapore, it can most likely be done at the “micro level”, that is, between Internet service providers and their cus- tomers. Even so, enforcement problems will persist. If the ICoC cannot be enforced, it will most likely be ignored by users. The posting of questionable and inappropriate content will re- main as long as the Internet’s cloak of anonymity exists. As regu- lation is likely to be unsuccessful, it might be easier simply to pro- mote the golden rule of neti- quette: “Do unto others online as you would have done to you” (www.networketiquette.net). For inflammatory postings, the Government has the mandate to take action against users who de- liberately break the law to pro- voke tensions and instigate con- flict. It should, of course, accord due process to the suspect(s) in the interests of transparency and accountability. The Government’s credibility on and offline would be further increased if it becomes more transparent in its dealings. The Government’s aim to in- crease public education in social media usage through the MLC is necessary, timely and relevant. Individuals, especially the young, should be taught how to in- teract and engage on social media as well as guard against unsa- voury individuals and predatory behaviour. They should also be taught to be more selective and discerning, not just of informa- tion on social media but also of in- formation on traditional media. This implies the need for the edu- cation system to encourage more critical thinking in students. Any new policy is bound to frustrate as many as it satisfies. Therefore, a better understanding of competing perspectives and moves towards a middle ground must be sought, especially now when communication and media roles are on the cusp of change. The writer is a research fellow at the Centre of Excellence for National Security, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, NTU. Stay on top of the Big Quiz Towards better online conduct This primer is the final instalment of a 12-part series in the Opinion pages, in the lead-up to The Straits Times-Ministry of Education National Current Affairs Quiz. Singapore’s changing political landscape FRIDAY, AUGUST 17, 2012 O P I N I O N A29

Upload: vjciglobe

Post on 12-May-2015

35 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Primer [globalization]

By LYDIA LIMDEPUTY POLITICAL EDITOR

PRIMER

L PEOPLE describe General Elec-tion 2011 as a watershed election.In what way did it mark a newphase in Singapore politics?

SINGAPORE will hold its nextGeneral Election in about fouryears’ time.

By then, 2016, most of youwho are taking part in this year’scurrent affairs quiz will be of vot-ing age, that is 21. More likelythan not, you will have a chanceto cast your vote, and elect yourMember of Parliament. You couldsay voting in elections is a newnorm in the so-called “new nor-mal”.

How so?In the decade from 1991 to 2001,the number of seats contested bythe opposition in each electionfell, from 40 out of 81 in 1991, to36 out of 83 in 1997 and finally tojust 29 out of 84 in 2001.

That meant that two-thirds ofeligible voters sat out the GeneralElection of November 2001.

They did not have a chance tovote because they lived in constit-uencies where there was no oppo-sition slate of candidates to takeon the team from the ruling Peo-ple’s Action Party (PAP).

In 2004, The Straits Timescoined the phrase GenerationWalkover to describe those Singa-poreans who reached voting ageduring those years. They wereborn between 1970 and 1980,grew up largely in the era of thenPrime Minister Goh Chok Tong,and did not experience the turbu-lence of the early years of inde-pendence.

The PAP was effectively the on-ly party they knew and their mainform of political activism was inthe giving and collecting of feed-back, the ST article said.

The tide turned in 2006. Thatwas the first General Electionsince 1988 in which the PAP didnot immediately form the Govern-ment on Nomination Day.

In GE 2011, 82 out of 87 seatswere contested. It was the mostkeenly fought election since Singa-pore became independent in 1965.It was a watershed because itseemed to signal the start of anew era of political contestation.

The presidential election thattook place three months later sawfour candidates – all surnamedTan – vying to become Singa-pore’s head of state. It was themost fiercely fought since 1991,when the presidency became anelected office.

How significant is this change?Political competition lies at the

heart of democratic politics,which Ambassador Chan HengChee has said is about “groups ofpeople uniting behind differentleaderships to compete, bargainand negotiate in the shaping andsharing of political power and toinfluence or control policy direc-tions”.

That definition is to be foundin her seminal essay of 1975: “Sin-gapore the Administrative State:Where has all the politics gone?”

In a recent interview, Ambassa-dor Chan, a political scientist,said what she had seen in the1970s was “the steady and system-atic depoliticisation of a political-ly active and aggressive citizen-ry”.

From 1968 to 1981, the PAP en-joyed a monopoly of seats in Par-liament. The opposition benchwas empty during those years af-ter a series of walkouts by Mem-bers of Parliament from the Ba-risan Sosialis, an opposition partyformed by a faction that brokeaway from the PAP over mergerwith Malaysia.

In 1981, then Workers’ Partychief J. B. Jeyaretnam made histo-ry by winning a by-election in An-son. He was the first oppositionpolitician to be elected in 13 years.

Since then, the number of oppo-sition MPs has hovered betweenone and four, rising to six in GE2011 when the WP finally succeed-ed in winning a GRC or Group Rep-resentation Constituency, namelyAljunied.

