Flawed understanding of multi-party system

Apr 16, 2011

I REFER to Mr Daniel Yew's commentary on Thursday ("Is a multi-party system good for S'pore?"), in which he uses the analogies of a committee and an army to highlight the pitfalls of a multi-party system.

Both analogies are flawed.

Having a multi-party system is not akin to increasing the size of a committee. Rather, it is analogous to the view that a committee should be made up of different members of the company. Whether it is for a dinner and dance event or improving productivity, committee members are usually appointed from different departments to ensure proper representation of the company.

Similarly, his suggestion of widening the input of ideas in the army by consulting every soldier, as an analogy of a "many views" system gone wrong, is like asking the Government to consult every Singaporean. No, this is not what a multi-party system entails.

[So far so good. Multi-party system is not the same as direct democracy.]

He also mentioned that an army is best led by an able general who draws upon the advice and experience of his general staff. But isn't this a fine example of a multi-party system? The commanding officer listens and consults not just his rifle company commanders who lead the fighting forces, but also the support weapons and logistics commanders on support, back-up plans and contingencies. Isn't that what a multi-party system is for?

Khong Kiong Seng

[No. A general who consults all his unit commanders is like the Prime Minister who consults all his Ministers, who by the way are from the same party. A less dominant party with more opposition MPs is like a general with fewer advisers as unit commanders are lost to the enemy, or units are commanded by whichever is the most senior officer as key commanders (Minister-calibre MPs) are lost in battle.

But I take the point that the army is a bad analogy, as is the committee analogy.

Because the opposition party in  parliament has no role other than to question and to object to the proposals of the ruling party. They can of course agree and support some of the ruling parties proposals but if they support ALL the ruling party's initiatives, why are they in Parliament? How are they opposition? They can of course offer suggestions and amendments that they believe will improve the ruling party's bills, or they can even propose their own bill for debate (just as Walter Woon did for the maintenance of parent's bill, and he was just an NMP). BUT the ruling party is under no obligation to accept their suggestions or amendments, and they have no leverage to force the ruling party to amend or withdraw the bill for those requiring a simple majority. For those that require a two-third majority, if there are enough opposition, they can block such proposals (usually to amend the constitution).

So if the previous writer has misunderstood the scope of a multi-party system, this writer has not shown a clearer understanding either.]

Apr 16, 2011
Multi-party system can address talent shortage

MR EUGENE Tan gave examples of countries having two- or multi-party systems that failed miserably or ran into trouble and concluded that a one-party system is better ("UK, US? Give him a S'pore MP any day"; Wednesday).

But is it simply because of the nature of a multi-party system or are there other reasons? I doubt converting to a one-party system would help those countries to do better than they are today.

I think it is down to the quality of people chosen as leaders rather than the failure of the system itself. If you had ineffective people operating in a one-party system, it would failed as well.


[True! Very true! Signs of higher order thinking? Or just pure fluke? After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.]

Singapore has done well thus far because of the quality of its leaders rather than the system itself. But can we guarantee that this will be so in the future?

Indeed, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said that there is a lack of talent in Singapore. If that were so, all the more reason we should adopt a multi-party system so that we can cast the net wider in search of talent.

We should not accept a one-party system simply because there is a shortage of talent. Rather we should find ways to solve the shortage problem.

Tan Wei Cheng

[And... this is a stopped clock apparently. ]

A single party can't represent all views

Apr 8, 2011 PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong's argument that 'if the PAP can't assemble a second team, I don't think the opposition will find it easier' shows a misunderstanding of multi-party democracy ('Not enough talent for two A teams'; yesterday).

It is not the job of the ruling party to assemble a second 'A team' - it is the opposition's. A two-party system is not about providing just two competent teams but also two different policy options.

Voters would not simply want two 'A teams', each with similarly impressive credentials but from the same party and holding largely similar views.

The point is to have two 'A teams' that represent different views and needs of constituents. The dialogue of these multiple viewpoints in Parliament is what refines national policy, ensuring all sectors of society have their interests considered.

Scarcity of talent is a poor argument for not having a multi-party system. No one party can presume to speak for the needs and views of the entire populace. In the last general election, the People's Action Party (PAP) garnered only 66 per cent of the vote. This means there is a sizeable minority of the population wishing to be represented by a different voice in Parliament.

