- Joined
- Nov 26, 2009
- Messages
- 19
- Points
- 0
December 12, 2009 by admin
Filed under Headlines
Leave a comment
A Singaporean by the name of Paul Chan had written to the Straits Times Forum today expressing concern that the “cooling-off” day as proposed by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong will only service the “shift the goal posts further” from the opposition.
PM Lee announced last week that an additional “cooling-off” day will be introduced in the next general election on the eve of polling day itself to enable voters to make a “calm” and “rational” decision and to prevent “public disorders” from happening.
All mass rallies, door-to-door visits and public displays of party logos are banned on the “cooling-off” day. The ban will also be applied to the internet where websites of political parties and socio-political blogs are expected to adhere to the new rule.
However, the traditional broadcasts of various parties as well as reports on the election in the mainstream media will continue on “cooling-off” day.
Mr Chan wrote that the “cooling-off” day is unnecessary “if the ruling party believes that MPs should win over voters’ trust during the four to five years between general elections.”
He added:
“On the other hand, if voters cannot judge the competence and performance of their MPs over the same period, would it make them think calmly over the electoral choice with one extra day? If new candidates of opposition parties can convince voters of their capability and integrity during the nine days of campaign, would one day to ‘cool off’ make any difference?”
The state media has been defending the “cooling-off” day on the grounds that Australia, Italy, Indonesia and other democracies have similar forms of “cooling-off” period before polling day itself.
Mr Chan opined that the comparison is not appropriate or meaningful unless “the mainstream media accords equal time to the electioneering activities of all political parties, instead of focusing more on incumbent Cabinet ministers.”
Australia has a mandatory three-day “cooling-off” period before polling day. However, Australia has a minimum campaign period of six weeks for federal elections compared to only nine in Singapore.
Furthermore, the Australia Constitution ensures that all political parties have equal access to the media to broadcast their message to the voters.
The Australia media ranks high in media freedom and independence on the World Press Freedom index conducted yearly by respected international NGO Reporters without Borders compared to Singapore.
It was ranked 16th in the latest report released this year compared to 133th for Singapore which is ranked below neighboring countries Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand.
An article written by YPAP member and a new citizen from India Fredric Fanthome defending the “cooling-off” day drew a massive outcry from netizens.
Mr Fanthome had described online critics of the PAP as “anonymous hordes” who took delight in spraying “venom” at the government and urged the opposition to provide “constructive criticism” of policies instead of “opposing for the sake of opposing”.
Article from Temasek Review
Filed under Headlines
Leave a comment
A Singaporean by the name of Paul Chan had written to the Straits Times Forum today expressing concern that the “cooling-off” day as proposed by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong will only service the “shift the goal posts further” from the opposition.
PM Lee announced last week that an additional “cooling-off” day will be introduced in the next general election on the eve of polling day itself to enable voters to make a “calm” and “rational” decision and to prevent “public disorders” from happening.
All mass rallies, door-to-door visits and public displays of party logos are banned on the “cooling-off” day. The ban will also be applied to the internet where websites of political parties and socio-political blogs are expected to adhere to the new rule.
However, the traditional broadcasts of various parties as well as reports on the election in the mainstream media will continue on “cooling-off” day.
Mr Chan wrote that the “cooling-off” day is unnecessary “if the ruling party believes that MPs should win over voters’ trust during the four to five years between general elections.”
He added:
“On the other hand, if voters cannot judge the competence and performance of their MPs over the same period, would it make them think calmly over the electoral choice with one extra day? If new candidates of opposition parties can convince voters of their capability and integrity during the nine days of campaign, would one day to ‘cool off’ make any difference?”
The state media has been defending the “cooling-off” day on the grounds that Australia, Italy, Indonesia and other democracies have similar forms of “cooling-off” period before polling day itself.
Mr Chan opined that the comparison is not appropriate or meaningful unless “the mainstream media accords equal time to the electioneering activities of all political parties, instead of focusing more on incumbent Cabinet ministers.”
Australia has a mandatory three-day “cooling-off” period before polling day. However, Australia has a minimum campaign period of six weeks for federal elections compared to only nine in Singapore.
Furthermore, the Australia Constitution ensures that all political parties have equal access to the media to broadcast their message to the voters.
The Australia media ranks high in media freedom and independence on the World Press Freedom index conducted yearly by respected international NGO Reporters without Borders compared to Singapore.
It was ranked 16th in the latest report released this year compared to 133th for Singapore which is ranked below neighboring countries Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand.
An article written by YPAP member and a new citizen from India Fredric Fanthome defending the “cooling-off” day drew a massive outcry from netizens.
Mr Fanthome had described online critics of the PAP as “anonymous hordes” who took delight in spraying “venom” at the government and urged the opposition to provide “constructive criticism” of policies instead of “opposing for the sake of opposing”.
Article from Temasek Review
