As a new year begins the sensible, responsible adult part of my brain suggests prudence and care, telling me that I should practice moderation, start exercising again, and save money like a squirrel hoarding acorns for the winter. Then I look at the news, consider the state of the world, and go right back to buying myself random presents and cake. We're all dopamine-starved in this stressed-out hellscape. I'm convinced this is why so many people are obsessed with blind boxes now. (Not me, but my vices and indulgences are no better—I say as I write this newsletter in bed while hugging two large SKZOO plushies dressed in baby onesies.)
On 22 January, the prison intends to escort a prisoner to the gallows and end his life with a rope they will prepare and slip over his neck. His family talked to him about what he’d like us to do. He doesn’t want to be named, but he would appreciate it if people prayed for him.
If it goes ahead, he'll be the 45th execution since hangings resumed in 2022 after a two-year break. The previous executions were just last week. This pace indicates that there will be more execution notices, possibly very soon. There are more men on death row who have exhausted all their legal options, who have appealed for mercy and been turned down, who are at risk of having their deaths pencilled into a calendar at any time. And more people will be sentenced to death, filling the cells emptied out by killing, so that there can be more killing, so that there will always be more killing as long as this system persists.
It cannot be left to death row prisoners to fight the death penalty, because it’s not just about them. Capital punishment is a system that's inherently violent and unjust. Wherever it exists, it is a regime of brutality almost entirely unleashed upon the marginalised, the poor, the neglected. The way people in prisons and on death row are treated says something about who we are as a society, as a people. When people are put to death in a process that involves planning and preparation and forms and signatures and the presence of doctors to witness the ending of a life without doing anything to save it, it says more about the killers than the killed.
The man Singapore wants to kill on 22 January now asks only for our prayers. So pray for him, if you can. Pray for all the people the state has already killed in our names. Pray for all the people who still languish on death row, isolated and terrified.
But fight, too. Fight the death penalty and challenge the power that insists upon it.
If it's not a circus, then why are there so many clowns?
Prime Minister Lawrence Wong has taken the Leader of the Opposition title away from Workers' Party's secretary-general Pritam Singh, citing his criminal convictions and the resolution passed by Parliament to "express regret" over his behaviour. He's invited WP to nominate another elected Member of Parliament—who hasn't been implicated in the Committee of Privileges' findings—to take on that mantle. "I hope to receive their nomination soon, so that this important position in our parliamentary democracy will not remain vacant for too long," Wong says in his statement.
At this point, my eyes are rolling to the back of my head. None of what we've seen in Parliament this past week has really been about parliamentary democracy. The entire "debate" around the motion was unnecessary. The LO is an appointed role; if Wong was disturbed by the court's findings and felt it inappropriate for Singh to continue as LO, he could have just stripped Singh of that position without the whole rigmarole in Parliament. (It reminds me of an old argument the PAP used to trot out to oppose the live-streaming of Parliament; they said that it would turn the House into a "form of theatre" where MPs would start "playing to the gallery". Who's doing that now, I wonder? 🤔)
The time-wasting motion also dealt another blow to the Nominated Member of Parliament scheme. Three freshly sworn-in NMPs spoke in support of the PAP's motion that Singh was unsuitable to continue as the LO; all eight NMPs present during the debate voted in favour of the motion. "If these individuals were chosen for their independence and expertise, they gave no indication of it. Their speeches echoed government messaging almost word for word," The Online Citizen writes, adding: "Now, NMPs are being drawn into politically charged motions—such as censuring the Leader of the Opposition—not as neutral commentators, but as participants in a contest between the ruling party and the opposition."
The mainstream media's current focus is on who the WP should put up to be the next LO. Some feel that the WP would be "better off" choosing someone to take over. I disagree; I think the WP should tell Wong to take the LO position and shove it. Here are my reasons:
Do we actually need an LO?
This practice of having an official Leader of the Opposition is relatively new. It only started in 2020, making Singh the only person who has held the position. On paper, the LO is entitled to more remuneration, more resources (like an office in Parliament and money for legislative assistants), the right of first response, more time for speeches, and access to confidential briefings and overseas trips. During the debate, though, Singh signalled that the classified briefings and overseas trips haven't actually materialised. At the end of the day, the asymmetry in power and information between the PAP and any other party in Singapore is so huge and stark that these are hardly sufficient to balance the playing field.