The PAP may call itself a 'pragmatic party' that is 'ready to take in good ideas', but being pragmatic does not mean it does not have its own underlying ideologies and principles - meritocracy, for instance.

[I understand the point, and I understand the problem. Saying the PAP has an ideology such as "meritocracy" is like saying the PAP have an ideology like "rationality", or "fairness". What I mean by understanding the problem is that a two party system requires -- no, practically demands ideological absolutes. One pro-life. One pro-choice. One for hands-off govt, one for govt intervention. But PAP is not ideological except for its stand on integrity (non-corruptibility), and meritocracy. How does one take a viable stand against those position.]

However open a party may be to new ideas and differing opinions, it has its own party line to toe and cannot possibly stand for a plurality of viewpoints, especially when they are contradictory. Voters would be unreasonable to expect a single party to represent all viewpoints; that is why we have multiple parties.

[Yes, there will always be multiple viewpoints. What does that mean politically? This is what happens in the US: When the democrats are in power, businesses are tax, and welfare is provided. Then a few years later the republicans take over and reverse the policies... and then some. Then the democrats come back, reinstate their policies, reverse other new policies enacted by the GOP, etc. Two steps forward, 3 steps back. Legalise abortion, cut funding to planned parenthood. Allow gay marriages. Cancel it. Does this remind you of our northern neighbours political decisions and announcements?

The solution to this is to based policies not on ideology, religion, faith or even philosophy, but on rational consideration of the facts and the effects. Which is not to say that policies have not changed under the PAP. From family planning to pro-marriage and fertility. From no casino to two IRs. But such reversals are publicly discussed and all views are aired. There were strong religious resistance to the IRs, but secular reasoning prevailed, despite the presence of some religious people in the Cabinet.]

It would also be wrong to characterise the job of the parliamentary opposition as 'waiting and watching just in case the PAP screws up'.

[PM Lee was not saying the role of the opposition was to watch and wait. His example was of someone who is competent, talented and wants to contribute. He can either join the PAP and start contributing immediately, or join the opposition and wait for the PAP to fail so that he can start to make policies.]

The very point of the multi-party system is that opposition politicians, though not forming the government, can still contribute to policy discussion and refinement in a very real way, which is through Parliament.

[Idealistic at best. Look at the US with its mature two-party system. Opposition obstructionist tactics do not "refine" policies or bills. They weaken, distort, dilute, and divert efforts and initiatives leading to compromise that waste time and resources. The US govt will shut down on Friday (Sat noon SG time) because their partisan and gridlocked Congress cannot agree on the budget.

Realistically, opposition can raise discussion on issues, and if in the course of the discussion, the PAP or ruling party fails to answer to the satisfaction of the people, this can be pointed out during election to remind the people of the inadequate response of the ruling party and perhaps persuade the people that it is grounds to vote out the party.

But if that is the role, then NCMP and NMPs can perform just as well if not better. I always felt that Siew Kum Hong and Walter Woon were great NMPs and perform better than opposition MPs.]

The parliamentary opposition's raison d'etre goes far beyond whether the ruling party 'screws up' or not. So long as there are different views in society and voters who do not wish to be represented by the ruling party, there is a need for more than one party in Parliament.

Michael Cyssel Wee

[Let's just say I disagree. Not every view is worth a party. Some views are so narrow, they become one dimensional caricatures. Some views are temporary. Some views are irrational. Some are misguided or dumb.]

Opposition in Disarray

Mar 2, 2011

Instead of forming a single party, agree on straight fights against PAP

GETTING opposition parties to unite against the People's Action Party (PAP) in a general election is unconstructive, impractical and unworkable ('Only a united opposition can succeed' by Mr Paul Chan; last Saturday).
Simply merging different parties together would mean that weaker individuals and ineffective groups get conveniently subsumed into the association.
Given the challenging roles and duties of opposition politicians, there should be competition between parties - in the form of leadership calibre, manifestoes and overall quality.
As the immediate goal of opposition parties is to increase party credibility and persuade people to vote for them, they cannot compromise on their policy proposals and recommendations.
As they are motivated by varying ideals, though bound by the common purpose of serving the people, there are significant differences in their strategies for a better Singapore.
Also, the different levels of development among opposition parties may also deter the establishment of a single party.
Case in point: The resignations and confusing developments that appear to have roiled the new Reform Party contrast sharply with the situation in more established parties whose game plans are in place and well-articulated.
Merging into a single bloc now will result in valuable time and resources being wasted on wrangling over leadership positions and bickering over bureaucratic imbroglios, instead of focusing on substantive policy issues.
A call for unity without proper justification will hardly convince Singaporeans of the opposition's readiness to challenge the status quo.
Nonetheless, what opposition parties can - and should - do is to discuss the distribution of their candidates across the electoral map, to prevent three-way fights.
This would prevent splitting the opposition vote. More importantly, straight fights against the PAP will ensure contests in all constituencies, and allow all eligible Singaporeans to have their say at the ballot box.

