TODAYÂ’S CHUCKLE: 66% Say Election Here Free And Fair
-
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/226395.asp
Elections in S'pore: Survey shows reality
Nation is ranked favourably in survey on democracy
Loh Chee Kong
[email protected]
SIXTY-SIX per cent of 1,020 Singapore respondents said "yes" in a Gallup International and TNS survey, Voice of the People, when asked if elections here are free and fair.
.
Slightly less than half of Singaporeans think the country is governed by the will of the people — but the Republic still ranks well among Asian countries on that aspect in a global survey of democracy.
.
Only neighbouring Malaysia pulled in more ayes, while the citizens of some of the leading democracies in the region, such as Hong Kong (51 per cent) and India (55 per cent), were more critical of the electoral process in their countries.
.
The results, released this week, reflected the responses of over 60,000 people in 57 countries, with China and Myanmar as notable exclusions.
.
In Singapore, the survey was conducted by phone between July and August.
.
Political scientist Ho Khai Leong interpreted the results this way: That Singaporeans distinguished between a system that was "not too fair" to the Opposition, and the "money politics" in some countries in the region.
.
Like Dr Ho, former Nominated Member of Parliament Zulkifli Baharudin found the survey results realistic.
.
On governance based on the people's will, Mr Zulkifli said: "Singapore is exceptional simply because it is not ruled by the whims and fancies of its population. The Government has to make unpopular decisions. That's leadership."
.
In Asia, Malaysia seems to have the most-populist government, followed by Hong Kong (57 per cent), Indonesia (55 per cent) and Singapore.
.
Started in 2002, the annual Voice of the People survey has zoomed in on various topics, including sentiments on global security and attitudes towards American foreign policy.
.
Since 2004, the survey has touched on the issue of democracy, and the findings have remained largely consistent.
.
This year, eight in 10 people gave the thumbs-up to democracy as the best form of governance, while about four in 10 feel their respective countries are ruled by the people's will.
.
Almost half the world's respondents perceive their countries' elections as free and fair, with an identical proportion perceiving the opposite.
.
Western Europe continues to score highest on citizens' perceptions of democracy.
.
The Asia-Pacific, Latin America and North America form the chasing pack, propped up by Africa, and Eastern and Central Europe. -
these 1,020 from where one ah?
-
It is all crap, the results of the survey is not accurate. Look at the source of the news, it is from Today newspaper and mediacorpse. These are under PAP so you think they dare publish something negative about PAP.
Nothing but crap. -
yeah when was this survey held and who were the people who took part in it? Seems really fishy
-
I suppose 66% come from the 66.6% electorate and the rest come from the other 33.4% of the electorate.Originally posted by FireIce:these 1,020 from where one ah?
Jesus, so many sixes. I'm a hexakosioihexekontahexaphobe. -
may be participants of survey are sons and daughters of those money sucking PAP ministers. ha hahaOriginally posted by Demonight:yeah when was this survey held and who were the people who took part in it? Seems really fishy -
the whitehorses and 'elitists'?Originally posted by qlqq9:may be participants of survey are sons and daughters of those money sucking PAP ministers. ha haha 
-
Should be most recently. For individual country results, must write to the country's representative( information at the bottom of the page 12).Originally posted by Demonight:yeah when was this survey held and who were the people who took part in it? Seems really fishy
Not sure if he/she will respond.
http://extranet.gallup-international.com/uploads/internet/VOP2007_DEMOCRACY.pdf -
looks like our country's representative is one Jasmine YangOriginally posted by googoomuck:Should be most recently. For individual country results, must write to the country's representative( information at the bottom of the page 12).
Not sure if he/she will respond.
http://extranet.gallup-international.com/uploads/internet/VOP2007_DEMOCRACY.pdf -
66% Say Election Here Free And Fair
Fair and free to which party?
The survey did not specify. -
Yes, the results of the survey appear to be in tally with the results of the GE last year.Originally posted by googoomuck:I suppose 66% come from the 66.6% electorate and the rest come from the other 33.4% of the electorate.
Jesus, so many sixes. I'm a hexakosioihexekontahexaphobe.
In my view, there is nothing to be unhappy about. 66% isn't a very high score and this is in spite of some fears by some who would not give an accurate answer. If it was 88%, I believe this would address the concerns of the large majority.
The bigger question is, what is the PAP going to do with the large chunk of 34% to facilitate them with more confidence about the elections in Singapore?
