Deepgeek Thoughts
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Forum on Singapore Elections
Forum: Elections in Singapore
Organiser: Alliance for Reform & Democracy in Asia (ARDA)
ARDA Team: Dr Paul Scott, Mr Herman Vermeer, Mr Martin Lee, Mr Earl Parreno, Mr Michael J. Mitchell
Speakers: Mr Yap, Mr Tan Chong Kee
Moderator: Mr J B Jeyaretnam
Date: 9 January 2004
Time: 2:30 – 5 pm
Venue: Holiday Inn Parkview Orchid Room
Are Singapore elections so predictable that we have begun to treat it as a non – event? Since we can predict with certainty which party is going to get most of the votes, does it mean we should vote apathetically? Can Singaporeans democratically change our government through normal procedural elections under the current situation? How many Singaporeans have a desire to run as Opposition candidates but are stopped by their perceptions of the system? Why are the major political parties in Singapore facing difficulties in recruiting electoral candidates? Is the media impartial to all political parties during electoral campaigning?
These were just some of my thoughts as the speakers, public and ARDA team made their observations and opinions at Singapore’s first indoor public forum on Singapore elections.
The event threw up robust complex election issues.
One of the mulled over issues was the mentality of the Singaporean voter.
It is apparent that psychological factors heavily influenced how the average Singaporean votes.
The current government’s carrot and stick approach has given People’s Action Party (PAP) an unfair edge over other Opposition parties.
Positive media reviews of PAP candidates and Government Shares motivate Singaporeans to vote the de facto party while fear of losing jobs, serial numbers on voting cards and negative media portrayal of Opposition Parties turns Opposition away from the general uninformed public.
During the forum, some participants revealed the “fear” that Singaporeans develop over years under one party rule. One of them mentioned the dominance of the government in various domestic sectors from telecommunications to the supermarket.
Focusing on a larger picture, one of the younger participants opined that Singapore’s lack of “democratic culture” as compared to United States is one of the reasons why we are behind promoting democracy and human rights, which indirectly ties in with elections issues.
Mr J B Jeyaretnam who was the moderator, set the topic of the forum, by raising the pertinent question of whether Singapore’s elections are truly “free and fair”.
That will include whether elections are fair to candidates; if all parties have equal opportunities to present their policies and programs; resource to funding election campaigns; election rallies; and transparencies of system on procedures during polling day; among a host of other concerns.
Mr Yap, who presented his internet poll on the election system revealed disturbing signs of Singaporeans who are “unsure” of the free and fairness of the current system. A small sample base and a limited research time frame are limitations of the results of the survey to draw more convincing conclusions.
Mr Tan Chong Kee drew a comparison between Singapore and the ancient Chinese Confucious system; and posits the hyperbole of whether we would be sustainable as a country under the PAP rule.
The views of the professional ARDA observers were equally helpful.
Mr Earl Parreno related Marcos rule in Philippines and how citizens overcame their fear of the dictatorial regime through People Power revolution. Mr Martin Lee discouraged boycotting elections when one of the participants suggested it as a form of civil disobedience.
On the future of Singapore elections and individual actions, one participant cautioned the government’s plan to roll out e voting, which he claimed, is difficult to monitor and susceptible to fraud.
Another participant suggested that though independent election commissions should be considered as a viable option to ensure fairness of the system, he believed that Singaporeans are on the whole, generally unsympathetic towards Opposition. As such, he urged the public to give Opposition a chance; and that Opposition candidates will need to work harder at the grassroots level to gain citizens’ support and trust.
This forum on election helps Singaporeans understand the need of being aware of electoral issues from various perspectives. We need to recognize that free and fair election is a major element in promoting and ensuring democracy.
Forum: Elections in Singapore
Organiser: Alliance for Reform & Democracy in Asia (ARDA)
ARDA Team: Dr Paul Scott, Mr Herman Vermeer, Mr Martin Lee, Mr Earl Parreno, Mr Michael J. Mitchell
Speakers: Mr Yap, Mr Tan Chong Kee
Moderator: Mr J B Jeyaretnam
Date: 9 January 2004
Time: 2:30 – 5 pm
Venue: Holiday Inn Parkview Orchid Room
Are Singapore elections so predictable that we have begun to treat it as a non – event? Since we can predict with certainty which party is going to get most of the votes, does it mean we should vote apathetically? Can Singaporeans democratically change our government through normal procedural elections under the current situation? How many Singaporeans have a desire to run as Opposition candidates but are stopped by their perceptions of the system? Why are the major political parties in Singapore facing difficulties in recruiting electoral candidates? Is the media impartial to all political parties during electoral campaigning?