Whether there is or isn't an official LO, it doesn't actually affect Parliament's operations. They might have a little bit less time, and no fancy office in Parliament, and maybe less money to fund legislative or party work, but the WP MPs can continue to do what they do in Parliament regardless.
Singaporeans can recognise an opposition leader when we see one
I daresay that, regardless of whether there's an official LO, Singaporeans know who the leader of the opposition is. It's not hard. The leader of the main opposition party in Parliament is the leader of the opposition. (This is also how it works in the UK: the leader of the largest political party in the House that's not in government is the Leader of His Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition.) The only opposition party with elected seats in Singapore's Parliament right now is the Workers' Party. Therefore, whoever is the leader of the Workers' Party is the de facto leader of the opposition.
Unless the WP decides to elect a new secretary-general, many people will probably continue to see Singh as the leader of the opposition. In fact, keeping Singh as leader of the party but having someone else as LO might leave the public confused about who's really steering the WP ship. It also puts whoever ends up as LO in a super awkward, unenviable position—do they answer to their secretary-general, or does their secretary-general answer to them when it comes to parliamentary matters? That way drama lies.
We didn't have an LO in the decades before 2020. I think we can survive not having another one again. Especially if these are the terms of engagement. If we really want to have a Leader of the Opposition, let it be something codified in law, with their privileges and responsibilities clearly listed. Let there be restraints on executive power when it comes to who holds the role and how it is treated. Otherwise, this just becomes more leverage for politicking.
Masks off
As Wong's statement shows, the LO position is a way for the ruling party to perform care for parliamentary democracy. They can point to the role and say, "See, we created that. We're not authoritarian, Singapore is not a one-party state, we are a real democracy." They can do that while electoral fairness, gerrymandering, and all sorts of other methods of stacking the deck in favour of the incumbent goes on. More form, no substance. Why should any of us act in this wayang?
I mean, come on. If Wong really cared about democracy, he wouldn't have agreed to be part of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, which he was sworn into on Thursday. In his own words, this council "scrutinises the Bills passed by Parliament to ensure that they do not discriminate against any racial or religious community; it also considers matters referred to it by Parliament or the Government." Sir, your party holds the supermajority in Parliament and forms the government—here also ownself check ownself sia! What the heck?!
Whoever takes on the LO role will be stepping into a tilted ring. There'll be lots of big talk about respect and decorum and integrity and behaviour becoming of an elected official, but we know this game isn't being played fair and square. If I were the WP, I'd rather focus my energies elsewhere than getting into this. Don't let the PAP have the satisfaction of using the LO position to gaslight people into thinking Singapore has a genuine, competitive democracy.
🤡🤡🤡🤡 🤡🤡🤡🤡
Do I think the WP will agree with me and tell Wong to go fly kite? I guess there's a non-zero chance, but I'm not really counting on it. There's a reason why they're a political party and I'm an activist who's visited police stations too many times. Whatever it is, they'll have their reasons and their strategy. But as a Singaporean who does care about parliamentary democracy, this whole saga is yet another example of how skewed and absolutely infuriating our political landscape is.
And, as I've mentioned before, none of these elected officials are talking about the original issue that kicked off this whole shitshow: the need to dismantle rape culture and provide more support for survivors of sexual violence.
⭐️ [TARGET: $47,000] Help us challenge Singapore’s mandatory death penalty regime at the Supreme Court! ⭐️
On 28 October last year, three sisters of executed death row prisoners, as well as four founding members of the Transformative Justice Collective, filed a constitutional challenge against the mandatory death penalty for drug offences.
The estimated total costs, for the High Court stage as well as the Court of Appeal, is no less than $47,000. These costs do not include any legal fees for lawyers, since the team of applicants are representing themselves.
Please support us by contributing towards the overwhelming costs of this legal challenge, where sisters of executed prisoners and activists have come together to seek justice for the blood spilled in all of our names.
Donate through the Paynow QR code (see image above), or through our Chuffed campaign:
Thank you for reading! As always, feel free to forward this weekly wrap to anyone you like, and spread the word about this newsletter!