Tweaking the NCMP scheme

Mar 29, 2013


Mix of electoral systems can work

BOTH Dr Jack Lee Tsen-Ta ("Changing system not the answer"; Wednesday) and Mr Devadas Krishnadas ("Proportional representation has its limitations"; Wednesday) have made valid comments on my commentary ("Picking out the winners in electoral systems"; last Saturday).

The proportional representation system has a long established history and been adopted by more than 80 countries. The interplay of many factors, socio-economic and cultural, determines the selection of a most suitable system to meet the needs of a nation.

[The "interplay of many factors" therefore undermines and renders irrelevant your "long established history" and "adopted by more than 80 countries" point. If the "interplay" determines the most suitable system, then what was the point of the preceding point? Verbose fillers?]

In Singapore, the first-past-the-post method has served us well, and it was never my intention to propose a replacement of the existing system by proportional representation.

However, a tweaking of the system by modifying the Non-Constituency MP (NCMP) scheme may add value and help solve the problem of scouting for capable people to stand for elections.

The suggestion of adding 10 NCMPs is merely an example; it could be increased to a greater number after we have gained adequate experience in future.
It is incorrect to say that "first-past-the-post" and "proportional representation" cannot be mixed.

There are a number of variations of proportional representation. Many countries adopt a mixed system of the two methods. Australia uses proportional representation in its Senate elections and preferential voting in House of Representatives elections. Germany, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea adopt mixed proportional methods.

[If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that for bi-cameral legislative bodies, one body (or house) may be elected with one system (say first-past-the-post) and another body or house can be elected by proportional representation. This is NOT the same as having a chimera (not to be confused with a bi-cameral parliament) voting system. So no. You have NOT proven that it is incorrect to say that the two systems cannot be mixed. Or rather, you have not proven that the two system HAVE been mixed in other places.]

I share Mr Krishnadas' view that there are limitations. The proportional representation "with the largest remainder method" used in Hong Kong favours small parties and encourages vocal minorities. But this is only one of its few variants.

Without the "largest remainder", it has worked well in Taiwan and other countries.

It is true that the system by itself may lead to fragmentation of votes and hence the need for a coalition government. But what I have suggested is to keep the "first-past-the-post" system largely intact, and just add a small number of NCMPs by proportional representation. The fragmentation of votes will not occur in our case.

Under the present Constitution, NCMPs are eligible to be appointed as ministers. It is again incorrect to say that this is "politically illegitimate".

[There is a difference between legally permitted and politically illegitimate. Devadas point was that it was contrary to democratic principles to have someone rejected at the polls to be allowed to make policy. So no, you do not seem to understand "politically illegitimate" to be able to say that it is incorrect.]

The American president appoints Cabinet ministers who are not elected members. In Hong Kong, ministers are appointed by the Chief Executive and they are not elected. The Taiwanese president appoints his premier and ministers who are not elected members.

[Yes. And the appointees are appointed by someone ELECTED by the people, and the appointees were not directly REJECTED by the people in an election.]

People may pose many questions on the present NCMP system. More should be discussed to make it relevant and useful in our parliamentary institution.
Ker Sin Tze (Dr)

[Relevant and useful is a good starting point. Unlike your proposal.]

Mar 27, 2013
Changing system not the answer

DR KER Sin Tze ("Picking out the winners in electoral systems"; last Saturday) proposed that the Non-Constituency MP (NCMP) scheme be altered to increase "participation in the decision-forming process" and "reduce the difficulty of enticing bright talents to serve in Parliament and the Government".

With regard to the first justification, the proposal might indeed have the effect of increasing diversity in Parliament.

As Dr Ker pointed out when discussing the Hong Kong electoral system, proportional representation tends to favour smaller parties and independent candidates. If that is the intention, should proportional representation not be extended to choosing all the elected MPs in Parliament?

Perhaps Dr Ker suggested having proportional representation for only 10 additional MPs so that the number of such "vocal minorities" remains small and unable to pose much of a challenge to the majority party's policies.

If so, it is rather difficult to see what the proposal adds to the existing NCMP and Nominated MP (NMP) schemes. I suspect people will be sceptical about the proposal, seeing it as merely introducing token alternative voices in Parliament with no real clout.

Incidentally, I am not sure why the NCMP scheme was termed as being "inactive" until Parliament revised it in 2010 by increasing the potential maximum number of NCMPs to nine. We have had NCMPs in Parliament since the scheme was introduced in 1984, except after the 1991 General Election when there were four opposition MPs in Parliament.

As for the second justification, it is already possible under the present constitutional system for any MP, including an NCMP and an NMP, to be appointed a minister, or even prime minister if that individual commands the confidence of a majority of the MPs.

Of course, in practice, it is highly unlikely that MPs other than those from the political party having a majority in Parliament will be appointed to the Cabinet. Increasing the potential pool of MPs by 10 will not really help to address the issue, because the true challenge that all political parties face is finding suitable people to stand for election in the first place.

Jack Lee Tsen-Ta (Dr)
Assistant Professor of Law School of Law, Singapore Management University


----------------

Proportional representation has its limitations

WHILE it is always useful to study other political and economic systems, it would be a mistake to do so without considering the historical and current differences in culture, law and politics ("Picking out the winners in electoral systems"; last Saturday).

Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore share similar characteristics as competitive economies, but that is where the similarities end. Even the fact that Hong Kong and Singapore were British colonies can be stretched too far - as evident by the contrast between Singapore's current sovereign status and Hong Kong's special relationship with China.

Applying the proportional representation approach to the Non-Constituency MP (NCMP) system is unsound.

First, we cannot have two systems of electoral practice - "first past the post", as is the current practice, and proportional representation. For harmony in our political principles, it must be either one or the other.

Second, if we were to change our parliamentary system to a proportional representation model, we should look at its limitations, not just its superficial attractiveness as being more democratic.

Proportional representation is a model that typically leads to coalition or minority governments. This may be a supportable outcome in large countries with powerful regional cities and provinces, but not in a tiny island with no economic or social distribution of power.

Third, appointing NCMPs as ministers is contrary to democratic principles. It would be politically illegitimate for someone not elected by the due electoral process to be given policy responsibility. It would not only give the incumbent an unfair advantage, but also cheat the people of their electoral choice of leadership.

It is possible to contribute to policymaking without distorting the political model, which has served us well to date.

Furthermore, the idea of introducing proportional representation for the NCMP system as a way to "entice talent" is oxymoronic. If a person cannot get himself elected, then either he is not seen as talent or the people have decided that the electoral winner is better.

We should not create "backdoor" routes to political leadership. If anything, given the growing electoral success of the opposition, the more pertinent question to ask is if the NCMP system will continue to have justification beyond this term of government.

Devadas Krishnadas

[Devadas point in the last para is, this may be the last election/parliament with NCMP. Dr Ker's proposal would seem to be a proposal to tweak the horse-drawn carriage with the Ford Model T in full production.]