These were just some of my thoughts as the speakers, public and ARDA team made their observations and opinions at Singapore’s first indoor public forum on Singapore elections.
The event threw up robust complex election issues.
One of the mulled over issues was the mentality of the Singaporean voter.
It is apparent that psychological factors heavily influenced how the average Singaporean votes.
The current government’s carrot and stick approach has given People’s Action Party (PAP) an unfair edge over other Opposition parties.
Positive media reviews of PAP candidates and Government Shares motivate Singaporeans to vote the de facto party while fear of losing jobs, serial numbers on voting cards and negative media portrayal of Opposition Parties turns Opposition away from the general uninformed public.
During the forum, some participants revealed the “fear” that Singaporeans develop over years under one party rule. One of them mentioned the dominance of the government in various domestic sectors from telecommunications to the supermarket.
Focusing on a larger picture, one of the younger participants opined that Singapore’s lack of “democratic culture” as compared to United States is one of the reasons why we are behind promoting democracy and human rights, which indirectly ties in with elections issues.
Mr J B Jeyaretnam who was the moderator, set the topic of the forum, by raising the pertinent question of whether Singapore’s elections are truly “free and fair”.
That will include whether elections are fair to candidates; if all parties have equal opportunities to present their policies and programs; resource to funding election campaigns; election rallies; and transparencies of system on procedures during polling day; among a host of other concerns.
Mr Yap, who presented his internet poll on the election system revealed disturbing signs of Singaporeans who are “unsure” of the free and fairness of the current system. A small sample base and a limited research time frame are limitations of the results of the survey to draw more convincing conclusions.
Mr Tan Chong Kee drew a comparison between Singapore and the ancient Chinese Confucious system; and posits the hyperbole of whether we would be sustainable as a country under the PAP rule.
The views of the professional ARDA observers were equally helpful.
Mr Earl Parreno related Marcos rule in Philippines and how citizens overcame their fear of the dictatorial regime through People Power revolution. Mr Martin Lee discouraged boycotting elections when one of the participants suggested it as a form of civil disobedience.
On the future of Singapore elections and individual actions, one participant cautioned the government’s plan to roll out e voting, which he claimed, is difficult to monitor and susceptible to fraud.
Another participant suggested that though independent election commissions should be considered as a viable option to ensure fairness of the system, he believed that Singaporeans are on the whole, generally unsympathetic towards Opposition. As such, he urged the public to give Opposition a chance; and that Opposition candidates will need to work harder at the grassroots level to gain citizens’ support and trust.
This forum on election helps Singaporeans understand the need of being aware of electoral issues from various perspectives. We need to recognize that free and fair election is a major element in promoting and ensuring democracy.
Friday, January 14, 2005
Orange Revolution in Ukraine. Impulse or Inspiration?
The Orange Revolution in Ukraine
According to a BBC news report, the recent revolution in Ukraine, also known as the Orange (the color of Yushchenko's Our Ukraine party – a coalition of Opposition Parties) or Chestnut (chestnut trees in Kiev, capital of Ukraine) Revolution was backed by middle class citizens who are tired of “red tape and cronyism” rampant during the reign of the ex President, Leonid Kuchma.
"Quality of life is not only about how much money you have. It is also about which principles you follow, the morality of the environment you live in," says Yuri Tkach, the owner of a fast-food restaurant chain in Ukraine.
When the results of the November presidential elections were announced and declared incumbent prime minister Viktor Yanukovych, the winner; Oppositional candidate, Viktor Yushchenko urged its supporters not to abandon the democratic cause.
His call was heeded as there were widespread accusation of massive electoral fraud such as voter intimidation, physical assaults and torching of ballot boxes, that went unreported by the state-controlled media backing Yanukovych.
A statement by the European Network of Election Monitoring organizations (ENEMO) Statement on 2004 Presidential Elections in Ukraine October 2004, available online , confirmed the accusations.
A series of nation-wide protests, sit ins and planed general strikes were soon organized supporting Yushchenko. The first of these demonstrations occurred as early as November 23 on Kiev's Independence Square, for 6 days, with an estimated 500,000 participants marching peacefully in the freezing snow, in front of the headquarters of the Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian parliament.
Increasing international pressure and public demonstrations soon forced the government to back down and a re-vote was held again on December 26 (after the first two flawed proceedings on October 31 and November 21). The results of the third election declare Yushchenko the winner.