Kwan Jin Yao

Disunity is obstructing an effective by-election strategy

WHEN the by-election strategy was hatched 20 years ago, it worked because the leaders of the opposition parties then were united ('Only a united opposition can succeed' by Mr Paul Chan; last Saturday).

The strategy was a hit as it garnered the opposition four seats in the 1991 General Election (GE), a record since Singapore's first GE for Parliament in 1968 when the People's Action Party (PAP) was returned to power on Nomination Day, and when walkovers became virtually a permanent feature thereafter.
A by-election strategy is still relevant. However, with so many opposition parties and self-centred leaders, it is almost impossible now.
One minor disagreement among opposition candidates would result in one of them joining or forming another political party.
The reality is that some opposition candidates can barely hope to keep their election deposits in a GE.
Opposition parties should pick their candidates more carefully.
For instance, those who are older than 60 and have lost in two GEs should refrain from contesting.
In fact, I think the opposition parties cannot find the 43 effective candidates they would need for a by-election strategy in the upcoming GE.
For example, if the Workers' Party can find five credible candidates like party chairman Sylvia Lim, it may have a chance of winning Aljunied GRC by employing the by-election strategy, on the assumption that the PAP is assured of forming the next government on Nomination Day.

Lim Jit Chaing

[The By-election effect has already been discredited. It was really the LKY effect. Or more precisely, the LKY stepping down effect. That was the year GCT took over. Some people obviously thought, if LKY is not PM, perhaps it is time to consider alternatives.

However, of the 4 opposition voted in that year, 2 were duds. Instead of heralding a new phase in opposition politics, they were a blip on the political radar and a lesson that alternatives need to be credible, viable, feasible, and presentable. The people learnt their lesson and rewarded Chiam and Low, and promptly kicked out the two twits in the next election.

And it has been two ever since.

To counter the By-election effect, the PAP has implemented local election effect with upgrading and asset enhancement offered to "buy" votes. It was worked, but now with most precincts upgraded, there is less to offer.

But the real reason the opposition is in disarray is that the PAP has no ideological weakness, simply because it has no ideology. The members of the opposition flit from one part to another because in the absence of an ideology, the opposition are unable to present a logical, coherent alternative.

If they have an ideology, it is that the PAP is pro-Singapore. And how can any opposition decide to campaign on an Anti-Singapore platform?

Before the opposition even can decide to oppose the PAP, they need to decide what are they opposing? You can oppose policies, but policies can change. You need to oppose principles and ideologies. Or provide an alternative.

Without a ideological or principle platform, all that the opposition can do is oppose policies, which is a weak platform.]

Why I should stop reading the ST Forum Page

The Straits Times Forum Page should come with the following warning or parental advisory:

WARNING. Reading these pages may lead to any or all of the following conditions:
- narrow-mindedness
- simple-mindedness
- uncritical thinking
- non-thinking
- emotional reaction disguised as thoughts
- stupidity; and
- cognitive indolence.

Exhibit 1 (for today)

Nov 19, 2008
Time for a review of zoo's safety measures
I REFER to reports regarding the fatal mauling of cleaner Nordin Montong by white tigers on Nov 13. What I find most appalling is the slow response from the licensed shooters and management when bystanders raised the alarm upon seeing the events unfolding.

Merely throwing stones and rocks to distract or scare the tigers was naïve and unprofessional as wild animals are not intimidated by stones.

The shooters should have immediately tranquillised the ferocious cats. [Oh yes. the automatic tranquilliser system should have immediately been activated. Heck! the system should have been on automatic "Detect tigers mauling cleaner" mode!] Instead, after the fatal incident, the zoo spokesman said it was not necessary to sedate the cats. This verbal platitude smacks of inexperience and complacency.