PAP sending wrong signal in Punggol East

Feb 09, 2013

BY TAKING the drastic stand that it will not push for new facilities in Punggol East after losing the recent by-election, the People's Action Party (PAP) is sending the wrong signal to the 44 per cent of voters who supported it ("PAP won't push for facilities in Punggol East"; Wednesday).

[What about the signal to the 56% that did NOT vote for the PAP?]

US Electoral College ensures inclusive democracy

Nov 08, 2012

MR CHO Yan Fatt argued that there cannot be true democracy with the US Electoral College system ("No true democracy with US Electoral College system"; Forum Online, Tuesday).

While is true that the winning candidate in the presidential election may get fewer popular votes, the Electoral College system is respected for its historical roots, and many factors considered then remain relevant today.

[No they haven't.]

The United States is a federal union, with each state having the autonomy to run its own affairs, given the diversity of its society.

The Electoral College system gives greater weight to the smaller states - one of the checks and balances that the US Constitution values, so no big state can dominate the general election.

[Instead, the whole election is just dominated by a few swing states - Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, for example. California with 55 Electors are ignored because they are a "safe" Democrat state. Texas with 38 gets scant attention because it is a safe Republican state. Instead candidates expend their time and resources on the swing states - those states who are likely to be swayed by political ads. The Electoral College system does not prevent that. Instead it may be argued that the system causes this problem.]

In the case of a popular vote system, regions which are sparsely populated would not merit the attention of presidential candidates.

[So how many Presidential candidates make visits to or campaign in Alaska because of the electoral college system? Or Hawaii for that matter?]

However, under the Electoral College system, a candidate would need to get a spread of votes from across the country by developing plurality of support, thus ensuring that the smaller states in the union have a say in the election as well.

[I am so glad the internet does not transmit smells.]

The US founding fathers understood the dangers of direct democracy and struggled to create a system that not only reflected the will of the people, but also respected the minority.

Thus, the Electoral College system encourages moderation, compromise, coherence and inclusiveness of the United States as a nation.

Jonathan Lim

[Mindless regurgitation of textbook answers. Watch this Youtube video for an excellent analysis of the problems of the electoral college system. So "moderation, compromise, coherence and inclusiveness" my ass.

The Electoral College system was put in place because of the time lag in communications in the 18th century, and the vast size of the country required voters to send representatives (Electors) to the Capitol to elect the president.

Technology has improved quite a bit since then.

However if you want to argue that the Electoral College system should be kept because it helps candidates to focus their efforts and energies on just a handful of swing states instead of criss-crossing the nation trying to whip up that "plurality of support"... Ever heard of TV or the Internet?]

SDP defends health-care proposal

Mar 23, 2012


WE THANK Mr Jason Salim for his interest in our proposed health-care plan ('Health care: Why Govt's policy works while SDP's won't'; Tuesday).

First, his worry that the plan will lead to tax increases for ordinary Singaporeans is unfounded. We recommend that corporate tax, not personal tax, be increased.

Politicians need to be seen by voters

Sep 24, 2011
 
MY LIFE

A recent survey of 1,100 Singaporeans aged 21 and older found that three in 10 'do not trust politicians to act in their best interests'. YouthInk writers suggest why.
 
I AM a 'cynic' because I don't trust politicians, and one reason I don't trust them is that I rarely see my MP around - except during the elections.

Though I am still a minor, I like to be politically aware because I know in the future, I will play a part in choosing people to lead the country. But I don't believe the brief period before a general election is enough to convince us of the true capabilities of politicians who claim they can take Singapore to greater heights.

The process of scrutinising them has to start years beforehand, to ensure consistency in their actions. I have been to election rallies and heard fiery speeches, but once the hullabaloo of the elections dies down, the politicians seem to disappear.

They are probably working for their constituents but, unfortunately, a lot of it is not visible. One way to stay visible is through social networking, where I can see them responding to feedback and complaints. But that's not enough. Residents need to see their MPs in the flesh, and the best way would be through door-to-door visits. I understand such visits are taxing on MPs, but a visit more than once in five years wouldn't do much harm, would it? It would show us you are taking pains to visit us, and I would be assured that you truly have our best interests at heart.

Lim Shan, 16, is a Secondary 4 student at St Margaret's Secondary School.

[Politics is not just about going around knocking on doors and shaking hands. I don't see my MP, and I don't want to see my MP because I want him to help  the people who need help more than me. So no, I don't see my MP because I don't need to see him, but if I do need to see him, I know where to find him.  Really, if he comes to my door, I really don't think it is the best time to be discussing any problems I might have. Firstly, it may not be a convenient time for me.  I feel about MP walkabouts the same way I feel about door to door sales people.

The other role of the MP is precisely to be a member of parliament. He should be there to debate issues, to raise questions, to propose changes to make our lives a little better.

If he can do that, I don't need to see him at my door.

If you want to be politically aware, read. Find out how things are done. Find out why things are done in a certain way, or what considerations need to be taken into account to make good decisions. Understand that politics is about allocating resources according to policies. Good policies channel resources to where they do the most good for the most people. Bad policies causes more hardship than benefits.

All policies are good and bad. All policies have beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, and all policies have costs, either today or tomorrow.

Understand that there is no free lunch, and that anyone who tells you there is, is lying and trying to con you into voting for him.

Then you would be politically aware.]

Dr Tony Tan wins Presidential Election with 35.2% of votes. Sore losers erupt.

ST Facebook post:

"It is disturbing that an elected president did not receive more than a 50 per cent majority of votes," says our reader. Do you agree?

Selected comments from Facebook (I've taken those that wanted a re-vote. There were also some who said, we should live with the results as it is. But there were sore losers. Seems like those from the TJS camp. The TCB camp were mostly pro-stable govt and would have wanted TCB, but accepted TT as president.)

"Ya 65% did not vote for TT! Re election ..TT vs TCB!"

"Yes, agree that there shuld be re-election among the two. only then, we'll see who's the real winner!!"

"I find hard to accept TT as our president as 65% of the voters didn't support him. It just goes to show how many Singaporeans dislike him."

"Should use the Altenative Vote or Instant-Runoff election methods. ALOT more fairer in a multi-cornered contest."

"TOC and TR FB voters liked for TCB and TJS. We were at one point did not know who to vote for. Therefore I disagree. TCB is the only candidate that appeals to both Pro and Oppositions parties."

My Comments:
In such an election, you choose who you think would be the best president. 25% thought TJS was the one. No one else agreed. 5% thought TKL was the one. no one else did. Everyone has one vote. One opinion. One choice. No "backsies". Welcome to the adult world. You're not in primary school anymore.

If you think TCB would have been the better choice why didn't you vote for him in the first place?