Thoughts of a Singaporean
As a Singaporean living under an authoritarian regime, the actions of the Ukraine citizens who marched and rallied for a democratic cause is an inspiration for me.
The democratic progress of our South Asian counterparts including but not limited to Indonesia, Philippines and Taiwan; and countries as far as Ukraine, only goes to show that people all over the world regard democracy and human rights with equal importance.
In Singapore, one often gets a sense of not quite knowing if we are like others in other parts of the world. Does the majority of Singaporeans care about human rights and democracy?
Without a doubt, I must say there are plenty of Singaporeans out there who are willing to lend a helping hand when a humanitarian crisis occurs. The latest tsunami tragedy has prompted citizen initiatives to spring up collecting donations, food supplies and toiletries. Generous donations have been made to either Red Cross or other aid organizations.
Yet, when it comes to politics, many seems to be either fearful or of the opinion that there is no urgent need to rock the boat.
From the sorry state of press freedom in Singapore to denial of peaceful assembly, Singaporeans have been robbed of their very basic human rights.
While the Singapore government and pro government supporters constantly argue that we are unique mainly because we are a) physically small b) heavily influenced by external factors; and hence requires a different kind of government to sustain our edge and economic vitality, can their rhetoric really stand?
Does our “uniqueness” means that we have to sacrifice democracy and human rights?
By making a comparison between Ukraine and Singapore; as well as analyzing the Ukraine election, I hope to point out that it is possible for Singapore to be truly democratic and that we can follow a peaceful path to that transition.
Comparisons between Ukraine and Singapore
a) Social Demographics
Ukraine gained independence in 1991 after the dissolution of USSR.
With an area of 603,700 sq km; almost twice the size of France and a population of 48.05 million, it is far much bigger than Singapore.
Yet, like Singapore, its social demographics are fairly diverse. 73% of the population are Ukrainians with 22% Russian and 1% Jewish. Languages spoken include Ukrainian, Russian, Romanian, Polish and Hungarian. Religions practiced include Ukrainian Orthodox, Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox, Ukrainian Catholic, Protestant, and Judaism.
Compare that to Singapore’s population of 76.7% Chinese, 14% Malay, 7.9% Indian, and others at 1.4%. Languages spoken are Chinese, Malay (national), Tamil, English. Religions practiced include: Buddhism, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Taoist, Confucianism.
b) Economy
Singapore’s economy is affected by the three year global recession from 2001 and technology sector slump. As such, the government is looking at establishing new growths in other sectors such as bio sciences and encouraging entreprenuership.
On the other hand, the Ukraine economy seems to be in dire need for more structural reforms. After independence, most prices are liberalized with legal frameworks built up for privatization. However, widespread resistance to reform within the government and the legislature stalled efforts.
Ukraine’s economy, is dependent on Russia for energy supplies. Lack of benchmark structural reforms made it vulnerable to external shocks. There is a steady growth of 8.2% in 2003 despite the slowing down of momentum in economic reforms.
Interestingly, according to the CIA factbook, Singapore and Ukraine share similar levels of unemployment. Singapore is estimated at 4.8% and Ukraine at 3.7% as of 2004 though the website also indicates that there is a large number of unregistered or underemployed workers.
Singapore’s import trading partners include Malaysia at 16.8%, US at 14.1%, Japan at 12%, China at 8.7%, Taiwan at 5.1%, and Thailand at 4.3%. Our export partners are Malaysia at 15.8%, US at 14.3%, Hong Kong at 10%, China at 7%, Japan at 6.7%, Taiwan at 4.7%, Thailand at 4.3%, and South Korea at 4.2% as of 2003.
Ukraine has fewer trading partners. Its import partners are Russia at 35.9%, Germany at 9.4%, and Turkmenistan at 7.2%. Its export partners are Russia at 17.8%, Germany at 5.9%, Italy at 5.3%, and China at 4.1% (2003).
Though Russia is a strong trading partner and with strong support and pressure from the Vladmir Putin’s government for Yanukovych, the people have given Yushchenko the vote.