[I think the zoo's reply was that tranquillisers would not have worked immediately, and when the tiger is hit by the dart it tends to strike back instinctively and that would have put the cleaner in even greater danger. This clearly uninformed or misinformed statement smacks of negligence, non-comprehension, and prejudiced pre-conception.]

One must always be on the alert when dealing with wild animals because of their unpredictability, and all zoo staff must know how to respond instantly should a human life be at the mercy of a larger predator. [I am amazed! What clarity of thought from this writer! Yes! Why didn't the zoo think of it first! How can they NOT have considered the possibility of such accidents? What absolute naivete or arrogance on the part of this writer!]

Are existing safety and preventive measures truly adequate and reviewed periodically?

If a human can slip into an animal's lair, then an animal could also escape unknowingly.

[On the face of it, this seems like pretty reasonable statement. But like I said earlier, reading the forum page can lead to uncritical thinking. Take the tiger's exhibit as an example. The cleaner dropped from the ledge into the moat in front of the exhibit and then waded onto dry ground. That was his point of egress. For the tigers to use the same way to exit, it would have to swim or wade into the moat and from there attempt to leap up onto the ledge. The ledge would already be designed such that it would have been clearly beyond the range of a tiger's leap. And even if a super-tiger were able to leap that height, the water would have been an additional drag on any attempt to leap from the moat. Leaping from before the moat would put the ledge too far to be reached as there would be a vertical as well as a horizontal dimension to overcome. The writer should fall (or be pushed) into a deep animal pit-trap and told to make his own way out. After all, if he could get in, he should be able to get out.]

Are zookeepers screened stringently for any physical or mental disorders before coming into contact with wild animals? [Apparently, neither are Forum page letter writers screened stringently for mental adequacy. The criteria apparently is along the lines of, "would Sarah Palin say something like this?" If yes, publish.]

Superiors and wardens should be proactive by conducting regular surveillance around enclosures to ensure that any discrepancies are immediately rectified, and not rely just on the zookeepers. [Where does he come up with these?!?! Another great suggestion that only he could have thought of! Why didn't the zoo think of this?!?!?]

I hope the zoo authorities are analysing the consequences of this unfortunate incident with the view of instituting more safety improvement measures to prevent further recurrences.

Even an isolated occurrence should warrant some soul searching, and if required, corrective action.

[Yes. The zoo will be installing a hotline at the white tigers exhibit that will be connected directly to Samaritans of Singapore. In addition, they will be playing the video of the final minutes of the unfortunate Mr Nordin at the exhibit. Apparently, after he was mauled, he realised that there were less painful ways to kill oneself.]

Glen Lee

-------------
The next letter is actually reasonably well-argued. But the arguments while valid are old. Nothing really new, but probably good to keep in mind. It's here because it's old, and trots out the same old.

Nov 19, 2008
GOVERNING SINGAPORE
Two-party system better

I REFER to Monday's report, (''Change must come' to PAP') in which Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong advocated that a single party should dominate governance in Singapore.

PM Lee also raised the issue of countries like Taiwan, which practised the Western definition of democracy but suffered from its ill effects.

He suggested that two-party or multi-party democracy seldom works in Asia. However, a single-party government is also unhealthy as it is susceptible to a group-think mentality. Elected politicians from the same party will not want to raise different viewpoints, especially if he is in the minority, for fear of being branded.

As power is focused on only a few good men at the top, having a single-party government heightens this risk of group-think mentality. This will not benefit the country in the long run.

A two-party system, despite its inherent difficulties, has several advantages. One important fundamental rule within a democratic system is that it has adequate checks and balances within the governance.

This is not to say that the current government is not trustworthy. But to prevent possible abuses, a two-party system will do the job better than a self-checking arrangement.

The public is also reassured, as a two-party system ensures counter-checking measures for the betterment of the country. There is also the issue of transparency, which is lacking now. A two-party political system will plug this loophole.

[The PAP's argument is that there is not enough talent to field a Team A and Team B. If you look at the cabinet, yeah, there are some "Team B" players there by default already because there is not enough Team A players. So yes, a two party system may be better, but we don't have the resources for it.