If you voted TJS or TKL as the best choice why are you now willing to back another? What happen to strength of conviction? Loyalty? Or now that you know the "crowd" is with TCB, you wanna follow the crowd? Where is your independence of thought you bunch of cows?

----

Tan Jee Say is one deluded candidate. He thinks (constitutional) rules don't apply to the presidency. Not surprisingly, he attracts people who are equally deluded, and thinks (election) rules don't apply. He lost the GE. He thinks the PE is a second chance. Nor surprisingly he attracts people who think life is a game, that you can always reload saved game if you lose and get a second chance.

The PAP warned about a freak election result if voters anyhow vote. Well, we got a FREAK election result, didn't we?

TCB should have won, but because TJS conned gullible voters into supporting his delusional presidential gambit, he pulled enough voters away from the real alternative.

And the TJS voters now say, "sorry sorry, I anyhow vote. Have a second election, can?"

If you truly believe in your candidate, do you stand and defend him even in defeat, or do you find the next credible challenger and back him? The candidate attracts the people that reflects his character. The TJS voters who now asks for a round 2 of voting are fickle fickle voters of no integrity. They used TJS and TJS used them. They deserve each other.

And the best part, TJS has the unmitigated gall to think that if he didn't stand for election, all his voters would have spoilt their votes. What utter chutzpah! What delusions! What an ego!

He is just trying to assuage his guilt of having help perpetrated a FREAK election result.

TKL has been humbled at the polls and he has accepted defeat with humility. For that, I respect him. And I wish he didn't have to lose his deposit. I don't support him, and I think if he had pulled out, perhaps some of his votes might have gone to TCB. Maybe even enough to make TCB president. But what is done is done.

Accord minister's pay to leader of opposition

May 26, 2011

WHILE I am delighted to read that the policy on ministers' salaries is being reviewed ('Ministerial pay to be reviewed'; Sunday), the review committee may also wish to consider paying the leader of the opposition a salary.

In Britain, the opposition leader, who carries the title of the Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition in its Parliament, is paid a salary equivalent to a minister's, on top of his MP's salary.

He is also given a chauffeur-driven car whose cost and specification is equivalent to the vehicles used by Cabinet ministers.

Workers' Party secretary-general Low Thia Khiang could take on such a role here. In a way, he and his colleagues represent about 40 per cent of our citizenry. His responsibilities and contributions should be recognised.

With the increased number of opposition members in Parliament and with the formation of a committee to review political office-holders' salaries, now may be the appropriate time to consider allocating a salary for the leader of the 'loyal opposition'.

This would reflect the inclusive government that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong aspires to have.

I would like to emphasise the words 'loyal opposition' as I feel that Mr Low and his party have always believed it is possible to be in the opposition and yet remain loyal to Singapore.

Lee Tow Kiat

[Yes. We should pay Low Thia Khiang the equivalent of a Minister's pay for being the leader of the opposition. Nevermind if we don't know what he is supposed to do. In the UK the Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition is like the Alternative to the Prime Minister, and is a member of the Privy Council and advises the British Sovereign. The incumbent also runs a shadow cabinet precisely because he is supposed to be an alternative to the PM. We don't have a Privy Council, but we do have a Council of Presidential Advisors. Low can be a member!

So what if there is only 6 elected opposition MPs? There's 3 NCMPs! That's nine opposition MPs who can form a shadow Cabinet. Just double-hat a little.

Low as Shadow PM and Minister for Defence, Sylvia as Shadow Minister for Finance and Home Affairs, Chen Show Mao Shadow Minister for Law and Foreign Affairs, Pritam Singh Shadow Minister for Education and Manpower, Md Faisal Shadow Minister for Community Development, Youth & Sports, and Environment & Water Resources, Yaw Shin Leong Shadow Minister for National Development, and Transport. NCMPs Yee Jenn Jong as Shadow Minister for Trade & Industry, Gerald Giam as Shadow Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts, Lina Chiam as Shadow Minister for Health.

Entirely workable. And now there is a back-up plan (shadow cabinet) if the PAP fails.

And the next time Sylvia stands up to criticise the Minister's salary, Low will also feel uncomfortable.

I thought the writer of this was a pro-WP supporter, but I realise now, he is a scheming PAP-supporter who seems to be innocently pushing for more resources for the WP, but is actually laying the foundation for the corruption and downfall of the WP!

Incredible!]

Pragmatism shouldn't be only consideration

Apr 18, 2011

READING the many opinions for and against a multi-party government, I think we need to first re-examine the assumption that alternative parties will challenge the incumbent's policies blindly and that they do not have Singapore's interest at heart.

Members of the opposition parties are after all fellow Singaporeans, who had their education under the same system and grew up in a similar social and cultural climate. And theirs and their families' well-being will mirror the state of health of Singapore.

Granted, they have different ideologies and choose to look at issues through different perspectives, and they definitely do not have the experience that People's Action Party (PAP) members have of running a country. But does that mean their views are definitely always wrong?

Looking at the Parliament speeches, blogs and interviews of the members of these alternative parties, I must say there are interesting ideas raised which seem plausible and deserve further discussion.

While I am impressed by the rigorous process that PAP has put in place to identify its talent pool, there is always a concern that such a formulaic selection process will inevitably value some attributes over the others. So no matter how diverse the talents are as claimed, one cannot help feeling that they are just more of the same.

Although there may be no "groupthink" within the PAP, can it be that the group is so conditioned to think what is best for Singapore mostly in terms of economic values and social efficiency, that other less valued factors are not taken as much into consideration or given as much weight during the deliberation process?

Good deliberation can occur only when groups with truly different ideologies, not bound by one-party discipline, are able to come together to each present their perspectives and understand why it can or cannot work.

[Because this writer's tone is respectful, I shall restrain myself from my usual rant. 

I do not see how good deliberation can occur with members of the group with truly different ideologies. If one party believes that the free market is the best way for economic growth and government regulation just distorts the market, and the other party believes that while on the whole the free market does work, the natural greed and exploitative instincts of businesses needs to be controlled and regulated, the two parties will never be able to agree on how to regulate business. One will insist that it is necessary to rein in excesses, while the other will accuse the first of being an interventionist govt that will only distort and skew the market. How can there ever be a decision?]

Only then can the resulting resolution or compromise claim to have been fully looked at from all angles and not just based on the most pragmatic reasons.

As we have moved away from the survival phase of nation-building, pragmatism should no longer be the main or only consideration for policymaking.

[If not pragmatism, what? Idealism? Non-pragmatism? ]

For me, a good government does not necessarily equate a one-party government, but it is one which is formed by morally sound and competent individuals. I look forward to the day when competent and upright Singaporeans, with the same heart to serve, regardless of their ideologies, can pull their weight together for the betterment of Singapore.

[So are you saying that the current government is immoral, unsound, incompetent and made up of non-upright Singaporeans?]

