Open Singapore Centre

2nd Public Forum and Report Launch
4 Nov 2000

Alan Wall
Standards for free and fair elections
Sunai Phasuk
Vincent Wijeysingha
Resolution

Copies of the report (see review) are available from the Open Singapore Centre, 1357A Serangoon Road, Singapore 328280, Tel. 2993115, Fax. 2991020, Email. opensing@singnet.com.sg Price: S$7.00 (Overseas orders, please add S$2.00 for P&P). Cheques payable to Open Singapore Centre.

Inaugural Forum

The Open Singapore Centre : a non-government organisation which promotes transparency and democratic accountability.

Elections In An Autocratic State: How Free And How Fair - Forum proceedings Report

The PAP government claims that Singapore is a democracy which holds regular elections. Elections do not, however, a democracy make. The test of a democratic state is whether its elections are genuinely free and fair. The 2^nd of the Open Singapore Centre?s public forums held here on Saturday 4 November provided those interested with the opportunity to discuss the question. The forum was addressed by two elections experts from the region and OSC Chair, J B Jeyaretnam. The forum was held in conjunction with the launch of the OSC?s inaugural report, Elections In Singapore: Are They Free And Fair.

The report is the first of its kind for Singapore, looking in depth at the problems of the electoral process in Singapore. As these issues have not received any media coverage, the publication of the report marks an important milestone in Singaporean democracy. It touches on a range of election arrangements that, while to the untrained eye, may appear consistent with the democratic objective, in fact hinders democracy. It exemplifies a radical departure from the conventional issues-based elections reportage in Singapore.

To an audience of around forty people, the forum began with an opening address by the OSC Chair and Workers? Party Secretary General, J B Jeyaretnam. He spoke at length about the obstacles to freedom and fairness in Singapore elections, drawing on his extensive experience of politics and contesting elections over a quarter of a century. He spoke of the importance of the report and of the need for election monitoring in Singapore.

Alan Wall, who spoke next, touched on a number of issues in addition to a brief outline of the work of his organisation, the International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES). IFES works in the areas of institutional capacity building for elections and electoral processes, legislation drafting and training of personnel. It is also works in the area of civil society, developing programmes to build and sustain civil society institutions. In addition IFES works to promote good governance and strengthen the rule of law. Mr Wall also gave an account of IFES? activities in Indonesia, where he is Project Manager. These include constitutional reform, providing advice to the administration and the state media, conducting national opinion surveys, and facilitating the broadcast of parliamentary sittings. Mr Wall then went on to speak on the definition and importance of ?freedom and fairness? in relation to elections, and how autocracies deal with elections.

He stated that in the 1980s freedom and fairness referred simply to the ability of the voter to make an unhindered choice, and the equity of the conditions under which electoral competition occurred. However, during the 1990s, other issues came to be addressed, such as the universality and secrecy of the vote, the transparency of the electoral process, the provision of a framework of review for decisions affecting electoral matters, and the accountability of government to the electorate. Furthermore, freedom and fairness also extended before and beyond voting day itself, to the method of determining the electoral system, and procedures such as party registration and the freedom of the media. He cited the following as the most comprehensive definition of standards for freedom and fairness:

• Regular elections managed by a neutral body
• Effectiveness and impartiality of electoral activities
• Accessible, non-discriminatory, law-based and verifiable opportunities for voter registration and voting
• Secret ballot
• The unhindered conduct of party and candidate campaigns (including access throughout the country and to the media) and an equitable basis for electoral competition
• Freedom of association, speech, assembly, movement and the right to information
• Effective and objectively verifiable review of electoral decisions
• Civic education for democracy
• Separation of party and state
• Adequately trained election officials, effective voting procedures and up-to-date voter registers
• Codes of Good Conduct enjoined on election participants
• Measures to ensure the integrity of the system and its administration, and the management of complaints
• Restrictions on election rights only consonant with the interests of national security, public order, public health, morals, the freedom of others and in accordance with law

These criteria, he argued, point to the first measure of an election, that is legitimacy. "Without legitimacy? he said, ?authority is a shell, based on naked power?. He added that without legitimacy citizen commitment to the state is a mere illusion. Elections that are free and fair act to bond citizens together. Mr Wall ended his comprehensive and enlightening presentation with a review of the basic foundations that hold true for elections in any country. These include public confidence in the system, the existence of monitoring bodies, and an independent media.

