One of the effects of the July 2023 scandals that hit the Singapore government is the state’s loss of control over the narrative around the upcoming Presidential Election. The Elected Presidency, an invention of the governing party, has come under strong fire for being a flawed institution that was created out of political maneuvering and expediency. Instead of uniting the country’s people behind a ceremonial but vital figurehead, it has been struck by the lightning of political dissent and division. On state-controlled media, the ruling party’s candidate Tharman Shanmugaratnam attempts to burnish his independent (and dare we say it, populist) credentials by describing himself as a former student activist, an irony not lost on activists persecuted by the state. This blatant attempt to appeal to the younger and more politically conscious generation only throws up questions about Tharman’s complicity with past and present state persecution.
Control of the electoral discourse has almost imperceptibly passed into the hands of the citizens themselves. No longer dictated from above, the discourse is now taken up and developed by multiple commentators over multiple sites. Yet it is not fragmented and isolated but shows the remarkable coherence of argumentation: assertions are elaborated, supported, and often criticized in a true, democratic fashion. They challenge the rules of the race that limit the field to individuals who would be no threat to the ruling party PAP but do not guarantee only quality candidates become eligible. As a result, we have a Presidential candidate, Tan Kin Lian, whose sexist, racist, homophobic, and nativist views will pose a threat to the social fabric of Singapore if he is elected. They took screenshots of his now-deleted posts and went viral with them, informing and engaging the younger demographic of voters who prefer to consume their daily dose of current affairs on social media platforms instead of traditional MSM channels. They derided the number of times the Constitution has been amended in order to raise the corporate threshold for eligible candidates to such stringent standards that even a businessman with deep pockets and experience like George Goh is disqualified—further reinforcing the perception that these changes make an institution that is inherently undemocratic even more so. They openly mull over spoiling the vote as a “protest against the protest candidate” who isn’t a viable option, and more importantly, against a flawed system that keeps reinforcing this Orwellian conundrum for voters in the first place.
They are independent media outlets, netizens, comedians, academics, workers, and students, who desire an authentic choice and the right to exercise their vote as citizens of the Republic of Singapore. They are holding discussions not only in private conversations but, more importantly, on public platforms in full view of Singaporeans—on websites, blogs, newsletters, podcasts, and social media. They are contributing to an increasingly vibrant independent media landscape, emboldened to speak despite state strictures and clampdown. They are developing a maturing democracy, without waiting for the permission to proceed. Whichever way you choose to vote (or not), and whatever the results, there is already a clear winner: they, or rather, we, the people.
Editorial Board, Singapore Unbound
Singapore Unbound is a NYC-based literary organization dedicated to the advancement of freedom of expression and equal rights for all through cultural exchange and activism.
The role of Singapore Unbound’s Editorial Board is to provide readers with a thoughtful and independent perspective on issues that resonate with our organization’s values. The Board also seeks to engage readers in a critical dialogue about important social questions by providing them with the information to make decisions and take actions for the common good.
The Editorial Board develops its positions on a variety of issues, but the views expressed are independent of the rest of the organization. Editorials are unsigned to reflect the fact that they represent the collective views of the Board instead of any individual member. | 
Comments