Lee Jing Yng (Ms)

Don't judge system with Western eyes

Apr 18, 2011

RECENTLY, certain opposition groups have attempted to disparage our political system as being "Third World" just because political power here is largely in the hands of a single party ("WP's goal: A First World Parliament"; April 10).

Politics and economics are closely intertwined, like the relationship between mind and body. Just as a strong and healthy body needs to be sustained over the long term by a healthy mind, so too a country's economy needs a strong and healthy political system to nurture it on a long-term basis.

Each country should adopt the political system best suited to its needs. The two-party system may be more democratic and suitable for some countries, but for a country like Singapore with its historical development, small size, multiracial mix and lack of natural resources, the kind of system we now have is probably a better, if not the best, choice.

So we should not judge whether our political system is First World or Third World through Western eyes. If our economic and other achievements have attained First World standards, then our political system must also be First World, through our own eyes at least. It would be dangerous and foolish to discard something which has worked well just because it does not conform to foreign (mainly Western) norms.

Tan Gim Kheng

 

[I do not disagree with the conclusion, but with the process and the argument. Or perhaps the title.

 

To say that we need to judge not based on Western eyes, is to impute a cultural bias or a cultural content to governance and politics.

 

The difference I see is not about more democracy or less democracy, but the mechanisms of democracy. 

The two party system in the US, with the built-in check-and-balance is designed to slow down govt. That must first be understood. Their historical baggage is an inherent distrust of government. The two-party system has evolved into ideological opposites that sees working together and compromise as the betrayal of party beliefs.

The system is inherently unworkable.

Not because of Western values or perspective. 

But perhaps what the writer simply means to say is be courageous enough to see with reasonable and objective eyes and understand how the current system works rather than blindly following ideological principles which may be unsound.]

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.]

Minister's Salary - The Price of Honesty?

Apr 2, 2011

Pricing honesty misses larger concerns

THE reasons cited by Mr Kanagasabai Haridas to support ministerial salaries miss the larger concerns of many Singaporeans ('Singapore has priced honesty correctly'; last Saturday).

Mr Haridas states that financial incentives are necessary to entice leaders because we are a young country.

Singapore will always be young compared to others with a long history. Does that mean financial incentives will always be necessary?

Even if we view youth as an absolute value, at what age can we wean ourselves off financial incentives?

Just as we would not teach our children that wealth is all that matters, we should not entrench the pursuit of financial incentives in political office.

Second, Mr Haridas argues that the extended political life of a minister in Singapore makes it necessary to pay honest ones sufficiently.

The thinking that ministers must be rewarded handsomely if we want them to serve honestly is not the way a government should operate. The political lifespan of a minister should instead depend on the people's mandate via free elections.

Third, Mr Haridas suggests that only those who have already made their fortune can afford to serve their country out of conviction alone.

Such a view perverts a minister's responsibility to dedicate himself to the betterment of the lives of the people, and not seek office for monetary gain.

Finally, Mr Haridas notes that ministers do not have a lucrative lecture circuit after their political career.

This statement assumes that the ultimate reward for serving the people is wealth. It ignores the satisfaction gained from knowing that the people have been served well, and that the country has been steered in the right direction.

It also ignores the respect the people have for a minister who has selflessly served them.

The first priority for ministers anywhere is to serve the people and the country.

Tim Mou Hui


Mar 26, 2011
Singapore has priced honesty correctly

AS THE general election looms, ministerial salaries are once again being discussed with renewed vigour on various Internet platforms.

My view is that the current pay structure is appropriate for Singapore simply because it is the price of honesty.

We have had a government ranked among the highest for being corruption-free. There is certainly no need to grease any wheels in Singapore to get things done: That validates the strategy of pricing 'honesty' appropriately.

Of course, this then begs the question why the price of honesty is so much lower in other comparable countries with a relatively honest government. Surely, the price in such countries should not be vastly different compared to Singapore? There are, however, several plausible reasons for this divergence.

# First, we are still a young country and we have a long way to go before we create a solid identity and a deep sense of belonging that will act as a counterweight for financial-related benefits. This will come only with time.

# Second, the turnover of ministers in comparable countries is relatively much faster compared to Singapore, where a minister can be in the Cabinet for decades with no fixed term limit.

When you stretch the political life of a minister that much longer, the price of honesty via remuneration must be greater to ensure that the government remains, well, honest and incorruptible.

# Third, the candidates who enter politics, as is often seen in countries like the United States, may have already made their fortune, as in the case of former US treasury secretary Hank Paulson, who was chief executive officer of premier investment house Goldman Sachs before he joined the White House Cabinet.

Such holders of high office can afford to serve their country out of conviction alone.

Yet others may enter government early with the long-term aim of leveraging on the experience and influence they so gather when they leave to join the private sector.

Singapore does not offer such luxuries because we are a small country with a small pool of talent that can be considered for key government positions.

# Lastly, Singapore ministers or prime ministers do not have a lucrative lecture circuit that they can embark on at the end of their political careers like some of their counterparts elsewhere.

Kanagasabai Haridas
Denver, Colorado

[These are two civil, mostly thoughtful letters with valid if incorrect concerns.

Let's get the usual quotes and corollaries out of the way: Power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. Power attracts the corruptible. And my own thoughts: "The real power tends to ensure that the nominal power positions are taken by those they can influence and corrupt to their own advantage."

What do I mean?

If you are making $5m a year as a CEO or a professional (lawyer, doctor, banker) all you really want is to be left alone to continue to make your money not simply for yourself, but to ensure that your family is well provided for.

What you want is a stable environment to work and raise your family. You want this to cost you as little as possible.
And you want to be left alone to do your work.

For this to happen there is a need for stable government. Maybe even good government.

If ministers salaries are say $100,000 a year, you can expect that very few professionals at the top of their career will want to make the sacrifice. Why should they? They would rather find someone they can influence, and finance their political campaign so they they "own" them and can influence if not control them when they are in power.

Or if they do take up the political leadership, it is so that they can directly plunder the resources of the country, or use their power to corruptly fleece the citizenry.

So look at the world.

There are some countries where the corrupt are in power, because that's the best way to control the natural resources of the country and channel revenues into their own pockets. Gaddafi in Libya is one.

There are other countries where businesses finance politicians in order to ensure that their politicians get into power and can be pro-business. The Republicans in the USA are basically that. Look up John Boehner and his connection to businesses.

In either cases, the actual salary from their political position can be very modest. But their lifestyle shows that they have alternative, possibly undisclosed income.

The US President's salary is like $400,000. But to get elected, they are willing to spend HALF A BILLION for their campaign. EACH! Why? To do volunteer service? Give back to the country? It takes a multi-millionaire to run for president or at least someone with serious backing from rich people or corporations. Hilary Clinton spend millions of her own money to try to get the Democratic Party's nomination for presidential candidate.