The other issue is whether a 2-party system really is better. Other than the USA, there are no other persistent 2-party system. Other so-called two party systems are either more than 2, or is more like different regimes from different parties at different eras. And in the case of USA, there are historical reasons for the development of the 2-party system, but the system is in a kind of stasis too. The 2-party system there is locked in a thesis-antithesis-thesis-antithesis cycle without ever really moving onto synthesis. After the Democrats won (this election), the Republicans regroup and rehash themselves but come the next election, they will still stand for the same principles and for the same values and the electorate will be tired of Democrats values and principles and vote for Republican values and principles. The pendulum swings, but it doesn't change.]

Singapore has enjoyed the fruits of the ruling party's successes. There are grave challenges ahead during this financial crisis.

A two-party system can only benefit Singapore as there will be variegated exchanges of ideas, however divergent.

A one-party political power also has the disadvantage of answering to no one at the top and this can be dangerous.

[The danger is not about answering to no-one at the top, but that there are no alternatives if that party fails. So with the failure of Republican values and principles - free market, pro-business, less govt, less regulations - the pendulum now swings the other way and the Democrats take the presidency, and the two houses. However, such swings of the pendulum occurs precisely because there is a dichotomy of values and principles and the schizophrenic electorate has been acculturated to see and believe these dichotomies as political values and political absolutes. Why is the thesis-antithesis of "more govt/less govt" never progressing to the synthesis of "just right govt"? Because there is papa bear and mama bear, but no baby bear. And the two-party system is unlikely to move to that baby bear synthesis because in some sense each party is defined by the other. One is for more govt, one is for less. One pro-choice. One pro-life.

But because Singapore is a single dominant party system, there is no dichotomy and no public pendulum. Baby bear has to make it on its own and be "just right" for the circumstances of the day. PAP politics is not ideological. If it has any ideology, it is the ideology of pragmatism. With pragmatism, there are no (political) absolutes. Stop at 2 became baby bonus because situation changed. No casino became IRC because situation change. No motor sports to the premier motor sports. No organ trading is now being discussed - because situations changed. Such is the politics in Singapore.]

The United States political system has a good check in Congress, whose endorsement is required before the president can act.

[This is fictitious at best. With the swing in voters mood, Democrats have majority in both houses and dominate the govt... at least for the next two years. Any checks on the presidency for the next two years will be token at best.]

[Update 20 Oct 2010: the Republicans have taken to obstructionist tactics, filibustering every bill and significant attempts to move the country forward. This is how a two party system descends into gridlock.]

As Singapore progresses, we must implement changes over how we are governed.

Controlled democracy, which we have had all along, may not be enough to propel us forward.

[Again, I agree in principle, but I have seen Singapore in practice (and the US & Canadian system in a limited fashion) and the truth is, we have a unique situation, a unique system, and a unique approach. It would be a shame to turn what we have into what the US has, or what M'sia has, or what Taiwan has, or what Philippines has, or what Thailand has, or what the UK has, or what the EU has. By no means are we saying that what we have is the best for the world, but it works for us. Would a US system work better? Is the US system working better for them? I don't think so. It works. It's flashy. It's exciting. But is it better?

All the US system offers is a systemic check and balance mechanism. Singapore has the ultimate check and balance. The true test of the Singapore system is, will it work. If it doesn't, it doesn't matter anymore. The US has deep stock. This financial crisis proves it. If it were like Iceland, it would be bankrupt. How does a country become bankrupt?!?!? Instead, it can weather the crisis, dig deep into its stock of wealth and influence, and come back again.

If a similar financial crisis happened to Singapore, it would wipe out our reserves and it would be the end of Singapore as we know it. We wouldn't survive because we don't have deep stock. There isn't a second chance. If the PAP fails, the last thing we want is to give another party a chance at picking up the pieces. In the US, they can change govt and try again. In Singapore, there isn't another party, and this is not an argument for the PAP to let another party try their hand at governing, because we don't have the spread of talent required for a Team B. So yes, we are in a precarious political situation and we have no margin for error. Welcome to the Uniquely Singapore Situation. If you can't stand the uncertainty, feel free to move to the land of the free.

Being a Singaporean is like being married to one spouse (PAP). After a while, you come to resent some of the things your spouse does. Some habits begin to grate on you. You have to make sacrifices. But ultimately that is your spouse. If you go into a marriage with a back-up spouse, you aren't really committed are you? That said, your spouse knows that while you will tolerate some things, there are clear boundaries. You may not have a back-up spouse, but there is divorce.]

Gilbert Goh