With the general election looming, the age-old concern about the citizenry's political apathy has resurfaced. Why is it that despite a better-educated population, political disengagement is still a problem?

Many attribute this to hedonism. The common perception is that Singaporeans are concerned only with bread- and-butter issues. Others blame it on the lack of political education since young.

However, there is one explanation which I believe is more compelling. And that is that politics and politicians of the Singapore Government suffer from an image problem.

The ruling party's style of governance has drawn its fair share of cynics. And it appears that the most acute cynicism has been directed towards the party's hardline management of political dissent.

Political speech in Singapore is, in the minds of many, fraught with unsanctioned but discernible OB markers. There seems to be a deep-seated mentality that speaking out against the Government is analogous to treading on a minefield - one miscalculated step and you could be joining the ranks of J.B. Jeyaretnam or Chee Soon Juan.

Further, with the economic prosperity Singapore enjoys, there is seemingly little to lose in insulating ourselves from politics and parting with our right to political free speech.

A more literate nation has done little to challenge or change the notion of an intolerant government and the illiberal politics it practises.

While it may be true that Singapore has been witnessing more open debates on government policies in the mass media, critics have commented that the terms and duration are still largely controlled by the Government.

One might ask, if there are indeed these cynics and critics, how could our population still be dubbed apolitical? Unfortunately, the cynics and critics constitute a minority.

Nevertheless, the input they provide commands serious attention. With a keen understanding of domestic politics and constitutional law, their analyses of internal political events are often incisive and insightful.

Although academics and political activists have been the most ardent bunch of cynics and critics, the universal (and relatively anonymous) nature of the Internet has provided great incentive for many others to turn to the online forum as an alternative media to publish their discordant political opinions.

Unless the Government takes greater steps to shed its totalitarian image, most cynics and critics will continue to feel marginalised, disenchanted and estranged from decision-making at the political level. Their conviction that more concrete forms of political participation are a futile exercise needs to be overturned so that the prestige of mainstream politics can be restored.

In order to improve such a negative image, laws need to be changed to construct a conducive environment in which people are allowed to practise their freedoms. In particular, laws which grant maximal discretion to the state in limiting civil and political rights need to be reviewed.

Only by diminishing the state's incursions on civil liberties and dispelling the fear of arbitrary legal sanctions can society possess the freedom to voice its opinions, form associations and engage actively with the politics of this country.

David Cai

* * * * *

25 March 2006
Straits Times Forum

In his letter, 'Politics in S'pore suffers from an image problem' (ST, March 23), Mr David Cai claims that the 'image problem' is due to the ruling party's 'hardline management of political dissent' that results in a 'deep-seated mentality that speaking out against the Government is analogous to treading on a minefield - one miscalculated step and you could be joining the ranks of J.B. Jeyaretnam or Chee Soon Juan'.

I am glad he felt free to speak up on this at length for The Straits Times. But the key issue is not the right to voice our views, which all of us enjoy, but the quality of the political system, the substance of the political debate and how decisions made can improve the lives of ordinary citizens.

Singapore has a hard-won international reputation for its high standard of integrity and competence in its politics. The PAP ensures this by insisting on honest, capable political leaders who fulfil their promises to the people. This has served Singapore and Singaporeans well.

In such a clean and transparent system, all allegations are investigated and lies refuted. Politicians who make scurrilous remarks must be able to back them up with facts. This applies both to the PAP as well as the opposition. This way, voters can decide better to whom they can entrust their future. Mr Cai forgets that Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low Thia Khiang have been in politics for over 20 years without suffering any consequences.

Our system is not perfect, but it is far better than the chaotic and dirty politics found in many other countries. Would Mr Cai prefer the political ferment in Thailand and the Philippines, where distrust of the ruling party's action and public conflict are ever present? Or the corruption of so many Asian countries, which have 'freer' political systems and media than Singapore?

The PAP Government and its MPs have gained the respect and trust of the people over the years. This is something special. In the United States and Britain - where political debates and scandals dominate - cynicism with the political system has become widespread, resulting in declining voter turn-outs in their general elections. Politicians rank lower than used-car salesmen in public esteem.

According to the book, The Vanishing Voter, by Mr Thomas Patterson, a key reason for the voters' cynicism in the US is that political campaigns seem more like theatre or entertainment than something to be taken seriously. In Singapore, we take our politics seriously.

The PAP is not afraid of different views and, in fact, encourages this. When I was interviewed to be a PAP candidate for the last general election, I made it clear that I disagreed with some of the PAP's policies. Still, I was selected, and I still maintain these views.

Indeed, if the PAP wants to silence dissent, why should it introduce the Non-Constituency MP scheme to give opposition members at least three seats in Parliament? Because of this scheme, Mr Steve Chia, who lost in the last general election, could still enter Parliament as the 'best loser'.

All Singaporeans are free to voice their opinions and form associations and, indeed, are encouraged to engage actively in politics if they feel so inclined. However, we all have to play by the same rules and be held accountable for our words and actions.

If Mr Cai has specific laws that he would like changed, he should put forward his suggestions, and get either the PAP or opposition politicians to raise them in Parliament. Mr Cai could even consider putting these ideas to the people by contesting in the forthcoming elections himself. After all, this is a democracy.

Irene Ng (Miss) 
Member of Parliament