By Ng E-Jay
Three bills were tabled in Parliament last week to amend the Constitution as well as the Presidential and Parliamentary Elections Acts. The proposed changes include raising the maximum number of Non-Constituency MPs from six to nine, making the Nominated MP scheme permanent, and introducing a cooling-off day prior to polling day in which no form of election campaigning is allowed except for party political broadcasts. [1] [2]
These bills will be debated by Parliament next month and are expected to become law.
The proposal to introduce a cooling-off day in particular is cause for grave concern. It has the potential to stifle legitimate political discourse by non-partisan players in cyberspace, and create an unfair playing field in which the mainstream media has a distinct advantage because it would be given free reign to express its views at a time when alternative voices might be silenced by law.
The idea of having a cooling-off day was first broached by PM Lee Hsien Loong in November 2009. Under the proposal, all election campaigning will be disallowed 24 hours before polling day, including mass rallies, door-to-door visits, and the display of party logos and symbols. The only exceptions will be party political broadcasts which are televised on the eve of the polls, as well mainstream media reports on the election. Mr Lee said that the cooling-off period “would give voters time to reflect rationally on issues, after the emotional high of election campaigning“. [3]
Bill No. 4/2010: Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill, which was first read on 11 March 2010, is the relevant bill that seeks to change the election laws to include a cooling-off day.
According to the bill, the original section 78B of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Chp. 218) that pertains to bans on election advertising on polling day would be replaced by a revised one that states that no person on polling day or the eve of polling day shall knowingly publish or permit the publication of election advertising. This includes election advertising on the internet. The bill does not clarify exactly what constitutes election advertising. Presumably, this might be covered in subsidiary legislation that could be introduced later.
This rule however does not apply to publication of election news in a newspaper or other medium permitted under the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act (Chp. 206), or radio or television broadcasts licensed under the Broadcasting Act (Chp. 28). The rule also does not apply to election advertising published on the internet before the eve of polling day, and which was not changed after its publication.
Any person in contravention of these rules would be liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months, or to both. The law is also to be made stricter, in that offences committed in respect of elections advertising are now seizable offences within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code (Chp. 68).
In the absence of subsidiary legislation that specifies exactly what constitutes election advertising, webmasters and blog owners could find themselves in a conundrum because there is no clarity regarding what is allowed or disallowed on the internet on polling day or the eve of polling day.
For example, when exactly does expressing opinions on local current affairs issues veer into the forbidden zone of elections advertising? No one can tell for sure. Politics is inextricably linked to economics, social issues, and indeed, to everyday life. And when politics is discussed, is it realistic to avoid mentioning political parties and their differing policies?
What kind of self-censorship would bloggers and online forum participants have to impose on themselves in order to stay within the law? There is zero clarity on this matter. When there is a deliberate vagueness in the law and a distinct lack of clarity, it would be up to the authorities to arbitrarily define and enforce the rules. This would make for a dangerous Catch-22 situation. The climate of fear of discussing politics online would only be further entrenched.
Other examples: Would reader comments on blogs and posts on online forums be allowed on cooling-off day, especially if those comments express explicit support or disapproval of specific political parties? Would avatars bearing the likeness of political party logos be permitted on Facebook or on forums? Would a simple “I support the National Solidarity Party!” comment posted on Twitter constitute election advertising and render one liable for prosecution?
As can be seen from these examples, the proposed amendment to the Parliamentary Elections Act has the potential to open a can of worms that could nibble away at the confidence of internet participants to engage in mature, responsible dialogue online. And when confusion and lack of clarity regarding the rules is allowed to fester on the internet, charges of discrimination and unfairness is likely to follow.
The idea of having a quiet period before the vote is taken is not unique to Singapore. Countries like Australia, Indonesia and Italy all have some variation of this feature in their electoral systems, with anything from one to three days of campaign silence before the poll is conducted.
However, the necessity for a cooling-off period in these countries is dictated by their much larger geographical area with the view of accommodating people from rural or inaccessible locations who might need more time to vote. That factor obviously does not apply to Singapore.
Moreover, these countries have a free and independent mainstream press, unlike Singapore.
