Hence a cursory reading of the newspapers and the TV news will give just one story: a steady, inexorable advance by the PAP.

Not true. If we read the details and between the lines, it's a different picture.

Some weeks before Nomination Day, soon after Goh Chok Tong was tasked with "winning back" Potong Pasir and Hougang constituencies, he said that he understood the people's desire for alternative voices in Parliament.

He proposed that Sitoh Yih Pin and Eric Low, the PAP candidates in these two wards, if elected, would play the role of opposition in Parliament. Goh suggested that the party whip should also be lifted for these two.

Immediately, a wave of ridicule rolled over this idea. From some came the objection that no PAP MP should enjoy special treatment, but most derided the idea as clutching at straws. What kind of faux-opposition would this be? They asked.

In any case, why should we think that these two men were able to play such a role? Didn't they choose to join the PAP? If they were critical-minded rather than "yes"-minded, wouldn't they have joined the opposition parties in the first place?

Lee Hsien Loong said not a word in support of Goh's idea. It sank faster than the Titanic.

Looking at the experience of other countries, Singapore too will face a budget crunch when it comes to healthcare. Our population too is aging quite rapidly.

B1, B2 and C-class wards are, according to the Health Ministry, subsidised; C-class most heavily. As more and more people need hospital stays, so the subsidies which the national budget has to bear will increase dramatically.

Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan would prefer that those who can afford it, choose B1 or B2 rather than C, so as not to overburden the state budget, and for this reason, has over the last 2 years or so, mentioned the possibility of means-testing before admission into C-class wards.

To be fair to him, the future budget problem is real, and something needs to be done (not that the optimum solution must necessarily include means-testing). It's therefore rather a pity that the opposition parties have been hitting out at means-testing without much by way of an alternative idea.

Alas, the crafting of a solution is an intellectual and accounting exercise while blasting away at means-testing appeals emotionally.

But it has clearly resonated with the public. Around the 3rd day of campaigning, Khaw said means-testing is likely to be postponed for 2 years. By the 6th day, he retreated further, saying it may not be implemented at all.

Midway through the campaign, the PAP made James Gomez the no. 1 issue. They -- Wong Kan Seng, George Yeo, Ng Eng Hen and Lee Kuan Yew particularly, speaking with an aggressiveness that turned people off -- alleged that Gomez intentionally failed to submit his minority-race application, intending to blame the Elections Department, and thereby discredit the government's handling of the electoral process. 

The integrity of the electoral system was at stake. 

This topic dominated the election news for 3 - 4 days, not because people cared about it -- they didn't think the so-called evidence was in any way conclusive -- but because it was the way the PAP wanted it. See the article Don't open the papers! Screaming banshees!

At first, Goh Chok Tong was the only PAP leader who demurred. He was of the view that this should not be a critical issue for the election. "Let's move on," he said.

Then on Monday night (1 May 2006), speaking at an election rally, Goh said, "Wong Kan Seng spoke to me and explained why he is still pursuing the matter."

He added, "it could well be that James Gomez was out to blacken the name of the Elections Department." It looked like Goh had been told to fall into line [1].

Wednesday's newspapers carried the heaviest salvoes. The "liar" word was used by both Lee Kuan Yew and Wong Kan Seng. "I say Mr Gomez is a liar and he's dishonest and if he thinks it's libel, he can sue Mr Wong Kan Seng, he can sue me," thundered Lee [2].

Then just as suddenly, the PAP pulled back. On Thursday (4 May 2006), the front page of the Straits Times featured Lee Hsien Loong's rally speech, with the headline, "Dominant PAP is what makes Singapore succeed".

Chua Lee Hoong, a journalist with the Straits Times wrote a commentary titled "Quietly does it on the Gomez saga: there are other concerns too". Sumiko Tan's piece was titled "Time to get back to bread-and-butter issues", gently telling the government to stop their nonsense.

And so they did.

At the height of the Gomez saga, George Yeo and Lee Kuan Yew called on the Workers' Party to drop Gomez from their team of candidates standing in Aljunied GRC. They said it was possible for the remaining 4 candidates to continue standing for election.

The press asked the Elections Department for clarification as to the rules. On 4 May, the Straits Times reported that [3],

The Elections Department, which is under the Prime Minister's Office, yesterday issued a statement noting that the Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA) makes no mention about the effect of a withdrawal of a candidate on a GRC team between Nomination Day and Polling Day.

Hence, the Returning Officer has no authority to call off the election or declare the opposing team the winner in the event of such a situation.

'The poll for Aljunied GRC will have to proceed as scheduled,' said the department.

On whether a four-man team can contest a five-man GRC, the department said the PEA does not expressly confer power on the Returning Officer to restart the election.

But whether the outcome of the poll can be set aside on the basis that the election is not in accordance with the law will have to be decided by the courts, it added.

This was beside the point. The question was "can the remaining candidates continue to stand for election as a reduced team?", not whether the election can be restarted.

The same newspaper contacted a number of constitutional lawyers. They were unanimous that under the law a candidate cannot be withdrawn midway through the campaign. For a 5-man GRC, the poll should deliver a 5-man team to Parliament, not 4.

The lawyers interviewed refer to Section 22(2) of the PEA. It states that each group representation constituency (GRC) shall return the designated number of members to serve in Parliament for that constituency.

For Aljunied GRC, it is stipulated that it is a five-member constituency.

'That means you need to return five members, not four,' said Assistant Professor Eugene Tan, a law lecturer at Singapore Management University.

-- ibid

If the Workers' Party dropped one candidate, the entire team's nomination would likely be treated as void.

"It seems self-explanatory that names cannot be withdrawn, and if the WP puts up a four-man team, this is an irregularity which can be judicially challenged," said Thio Li-Ann, a law professor at NUS.

Any legal challenge to the validity of such an election result would almost surely succeed. See also the article The GRC election quiz.

By giving such a inaccurate, beat-around-the-bush answer to the press, and one that appeared headed in a direction different from what the law clearly says, the Elections Department discredited itself. They didn't need James Gomez to do it for them.

This just shows how compliant some of our civil servants are to the wishes of the politicians in power. They might even disregard (euphemism: fail to pay due attention to) the law just because some ministers want a certain pre-ordained result.

Has an effectively one-party system been good for the integrity of our institutions?

© Yawning Bread