\n<\/p>\n
SINGAPORE: A recent radio programme by Australia\u2019s national broadcaster made several \u201cbaseless claims\u201d about Singapore\u2019s political system, Singapore\u2019s High Commissioner to Australia Anir Nayar said on Tuesday (Mar 17).<\/p>\n
Mr Nayar noted in his response that the programme\u2019s host and several of his commentators called Singapore a \u201cone-party state\u201d, an \u201cautocracy\u201d and \u201cverging now on a flawed democracy\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey portrayed Singapore\u2019s Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) \u2013 introduced to guarantee minority representation in parliament \u2013 as a ‘tactic’, among other ‘roadblocks’, designed to obstruct the opposition,\u201d Mr Nayar said.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The ABC Radio National’s Rear Vision episode titled Singapore and the long shadow of Lee Kuan Yew was broadcast on Mar 7.<\/p>\n
It was hosted by Rear Vision presenter and journalist Antony Funnell and featured the following guests \u2013 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.<\/p>\n
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 \u201cdeposed\u201d.<\/p>\n
Workers\u2019 Party chief Pritam Singh\u2019s tenure in that position was said to have come and gone at the \u201cwhim\u201d of the ruling People\u2019s Action Party (PAP), with the programme stating that critics have referred to Singapore as a \u201cone-party\u201d state.<\/p>\n
In its explanation on Singapore\u2019s 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 \u201csome political pluralism\u201d but \u201cconstrains the growth of opposition parties and limits freedom of expression, assembly and association\u201d.<\/p>\n
Mr Nayar pointed out gaps in the claims made by the episode. \u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cFrom 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,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cNor would they have heard that almost every constituency was contested in last year\u2019s general election, which saw the largest number of candidates from multiple parties and independents in our history.\u201d<\/p>\n
He also said the Workers\u2019 Party was returned as the sole opposition party in parliament<\/a>, with increased representation, following the last General Election, adding that the WP fared better in the GRCs it contested \u2013 winning two of them \u2013 than in the Single Member Constituencies.<\/p>\n \u201cHardly evidence that GRCs are insurmountable \u2018roadblocks\u2019,\u201d he said.\u00a0<\/p>\n Regarding the removal of Mr Singh as Leader of the Opposition<\/a>, 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<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cMembers of Parliament in other Westminster-based parliamentary democracies, including Australia, have been forced to resign if they have been found to have misled parliament,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Mr Nayar also highlighted that one commentator cast doubt on the impartiality of Singapore\u2019s judiciary in political cases.<\/p>\n Mr Kurlantzick is heard expressing his perspective on Singapore\u2019s judiciary in a section of the programme titled Succession and Institutions.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Mr Nayar called this a serious allegation, but one made with no evidence.<\/p>\n \u201cSingapore\u2019s 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,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Mr Nayar also said he was unsurprised that the commentators chosen for the programme were critical of Singapore\u2019s system.<\/p>\n \u201cSome have expressed similar views for decades, and made repeated predictions of Singapore\u2019s political collapse. Time and again, Singapore has confounded these predictions, even as our political system and electorate have continued to evolve.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat 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.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n