Next, Mr Sunai Phasuk gave a rundown of his organisation, the Asian Network for Free Elections? (Anfrel), work. Anfrel, founded in 1997, is engaged in developing a regional collaborative approach to elections. It has worked in Cambodia, Nepal and Thailand in the areas of elections administration, information dissemination and training. Mr Phasuk, who also has a distinguished career as an academic and writer, functions as its Research and Programme Manager.

He spoke also of procedural issues surrounding elections administration. His presentation touched on the relationship of elections to democracy and also looked at the wider issue of state-society relations, including the role of the media and the judiciary. Mr Phasuk dealt with issues of apparent, or procedural, freedom and fairness, in the context of other methods by which a government may entrench its legitimacy but debase democracy. He cited the experiences of Southeast Asian countries and looked at the practices of governments here. He concluded by arguing that electorialism (ie the ?apparentness? of freedom and fairness) is an unhappy state of affairs if domestication (ie ?the distancing, punctuating and isolating of critical forces in pluralistic society?) of civil society stakeholders hinders real democracy.

Following the speeches of the guest speakers, Vincent Wijeysingha, report author, gave a presentation of the findings of the report. He highlighted the principal obstacles that exist in the electoral process and discussed the recommendations which he said, ?are the real strength of the report. In his presentation, Mr Wijeysingha also set out the research methodology and the principal sources that had been used in the research process.

After a brief coffee break, the audience participated in a lively discussion and Q&A session. The Asian Wall Street Journal correspondent present asked if the new competition in the media would have an effect, or help publicise the findings of the report. Mr Jeyaretnam and Mr Wijeysingha countered that it is only the form rather than the substance of the media that is being liberalised. Mr Wijeysingha noted that genuine competition can only occur in a climate of genuine deregulation. Mr Gandhi Ambalam, Vince-Chair, Singapore Democratic Party, noted that the competition occurring is only in how best to package the available news, which is still, itself, controlled by the government. Mr Neo Ting Wei of the National Solidarity Party said that the government?s control of the media meant that even at this forum, apart from himself and some members of the SDP, there were no opposition politicians present.

Other points hinged on why opposition politicians did not question the great latitude given to political parties that remain on the Register of Societies but do not file accounts. Mr Jeyaretnam countered that the parties have rather more important things to be getting on with. A further question asked why opposition politicians did not attempt to discredit the system by boycotting the electoral process. For obvious reasons, this was not taken up by any of the opposition politicians present.

Dr Chee Soon Juan, Moderator, announced that it seemed timely that an election watch of some kind be set up in Singapore. Mr Jeyaretnam proposed the moving of a resolution. The text of the resolution read:-

This assembly of Singapore citizens, gathered at the Rendezvous Hotel, Bras Basah Road, Singapore on the fourth of November, 2000 between the hours of 1430 and 1730 do resolve as follows :-

1. To call upon the Prime Minister to take all necessary steps for the appointment of an independent Elections Commission before the next Parliamentary Elections with full responsibility for the conduct of elections and all matters preparatory thereto including the arrangement of electoral constituencies;

and

2. To invite observers from the United Nations to monitor the next Parliamentary Elections and to report whether the elections have been conducted in accordance with all the norms of free and fair elections as have been recognised by the United Nations.

The resolution was approved by nineteen of the remaining twenty-three people present, with four abstentions.

*********************

A Web site where Singaporeans are invited to read and discuss issues which concern them -- A Web in and away from home.