(Afternote: For our Presidential Elections, for the over 2 million voters, the candidates spent a total of just over $1.3m, or about 65 cents per vote. )

So which is the corruption in Singapore. Are the leaders accumulating wealth from our natural resources? We are blessed with no natural resources. Have they been bought by the rich and wealthy? If they have there will be signs.

In the US, the rich corporations get lots of tax loopholes. Are there any here?
In M'sia and other corrupt govts, the usual suspects get all the govt contracts often by closed tender or direct awarding of the tender. Is this done here?

The answer is no. Singapore is clean by independent assessment. Transparency International Corruption Perception Index lists Singapore, Denmark and New Zealand as the 3 countries with the highest rating (i.e. least corrupt) of 9.3.

So it is not about young or old country. It is about clean govt, properly priced.]

Update Jul 2013: Latest CPI:
http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2012/results/
Singapore ranked 5, with score of 87.

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.]

Japan's Strategic Position

Dec 25, 2010

Don't shunt history into a corner

I REFER to the commentary by academic Heng Yee Kuang ('Best not to push Japan into a corner'; Tuesday).

Japan is not a landlocked country. It has access in all directions - by air or sea.

[Thus implying that Japan cannot be cornered and has strategic maneuverability. Which is stupid. Move where? So someone attacks from the east, and Japan moves it's entire force to the west? Someone invades your exclusive economic zone in the south, and you just move your fishing fleet to the north? Dumb.]

After the recent incident involving a collision between a Chinese fishing boat and a Japanese patrol boat near the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, the 'sleeping giant' suddenly woke up and started announcing new changes in defence policy.

Its focus seems to be to ensure that this claimed territory in the East China Sea remains under Japanese control.

So, where did the writer find evidence of China trying to corner Japan?

[China making a big incident out of it, demanding the release of the Chinese captain charged with ramming the Japanese defence force vessel, demanding restitution, threatening sanctions, cutting off rare earth minerals exports to Japan, etc. And by the way, the article was not just about China. The article pointed out that Japan is being pressured by China and Russia, with N.Korea as a bit player. That the writer focus only on China shows a flawed and biased reading of the article. ]

The article quoted a Japanese academic's concern that 'Japan might be compelled to contemplate the possibility of re-fighting China once again'. Re-fight China? Who invaded whom in the past? Let us not forget history.

[And here the penny dropped. Yes, since Japan invaded China and committed atrocities such as the Nanking massacre, this now entitles China to get what's fair, eh?]

Chen Sen Lenn


Dec 21, 2010

Best not to push Japan into a corner

By Heng Yee Kuang

JAPAN'S announcement of sweeping changes to its defence postures last week reflects mounting strategic unease at being trapped in the increasingly rough neighbourhood of North East Asia. This sense of multiple threats bearing down on the nation from various directions was conveyed by Defence Minister Toshimi Kitazawa, who said: 'Our country is encircled by severe security situations...'

To begin with, there were the 'pincer movements' by China and Russia ganging up to press home their advantage. A joint statement released by Presidents Hu Jintao and Dmitri Medvedev in September soon after the Senkaku/Diaoyu trawler incident had both sides agreeing to support each other's 'core interests', including national sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity (code words for territorial disputes in Japanese eyes). Coincidentally or not, President Medvedev then became the first Russian leader to visit the disputed Kurile islands shortly afterwards. While unrelated, North Korea's shelling of the South's Yeonpyeong island further stoked the feeling of a Japan under siege.

Putting the squeeze on Tokyo not only has the potential to awaken the sleeping giant, but can also backfire on Moscow and Beijing. In my discussions with leading academics, military officials and students in Tokyo, I found there was apprehension about how the Japanese people will react to such pressure. One young student said to me that he was very concerned about the nationalist backlash from the younger generation frustrated at Japan's weakness.

Although young Japanese are usually depicted as more interested in anime and manga than high politics, one Internet opinion poll earlier this month of 500 teens in junior high school rated the Senkaku clash as the news story of 2010.

More than its gaffes, the Naoto Kan Cabinet suffers heavily from a perception of its diplomatic weakness. Plummeting opinion polls are front-page headlines on leading dailies like the Asahi Shimbun.

A Fuji News Network survey showed the Cabinet's approval rating plunging to 21.8 per cent early this month. Protests denouncing both China and the Kan government have attracted crowds in the low thousands, a relatively large number in Japan. Cabinet Office data released last Sunday indicates the number of Japanese who feel favourable towards China has reached a low of 20 per cent, dropping 18.5 percentage points in just a year.

China was once viewed as more an opportunity than a threat. The previous Hatoyama administration came to power peddling the notion of closer ties with China and distancing Japan from America. However, China's recent assertiveness has pushed Tokyo back into Washington's embrace.

The new National Defence Programme Guidelines document employs the strongest language ever used to describe China's military modernisation and maritime activities. 'These movements, coupled with the lack of transparency in its military and security matters,' the document asserts, 'have become a matter of concern for the region and the international community.' The previous guideline in 2004 merely said Tokyo would be 'attentive' to China's future intentions.

As a result, Japan will now re-deploy forces to the remote south-west Nansei Shoto island group where China has territorial claims, abandoning its Cold War focus on a Soviet invasion of northern Hokkaido. More submarines, early warning radar systems and surface-to-ship missiles will be stationed closer to the disputed Senkaku islands to fill what the document calls a 'defence vacuum'. A second squadron of warplanes will also be added at Naha, Okinawa.

Despite its pacifist outlook, Japan's military is in fact larger than Britain's. It deploys the most advanced naval forces in the Pacific after the US Navy's Seventh Fleet. Japan also has one of the highest military budgets in the world. Deployments overseas have for years been testing the limits of the country's post- World War II pacifist Constitution.

Further provocation from Pyongyang, Beijing or Moscow will only provide more ammunition to those Japanese who are seeking to loosen the constitutional constraints on their country's military power. While no one seriously expects Japan to once again rampage across Asia, an expanded role for its technologically advanced Self-Defence Forces and a paradigm shift where Tokyo abandons engagement and confronts China directly is hardly in the interest of Beijing and Moscow.

Already, the latest guidelines hint at Japan's desire to break out of its 'encirclement' by courting allies such as Australia and South Korea. It should not be forgotten that Japan is considered widely to be a so-called 'virtual nuclear weapon state'. It can produce nuclear weapons relatively quickly.

A leading Japanese academic told me privately of his concern that Japan might be compelled to contemplate the possibility of re-fighting China once again. Do China and Japan really need several major wars, like the European powers did, before finally establishing structures for peace and cooperation? Full-blown conflict is certainly not yet on the cards but driving Japan into a corner would be a short-sighted and counter-productive move.

The writer, a Singaporean, is assistant professor of international relations at the University of St Andrews, Scotland. He is now a visiting scholar at Waseda University in Tokyo.

