COMMENT: GE declared — Now for a fair, transparent process

Viswa Sadasivan is Editor-in-Chief for Inconvenient Questions, a former Nominated MP of the Singapore Parliament and a former TV current affairs host. The views expressed here are his own.

Parliament has been dissolved and the Writ of Election issued. Singaporeans will go to the polls on Friday, 11 September to elect a total of 89 MPs for 29 constituencies, unless there are walkovers declared on Nomination Day (1 September), which appears highly unlikely.

What I found interesting is that the Election Office (PMO) found reason to add a new rule in the election handbook issued yesterday: ‘…candidates should conduct election campaigning in a responsible and dignified manner that befits the seriousness of the election process. Candidates should steer away from negative campaigning practices based on hate and denigration of opposing candidates, and should not make false statements that allege corruption or commission of criminal offences, or statements that may cause racial or religious tensions or affect social cohesion… Egregious acts of negative campaigning could also be in breach of the law.’

I can’t see anybody, including the contesting parties, having an issue with this new electioneering rule in principle. As they say, however, the devil is in the details. The concern on the ground would be whether the rule will be applied in a fair and an even-handed manner. This begs two questions: who decides, and will the grounds for decisions made  be conveyed in a transparent and above-board manner?

The Election Office, especially because it comes under the office of the Prime Minister, who is also the Secretary General of the ruling party that is contesting in the GE, is responsible for ensuring that decisions are not only fair and even-handed but that it is seen to be so by the ground. This is important. All stakeholders in the election – the contesting parties, the electorate as well as foreign investors here – need to see the electoral process as being free and fair, befitting Singapore’s positioning as a First World society.

This is an onerous and challenging responsibility given that we are operating very much in a subjective realm. Take, for example, the statement made by ESM Goh Chok Tong at the media conference to announce the PAP candidates for Marine Parade GRC. He said “…opposition parties come and go like nomads. Nomads will not have an interest in the people's welfare….” For some, this statement flouts the rule against ‘denigration of opposing candidates’. Then again, realistically speaking, such statements in an election would be par for the course. It is, after all a contest – and a high stakes contest at that. We should all be prepared to be less uptight about language and references used, and exercise greater restraint in throwing the book at the parties contesting. The word that comes to mind is sportsmanship.

What is more important is ensuring consistency in the application of the rules – not only by the Election Office, but also by the contesting parties and the electorate in general. For example, what if ESM Goh’s statement is taken in good spirit, but then there is a strong reaction when an opposition party member takes a similar jab at the PAP? This will not be right and will erode faith in the electoral process – which is increasingly important for today’s electorate which place a premium on integrity, fairness and justice.

In my view, what will aid the process of engendering good faith is a freer flow of verified and credible information. This is the best antidote to disinformation, misinformation and misunderstanding.  There will be less room for speculative and conspiratorial conversations.

Even though, for some, on the face of it, ESM Goh’s statement could come across unacceptable, we are prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, because we have come to know him to be a reasonably fair and upright leader.

In the lead up to a GE, there will be heightened interest on the ground not only about the various parties, but also about the new candidates and what they stand for. We want to make an informed and considered decision on Polling Day.

This point came through loud and clear during an IQ studio discussion a few weeks ago. It was succinctly articulated by adjunct professor, Elizabeth Su. Also, Brand Consultant Kim Faulkner who was in the audience talked about MP Denise Phua, who has been consistent and dogged in advocating for children with special needs to be given greater attention and resources. Similarly, panellist and CEO of NVPC Melissa Kwee said that she would like to know if the candidates have a natural feel for and inclination towards engaging people and truly valuing their contribution. SMU Professor and panellist Kirpal Singh asked if our candidates, as potential leaders, are able to manage and even embrace contrary views and people who disagree with them.
The PAP has an advantage in that it is the only party that has been in power and has had sufficient visibility. We know, more or less, what the party stands for and how it operates. We know the serving office bearers and MPs.

Credit should be given to the PAP in this GE for being very forthcoming and transparent in announcing their new candidates and the teams contesting in the various wards. However, visibility need not always be an advantage. Being the ruling party, it has the onerous task of explaining and defending policies, programmes and actions, while the opposition parties can often point out gaps and flaws and occasionally come up with alternatives.

Conversely, the opposition parties suffer from a serious lack of exposure – even the Workers’ Party which has a significant presence in Parliament.  Worse, there is the lament that whatever exposure they receive in the media is biased against them. As for the other opposition parties, the electorate hardly know what they stand for as they tend not to be on the media radar screens until it’s election time. This is not to say that they are not doing anything between GEs, but that there is hardly any information about them. The fact that we don’t know enough about them to comment, criticise or form an informed opinion could also be an advantage for some opposition parties.

This is why I feel strongly that political parties have a moral responsibility and, indeed, a duty to the electorate to be forthcoming and upfront during a GE. It cannot be just about winning votes. Transparency is key. Parties that appear cagey and fail to provide information about their policy positions and about their candidates in a prompt and above board manner will and should pay a price.

In the NUSS Political Dialogue which I moderated on 18 August, I raised the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) saga with Workers’ Party representative Gerald Giam. In response to the PAP representative Sim Ann’s comment that the WP had not been sufficiently forthcoming, he pointed out that party Chairperson Sylvia Lim had given a lengthy explanation – with a request for extended time – in Parliament on the issue, but that it wasn’t covered adequately by the media.

If true, this is unfortunate and not right.

This won’t do in a GE. It is important that critical and contentious issues are debated by the relevant parties in an honest and transparent manner, and be given adequate and fair coverage. In a GE, issues such as the AHPETC saga are not only relevant to the Aljunied, Hougang and Punggol East constituents, but would also be of interest to the electorate at large as it pertains to the character and integrity of both the individuals and the parties involved.

To this end, IQ plans to host a series of studio audience-based debates between the political parties on specific issues. I will personally moderate the session and give the assurance of neutrality and fairness. The one-hour debate will be webcast ‘live’ – which means it will be unedited. I am prepared to have the AHPETC saga and the issues surrounding the Auditor General’s recent report on the management of Town Councils as the topic for one of the debates during the hustings of this GE. I  believe the public would like to hear directly from the parties involved on what exactly happened and what the on-going issues are in this matter. This is an invitation to the PAP, the WP and a couple of interested parties to participate in this debate.

The question is: are we committed to making this an open and honest one?  Political parties – the ball is in your court.