During the presidential campaign, the Russian President visited Ukraine twice to broadcast his support for Yanukovych. According to specialists like the Carnegie Endowment's Anders Aslund, Russia also pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into his election bid. This was due to Yanukovich pro-Moscow leanings, which benefits some of Ukraine's top business and political elites who wants to maintain the status quo.
c) Military
Singapore and Ukraine both impose national conscription. In Ukraine. males between the age of 18-27 are due for compulsory and voluntary military service; with conscript service obligation of 18 months for Army and Air Force, 24 months for Navy.
d) Political Rights & Civil Liberties
The most glaring piece of information comes from Freedom House. According to the website’s country report on Singapore,
“Citizens of Singapore cannot change their government democratically. Singapore's 1959 constitution created a parliamentary system where the prime minister and other lawmakers are directly elected for five-year terms. Two amendments authorize the government to appoint additional members of parliament in order to ensure that the opposition has at least three seats. Separately, a 1993 amendment provides for direct elections for the largely ceremonial presidency and gave the president some budget-oversight powers and authority over civil service appointments and internal security matters. The government has used a strict vetting process to prevent any real competition for the office. The current president, S. R. Nathan, a PAP veteran and former ambassador, won the 1999 election by default after the Presidential Election Commission barred three other candidates on the grounds that they lacked either the requisite competence or integrity…”
On the other hand, the report by Freedom House on Ukraine is more positive.
“Ukrainian voters can change their government democratically. Citizens aged 18 and older enjoy universal, equal, and direct suffrage. They elect the president and delegates to the Verkhovna Rada, the 450-seat unicameral parliament. Under an election law adopted in 2001, half of parliament is elected in proportional voting and half in single-mandate constituencies. The president appoints the prime minister and other cabinet members...”
Mass media in Singapore is state owned and its editors and journalists face subtle pressure not to write anything sensitive, including alleged government corruption or nepotism or on the supposed compliance of the judiciary.
On the other hand, Ukraine’s 1996 constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression. However, these freedoms are often ignored by the government. While state media are pro-Kuchma, private media exists to reflect views of their owners.
Journalists critical of the government or reporting on corruption subject themselves to harassment and violence. As an example, the murder of investigative journalist Heorhiy Gongadze remains unresolved. In 2002, reporters issued the Manifesto of Ukrainian Journalists against Political Censorship.
Singaporeans are also stripped of their rights to peaceful assembly. The constitution of Ukraine however guarantees this right though advance notification to authorities is required.
According to Freedom House,
“In 2002, protesters marched against President Kuchma's alleged involvement in the murder of journalist Heorhiy Gongadze. In September, opposition parties organized the "Rise Up, Ukraine!" campaign to mark the anniversary of Gongadze's death and thousands of protesters gathered around the country to call for the president's resignation. Fifty opposition members of parliament also staged a hunger strike. Authorities allegedly detained some individuals and impounded the cars of others in an effort to limit participation in the demonstrations. Similar protests continued throughout the fall.”
Civil liberties in Singapore is also heavily curtailed by laws such as the Internal Security Act (ISA) which allows the government to detain any suspect engaged in endangering national security without any trial for unlimited periods of up to 2 years.
The Newspaper and Printing Presses Act restricts the circulation of foreign periodical with news coverage allegedly interfering in domestic politics. The government practices censorship on most media including films, television, videos, music, books and magazines.
Public discussion of sensitive issues such as religion and race are prevented even in Speaker’s corner, which is the country’s only arena for public speaking. Speakers, though, have to register with the police and are not allowed to use any audio aid.
Freedom of association is restricted by the 1966 Societies Act, including one provision that permits only groups registered as political parties or associations to engage in organized political activities. Examples include the Think Centre and the Open Singapore Centre, critical of the government to be reclassified as political associations, barring them from receiving foreign funding, among other restrictions.
Most unions are affiliated with the National Trade Unions Congress (NTUC), whose interests are closely aligned with PAP.
NTUC policy prohibits union members who support opposition parties from holding office in affiliated unions, and in 2002, a union official was stripped of his position after being elected secretary general of the opposition Singapore Democratic Alliance. Uniformed employees are also not allowed to join unions.
By making the above comparisons, it is obvious that Singaporeans suffer far more civil restrictions than Ukrainians.
Analysis of Ukraine election
The victory of the Opposition Presidential candidate, Viktor Yushchenko, can be attributed to a few reasons:
Election Monitoring
Independent Election Monitoring from ENEMO ensures elections are conducted freely and fairly. Without the observations and statements put up by ENEMO, the irregularities of the election would have gone unreported; and international pressure would not created legitimacy and coerced the regime to conduct a re-vote.
In this regard, Singapore should set up an independent election monitoring body to ensure that there are no irregularities before and during the election. With an independent election commission, the results of the commission adds credibility to the election.
Support from external organizations
The US government spent US$58 million on democracy promotion in Ukraine over the past two years. European states and various NGO contributed millions more, of which all went to the same cause.