[The basic point of the article as I understand it is that extra-legal (or outright illegal) strategies regarding disputed territories will only raise the temperature of the issues, and may eventually spill over into confrontation. The proper approach is to use established international dispute resolution processes to sort out disagreements. However, that is not route being taken at the moment. Attitudes and postures "backed" by historical grievances as implied by the letter-writer serves little purpose, except to perhaps justify those extra-legal activities and strategies.

Still, there is a right and wrong way to go about protecting one's interest... ST Editorial below summarises.]


EDITORIAL
Japan right and wrong on defence posture

ANY Japanese government would be mindful that raising the nation's military preparedness, however justified, will cause unease. First is the arms buildup in North Asia extending to the subcontinent and South-east Asia. Japan's latest defence review stressing a rapid-response capability will accelerate the race. A buildup is inevitable anyway to keep trade routes open, but this is slight mitigation when productive spending should have priority in societies moving towards middle-income status. Second, countries that bore the brunt of the Japanese imperial advance during the last war will wonder whether the post-war pacifism, which held when Japan was peerless in Asia, is starting to unravel with China having displaced it. Unlike in Germany, militarist instincts are alive among sections of the Japanese elite. Thus, the incomplete atonement for wartime acts and denials of history.

And yet, and yet. Japan may end up looking not unduly aggressive for the new defence doctrine of meeting contingencies rather than imagining an old-fashioned invasion, from Russia for instance. The surprise of the military reassessment out last Friday was that it had not been updated sooner. In the six years since the last review undertaken by the Liberal Democrats, economic strides made by other Asian nations concurrent with force modernisation had left Japan looking under-invested. Maritime and territorial disputes in the East and South China seas in which Japan is involved have been longstanding. But North Asia is a changed theatre with China and South Korea more at odds as they progress, and North Korea defying norms of rational conduct as it prepares for leadership change. Then there is China's unstoppable growth in all fields of contest. Japan's treaty linkages with the United States oblige Tokyo to relook its defence posture in the light of what is spoken of as China's 'assertiveness', as if this is not a natural progression of gathering strength.

This is all very clinical on paper. In practice, Japan has needlessly got off badly with China by declaring that its realignment of forces to the south near China, and its spending on surveillance and missile systems are on account of its neighbour. In helping the US retain mobility in the Pacific, Japan should be emphasising it is defending the peace. And that this is essential for economic growth and recovery across the world. Then there will be no cause for fresh Beijing-Tokyo tension, which has arisen as China has objected to being targeted. Japan ought to take an all encompassing approach in relations with China, to stress also political and cultural collaboration. And military ties need not be a contradiction.

Minimum wage, maximum impact

Sep 22, 2010

MINIMUM wage means different things to different people. Unions, management and low-wage workers will view it differently.

I define it as wages designed to protect workers from economic forces should they depress salaries to mere subsistence level. It is a good thing.

Wages determined by "market forces", which later need supplementing from Workfare, send the message that my job is undeserving of a pay required for basic survival. Will this message erode work ethics? Very likely.

[Why? If you choose to view your job as basically worthless (or worth less than what you need to survive/subsist) then sure, you won't have much work ethics left. But many people with work ethics in this situation would say, "I need a second job to supplement my income". The Workfare Income Supplement may then serve to relief them of the need to get a second job.]

History has shown that depressing or eliminating wages in the name of productivity is counter-productive eventually.

[Really?]

Heron of Alexandria, a Greek engineer, invented the Aeolipile, the first steam engine, in the first century AD. It took 1,700 years before Scotsman James Watt put the steam engine to use and launched the Industrial Revolution.

Absence of low wages spurs employers to seek new technology. The silver bullet of innovation is for the bold. Heron did not harness his steam engine for industry simply because there wasn't a need to, as slave labour was cheap. Had Heron done what James Watt did, the Industrial Revolution would have been brought forward by a thousand years.

[That is quite a leap in logic. While we recognised it as a steam engine, Heron and his contemporaries saw it as a scientific wonder to study the laws of heaven and the winds. In any case, the industrial revolution was a mixed blessing for the people of the times. Certainly their lot in life was not all for the better or Karl Marx would hardly be moved to write his communist manifesto expounding on the exploitation of labour by capital and the class war.]

What an impact it might have had on humanity.

Dr Chan Chee Leong

What makes a democracy

Sep 22, 2010

MS MARGO McCutcheon surprised me last Friday ('No say? It's simply not true, she says') when she wrote that Singaporeans have far more say in what their government does than Canadians.

She offered as an example that Singaporeans were consulted before the goods and services tax (GST) was introduced, while Canadians like her were not for a 'harmony tax' imposed by Ottawa.

There is more to democracy than government-led consultation exercises. A democracy not only ensures that citizens are consulted on policies, but gives citizens real bargaining power to affect government decisions.

[True, there is more to democracy than just consultation. BUT, her point was that we have that, while Canada, supposedly a more mature democracy than Singapore, didn't. And that the practice of democracy as it applies to the citizen being consulted, is more obvious here, than in Canada. Implicitly, she is also saying that there was no bargaining power there. After all, if you're not even consulted, how can you bargain?]

Ms McCutcheon's American husband also described democracy as a fancy word for partisan bickering and gridlocked government. Rejecting democracy that way is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Perhaps. Or perhaps democracy as practiced that way is inevitable, and all democracies end in bickering and gridlock at best, and murders, shootings, and assassinations at worst. Can it be argued, that the competitive, confrontational, adversarial nature of democratic politics invariably leads to partisan bickering, and demagogic posturing? Can we look at the United States, which presents herself as the bastion of democracy, as an enviable paragon of democratic governance? Or can we read in the frustration of Ms McCutcheon's husband's statement an indictment of the Democratic process as practiced in the US?]

While we shouldn't adopt democracy's negative aspects, we should not cling blindly to the status quo simply because it may have worked in the past.

The form of democracy which works is one in which all political parties compete vigorously; and present better proposals for voters to choose.

[I agree. We should not cling blindly. If we cling, we should cling with our eyes open and be sure that it is what we want to cling to. Not because we do not know better. So we should look at other options. For reference, the CIA World Factbook list Singapore as a Parliamentary Republic, and the US as a Federal Republic. In either case a "republic" can be defined (and is commonly defined) as a representative democracy, as opposed to a direct democracy (the fact that we elect MPs to represent us means that we have a representative democracy). There are practically no direct democracies as it would be very difficult to manage. Maybe a very small country with only a few thousand citizens.

Theoretically, the competition of ideas as presented by different political parties should result in the best ideas being adopted. However, this is idealistic at best. The reality is that while some issues are clear as to what is best, on many issues, what is good for one segment of the electorate may not be so beneficial to another. Pro-family policies (not so good for Singles), policies for the lower income (doesn't help the middle income and above), benefits for mothers (what about fathers), etc. Inherent in democratic assumption is that people will vote for the greater good, BUT there is danger that people will vote out of self-interest, out of fear, out of greed, or even out of ignorance and misunderstanding.