Regards -
RC or CCCOriginally posted by FireIce:these 1,020 from where one ah? -
I would be happy if only 66% of the sons and daughters of PAP ministers believe that elections are free and fairOriginally posted by qlqq9:may be participants of survey are sons and daughters of those money sucking PAP ministers. ha haha
This would mean 34% believe their parent won his/her seat in an election that is not free and fair
Regards -
To look on the bright side, should they be from RC or CCC, it means the PAP will be unable to muster one-third of their grassroots strength during the hustings.Originally posted by Lin Yu:RC or CCC
Regards -
Select 1 of the 3 choices.
What do you think about our government?
1. Perfect
2. Good
3. Poor^-1
P/S - The 34% are gave up votes. -
This reminds me of the poll to Singaporeans last time about merger with MalaysiaOriginally posted by kyoshirou77:Select 1 of the 3 choices.
What do you think about our government?
1. Perfect
2. Good
3. Poor^-1
P/S - The 34% are gave up votes.
Something like the following:
1. Merger with Malaysia, equal footing with Malaysia
2. Merger with Malaysia, as 2nd class citizens.
3. Merger with Malaysia, forgot what liao, but equally bo liao one
If empty vote, means agree to (1). -
I'm very concerned that she might be a government mole.Originally posted by Demonight:looks like our country's representative is one Jasmine Yang
Will you write in to ask for Singapore's results? -
Quick... bring out t hat 'Certified Crap' rubber stamp...Originally posted by qlqq9:It is all crap, the results of the survey is not accurate. Look at the source of the news, it is from Today newspaper and mediacorpse. These are under PAP so you think they dare publish something negative about PAP.
Nothing but crap.
..farking thick skinned... -
why TODAY don't ask Chee soon Juan about his views on singapore elections system?
How to have free and fair elections when the mainstream media is worthless?
Nothing but biased junk.
Who can they fool with this type of survey? -
I have family man. If I do email I'll be pegged by 'Big Brother' and hunted downOriginally posted by googoomuck:I'm very concerned that she might be a government mole.
Will you write in to ask for Singapore's results? -
Same equation: what happens, when one tries to take away a bone which a dog is chewing on?Originally posted by Demonight:I have family man. If I do email I'll be pegged by 'Big Brother' and hunted down -
haha i think the results are far worst and they don dare publish it.
Using this sh!t to brainwash us.. kaoz -
= one nasty canine fcuker...hahaOriginally posted by HyperFocal:Same equation: what happens, when one tries to take away a bone which a dog is chewing on? -
I don't agree. First of all, we do not know specifically what the questions of the survey are. I don't believe they interview 1,000+ singaporeans and ask them only one question. If they asked only one question, then the survey is suspect.Originally posted by Melvin Tan:Yes, the results of the survey appear to be in tally with the results of the GE last year.
In my view, there is nothing to be unhappy about. 66% isn't a very high score and this is in spite of some fears by some who would not give an accurate answer. If it was 88%, I believe this would address the concerns of the large majority.
The bigger question is, what is the PAP going to do with the large chunk of 34% to facilitate them with more confidence about the elections in Singapore?
Regards
Two, how was the question framed? Every professional surveyor knows that how the question is framed - what words to use, the tone, syntex, etc - is just as important as the question itself.
Third, you notice that whenever our media quotes some surveys, they don't publish the actual question/s which were asked. Why?
Fourth, what was the age range of the people surveyed?
Fifth, what was the educational background of the people surveyed?
All these make a difference in how we interpret the results.
So, I am not sure if I agree with you that the result of the survey is a reflection of the reality. -
The Truth About The Election System
Elections
In the absence of genuinely free and fair elections, the act of voting becomes a treacherous impostor of democracy. In Singapore, the Elections Department is under the purview of the Prime MinisterÂ’s Office. Because it conducts its business largely away from public scrutiny, many are as convinced of its impartiality as they would be the act of a ventriloquist over the radio.
For instance, the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee redraws the boundaries and then submits its report to the cabinet for approval. The opposition and the public are not consulted, and the report bypasses parliament. Changes are announced only shortly before the elections. As a result, constituencies that showed strong support for the opposition party have undergone major surgery. These areas have either been redistributed to other PAP strongholds or wholly absorbed into GRCs.
