Photo courtesy of Ian Timothy
The New Singapore Shares and Progress Package, better known as electoral handouts were well in excess over $2 billion. The total count of Singapore citizen population in 2008 is 3.164 million. This will mean that each Singapore citizen may receive up to more than $632 each if the handout is disbursed evenly.
However, if one looks carefully at the website of the Singapore elections department, there is a law which imposes a limit on the level of spending by or on behalf of every candidate in the conduct and management of his/her election. Known as the elections expenses unit, the law was implemented to ensure
“a level playing field between candidates. Without such a limit, parties with greater resources will gain advantage through spending more for publicity and awareness. This leads to distortions in the democratic process.” – Quoted from the Elections Department website
One interesting aspect of this law is the such a spending cannot be incurred by the candidates before, during or after the elections. The spending limit is $3 per elector for a single member ward. For a GRC, it is $3 per elector divided by the number of candidates (5 or 6). With this information, an interesting question can be asked – can the issuance of electoral handouts ($632 per person if divided evenly) be considered a violation of the elections expenses limit?
The ruling party has always been accused for a long time for issuing electoral handouts by the opposition and other observers alike. Perhaps, the defense that the ruling PAP can put up is that the handouts are not issued under the party’s auspices, but rather in the capacity of the Singapore government. Technically, the political party is not allowed to spend past the required limit. However, the handout is not issued by the party, but by the government so to speak.
To counter, one may consider the truth behind the statement that the Singapore government is equivalent to the PAP. For the record, only 2 seats out of 84 went to the opposition. Thus, if one convincingly argues that the Singapore government is synonymous with the PAP and in essence is known as the PAP government , then to assert that the ruling party dishes out handouts is a fair statement.
But then again, much of the debate will also revolve around the term “spending”. The ruling party’s defense would perhaps be based on the fact that the handouts are considered re-distribution of our nation’s wealth as opposed to spending by the party. The counter-argument is that a ruling party that is synonymous with the national government can spend its budget, which in our case is budget surpluses, to re-distribute wealth.
So, does the issuance of electoral handouts contravene our electoral laws? The debate continues…
Kelvin Teo Writes 
Pingback: The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 22 Dec 2009
Pingback: The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Weekly Roundup: Week 52
The ruling party’s defense would perhaps be based on the fact that the handouts are considered re-distribution of our nation’s wealth as opposed to spending by the party. The counter-argument is that a ruling party that is synonymous with the national government can spend its budget, which in our case is budget surpluses, to re-distribute wealth.
Well, both arguments are likely to be two sides of a coin. Firstly, the PAP might have an altruistic reason. Instead of saving the budget surplus or investing it in public infrastructure, it chose to give cash DIRECTLY to S’poreans. And there’s little harm done to anyone – the budget surplus was huge anyway, and the amount given out probably did not affect our short- or long-term stability. Hence everyone felt great.
But both the NSS and Progress Package were introduce during election years – 2001 and 2006, which is too coincidental for comfort. So the govt probably had an eye on the elections when it decided to give cash handouts.
I don’t really think there is even an issue that “electoral” handouts violate electoral laws. Political parties spend money during elections for publicity i.e. adverts, loudhailers on lorries, posters etc. The cap is to prevent a spending arms-race among the parties, which may not benefit all of them in the end.
More importantly, do the handouts actually influence voters’ decisions? If they do, then can it be considered ‘vote-buying’, or sort of a patron-client relationship? But looking at the 2006 election results, it seems not.