In Singapore, the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act restrict the publication of newspapers to companies that are licensed by the authorities. With the exception of MediaCorp’s daily freesheet Today, all daily newspapers including the Straits Times are printed by Singapore Press Holdings (SPH), whose management shareholders are appointed by the government. There is little trust amongst cyberspace participants that the mainstream press would report on the election in a purely objective and non-partisan fashion.
If the government was sincere about opening up political space in Singapore, it could welcome applications for publishing licenses from bloggers, NGO and civic groups, even if only for the election period. If the status quo remains, the mainstream press would always be seen to have an unfair advantage, especially in the area of election reporting.
The permission given to the mainstream media to continue reporting on the election whilst alternative voices and opposition parties have to grapple with vaguely worded legislation in a bid to stay within the law creates an unfair playing field that can only sow greater mistrust for the electoral system.
If the mainstream press makes what is widely observed to be an unfavorable report on opposition parties on cooling-off day, would opposition parties not be allowed to respond to and rebut the points raised? Would they be unfairly silenced under the guise of allowing emotions to cool and maintaining public order?
Until these questions, amongst others, are satisfactorily answered, few are likely to believe that the government is sincere about progressively liberalising political space in Singapore.
_____________________________
References:
[1] Channel News Asia, “3 bills tabled to amend Constitution, Presidential & Parliamentary elections“, 11 March 2010
[2] Straits Times, “Changes to political system by next month“, 12 March 2010
[3] Channel News Asia, “PM Lee proposes extra day of non-campaigning before polling day“, 01 December 2009
__________________________________________________
“If the government was sincere about opening up political space in Singapore, it could welcome applications for publishing licenses from bloggers, NGO and civic groups, even if only for the election period. If the status quo remains, the mainstream press would always be seen to have an unfair advantage, especially in the area of election reporting.”
Isn’t there the Internet Class Licensing Act for this already? But as the previous GE showed, bloggers were not willing to register themselves for fear of the stifling effects of the law. So it’s essentially a catch-22 situation here: Don’t register, and you might run afoul of the law. Register, and risk being censored by the authorities.
So what can bloggers do? Break the law lo.
What the government is pursuing… is a policy of a sore loser attitude … believing that they should not be losing and nothing can justify that they’re losing the’ faith of the majority citizens towards them as the ruling party.
One thing we have to be clear about. The decision to vote for a political party does not fall within the nine days (usually) election campaigning period.
Over the years, we have seen how the PAP had introduced all sorts of nonsense to ensure it stays in power. This is just another tool it is predisposed to introduce to ensure its survival. Yes, it is survival time, something unfathomable in the history of the PAP.
However, in its attempt to survive, it is making mistakes that are not usually associated with the PAP brand name. It is beginning to distance itself from those it perceives as anti-PAP, refusing to win them over by being more considerate to their grievances and to helping them alleviate their living conditions.
It’s focus has been its own survival, thinking up policies upon policies to ensure that it continues to get the votes its craves for. There will come a time when nothing they do will ever repair the damage of neglecting its own citizens.
What the PAP fails to understand is that nothing they do will change the wind-of-change that is so apparently necessary, and for which, many are already coming to realize its necessity.
They may be able to win another one or two elections by landslide victories. It won’t come as a surprise to those of us struggling for democratic freedom. It shouldn’t come as a surprise to the PAP too that they will not be able to repel the undercurrent when it hits them head on. No tweaking of any policy is going to save them.
For us, we just have to be patient and wait for the PAP to work at its own downfall. It is clear that the very group of people they habour their hopes on, the foreigner-turned-citizen, will one day come to haunt them, for these are not given to a culture of blind faith and blind acceptance – often misunderstood as apathy. These will only be grateful for a while, until such time they realized that their offspring will have to suffer the consequences of their folly.
So, please go ahead and introduce more ridiculous policies. Go ahead and dig your own grave. The days of blind faith are over.
Our decision has already being made. Whether there are nine days or ninety days of campaigning, whether there is a cooling-off day or hugging day does not matter. Those are days for the electorate to listen to what other tales the PAP are spinning and will be spinning for the next five years.
knowing them, it’s a new rule which they can play around with to ‘fix’ the opposition (as pm lee puts it)
So if they see that they are losing ground, they can call off the election by having somebody pretending to be the opposition and shout a few words the day before!!!