As an example, the US National Endowment for Democracy gave out grants for trade union education, hold monthly public opinion surveys, as well as training teachers and maintaining a website analyzing the country’s media.
In Singapore’s case, we need to highlight to the international community that Singapore is not as democratic as it appears.
Grassroot support
The Orange revolution would not have happened if Ukrainians had not taken the taken the effort to gather peacefully in Kiev Square, organizing sit ins and strikes effectively forcing the government to a re-vote.
In an interview with David Talbot, founder and editor in chief of Salon.com, Olena Prytula, editor in chief of Ukrayinska Pravda (Ukrainian Truth), an independent website responsible for covering some of the country's atrocities committed by the Kuchma regime, relates the mood of the revolution:
Well, yes, it's very cold. It was minus 10 Celsius the other night. It's always snowing and sometimes there's a bitter wind. But people are very strong. I walk home from my office at 2 o'clock in the morning, and I walk through the tent city where the orange people are camped out. And people inside are dancing -- and they're not drinking or drunk. Most of them are young people. And during the day, a lot of people who live and work in Kiev drop by and give them food and offer their support. Every evening opposition leaders hold meetings, and there are hundreds of thousands of people in the streets. There are music groups. And they have even written new songs about the current situation, the revolution that is taking place. There's one popular song called "Yushchenko, Yes!"
I'm very proud right now of the Ukrainian people. It's like all the people are brothers. The other day I saw people from government offices, standing near their doors. And then two babushka walked by and stopped and said, "Are you OK, are you tired, are you cold? You can come to the tent city and have some tea." So people are just so happy with each other. They realize they can change something, they realize they are a nation -- for the first time since independence from the Soviet Union.
As individuals, Singaporeans need to learn to overcome their fear of the government and be more active in the national affairs of the country. We need to voice our displeasures when our rights have been violated.
We will only be Singaporeans when we believe and act as if this is our country.
Strong Leadership
Viktor Yushchenko alleged that the authorities have poisoned him, leaving his face with scars and blisters. Doctors from Vienna confirmed that he was poisoned with dioxin. Despite the scandal, he has soldiered on.
With humble beginning as a village accountant, he moved on to become head of the national bank of the newly emerged independent Ukraine by 1993. Under his leadership, the monetary system in Ukraine moved from hyperinflation and surrogate money to the hryvnya - the country's own and fairly stable currency.
Purported to be the successor of Kuchma, he was sacked by the President who was alarmed at his increase of popularity rating, higher than himself. This gave him the chance to join and lead the Opposition bloc.
Summary
Contrary to widespread accusations or beliefs, the Orange Revolution is neither violent nor a Western conspiracy to overthrow a government. It is the combined efforts of normal citizens, like you and me, with some external aid to ensure that the democratic rights of its citizens are protected. Ukrainians deserve a popularly elected president conducted under standard free and fair election rules and regulation.
Democracy will not remain a myth to Singapore just because we are unique. We do not need to sacrifice our rights just because we are a small country and exposed to uncontrollable external factors. Singapore can be a democracy and prosperous at the same time.
To quote again, from a middle class business man in Ukraine, at the start of my article,
"Quality of life is not only about how much money you have. It is also about which principles you follow, the morality of the environment you live in,"
References
Middle class backs Orange Revolution By Marina Denysenko BBC News, Ukraine
http://www.freedomhouse.org/pdf_docs/enemoukraine.pdf
lonely planet online, http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/europe/ukraine/
CIA factbook on Singapore, updated on 16 December 2004, http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sn.html
CIA factbook on Ukraine, updated on 16 December 2004, http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/up.html
Freedom Country House Report on Singapore, online, http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2004/countryratings/singapore.htm
The Orange Revolution in Ukraine
According to a BBC news report, the recent revolution in Ukraine, also known as the Orange (the color of Yushchenko's Our Ukraine party – a coalition of Opposition Parties) or Chestnut (chestnut trees in Kiev, capital of Ukraine) Revolution was backed by middle class citizens who are tired of “red tape and cronyism” rampant during the reign of the ex President, Leonid Kuchma.
"Quality of life is not only about how much money you have. It is also about which principles you follow, the morality of the environment you live in," says Yuri Tkach, the owner of a fast-food restaurant chain in Ukraine.
When the results of the November presidential elections were announced and declared incumbent prime minister Viktor Yanukovych, the winner; Oppositional candidate, Viktor Yushchenko urged its supporters not to abandon the democratic cause.