Open Singapore Centre

2nd Public Forum and Report Launch
4 Nov 2000

Alan Wall
Standards for free and fair elections
Sunai Phasuk
Vincent Wijeysingha
Resolution

Copies of the report (see review) are available from the Open Singapore Centre, 1357A Serangoon Road, Singapore 328280, Tel. 2993115, Fax. 2991020, Email. opensing@singnet.com.sg Price: S$7.00 (Overseas orders, please add S$2.00 for P&P). Cheques payable to Open Singapore Centre.

Inaugural Forum

The Open Singapore Centre : a non-government organisation which promotes transparency and democratic accountability.

Elections In An Autocratic State: How Free And How Fair - Forum proceedings Report

The PAP government claims that Singapore is a democracy which holds regular elections. Elections do not, however, a democracy make. The test of a democratic state is whether its elections are genuinely free and fair. The 2^nd of the Open Singapore Centre?s public forums held here on Saturday 4 November provided those interested with the opportunity to discuss the question. The forum was addressed by two elections experts from the region and OSC Chair, J B Jeyaretnam. The forum was held in conjunction with the launch of the OSC?s inaugural report, Elections In Singapore: Are They Free And Fair.

The report is the first of its kind for Singapore, looking in depth at the problems of the electoral process in Singapore. As these issues have not received any media coverage, the publication of the report marks an important milestone in Singaporean democracy. It touches on a range of election arrangements that, while to the untrained eye, may appear consistent with the democratic objective, in fact hinders democracy. It exemplifies a radical departure from the conventional issues-based elections reportage in Singapore.

To an audience of around forty people, the forum began with an opening address by the OSC Chair and Workers? Party Secretary General, J B Jeyaretnam. He spoke at length about the obstacles to freedom and fairness in Singapore elections, drawing on his extensive experience of politics and contesting elections over a quarter of a century. He spoke of the importance of the report and of the need for election monitoring in Singapore.

Alan Wall, who spoke next, touched on a number of issues in addition to a brief outline of the work of his organisation, the International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES). IFES works in the areas of institutional capacity building for elections and electoral processes, legislation drafting and training of personnel. It is also works in the area of civil society, developing programmes to build and sustain civil society institutions. In addition IFES works to promote good governance and strengthen the rule of law. Mr Wall also gave an account of IFES? activities in Indonesia, where he is Project Manager. These include constitutional reform, providing advice to the administration and the state media, conducting national opinion surveys, and facilitating the broadcast of parliamentary sittings. Mr Wall then went on to speak on the definition and importance of ?freedom and fairness? in relation to elections, and how autocracies deal with elections.

He stated that in the 1980s freedom and fairness referred simply to the ability of the voter to make an unhindered choice, and the equity of the conditions under which electoral competition occurred. However, during the 1990s, other issues came to be addressed, such as the universality and secrecy of the vote, the transparency of the electoral process, the provision of a framework of review for decisions affecting electoral matters, and the accountability of government to the electorate. Furthermore, freedom and fairness also extended before and beyond voting day itself, to the method of determining the electoral system, and procedures such as party registration and the freedom of the media. He cited the following as the most comprehensive definition of standards for freedom and fairness:

• Regular elections managed by a neutral body
• Effectiveness and impartiality of electoral activities
• Accessible, non-discriminatory, law-based and verifiable opportunities for voter registration and voting
• Secret ballot
• The unhindered conduct of party and candidate campaigns (including access throughout the country and to the media) and an equitable basis for electoral competition
• Freedom of association, speech, assembly, movement and the right to information
• Effective and objectively verifiable review of electoral decisions
• Civic education for democracy
• Separation of party and state
• Adequately trained election officials, effective voting procedures and up-to-date voter registers
• Codes of Good Conduct enjoined on election participants
• Measures to ensure the integrity of the system and its administration, and the management of complaints
• Restrictions on election rights only consonant with the interests of national security, public order, public health, morals, the freedom of others and in accordance with law

These criteria, he argued, point to the first measure of an election, that is legitimacy. "Without legitimacy? he said, ?authority is a shell, based on naked power?. He added that without legitimacy citizen commitment to the state is a mere illusion. Elections that are free and fair act to bond citizens together. Mr Wall ended his comprehensive and enlightening presentation with a review of the basic foundations that hold true for elections in any country. These include public confidence in the system, the existence of monitoring bodies, and an independent media.

