How seriously can you take Singapore’s leading newspaper when it argues one reason for not going to the polls now is the rising cost of a general election — and then cites a figure lower than the prime minister's annual salary? It says:
The amount spent by political parties at the general elections has been creeping up.
In 2001, they spent $2.1 million (Singapore dollars). This went up to at least $2.5 million (Singapore dollars) in 2006.
That's about $1.6 million — less than the prime minister's annual salary.
Ministers' salaries
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong accepted a 19 percent pay cut this year because of the economic downturn which reduced his annual salary to 3.04 million Singapore dollars, reported the Straits Times. Last year he received an estimated 3.76 million Singapore dollars, about five times the annual salary of outgoing U.S. President George W Bush, reported Reuters.
Singapore pays generously for good leadership. Even after an 18 percent pay cut, no minister will be getting less than 1.57 million Singapore dollars this year. That’s the ministerial grade salary.
But they don’t take all the money home. The prime minister has been donating all increases in his own salary since April 2007 to good causes and will continue to do so for five years.
So I wouldn’t have brought this up unless the Straits Times argued elections shouldn’t be held now because, among other things, they cost political parties at least 2.5 million Singapore dollars in 2006.
Election timeline
The Straits Times also says the “entire process” of holding elections “can take months”.
Excuse me, here’s the timeline for the last general election, held in 2006.
President SR Nathan – who incidentally accepted a 19 percent pay cut which reduced his annual salary to 3.14 million Singapore dollars this year – dissolved parliament on April 20 and elections were held on May 6. The "entire process" took just over two weeks.
In the previous election, held in 2001, parliament was dissolved on October 19 and elections held on November 3. Just 15 days later.
In 1997 also elections were held at a fortnight’s notice. Parliament was dissolved on December 16 and elections held on January 2.
Singapore’s Elections Department gives only election results, the pollling dates and the nomination dates for the candidates. But other sites show when parliament was dissoved and elections called.
Not the time to campaign and meet the people?
The Straits Times also offers another reason for not holding elections now. The Straits Times political correspondent writes:
Having covered Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s Ang Mo Kio GRC in the last election, I remember marvelling at the amount of time he put in on the ground.
There was the morning when he pressed flesh with the rush hour crowd outside Ang Mo Kio MRT station. The afternoon when he visited the hawker centre and the shops, with a smile for everybody even as he perspired profusely.
The journalist’s solicitude for the prime minister is touching indeed.
But should the prime minister stay away from the people? The Straits Times political correspondent says:
I applaud his efforts to work the ground, but in times like this, can the time of our Prime Minister be, well, better invested?
Time to stand united
The Straits Times goes on to say this is not the time to hold elections because they divide the country – and Singaporeans need to stand united now.
That may be a valid reason.
But to argue elections are costly because they cost political parties at least 2.5 million Singapore dollars last time and say “the whole process can take months” – when they haven’t in the last three elections – isn’t right. Is it?
Related posts:
Are you still surprised when you encounter such lapses of logic in the ST? Such arguments are the bread and butter of out 141st ranked national paper.
Until the internet came along, we lived by what we were told. We only read ST. Today, thanks to the internet and people like you, we are learning that there are two sides to a coin. Now we know when “mistakes” are reported. Now we get to learn the truth.