Why do you think the cooling-off day was implemented and by whom??
Do you really think that the cooling-off day is for us to cool our heads??
Come on, they are not so generous!! It must be to their advantage that the cooling-off
day is implemented. Creating confusion and ambiguity in grey areas should they lose in that particular ward /wards thru’ their own interpretations of the laws set up by them!!
VOTE PAP OUT! Regardless of what their tricks are.
The bill does not clarify exactly what constitutes election advertising. Presumably, this might be covered in subsidiary legislation that could be introduced later. …
In the absence of subsidiary legislation that specifies exactly what constitutes election advertising, webmasters and blog owners could find themselves in a conundrum because there is no clarity regarding what is allowed or disallowed on the internet on polling day or the eve of polling day.
This is untrue. The existing Act already defines “election advertising” in its section 2, albeit a very broad, catch-all definition:
“election advertising” means any poster, banner, notice, circular, handbill, illustration, article, advertisement or other material that can reasonably be regarded as intended —
(a) to promote or procure the electoral success at any election for one or more identifiable political parties, candidates or groups of candidates; or(b) to otherwise enhance the standing of any such political parties, candidates or groups of candidates with the electorate in connection with any election,
and such material shall be election advertising even though it can reasonably be regarded as intended to achieve any other purpose as well and even though it does not expressly mention the name of any political party or candidate, but excludes any button, badge, pen, pencil, balloon and any other thing prescribed by the Minister by notification in the Gazette.
(Bah, this failure of the comments to paragraph properly is irritating…)
The bill does not clarify exactly what constitutes election advertising. Presumably, this might be covered in subsidiary legislation that could be introduced later. …
In the absence of subsidiary legislation that specifies exactly what constitutes election advertising, webmasters and blog owners could find themselves in a conundrum because there is no clarity regarding what is allowed or disallowed on the internet on polling day or the eve of polling day.
This is untrue. The existing Act already defines “election advertising” in its section 2, albeit a very broad, catch-all definition:
“election advertising” means any poster, banner, notice, circular, handbill, illustration, article, advertisement or other material that can reasonably be regarded as intended —
(a) to promote or procure the electoral success at any election for one or more identifiable political parties, candidates or groups of candidates; or
(b) to otherwise enhance the standing of any such political parties, candidates or groups of candidates with the electorate in connection with any election,
and such material shall be election advertising even though it can reasonably be regarded as intended to achieve any other purpose as well and even though it does not expressly mention the name of any political party or candidate, but excludes any button, badge, pen, pencil, balloon and any other thing prescribed by the Minister by notification in the Gazette.
Quote of the Day
“Our decision has already being made. Whether there are nine days or ninety days of campaigning, whether there is a cooling-off day or hugging day does not matter”.
Very Well Said, Mister Gemami.
I can’t agree more with your sentiments. For me personally, my decision to ALWAYS vote for the Opposition was made many, many GE’s ago (I am 62 years old). I have never trusted them and I don’t think I ever will, as long as I live.
For all the neglect and abuses they have bestowed on the common man in the streets, my sincere conviction is simply that they really do not deserve to govern Singaporean.
Vote Opposition.
Majullah Singapura!
To the PAP govt:
Try cooling off the Internet. You can’t.
As far as I can remember, I think the PAP tried to pull a similar stunt to regulate internet discussion. An epic failure on their part. People were even going into IRC channels to await and discuss as the poll results rolled in. Fun, and I remembered the first result to come in was from Kampong Glam. We giggled as LHL got his ‘strong mandate’ in AMK. We cheered when CSC and LTK held on to their constituencies and beat that two chiku/abalone PAP douchebags.
The PAP mentality is always that they are the only future for Sg, and when they are wrong it is still good for Sg
hence, they take any anti PAP votes as impulsive and irritaional, the group they worry the most are the first time voters, all PAP plicies are appeasing the byouth and that is vote catching.
This cool off period is for PAP to rescue themselves from massive defeat
Let’s see, if one day cool off does not save them, they will add other hurdles to the free poll.
