Good govt must allow political vibrancy

Feb 18, 2010
INCORRUPTIBILITY NOT ENOUGH

DR YIK Keng Yeong's letter ('...As long as PAP remains incorruptible', Feb 9) alluded to the negative ramifications of political competitiveness and the positive prognosis of firm and decisive leadership.

Political leadership dictates that a government's overriding mandate is the welfare of the nation and the people it governs. And a corrupted government almost certainly leads to a decline in the nation's welfare.

However, incorruptibility alone is not enough. A government can be incorruptible but not infallible, simply because no human being is.

[A government is not a single human being. It is many persons. Therefore it overcomes the fallibility issue with internal checks and balances so that no single person (except in a dictatorship or a monarchy) can make an egocentric decision without the inputs of the rest. That said, any government (or group) is susceptible to "groupthink", and political parties are susceptible to in-breeding, and attracting/selecting like-minded individuals. ]

Fallibility cannot be eliminated, but the risks associated with it can be mitigated. As no one can predict the future with certainty, a government can rely on only four types of wisdom: its own, the people's, that of other governments, and that of people in other nations.

A government that listens only to itself will not hear the people's needs. A government that listens only to itself and its people cannot make informed decisions internationally.
A government that does not listen to the people of other nations may not appreciate the destiny humanity crafts as it progresses.

[Here the writer starts to get philosophical and confuses the role of government and wishful thinking. Human Destiny? That is a debatable concept, and assumes a homogeniety that denies the diversity of the human experience (how's that for philosophy!). The role of government is simply to govern. But within the "simply to govern" is a whole lot of work to govern well. The US Republican party believes that government is a necessary evil and should be as small as possible and get out of the way of people as much as possible. Republican candidates therefore fight to get elected so that they can do as little as possible, apparently. Most governments believe that they are elected to govern and that means making decisions for the general wellbeing of the people, and not just exercising the will of the majority, but also protecting the rights of the minorities. Listening to the people of other nations assumes that these people speak with one voice, and also assumes that their one voice is reasonable. The reality is that the nations of the world seldom speak with one voice, and are seldom reasonable. But even if they were, subjecting ourselves to the will of the majority would be the definition of "tyranny of the majority".]

A government can fulfil the duties predicated by its mandate only if it is guided by all forms of wisdom, constructive or destructive, conventional or radical.

[Idealistic. Foolish. Contradictory. You can be conventional or radical. But not both at the same time. Whether conventional wisdom is right or radical innovation is right is a matter of context and situation. One cannot be guided by ALL kinds of wisdom ALL the time. Being wise is knowing when one approach is more applicable than another. Not being guided by ALL wisdom. That's just being non-discriminatory and a sign that you don't know what you are doing.]

The burden lies not in the correctness of the decision, but in the rightness on which the decision is based. Ultimately, the decision is a government's, but not before it has rigorously weighed the alternatives. It is only fair to the people that their government makes a decision that is exhaustively informed and conscientiously wise.

[The rightness of the decision is dependent on the context and situation of the people. All other philosophical consideration are just idealism.]

As such, differences - competition and opposition - should be actively engaged, if not sought, not for a government to make the right decision, but to allow it to make a decision that is right.
The only resistance to be eliminated is one that threatens a government's overriding mandate: the nation's welfare.

[What needs to be eliminated is extraneous considerations that muddies the water and confuses the situation, and prevents the proper identification of the critical issues to be addressed. Opposition for the sake of opposition does not propel good governance forward. In any case, if the over-riding mandate is the nation's welfare, then what was all that crap earlier about human destiny and international consultation? While not all decisions and choices are zero-sum game, the reason why we are not an ASEAN community with transnational government - like the European parliament which is a lame duck anyway - is because in a lot of matters, what benefits one nation is seen rightly or wrongly as being detrimental to another. While Malaysia is our closest neighbour and important trading partner, issues like water, airspace, air routes, fuel costs and other policies separate us. If we sought alignment with M'sian policies, would we have bumiputra policies, and be paying $5 for water?]

Ultimately, political leadership is a burden, not a reward. A government that upholds the nation's welfare will receive its people's loyalty.

A government that shoulders the nation's welfare, and survives the challenges of contrarians, will gain the world's admiration.

David Tan

[In terms of "contrarians" Singapore's model of democracy is problematic enough for the liberal democracies of the west. By their estimate, a country like us should have failed, with miserable people, poverty, and under-development due to our atrophied democracy. Instead, we are well-developed, with high levels of medical and healthcare, housing, financial and other industrial infrastructure with practically just a modicum or superficial democracy. Whereas countries with more robust and vibrant democracies like Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, and maybe even Thailand, are struggling or just emerging. So we have admirers in the world. Not unanimous admiration because we do not pander to the ideologues who want democracy for the sake of democracy rather than good governance for the sake of the people.]