It’s election time in Singapore again and, just as the night follows the day, the ruling party, the aptly acronymed PAP, is unjustly and corruptly undermining the opposition and, more generally, democracy. 

    What happens – and this is utterly commonplace PAP practice – is that an election is called; the opposition begins to engage in careful and measured political debate; a ruling party candidate claims that he has been libeled; the ruling party candidate sues; the courts, which are hopelessly intertwined with the PAP, find in favor of the ruling party candidate; a large fine is imposed on the opposition, enough to bankrupt him; by law bankrupt candidates cannot run for office, end of story. 

    As if on cue, we have this story today:

Singapore – Leaders of an opposition party faced the threat of legal
action on Saturday for newsletter articles alleging that Prime Minister
Lee Hsien Loong was perpetuating a corrupt political system set up by
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s founding father.

The alleged defamation was contained in three English and Chinese
articles in the latest issue of the Singapore Democratic Party’s
(SDP’s) newsletter, The New Democrat, according to letters of demand
served on members of the party’s 12-member central committee, including
party leader Chee Soon Juan.

Chee, bankrupted by a defamation suit stemming from the last general
election, and the others were given until Tuesday to apologize and pay
unspecified damages to the Lees. The prime minister is secretary
general of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP).

 Of course, the system is corrupt.  The US State Department, in its most recent report on human rights, puts it rather blandly:

Some judicial officials, especially supreme court judges, have ties to the ruling party and its leaders…..

Government leaders historically have used
court proceedings, in particular defamation suits, against political
opponents and critics (see sections 2.a. and 3). Both this practice and
consistent awards in favor of government plaintiffs raised questions
about the relationship between the government and the judiciary and led
to a perception that the judiciary reflected the views of the ruling
party in politically sensitive cases.

     George Soros, whose riches insulate him from the standard PAP defamation suit, is a bit more direct:

"The use of libel … can be a tremendous hindrance to freedom
of expression," Soros said in response to questions at a seminar.
"Obviously, Singapore doesn’t qualify as an open society."

     That’s right: it is not an open society.

     It is also fairly common for PAP men to say that they rule in the mold of Confucian gentlemen.  That Singaporean society is infused with "Asian" or "Confucian" values that respect authority and hierarchy and competence, and that is why they win elections.  This, of course, is wrong on two scores.  First, the PAP does not rule in a Confucian manner, they rule in a Legalist manner.  Their primary concern is the maintenance of their political power and the use whatever means necessary, even to the point of banning blogging and pod-casting during this most recent election, to stay in power.  If they were truly Confucian, they would not rely upon repression of the opposition through a politically corrupted judiciary.  Second, we cannot know what kind of society Singapore really is, or, at least, what the true political expression of Singaporean society might be: the PAP will not let people speak freely at election time and they will not allow for a genuine choice for elections.

    It is not about Confucian culture, it is about, and has always been about in Singapore, a dirty little political party struggling to hold on to power.

    UPDATE: The opposition party leader, Chee Soon Juan is not backing down.