Ambassador Chan said shenow sees the return of politics toSingapore, in the form of a “moreactive citizenry, which is more de-manding of elected governmentand MPs’ performance”.

Another change has been notedby opposition politician Yee JennJong. The WP Non-ConstituencyMP said “professionals, civil serv-ants and business people are com-ing forward to help in the opposi-tion movement. The fear elementis diminishing”.

Change at the top

ANOTHER major impact of GE2011 was how it sped up change atthe top tiers of Singapore’s politi-cal leadership.

Two weeks after the election,on May 21 last year, Prime Minis-ter Lee Hsien Loong announced anew Cabinet line-up. The Cabinetis the team of ministers who gov-ern the country.

The Cabinet shake-up was themost far-reaching since at least1984, with movement of ministersat the helm of 14 of the 17 minis-tries.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew steppeddown as minister mentor after 52years in government, 31 of themas Singapore’s first prime minis-

ter. Mr Goh Chok Tong also re-tired from Cabinet. He was Singa-pore’s second prime ministerfrom 1990 to 2004, and seniorminister after that.

PM Lee described the sweepingchanges as “epochal”.

He said the outcome of GE 2011– which saw the PAP receive itslowest share of the vote since In-dependence – had shaped histhinking on the Cabinet.

“I wanted a fresh start andthat’s why I’m calling for radicalchange,” he said.

Since then, the Government

has acted to remedy policies gonewrong. The new ministers incharge of housing and transporthave moved fast to increasesupply of both, so as to ensureenough affordable homes foryoung Singaporeans, and reducecongestion on trains and buses.

PM Lee himself ordered an im-mediate review of high ministerialsalaries, which led to a sizeableone-third reduction in their pay.

That marked a significant de-parture from the past, as the PAPgovernment had for decades faceddown criticisms of, and

resentment against, its controver-sial policy of paying ministers topdollar.

The sense is that the Govern-ment now feels a need to be moreresponsive to the views and senti-ments of the voting public.

Certainly, it has, since lastyear’s polls, paid more attentionto public engagement.

The Prime Minister has evenrestructured the ministry incharge of information. To becalled Ministry of Communica-tions and Information, it will over-see the Government’s efforts toimprove public communicationsand engagement, which PM Leesaid “are more important in theage of social media and a moreactive citizenry”.

A new normal?

IS THERE a new normal in Singa-pore politics?

If new normal refers to a newstatus quo, then the answer is notquite.

The PAP, which has governedSingapore continuously for 53years, remains very much incharge. It still has 81 out of 87elected seats in Parliament andfaces no immediate threat to itsdominance.

Most Singaporeans do not yetsee in any of the opposition par-ties a credible alternative.

Young Singaporean Tay JieMing, 25, eloquently summed upthe post GE 2011 landscape: “Wehave taken mere baby steps and,as a young democracy, we havesome way to go before we can seri-ously consider if there is indeed anew normal.”

[email protected]

SIX student teams will competein the semi-final round of theBig Quiz on Wednesday.

They are: Hwa ChongInstitution, Pioneer JuniorCollege, Anglo-Chinese JuniorCollege, Raffles Institution,River Valley High School, andNUS High School ofMathematics and Science.

The top four teams willproceed to the final round next

Friday at Raffles CityConvention Centre.

The teams will compete forthe top cash prize of $5,000and a trophy.

The next best teams willreceive $3,000, $1,000 and$500 respectively.

The competition is open tostudents in the first year ofjunior college or the equivalent,such as Year 5 of a six-year

integrated programme.The Big Quiz started last

month with a preliminaryround involving 23 schoolteams, and a quarter-finalinvolving 18 teams.

Quiz questions are based onreports in The Straits Times.For more information, go towww.straitstimes.com/thebigquiz.View clips from the quiz rounds andschool talks at www.razortv.com.sg.

By DAMIEN D. CHEONGFOR THE STRAITS TIMES

MINISTER for Infor-mation, Communi-cations and the ArtsYaacob Ibrahim hasonce again appealed

to Singapore’s online communityto develop an Internet code of con-duct (ICoC) to help foster a morecivilised cyberspace behaviourhere.

He made his call at the Harmo-nyWorks! conference, organisedby OnePeople.sg, last month.

The minister first called for thedevelopment of an ICoC or “neti-quette” last year, following inves-tigations of several Singaporeanswho had posted derogatory and re-ligiously insensitive comments on-line.

The Government has now alsoestablished the Media LiteracyCouncil (MLC) to help “promote asafe, secure and civil media envi-ronment through public educa-tion”. The Council is also taskedwith advising the Government onmedia issues.

These initiatives are arguablyin response to increases in: (a)“trolling”, that is, the posting ofinappropriate, uncivil and offen-sive comments online; (b) inflam-

matory postings about religion orethnicity or any sensitive issue;and (c) contentious postings relat-ed to Singapore politics, the pub-lic sector and the Government.

Such posts are often highly pro-vocative, and have the potential,as the Government believes, toprovoke disquiet. This in turnmay undermine social cohesionand confidence in the public sec-tor as well as the Government.