His call was heeded as there were widespread accusation of massive electoral fraud such as voter intimidation, physical assaults and torching of ballot boxes, that went unreported by the state-controlled media backing Yanukovych.
A statement by the European Network of Election Monitoring organizations (ENEMO) Statement on 2004 Presidential Elections in Ukraine October 2004, available online , confirmed the accusations.
A series of nation-wide protests, sit ins and planed general strikes were soon organized supporting Yushchenko. The first of these demonstrations occurred as early as November 23 on Kiev's Independence Square, for 6 days, with an estimated 500,000 participants marching peacefully in the freezing snow, in front of the headquarters of the Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian parliament.
Increasing international pressure and public demonstrations soon forced the government to back down and a re-vote was held again on December 26 (after the first two flawed proceedings on October 31 and November 21). The results of the third election declare Yushchenko the winner.
Thoughts of a Singaporean
As a Singaporean living under an authoritarian regime, the actions of the Ukraine citizens who marched and rallied for a democratic cause is an inspiration for me.
The democratic progress of our South Asian counterparts including but not limited to Indonesia, Philippines and Taiwan; and countries as far as Ukraine, only goes to show that people all over the world regard democracy and human rights with equal importance.
In Singapore, one often gets a sense of not quite knowing if we are like others in other parts of the world. Does the majority of Singaporeans care about human rights and democracy?
Without a doubt, I must say there are plenty of Singaporeans out there who are willing to lend a helping hand when a humanitarian crisis occurs. The latest tsunami tragedy has prompted citizen initiatives to spring up collecting donations, food supplies and toiletries. Generous donations have been made to either Red Cross or other aid organizations.
Yet, when it comes to politics, many seems to be either fearful or of the opinion that there is no urgent need to rock the boat.
From the sorry state of press freedom in Singapore to denial of peaceful assembly, Singaporeans have been robbed of their very basic human rights.
While the Singapore government and pro government supporters constantly argue that we are unique mainly because we are a) physically small b) heavily influenced by external factors; and hence requires a different kind of government to sustain our edge and economic vitality, can their rhetoric really stand?
Does our “uniqueness” means that we have to sacrifice democracy and human rights?
By making a comparison between Ukraine and Singapore; as well as analyzing the Ukraine election, I hope to point out that it is possible for Singapore to be truly democratic and that we can follow a peaceful path to that transition.
Comparisons between Ukraine and Singapore
a) Social Demographics
Ukraine gained independence in 1991 after the dissolution of USSR.
With an area of 603,700 sq km; almost twice the size of France and a population of 48.05 million, it is far much bigger than Singapore.
Yet, like Singapore, its social demographics are fairly diverse. 73% of the population are Ukrainians with 22% Russian and 1% Jewish. Languages spoken include Ukrainian, Russian, Romanian, Polish and Hungarian. Religions practiced include Ukrainian Orthodox, Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox, Ukrainian Catholic, Protestant, and Judaism.
Compare that to Singapore’s population of 76.7% Chinese, 14% Malay, 7.9% Indian, and others at 1.4%. Languages spoken are Chinese, Malay (national), Tamil, English. Religions practiced include: Buddhism, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Taoist, Confucianism.
b) Economy
Singapore’s economy is affected by the three year global recession from 2001 and technology sector slump. As such, the government is looking at establishing new growths in other sectors such as bio sciences and encouraging entreprenuership.
On the other hand, the Ukraine economy seems to be in dire need for more structural reforms. After independence, most prices are liberalized with legal frameworks built up for privatization. However, widespread resistance to reform within the government and the legislature stalled efforts.
Ukraine’s economy, is dependent on Russia for energy supplies. Lack of benchmark structural reforms made it vulnerable to external shocks. There is a steady growth of 8.2% in 2003 despite the slowing down of momentum in economic reforms.
Interestingly, according to the CIA factbook, Singapore and Ukraine share similar levels of unemployment. Singapore is estimated at 4.8% and Ukraine at 3.7% as of 2004 though the website also indicates that there is a large number of unregistered or underemployed workers.
Singapore’s import trading partners include Malaysia at 16.8%, US at 14.1%, Japan at 12%, China at 8.7%, Taiwan at 5.1%, and Thailand at 4.3%. Our export partners are Malaysia at 15.8%, US at 14.3%, Hong Kong at 10%, China at 7%, Japan at 6.7%, Taiwan at 4.7%, Thailand at 4.3%, and South Korea at 4.2% as of 2003.