La Nausee
I understand you did not author those definitions. A definition, by definition, should define a thing as uniquely as is possible. An excessively broad definition is at best a useless one. Catch-all clauses should just qualify and not define.
Is it correct to understand the law you have quoted to mean that 1) regarding what is interdicted election material and what is not, yes, netizens have clarity in the form of an official set of guidelines, 2) the guidelines, however, say that little is clear, one could potentially cross lines which can shift at the minister’s pleasure.
So in a climate of fear, it is the expectation that netizens will first see to their own safety and confined themselves to the inch-wide strip of safety left by the law, and keep away from the grey areas that are miles across?
One does not necessarily have to trust the media to disseminate information or … ONE CAN BE THE MEDIA.
They will use the media to psycho us. But they can not fool us on one thing.
There are too many fat s in the Research Institute, drawing tons of pay yet produces no concrete result. Look at how many Foreign Thrash we have there. Are they all good?
Where our money goes to?
I am concern as there are 60% of graduate who are jobless. Yet as PMET we are being threaten again and again that we will lose our jobs. They have no worry that thy lose their jobs for the coming election. But we will let them feel how we feel when we loses our jobs.
Good luck to all those from the NTUC. Good luck. Lighting will not strike twice. But slaughtering will.
If my memory serve me right amendment to the constitution can only be done thru referendum. If there is anyone who can point out to the contrary please let me know.
Another thing if my memory serve me right, the LHL was in a polling booth during polling day which contravene our election law but no action taken by the current CJ (if i am not mistaken) who was the AG then pointing a technicality in the law.
There were howls of protests from opp but nothing came out of it so all these laws are in fact quite ineffective to the ruling party
does cooling period really matter?
if you have decided on voting for someone,
you will vote for someone.
no cooling period is going to change your mind.
the additional 24 hours is for PAP to use MSM to publish news to seed fear.
They like to use Thailand as an example, have they ever use change of power in US election British election or Japan election as example of peaceful change of regime through ballot boxes ?
PAP grant the minimum campaign days written in constitution, with each more campaign day, they may lose one % of vote, but the cool off days is to flood PAP messages to young voters and housewives, the latter are easier target to sway back to PAP.
“cooling off day” means PAP freeze alternative parties’ rallying, whilst keeping their compaign freaking warming, with the help of SPH and MediaCock.
What a bloody hypocrite. Say one thing, do another. Just want to secure his political power rather than doing what is best for the people.
PAP is that afraid of competition.
so much for telling S’poreans to embrace foreign workers, competition is good…
double standards, 1 for PAP, another for the masses. why not let “market forces” decide? so afraid of competition, how to improve?
hmmm, can anti-competition laws extend its arms into politics? cannot monopoly mah…
:D
Just wondering, if I post, in my personal capacity, I endorse candidate ‘x’ because, in my opinion, he believes ‘y’ and will do ‘z’ for the country – without saying explicitly ‘Vote for Candidate X!’ – does that constitute election advertising?
My feeling is – no. After all, how could the opinion of a single individual netizen ‘promote or procure electoral success of a candidate’, or ‘enhance his/her standing’, when it is what it is – an individual’s opinion?
It’s impossible to police the internet created by ordinary citizens. For example if someone post in support of an opposition party in Singapore during the cooling off, where does the burdern of proof lie to prove the poster is Singaporean? Furthermore, do we have judistriction over such blog and SNS sites?
Should the bill leave out such factual information, then are we obliged to follow the then-become-law?
The key point is that majority (80%) of people rely on SPH newspapers for information, and this is exactly how PAP can affect voting choice, only the younger ones may browse and read from internet, PAP still have a 4 to 1 adavantage to sway swing voters on the cooling off day before election.
wouldn’t it be hilarious if after implementing cooling off period, the % went down from 66.6% to below 66.6% ?
we shall wait and see … wait and see… mmmmm.. haa.. haaa. (evill laugh)
That say after the votes are counted and the opposition wins, can they invalidate the voting at a later time by cooking up a story that they saw opposition campaigning the day before the election? If they can’t do that, then I think they would change the law very soon.
call me pessimistic, but even if the opposition managed to get the majority votes in a GRC, what’s preventing the ruling party from changing the numbers ? than what? we take to the street in protest? most likely we stay at home and pray they don’t rise the cost of living agian…
step by step first lah, bros….. let’s make sure that PAP gets her day of reckoning first and worry about the “what ifs” later
I too have voted opposition all along, so nothing is going to change my mind, unless pap suddenly wakes up and decide to care for singaporeans, but I guess that will only happen when the sun rises from the west..