As existing legislation cannotbe effectively applied in cyber-space, with the exception perhapsof anti-defamation and nationalsecurity laws, and as censorshipof the Internet is not a viable op-tion, the establishment of an IC-oC and an MLC, from the Govern-ment’s perspective, does havesome merit.

However, many in the onlinecommunity see such moves as yetanother attempt to regulate the In-ternet. It is useful to seek a mid-dle ground on Internet govern-ance, where both sides appreciatethe other’s concerns.

The Internet has come to be re-garded by many as the last bas-tion of free speech. So any at-tempt by governments or privatecompanies to censor or regulatethe Internet is often met withfierce opposition.

In Asia, where freedom of

speech is not a universal sharedvalue, cyberspace represents theonly space where people can free-ly express themselves seeminglywithout fear from the authorities.

In reality, this is obviously notthe case but as an ideal, cyber-space freedom resonates stronglyamong many, particularly in theSingaporean online community,who are determined to protectthis space from any real or per-ceived intrusion from the Govern-ment.

To many bloggers and onlineusers, trolling, while objectiona-ble, is a small price to pay for free-dom of expression. This groupwould rather avoid having online“OB markers” to regulate behav-iour in cyberspace, as this wouldcurtail freedom of expression andstifle creativity.

They would prefer a self-polic-ing community approach to dealwith errant bloggers and users.Such self-policing includes repri-manding or seeking remedial ac-tion from the offender; and ignor-ing the culprit(s) in the hope thatthey would eventually be discredit-ed and shunned by other users.

In extreme cases of so-called“online vigilante justice”, as inthe recent XiaXue example, the“targets” of offensive posts mayhit back at their attackers by ex-

posing and humiliating them in cy-berspace.

The first two options assumethat most users are discerning, so-phisticated and courageousenough to detect, reject and repri-mand the offending blogger/user.But this might not always be thecase. The last option – vigilanteaction – is controversial and mayeven result in the vigilante’s prose-cution.

The Government perforcetakes a wider view of society andadopts policies that protect all citi-zens, not just those who are activeonline. From this perspective, itadopts a more pre-emptive andcautionary approach to mattersthat impact on security.

If inflammatory comments can-not be contained in cyberspaceand have the potential to igniteproblems within the wider com-munity, then online behaviourmay have to be heavily regulated.

However, the Government real-ises that heavy regulation is not aviable solution, nor is permittinginflammatory comments to beposted online unabated.

Its compromise solution hasbeen to appeal to users to developtheir own netiquette to guide on-line behaviour and educate cur-rent and future generations of Sin-gaporeans on how best to use the

Internet, with emphasis beingplaced on how to be discerningabout what is posted on social me-dia and other online channels.

The proposed ICoC may not bethe best way to manage online be-haviour since it is difficult to en-force and to ensure compliance.

Perhaps the only way to get us-ers to abide by a code is to havethe international community rati-fy and accept a universal Internetcode of conduct. But such an out-come is virtually impossible.

At this juncture, if an ICoC isto be enforced in Singapore, it canmost likely be done at the “microlevel”, that is, between Internetservice providers and their cus-tomers. Even so, enforcementproblems will persist. If the ICoCcannot be enforced, it will mostlikely be ignored by users.

The posting of questionableand inappropriate content will re-main as long as the Internet’scloak of anonymity exists. As regu-lation is likely to be unsuccessful,it might be easier simply to pro-mote the golden rule of neti-quette: “Do unto others online asyou would have done to you”(www.networketiquette.net).

For inflammatory postings, theGovernment has the mandate totake action against users who de-liberately break the law to pro-

voke tensions and instigate con-flict. It should, of course, accorddue process to the suspect(s) inthe interests of transparency andaccountability. The Government’scredibility on and offline would befurther increased if it becomesmore transparent in its dealings.

The Government’s aim to in-crease public education in socialmedia usage through the MLC isnecessary, timely and relevant.

Individuals, especially theyoung, should be taught how to in-teract and engage on social mediaas well as guard against unsa-voury individuals and predatorybehaviour. They should also betaught to be more selective anddiscerning, not just of informa-tion on social media but also of in-formation on traditional media.This implies the need for the edu-cation system to encourage morecritical thinking in students.

Any new policy is bound tofrustrate as many as it satisfies.Therefore, a better understandingof competing perspectives andmoves towards a middle groundmust be sought, especially nowwhen communication and mediaroles are on the cusp of change.The writer is a research fellow at theCentre of Excellence for NationalSecurity, S. Rajaratnam School ofInternational Studies, NTU.

Stay on top of the Big Quiz

Towards better online conduct

This primer is the final instalment of a 12-partseries in the Opinion pages, in the lead-up toThe Straits Times-Ministry of EducationNational Current Affairs Quiz.

Singapore’schangingpoliticallandscape

F R I D A Y , A U G U S T 1 7 , 2 0 1 2 OOPPIINNIIOONN A29