Singapore envoy rebuts 'baseless claims' about political system in response to Australia radio programme

SINGAPORE: A recent radio programme by Australia’s national broadcaster made several “baseless claims” about Singapore’s political system, Singapore’s High Commissioner to Australia Anir Nayar said on Tuesday (Mar 17).

Mr Nayar noted in his response that the programme’s host and several of his commentators called Singapore a “one-party state”, an “autocracy” and “verging now on a flawed democracy”.

“They portrayed Singapore’s Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) – introduced to guarantee minority representation in parliament – as a ‘tactic’, among other ‘roadblocks’, designed to obstruct the opposition,” Mr Nayar said.

The ABC Radio National’s Rear Vision episode titled Singapore and the long shadow of Lee Kuan Yew was broadcast on Mar 7.

It was hosted by Rear Vision presenter and journalist Antony Funnell and featured the following guests – Assistant Professor of politics and public administration at Hong Kong Metropolitan University, Dr Stephan Ortmann; Associate Professor of international relations at Flinders University, Dr Michael Barr; Senior Research Fellow in the governance and economy department of the National University of Singapore, Dr Gillian Koh and Senior Fellow for Southeast Asia and South Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations, Joshua Kurlantzick.

In its introduction, the episode notes that Singapore has never had a change of government in its 61 years of existence, also drawing attention to what it described as the Leader of the Opposition being “deposed”.

Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh’s tenure in that position was said to have come and gone at the “whim” of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP), with the programme stating that critics have referred to Singapore as a “one-party” state.

In its explanation on Singapore’s GRC system, Mr Funnell said the system has traditionally benefitted the PAP. Freedom House, an organisation that monitors political rights and civil liberties, is also quoted as saying that the electoral and legal framework constructed by the PAP allows for “some political pluralism” but “constrains the growth of opposition parties and limits freedom of expression, assembly and association”.

Mr Nayar pointed out gaps in the claims made by the episode.

“From listening to your programme, your audience would not have known that Singapore, alone among Southeast Asian nations, has never declared a state of emergency or suffered martial rule, and never once failed to hold regular elections, throughout its history as an independent nation,” he said.

“Nor would they have heard that almost every constituency was contested in last year’s general election, which saw the largest number of candidates from multiple parties and independents in our history.”

He also said the Workers’ Party was returned as the sole opposition party in parliament, with increased representation, following the last General Election, adding that the WP fared better in the GRCs it contested – winning two of them – than in the Single Member Constituencies.

“Hardly evidence that GRCs are insurmountable ‘roadblocks’,” he said.

Regarding the removal of Mr Singh as Leader of the Opposition, Mr Nayar said Mr Funnell failed to mention a key fact about the matter – that this followed his criminal conviction for lying to a parliamentary committee.

“Members of Parliament in other Westminster-based parliamentary democracies, including Australia, have been forced to resign if they have been found to have misled parliament,” he said.

Mr Nayar also highlighted that one commentator cast doubt on the impartiality of Singapore’s judiciary in political cases.

Mr Kurlantzick is heard expressing his perspective on Singapore’s judiciary in a section of the programme titled Succession and Institutions.

He claims that when it comes to matters related to politics and specifically those involving the PAP, decisions are not as well-considered compared with those involving business matters, and he would not consider them to be impartial.

Mr Nayar called this a serious allegation, but one made with no evidence.

“Singapore’s courts are widely respected internationally for their integrity, professionalism, and independence, and are routinely chosen by parties from around the world – including Commonwealth countries – to resolve complex international disputes. The claim that these same courts are impartial in non-political matters but compromised in political cases beggars belief,” he said.

Mr Nayar also said he was unsurprised that the commentators chosen for the programme were critical of Singapore’s system.

“Some have expressed similar views for decades, and made repeated predictions of Singapore’s political collapse. Time and again, Singapore has confounded these predictions, even as our political system and electorate have continued to evolve.

“What is surprising is that the ABC, a reputable national broadcaster, aired a programme that presented such a one-sided account and fell short of the standards of journalistic rigour that your listeners would expect.”

Read Full Article At Source