Freedom of speech and freedom of information is supposed to educate and inform, but as Fox News in the US has shown, it can also be misused to incite fear and hate, and spread misinformation and confusion, and propel the agenda of an influential interest group.]

It should include an open and transparent government, strong and independent institutions not easily manipulated by partisan interests, and capable, upright politicians.

[Again, I think that was the point Ms McCutcheon was making explicitly and implicitly. Explicitly, she was saying that in having consultation and feedback, the Singapore Govt is practising openness and transparency. Implicit in this is that an effective government, a competent government is what a country needs. The means (democracy) is just a means. When the means becomes the end and we serve the means rather than pursue and appreciate the ends that we have achieved, we are getting the cart before the horse. What got her goat, so to speak, was the middle-aged couple "braying about democracy". From her perspective, all the democratic process in her country and her husband's have done little in terms of real progress and real improvement in lives. What we have here, she is saying, is inherently more tangible and more real. And we should appreciate it. Instead of chasing idealistic constructs that promises more than they deliver.]

Democracy should afford citizens the freedom to express their opinions without fear of unjust repercussions. The mass media should report objectively and fairly, and be willing to criticise the government when necessary.

[And one is free to express one's opinion here. Libel and slander laws apply, except for parliamentary privileges. As MM Lee has noted, the opposition in parliament have not abused their privileges in parliament. The fact that politicians in the US are regularly slandered, parodied, and ridiculed is no reason to expect the same in Singapore. Certainly, one can make the case that allowing untrue accusations that Obama is a a Kenyan Muslim taking orders from his Tribal puppet master to turn the US into a communist state is beyond the protection of freedom of speech. Or that it is so ludicrous that no one will take it seriously. EXCEPT people do believe it!]

Building such a democracy requires the effort and participation of all citizens. We need an informed citizenry that is able to elect leaders based on merit, rather than out of fear or ignorance, and hold them to account for their actions in office.

[Yes, it would be good if voters vote on the basis of what is best for the country, rather than what is best for themselves. But ultimately (and perhaps unfortunately), that is the basis of Democracy, that the people choose a person that best represents their interests. So people are going to wonder, does that Indian chap know my interests let alone how best to represent my interests? Does that young man know the concerns of an old retiree like me? Can that woman understand how a man feels when he cannot get a job to feed his family? Does that Christian know enough about my concerns as a Muslim or will he ignore or downplay the needs of my community? Or does that godless heathen understand that we CANNOT have a casino in Singapore? I'm afraid fear and ignorance are often the baseline reasons for voting.]

We can build such a democracy while avoiding the trappings that bog down some other countries.

[Actually, I believe the real issue is about competence and corruptibility. Representative Democracy requires competent representatives to form a competent government. If candidates are equally incompetent or corrupt, you basically have a Hobson's choice. And the problem is not just "some" countries are bogged down by some "democratic trappings". The problem is not that despite the failings of democracy, there is still a lot of progress in democratic countries. The miracle is that there is progress IN SPITE OF so-called democracy.

For large resourceful countries like the US, with able leaders who can nevertheless navigate the obstructions of the opposition parties, they can still bring progress to the country in spite of the worst excesses of the democratic process. But for less developed, less resourceful, less stable countries, "democracy" can cripple or even derail progress. And with a multi-racial society like Singapore, where there is no common language, history, religion or race, unfettered democracy may well rip this country apart. As MM Lee says, this is not a "natural" nation.

This has been a dialogue between a citizen of a "true" democracy realising that ideals not grounded in fundamentals such as competence, transparency are more show than real, and a citizen of a "limited" democracy wanting the full freedom of the ideal without realising that all freedoms must have reasonable limits or be tyrannical in its excesses.

The one true danger of democracy is the tyranny of the majority. And that is never more true than in a multi-racial, multi-religious society like Singapore.]

Gerald Giam

--------
Responses to the forum letter

Sep 25, 2010
What matters is a democracy that works

MR GERALD Giam's version of democracy ('What makes a democracy'; Wednesday) is precisely what I think Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew fears Singaporeans take for granted - an auto-pilot flight to success without recognising what made us successful.

Mr Giam dreams of a paradoxical democracy where all political parties compete vigorously and yet form a strong independent government institution void of partisan interest.

The fact is, there will be a partisan division because political parties cannot agree.

The world's greatest democracy, the United States, is stymied by its democratic structure. The President needs to submit his proposal (Bill) for approval by both the House and the Senate, with the two political parties at odds with each other.

Every Bill is debated vigorously by intelligent men on both sides and is often either amended or abandoned. While they debate and bicker, millions of Americans remain unemployed and jobs are lost to China daily. American wages have fallen since 2001.

Is this the type of democracy we should wish for?

It took an outstanding leader like President Barrack Obama many months to navigate partisan agendas to pass health-care reforms that give American workers basic access to health care.

[Actually, it took decades. The work started as early as the 70's.]

Would we prefer to wait so long should MediShield require fixing one day? I am glad my Government is not only capable but free from being politically shackled.

When we are in a crisis, the Government is free to act swiftly. When manufacturing jobs were lost to China, the Government's response was swift, as was its rapid reaction to the global recession.

Theodore Yeo

Sep 25, 2010

Singapore democracy 

 

'There is room for improvement.'

DR YIK KENG YEONG: 'The perfect democracy is as mythical as the unicorn (Mr Gerald Giam, 'What makes a democracy'; Sept 22). Elections are rigged, the electorate is apathetic and bribe-able, idealistic politicians commit sins, the administrative branch becomes inefficient, the judiciary operates under fear and the press resorts to gonzo journalism. These happen in democracies. There is, of course, room for improvement in Singapore, such as a more considerate bureaucratic response to public sentiment over bread-and-butter issues. The impression of an impassive leadership bent on pursuing its lofty goals, regardless of feedback on the ground, does prevail - well-considered though the goals may be. Singapore also does not yet have a credible opposition to present an alternate viewpoint, which is why it is important for the Government to be more empathetic towards direct complaints from the ground.'

An American view
'I admire Singapore's democracy. The Government seems to have the people's well-being at heart.'
MR MARK J. TOPOLSKI, North Carolina, United States: 'The democracy practised by America and Singapore, although different, are probably well suited for each county's size and demographic (Ms Margo McCutcheon, 'No say? It's simply not true, she says'; Sept 17). Having observed Singapore's for more than 10 years now, I sometimes wish American politicians would always, or at least sometimes, first ask themselves what is best for the people, rather than what will get them elected another term. I admire Singapore's democracy. The Government seems to really have the people's good and well-being at heart.'

[I think the point is that good governance is possible under democracy or other forms of government, and bad governance can also occur under other forms of government. The one advantage democracy has is a systematic approach and process to choose government, especially if government has gone wrong.]

Isn't GRC system affirmative action?