Violations of the Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA) by the PAP are never acted upon. In the 1997 elections, several PAP ministers entered polling stations, which they clearly had no authority to do. Under the PEA, no unauthorised persons are allowed to loiter within 200 meters of any voting centre. Yet election officials did not attempt to enforce the rule. Worse, the Attorney General declined to prosecute, saying that the ministers were inside the polling centre—as opposed to loitering on the outside—and, hence, not in breach of any regulation. Complaints and reports about ballot papers being folded together (which should be impossible, because each voter is required to fold his or her voting paper and place it individually into the boxes), the number of ballot papers exceeding the number of registered voters, ballots being sealed in the boxes before polling commenced, ballot boxes not being sealed in the presence of opposition candidates and their agents, and ballot boxes taken to centres outside of the constituency for counting all went unheeded.
The official campaign period is limited to eight days. The ruling party meanwhile enjoys the adoration of the media it controls and freely uses the publicity to introduce and generate support for its candidates months in advance of the election. Under the British system, the prime minister is empowered to select the election date. In Singapore, the end of the year has been the period favoured by the PAP for elections because of the monsoon rains, which prevent voters from attending the rallies of opposition parties. The government determines the time and the sites for public rallies, which usually means that the designated spots are remote and difficult to get to, with grounds that quickly turn into muddy swamps after a downpour.
The GRC system is a monstrous affront to parliamentary representation. Voters cannot choose the candidates they want. The professed rationale for this system is to ensure that ethnic minority communities are not underrepresented in parliament, since each GRC team requires at least one candidate from the minority groups. The PAP argues that the majority Chinese population would be reluctant to elect a candidate not of the same race. Such a principled endeavour would be praiseworthy if it were not for the fact that Jeyaretnam, a minority himself, defeated Chinese PAP candidates in 1981 and again in 1984. In fact, the percentage of ethnic minority MPs declined relative to the population since the 1988 elections, when the scheme was first implemented. Add to this the increasing number of NMPs, the reluctance of the government to hold by-elections, and death of the one-person-one-vote system, and parliamentary democracy in Singapore has become something of an unpalatable joke.
One factor that makes Singaporeans so fearful of taking part in elections is the use of libel laws by the PAP. The judiciary is seen by many to be partial to the ruling party. Several opposition leaders have been rendered bankrupts when they have been unable to pay the millions of dollars in damages to the PAP plaintiffs.
Veteran oppositionist, Joshua B. Jeyaretnam, has paid more than a million dollars to Lee Kuan Yew and other PAP litigants. A former judge, Jeyaretnam had to sell his houses and almost all his possessions to make good on the payments. In January 2001, he was declared bankrupt because he could not pay the hundreds of thousands of dollars he still owed his opponents. Under the law he will lose his seat in parliament and be barred from future elections.
Tang Liang Hong, a successful corporate lawyer and an opposition candidate in the 1997 elections, was sued for defamation for remarks he made about PAP leaders during a public rally. Following the elections, Tang fled the country. His wifeÂ’s passport was quickly impounded and she was made a co-defendant in the lawsuit. Their assets were seized. Months later, a high court judge awarded the 11 PAP plaintiffs US$4.7 million, later reduced to US$2.1 million. Tang was subsequently declared bankrupt when he failed to pay the money. He and his wife lost everything they owned in Singapore. The story would have been less wretched had it ended there. During his exile, the government charged him with 33 counts of tax evasion. There is presently an outstanding warrant for his arrest.
In 2001, Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong sued Dr Chee Soon Juan for defamation for raising questions about SingaporeÂ’s secretive loan to the Suharto regime in 1997 just before he was toppled. The courts then refused to allow Dr Chee to engage foreign lawyers in the form of QueenÂ’s Counsels (QC), even though Dr Chee had indicated that he could not find a local lawyer to represent him and that Lee and Goh had engaged a Senior Counsel (SingaporeÂ’s equivalent of the QC) to act for them. The case was subsequently awarded to the plaintiffs in a summary judgment which meant that Dr Chee was not given an open trial to defend himself and call for witnesses. The plaintiffs were awarded $500,000 in damages.
This was not the first suit brought against Dr Chee. In 1993 when he was sacked from the National University of Singapore and three months after he joined the opposition and contested in an election, Dr Chee was also sued for defamation by the head of the department, who was a PAP MP, for disputing that his dismissal. The amount of costs and damages awarded was approximately $400,000.
Such a scenario has prompted Amnesty International to remark: “Civil defamation suits are being misused by the Executive to intimidate and deter those Singaporeans holding dissenting views.”
It is no wonder then that in its annual report Freedom House says that, “Citizens cannot democratically change their government.”
http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/elections.html
You can fool all the people some of the time,
and some of the people all the time,
but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
-- Abraham Lincoln
You CANNOT fool or influence me singapore mainstream media.
You have failed.