We have received the outcome of our Appeal to the President. Our Appeal is rejected.
The Istana’s letter to us dated 12 January 2015 and signed by the President’s Principal Private Secretary states:
I refer to the National Solidarity Party’s (“NSP”) appeal to the President dated 20 October 2014 under section 21(8) of the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, and the NSP’s additional submissions dated 8 December 2014 (“the Appeal”).
I am instructed to inform you that the President having considered the Appeal, on the advice of the Cabinet, has decided not to accede to the Appeal.
The Registrar of Newspaper will be informed of the President’s decision.”
No reasons or grounds of decision were given to us.
Whether the Cabinet made their decision arbitrarily or after careful consideration, whether the Cabinet relied on legal principles or policy considerations in arriving at their decision – we will never know. Unlike a judge in open court, the Cabinet made its decision behind closed doors and its deliberations are not transparent to us.
While we are utterly disappointed with the outcome of our Appeal, we are not surprised. The Appeal process is flawed.
Under the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, the only recourse for any grievance with a ministerial decision is to appeal to the President. The logic of appealing to the President is mysterious because the President has no power to make his own decision. He can only decide on the advice of the Cabinet.
However, we do not regard the Cabinet to be an independent or neutral party, especially in our case. Thus, we had in our Submissions, called on the Cabinet to appoint an independent tribunal or ombudsman to decide the outcome of our Appeal.
Ignoring our call, the Cabinet has gone ahead to decide our Appeal, and their decision is to reject our Appeal.
Singapore under the long-standing PAP government has never sought to establish ombudsmen – independent persons empowered by law to receive, investigate and address complaints by citizens of improper government decisions. Ombudsman help to safeguard citizens against abuses of executive power.
Perhaps when the PAP’s super-majority hold on Parliament is eventually demolished would Parliament finally see the wisdom of setting up ombudsmen for the benefit of citizens, For now, a citizen who doubts the fairness of a government decision made against him has very little recourse.
NSP took a stand against the Minister for Communications and Information (MCI) in order to draw attention to unfairness in MCI’s newspaper permit renewal process:
- MCI loads extra burdens on Political Associations. CEC members of Political Associations are required to disclose their personal financial information, but no such requirements are imposed on members of the governing body of applicants who are not Political Associations. Singling out Political Associations for greater scrutiny raises the question whether MCI has exercised its powers in the interest of citizens, as opposed to serving the interests of the ruling party.
- NSP found evidence of double standards. The Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts required the CEC members of all political parties, except the People’s Action Party (“PAP”), to disclose their personal financial information to the Registrar of Newspapers. If this is the current practice, it means that PAP CEC members enjoy the privilege of financial privacy.
The rejection of our Appeal only means that the ruling party desires to continue with MCI’s discriminatory practice of loading extra burdens on Political Associations.
MCI’s discriminatory practice in the newspaper permit process joins a range of many factors which conspire against the development of political diversity – factors such as the Political Donations Act, the Internal Security Act, defamation laws, the Group Representation Scheme, to name a few – all of which create an un-level political playing field and work against political competition. Small wonder that the PAP has won a super majority of seats in Parliament in every general election since 1965.
Lack of political competition is great for the incumbent but does not benefit the electorate. The interests of the electorate are compromised when their choices are restricted.
According to the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, once the President has decided, his decision is final. Hence, the Appeal process has ended and NSP has no further recourse.
In theory, there is still Judicial Review – but this is an expensive, time-consuming court application in which only few have succeeded. NSP does not have the time or resources to pursue a Judicial Review of MCI’s decision. The ruling party may call for General Elections at any time and we need to publish our newspaper.
Hence, we will take the practical approach. We will comply with the MCI’s onerous requirements under protest – and reserve our vigour to challenge the incumbent at the ballot box, where the outcome matters most.
Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss, Secretary-General
On behalf of the 15th Central Executive Committee
of the NATIONAL SOLIDARITY PARTY
——————————–
References:
http://nsp.sg/2014/10/20/appeal-to-the-president-mci-refuses-to-process-renewal-of-newspaper-permit/; and
http://nsp.sg/2014/12/10/statement-on-nsps-additional-submissions-to-the-president-of-singapore/
Source: NSP.Sg