Ukraine has fewer trading partners. Its import partners are Russia at 35.9%, Germany at 9.4%, and Turkmenistan at 7.2%. Its export partners are Russia at 17.8%, Germany at 5.9%, Italy at 5.3%, and China at 4.1% (2003).
Though Russia is a strong trading partner and with strong support and pressure from the Vladmir Putin’s government for Yanukovych, the people have given Yushchenko the vote.
During the presidential campaign, the Russian President visited Ukraine twice to broadcast his support for Yanukovych. According to specialists like the Carnegie Endowment's Anders Aslund, Russia also pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into his election bid. This was due to Yanukovich pro-Moscow leanings, which benefits some of Ukraine's top business and political elites who wants to maintain the status quo.
c) Military
Singapore and Ukraine both impose national conscription. In Ukraine. males between the age of 18-27 are due for compulsory and voluntary military service; with conscript service obligation of 18 months for Army and Air Force, 24 months for Navy.
d) Political Rights & Civil Liberties
The most glaring piece of information comes from Freedom House. According to the website’s country report on Singapore,
“Citizens of Singapore cannot change their government democratically. Singapore's 1959 constitution created a parliamentary system where the prime minister and other lawmakers are directly elected for five-year terms. Two amendments authorize the government to appoint additional members of parliament in order to ensure that the opposition has at least three seats. Separately, a 1993 amendment provides for direct elections for the largely ceremonial presidency and gave the president some budget-oversight powers and authority over civil service appointments and internal security matters. The government has used a strict vetting process to prevent any real competition for the office. The current president, S. R. Nathan, a PAP veteran and former ambassador, won the 1999 election by default after the Presidential Election Commission barred three other candidates on the grounds that they lacked either the requisite competence or integrity…”
On the other hand, the report by Freedom House on Ukraine is more positive.
“Ukrainian voters can change their government democratically. Citizens aged 18 and older enjoy universal, equal, and direct suffrage. They elect the president and delegates to the Verkhovna Rada, the 450-seat unicameral parliament. Under an election law adopted in 2001, half of parliament is elected in proportional voting and half in single-mandate constituencies. The president appoints the prime minister and other cabinet members...”
Mass media in Singapore is state owned and its editors and journalists face subtle pressure not to write anything sensitive, including alleged government corruption or nepotism or on the supposed compliance of the judiciary.
On the other hand, Ukraine’s 1996 constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression. However, these freedoms are often ignored by the government. While state media are pro-Kuchma, private media exists to reflect views of their owners.
Journalists critical of the government or reporting on corruption subject themselves to harassment and violence. As an example, the murder of investigative journalist Heorhiy Gongadze remains unresolved. In 2002, reporters issued the Manifesto of Ukrainian Journalists against Political Censorship.
Singaporeans are also stripped of their rights to peaceful assembly. The constitution of Ukraine however guarantees this right though advance notification to authorities is required.
According to Freedom House,
“In 2002, protesters marched against President Kuchma's alleged involvement in the murder of journalist Heorhiy Gongadze. In September, opposition parties organized the "Rise Up, Ukraine!" campaign to mark the anniversary of Gongadze's death and thousands of protesters gathered around the country to call for the president's resignation. Fifty opposition members of parliament also staged a hunger strike. Authorities allegedly detained some individuals and impounded the cars of others in an effort to limit participation in the demonstrations. Similar protests continued throughout the fall.”
Civil liberties in Singapore is also heavily curtailed by laws such as the Internal Security Act (ISA) which allows the government to detain any suspect engaged in endangering national security without any trial for unlimited periods of up to 2 years.
The Newspaper and Printing Presses Act restricts the circulation of foreign periodical with news coverage allegedly interfering in domestic politics. The government practices censorship on most media including films, television, videos, music, books and magazines.
Public discussion of sensitive issues such as religion and race are prevented even in Speaker’s corner, which is the country’s only arena for public speaking. Speakers, though, have to register with the police and are not allowed to use any audio aid.
Freedom of association is restricted by the 1966 Societies Act, including one provision that permits only groups registered as political parties or associations to engage in organized political activities. Examples include the Think Centre and the Open Singapore Centre, critical of the government to be reclassified as political associations, barring them from receiving foreign funding, among other restrictions.
Most unions are affiliated with the National Trade Unions Congress (NTUC), whose interests are closely aligned with PAP.
NTUC policy prohibits union members who support opposition parties from holding office in affiliated unions, and in 2002, a union official was stripped of his position after being elected secretary general of the opposition Singapore Democratic Alliance. Uniformed employees are also not allowed to join unions.