Next, Mr Sunai Phasuk gave a rundown of his organisation, the Asian Network for Free Elections? (Anfrel), work. Anfrel, founded in 1997, is engaged in developing a regional collaborative approach to elections. It has worked in Cambodia, Nepal and Thailand in the areas of elections administration, information dissemination and training. Mr Phasuk, who also has a distinguished career as an academic and writer, functions as its Research and Programme Manager.

He spoke also of procedural issues surrounding elections administration. His presentation touched on the relationship of elections to democracy and also looked at the wider issue of state-society relations, including the role of the media and the judiciary. Mr Phasuk dealt with issues of apparent, or procedural, freedom and fairness, in the context of other methods by which a government may entrench its legitimacy but debase democracy. He cited the experiences of Southeast Asian countries and looked at the practices of governments here. He concluded by arguing that electorialism (ie the ?apparentness? of freedom and fairness) is an unhappy state of affairs if domestication (ie ?the distancing, punctuating and isolating of critical forces in pluralistic society?) of civil society stakeholders hinders real democracy.

Following the speeches of the guest speakers, Vincent Wijeysingha, report author, gave a presentation of the findings of the report. He highlighted the principal obstacles that exist in the electoral process and discussed the recommendations which he said, ?are the real strength of the report. In his presentation, Mr Wijeysingha also set out the research methodology and the principal sources that had been used in the research process.

After a brief coffee break, the audience participated in a lively discussion and Q&A session. The Asian Wall Street Journal correspondent present asked if the new competition in the media would have an effect, or help publicise the findings of the report. Mr Jeyaretnam and Mr Wijeysingha countered that it is only the form rather than the substance of the media that is being liberalised. Mr Wijeysingha noted that genuine competition can only occur in a climate of genuine deregulation. Mr Gandhi Ambalam, Vince-Chair, Singapore Democratic Party, noted that the competition occurring is only in how best to package the available news, which is still, itself, controlled by the government. Mr Neo Ting Wei of the National Solidarity Party said that the government?s control of the media meant that even at this forum, apart from himself and some members of the SDP, there were no opposition politicians present.

Other points hinged on why opposition politicians did not question the great latitude given to political parties that remain on the Register of Societies but do not file accounts. Mr Jeyaretnam countered that the parties have rather more important things to be getting on with. A further question asked why opposition politicians did not attempt to discredit the system by boycotting the electoral process. For obvious reasons, this was not taken up by any of the opposition politicians present.

Dr Chee Soon Juan, Moderator, announced that it seemed timely that an election watch of some kind be set up in Singapore. Mr Jeyaretnam proposed the moving of a resolution. The text of the resolution read:-

This assembly of Singapore citizens, gathered at the Rendezvous Hotel, Bras Basah Road, Singapore on the fourth of November, 2000 between the hours of 1430 and 1730 do resolve as follows :-

1. To call upon the Prime Minister to take all necessary steps for the appointment of an independent Elections Commission before the next Parliamentary Elections with full responsibility for the conduct of elections and all matters preparatory thereto including the arrangement of electoral constituencies;

and

2. To invite observers from the United Nations to monitor the next Parliamentary Elections and to report whether the elections have been conducted in accordance with all the norms of free and fair elections as have been recognised by the United Nations.

The resolution was approved by nineteen of the remaining twenty-three people present, with four abstentions.

*********************

A Web site where Singaporeans are invited to read and discuss issues which concern them -- A Web in and away from home.