Issues and Ideas

Article 6: Are we really free?

Article 7: Look in the mirror to see democracy

Given the criteria for democracy and the examples of societies where illusory democracy reigns,
how democratic would you rate the Singapore government? You must give detailed evidence to
support your opinion.

The Singapore government can be considered as a democratic country according to the criteria
listed in Article 6, although a party-based government is currently in power. The dominance of this
single party seems to have removed much of the democratic elements of governance in the country,
if democracy can be defined as the presence of a pluralistic political structure. I feel that although it
does not appear to be democratic in terms of political structure, the system itself is democratic as it
fulfils most of the criteria as mentioned in Article 6, and the idea of democracy is not as illusory as
displayed in Article 7.

Singapore allows for free elections once every 5 years, and that the people are to vote for their
preferred government party, regardless of race and religion. The active campaigning by individual
parties displays a right to fair competition during the period of elections. The rally speeches by
various politicians are also no condoned, giving the sense that these groups are allowed to compete
on a fair ground and gain supporters through their abilities. However, it has to be noted that although
it may seem to be democratic in terms of the political system, the political structure it self is still
limited and biased. This can be seen through the ‘walkover’ seats in the various constituencies,
whereby the residents do not get to participate in the elections as they are considered the PAP’s
constituencies and by default, will continue to be on their side. Hence, there is a discrepancy when it
is said that Singapore holds free elections as not everyone can vote. Therefore, I believe that
although the political system is democratic, the political structure is not so and hence limits the
democratic element in Singapore.

Furthermore, as can be seen in Article 7, it is mentioned that ‘insecurity, helplessness and

despondency drive people to worship. The vote becomes a prayerful piece of paper held out to
passing deities, a certificate inscribed with the expectations of a desperate faith’. I feel that in
Singapore’s context, this is untrue. Firstly, it is because the idea of politics is not driven by insecurity,
helplessness and despondency, but mainly the mindset of a change that can be brought about with
a change of government. Some people are happy with the current situation, and hence continue
supporting the PAP. Furthermore, I feel that Article 7 is making a unsubstantiated claim, with much
exaggeration in terms of diction used. I feel that it is strongly infused with a personal dislike and a
cynical view towards democracy and hence is biased in the view. Hence, the illusory nature of
democracy may not be present, nor is it this extreme. Therefore, I believe that Singapore is still
relatively democratic as it can be seen that democracy is not an alien concept in Singapore, nor an
illusion.

In conclusion, I feel that Singapore is democratic, but mainly in the political system and way things
are done, but in essence, the political structure remains resistant to change and proves to have
discrepancies in terms of the concept of democracy.
Issues and Ideas

Article 8: Letters on Democracy to the Press

These letters express the writer’s view on good government and democracy. In your view, is
democracy a pre-requisite of good government?

I feel that democracy is important to bring about a good government in its initial stages. This is in
reference to MP Low Thia Kiang’s response ‘I believe good government cannot come about without
democracy. It can only emerge through a fair system of election and a good electoral environment
where the people’s will can be realised without fear’. I agree with this statement as I also think that in
order to appeal to the people, in order to secure the people’s loyalties, it is imperative to show that
one’s government is serving and leading the people at the same time, and hence a democratic
system. Furthermore, the idea of merit and choosing the most capable to lead the nation would
serve as an incentive and motivation for the leaders to provide better welfare and implement
appropriate policies to secure the prosperity of the country so as to stay in position.

However, I feel that democracy may not be a good thing as well, if applied too liberally. This is so as
the people may not have a clear picture of the nation’s situation, or they may not have the
appropriate education to assess the country’s situation analytically and insist on certain policies that
are more well-received by the masses, hence they may make wrong judgements and thus cost the
nation its growth. This is so as sometimes, the governments have to implement policies that are not
well received by the public but are crucial to helping the country in its development. Therefore, an
excessively democratic system is not entirely good as well. This can be seen through past examples
of monarchy and strong leaders that did away with a purely democratic system such as Emperor Qin
of the Tang Dynasty as well as military rulers such as Ne Win in Burma and Sukarno in Indonesia,
all of whom took control of the nation and made decisions with regard to the country’s development.
Therefore, some form of authoritarianism should be welcomed for a good government and
democracy is not necessarily the basis and pre-requisite of a good government.
Issues and Ideas

Article 10a: Is Singapore being paranoid?

Article 10b: Backman’s got it wrong

Which of the two viewpoints do you support? In your answer, refer to arguments in the passages
and include your own thoughts and examples.

In Article 10a. Michael Backman criticizes the Singapore system for being too restrictive and
maintaining a tight control over the media. On the other hand, in Article 10b, Bhavani rebuts by
saying that there is a logical explanation to Singapore’s media and the role it has to play in nation
building. I am more inclined to agree with Bhavani’s argument as I believe her arguments are more
substantiated, less generalized and accusatory, and are logical in explaining the role of the media in
Singapore’s context.

Firstly, Backman presents a narrow-scoped argument, nitpicking Singapore’s various flaws and
comparing the system to that of other countries. As he does not consider the context in which these
countries implement their control over the media, he is making a generalized and accusatory
argument that cannot stand on its own when applied to the Singapore context. He insists that ‘no
other government whose citizens have a comparable per capita income persists with the sort of
media control as does Singapore’s [and] what Singapore needs is a media that is conducive to the
development and exchange of ideas and which provides a venue for debate’. In this argument,
Backman can be seen to be imposing his ideas win relation to a comparison to other countries’
media control. As he does not attempt to contextualize and understand the role the media plays in
various countries, he is assuming that the media has the same role throughout the world and thus
making a broad, sweeping generalization. One example of the various roles of the media in different
societies is that of China, whereby the PRC internal media is used to facilitate party control, and
used to promote a certain party. Hence, it can be seen that his argument is flawed and
unsubstantiated, as no examples were provided following this claim. Therefore, his argument is
unconvincing and proves to be flawed in terms of the lack of substance displayed in this point.

On the other hand, Bhavani argues that the role of the media in Singapore is different to what
Backman has argued that it should be, saying ‘Singapore’s media model is adapted to our
circumstances and needs. The media plays a different role here than that in the US, Britain or
Australia […] Instead, the media in Singapore plays a constructive and valuable role, reporting the
news accurately and fully, informing and educating the public and helping to form the national
consensus that enables Singaporeans to respond cohesively and rationally to challenges’. In her
explanation, it is clear that Bhavani expresses the role of the media in Singapore in response to
Backman’s claims of Singapore’s tightly controlled media. In this argument, I agree with it as the use
of the media such as the Straits Times effectively disseminates the news to the people daily and
hence informing the public of what is happening all around us. This argument, in comparison to the
wild unsubstantiated claims of Backman, appears to be more logical and properly structured and
argued so as to present a better argument that is more convincing in terms of substance and clarity.

In conclusion, I’m inclined to agree with Bhavani’s more logical and structured response, rather than
Backman’s opinions.