By making the above comparisons, it is obvious that Singaporeans suffer far more civil restrictions than Ukrainians.
Analysis of Ukraine election
The victory of the Opposition Presidential candidate, Viktor Yushchenko, can be attributed to a few reasons:
Election Monitoring
Independent Election Monitoring from ENEMO ensures elections are conducted freely and fairly. Without the observations and statements put up by ENEMO, the irregularities of the election would have gone unreported; and international pressure would not created legitimacy and coerced the regime to conduct a re-vote.
In this regard, Singapore should set up an independent election monitoring body to ensure that there are no irregularities before and during the election. With an independent election commission, the results of the commission adds credibility to the election.
Support from external organizations
The US government spent US$58 million on democracy promotion in Ukraine over the past two years. European states and various NGO contributed millions more, of which all went to the same cause.
As an example, the US National Endowment for Democracy gave out grants for trade union education, hold monthly public opinion surveys, as well as training teachers and maintaining a website analyzing the country’s media.
In Singapore’s case, we need to highlight to the international community that Singapore is not as democratic as it appears.
Grassroot support
The Orange revolution would not have happened if Ukrainians had not taken the taken the effort to gather peacefully in Kiev Square, organizing sit ins and strikes effectively forcing the government to a re-vote.
In an interview with David Talbot, founder and editor in chief of Salon.com, Olena Prytula, editor in chief of Ukrayinska Pravda (Ukrainian Truth), an independent website responsible for covering some of the country's atrocities committed by the Kuchma regime, relates the mood of the revolution:
Well, yes, it's very cold. It was minus 10 Celsius the other night. It's always snowing and sometimes there's a bitter wind. But people are very strong. I walk home from my office at 2 o'clock in the morning, and I walk through the tent city where the orange people are camped out. And people inside are dancing -- and they're not drinking or drunk. Most of them are young people. And during the day, a lot of people who live and work in Kiev drop by and give them food and offer their support. Every evening opposition leaders hold meetings, and there are hundreds of thousands of people in the streets. There are music groups. And they have even written new songs about the current situation, the revolution that is taking place. There's one popular song called "Yushchenko, Yes!"
I'm very proud right now of the Ukrainian people. It's like all the people are brothers. The other day I saw people from government offices, standing near their doors. And then two babushka walked by and stopped and said, "Are you OK, are you tired, are you cold? You can come to the tent city and have some tea." So people are just so happy with each other. They realize they can change something, they realize they are a nation -- for the first time since independence from the Soviet Union.
As individuals, Singaporeans need to learn to overcome their fear of the government and be more active in the national affairs of the country. We need to voice our displeasures when our rights have been violated.
We will only be Singaporeans when we believe and act as if this is our country.
Strong Leadership
Viktor Yushchenko alleged that the authorities have poisoned him, leaving his face with scars and blisters. Doctors from Vienna confirmed that he was poisoned with dioxin. Despite the scandal, he has soldiered on.
With humble beginning as a village accountant, he moved on to become head of the national bank of the newly emerged independent Ukraine by 1993. Under his leadership, the monetary system in Ukraine moved from hyperinflation and surrogate money to the hryvnya - the country's own and fairly stable currency.
Purported to be the successor of Kuchma, he was sacked by the President who was alarmed at his increase of popularity rating, higher than himself. This gave him the chance to join and lead the Opposition bloc.
Summary
Contrary to widespread accusations or beliefs, the Orange Revolution is neither violent nor a Western conspiracy to overthrow a government. It is the combined efforts of normal citizens, like you and me, with some external aid to ensure that the democratic rights of its citizens are protected. Ukrainians deserve a popularly elected president conducted under standard free and fair election rules and regulation.
Democracy will not remain a myth to Singapore just because we are unique. We do not need to sacrifice our rights just because we are a small country and exposed to uncontrollable external factors. Singapore can be a democracy and prosperous at the same time.
To quote again, from a middle class business man in Ukraine, at the start of my article,
"Quality of life is not only about how much money you have. It is also about which principles you follow, the morality of the environment you live in,"
References
Middle class backs Orange Revolution By Marina Denysenko BBC News, Ukraine
http://www.freedomhouse.org/pdf_docs/enemoukraine.pdf
lonely planet online, http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/europe/ukraine/
CIA factbook on Singapore, updated on 16 December 2004, http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sn.html
CIA factbook on Ukraine, updated on 16 December 2004, http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/up.html
Freedom Country House Report on Singapore, online, http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2004/countryratings/singapore.htm