May 3, 2010

I REFER to last Thursday's report, 'Foreign Ministry responds to UN expert's comments'. On the sensitive issue of race, Singapore's Ministry of Foreign Affairs noted that United Nations Special Rapporteur Githu Muigai appears to advocate some form of 'affirmative action' to help the Malays progress in the area of education.

This approach, according to the ministry, 'has been tried by many countries without notable success'.

Even the president of the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (Muis) told Mr Muigai that the Malays in Singapore do not need any affirmative action policy because 'the Malay community had a deep sense of pride in its own ability to achieve steady progress under the national system of meritocracy'.

If affirmative action is frowned on by minorities themselves, why does the Government insist on keeping the group representation constituency (GRC) system in the political landscape? The GRC system, as propagated by the Government, ensures minority representation. Thus it is an affirmative action policy.

Does it make sense that the minorities in Singapore need affirmative action only to protect their political rights and everything else can be based on meritocracy?

[Because voters don't always vote on merit. They vote based on affinity and affiliation - i.e. race. Malaysia has tried living with race-based political parties, and the system is unravelling now. If your claim to representation is how ethnic you are, then you have to be more ethnic than your opponent and that just spirals down into extremism. When voting and elections are a meritocratic and transparent process, then yes, do away with the GRC. But voting is inherently confidential and in fact secret. And people are free to use any criteria, including race, to choose their candidates, and because politics is inherently local, and voters are generally selfish, the results will be domination by the ethnic majority.]

The minorities have spoken. They have the ability to achieve progress under the national system of meritocracy. The Government should recognise that and abolish the GRC system.

We are no longer living in the past. The tumultuous period of our early years can only serve as a lesson for all ethnic groups to maintain racial harmony at all costs. The past should not impede the desire of our multiracial populace to achieve the goal of becoming one nation, one people.

[Spoken like a true ideologue. What "desire of our multi-racial populace to achieve the goal of becoming one nation, one people?" Do you wake up each morning thinking about becoming one people with your Malay and Indian friends? Even now, new stress lines between Legacy Singaporeans and new Singaporeans and PRs are surfacing. What more existing ethnic lines? We don't need to live in the past to make the mistakes of the past. We can in fact make fresh mistakes. Low Thia Kiang speaks to the voters in the Teochew vernacular as part of his campaigning. Unless a minority candidate can do the same, they won't be able to even connect with some of these voters.]

The GRC system, as an affirmative action policy, can take our nation only one step forward in theory and three steps backward in nation-building.

[How?]

Png Eng Huat

[This is just a pretext to argue against the GRC, whether for political or racial reasons.]

Are they well thought out?

May 1, 2010
ELECTION CHANGES

THE changes to the Non-Constituency MP and Nominated MP schemes, the average size of group representation constituencies and the number of single-seat wards appear too utilitarian in intent and approach.

["Too utilitarian"? So should be less useful? More idealistic? Needs more bells and whistles to dress up the drab utilitarianism?]

The Government must be commended for its courage to implement novel - though unconventional - means of providing Singaporeans with both a strong majority government and an alternative voice in Parliament.

Many trust the Government has the longer-term interest of Singaporeans at heart and that the changes are made for the overall good of Singapore.

It appears we can have our cake and eat it too.

However, the idea that the political process can be changed so easily according to the prevailing political climate discomforts me. Surely the ruling People's Action Party will be foolhardy to consider these changes if, some day in the future, the opposition gets to control close to half of Parliament.

[If there are more than 9 opposition members voted into parliament, there would be no NCMP. Just as currently, if there are more than 3 Opposition MP, there would be no NCMP. Under current rules as approved by the President, the total of Opposition + NCMP cannot be > 3 (The rules however, allow the President to approve up to 6). By the time opposition gains almost half the seats in parliament, NCMP would be irrelevant. Heck, by the time they win 9 seats, NCMP would be irrelevant.]

What if these adjustments to the political system prove 'too' successful for the incumbent's liking? What if more opposition candidates win seats in Parliament in future elections?

Will the PAP then feel its political survival is under threat? Will it then respond by reversing these changes?

[If the writer is referring to the other changes - increasing the number of SMCs and reducing the size/candidates per GRC, these changes would give the opposition a better chance of actually taking an SMC or GRC. And with the game stacked against the opposition, a little leveling of the playing field can only be good. If in spite of all the advantages the PAP candidates enjoy they are still unable to win the election, then they deserve to lose, as LKY has said of even Mah Bow Tan.

Maybe if the PAP deteriorates to the point where they lose the trust of the people, the competence to govern, and the integrity to bow to the will of the people, they may well try to reverse the changes to the GRC system. But that is another story in another situation.]

What will this say about our democratic process? Is it a national ideal we consciously strive to improve and uphold, or a lowly tool to achieve a higher good?

[To summarise this writer's argument: These changes are all well and good, but when things start to look bad for the PAP, what will they do then? They'll reverse the changes showing that they pay lip service to democratic process when it is convenient for them, but will cast it aside when it no longer suits them. The problem with this argument? Hasn't happened yet. Ascribes ill-intent to the PAP in the future. Don't know if it will ever happen.]

Han Tau Kwang

[Certainly the PAP has no role to play to help the opposition win seats in Parliament. Or does it? The PAP astutely understands that voters know all about tricks and strategies, and can see that the current set up skews the playing field in favour of the PAP. Sure the opposition can win SMCs but GRCs? They haven't won one yet.

The changes to the parliament and the GRC system is to address two issues.

Firstly, the voters want alternative voices in parliament. A pair of opposition MPs, 1 NCMP and 9 Nominated MPs provide alternative views, but just aren't enough, or valid enough. And part of the reason there aren't enough real opposition is because the system is stacked against them. And the PAP has stacked the deck. Only 9 SMCs, usually headed by PAP strongmen, 14 GRCs with up to 6 MPs in each, all anchored by a Minister, sometimes 2. The opposition has little chance with such a system.

Secondly, given the trends with new, younger voters who say, don't tell us what you did, tell us what you're going to do for us, the PAP cannot rely on historic gratitude or shared history anymore to bond with the voters and get their votes. The younger voters are more likely to say, I grew up with the PAP, I think I've outgrown them. I want change. Let's give the other side a chance. The PAP won Aljunied GRC with 56% of the votes. In the next election, it might well be lost to the opposition. With the loss will be two Ministers (George Yeo & Lim Hwee Hua). The shift of votes to the opposition may not be stoppable.

The reduction of the GRC may well be a "don't put so many eggs in one basket" strategy. We can't afford to lose two ministers. The corollary to that is, the opposition doesn't have that many "stars" anyway. A 5-man GRC may just mean 2 good opposition candidates and 3 duds. The third point is that PAP may well lose a GRC in the next election. If the opposition wins even with the bar set so high, it would be all the opposition's doing. But if they win while the bar is being lowered at the same time, the PAP can steal some of the opposition's thunder.]

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.]