“election advertising” means any poster, banner, notice, circular, handbill, illustration, article, advertisement or other material that can reasonably be regarded as intended —“ la nausée.
So we ask the question: ‘Why are some pigs more equal than others?”.
What about the public perception that the MSM hasits own vested-interest to support one party more than another, and thus giving slanted views that give sway to the electorate’s decision to cast their votes for one political party over another?
Why is such a pig more equal than others (not that the others are pigs).
“…(a) to promote or procure the electoral success at any election for one or more identifiable political parties, candidates or groups of candidates; or
(b) to otherwise enhance the standing of any such political parties, candidates or groups of candidates with the electorate in connection with any election,…”
What is the purpose of an election then if we take away these two points? Blatant stupidity isn’t it?
Thanks, Disillusioned, for holding my views in such high regards. Just doing my small bit to share my thoughts.
Why is PAP so afraid of the people in the last minute to enact such unreasonable and unfair legislations to silent reasons that they cannot take? Why is LHL so highly paid and busy with himself thinking how to fix Singaporeans and alternative parties instead of spending time thinking how to make life more pleasant for the people who errorneously voted for him in the last election. It is precisely of such Kiasu, scare-to-lose tactic and mentality by PAP that makes people wanted to charge into parliament and tear them into pieces. Cooling day is in fact a heated day for many Singaporeans and we want to see how PAP can try to hide their own flaws for that one day to wriggle themselves out of guilt absorbed deep inside their bones. I hope alterntive parties can capitalise about this Kiasu day to win more votes and open the eyes of 66% who were asleep in the last election,
This coward lightning party really got no principle and integrity! lying all the time and scheming ways and means to disgraceful win votes! Really disgusting and sad that there are such people! unbelievable !!!! Totally have no respect for this bunch of jerks!
LOL I do agree with you. I mean come on being a party advocating democracy shouldn’t you acknowledge freedom of the population to vote for the best candidate instead of being so ‘kiasu’ and restricting this and that.
I think an additional 24 hrs is not going to make much difference because the people’s mind would have been made up way before the elections campaigns and then sealed during the campaigning. This additional 24 hrs could even be viewed as an unfair tactic and become a reason for some minds to made up way ahead, against the papies. So it could go both ways is what i think.
Hi MS,
Oh No! It IS going to make a difference!
We all know that the continued survival of the PAP hinged on the neutral voters, the so-called, fence-seaters. The cooling-off day is to help the PAP ensure that it message to this group of voters is loud and clear – that it does them and the country no good if they cast their votes against them.
This is the swing-vote that the PAP wants to capture and the cooling-off day is meant to give the PAP this advantage. Don’t be too naive to think that the PAP would take so mauch trouble to implement something that is not going to bring them any advantage.
Hope this help sway your perception that it is not going to make any difference. It only makes no difference to those who already have their minds made up in the run up to the election.
Cooling off day is not going to waver those who are already firmed on who to vote and eager to bring about changes and lessen the inevitable shackle in part or in full of a perpetuated governance : impermanence of all matters – being facts of lives which cannot be denied and which can come about abruptly or gradually is better than no change at all
.
So any unfair any propaganda guise in any forms by those who have the upper hands on that cooling of day will not sway those determined for a partial or major change – maybe , those vulnerable dithering ones.
in the end, after we pour out our disapproval or dissent or dismay or disappointment about the new bills, does it mean we can only watch and accept as the bills get passed, presumably?
I mean, its not like we have strong number of opposition to veto the bills, is it?
So, i wonder what is the point of us spending time here lamenting the Inevitable?
Real action will come after the tick tock went up the car.
PAP should just focus on economics, rather than on fixing the opposition.
http://voixdeviant.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/cooling-off-or-switching-off/