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.

Stop meddling in Libya

Apr 4, 2011

JUST like the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the world is again witnessing another illegal invasion spearheaded by the United States.

[Illegal? No. It was UN sanctioned at the request of Libyans.]

Is this act of aggression justified? While the US and its allies may point to the United Nations' mandate as justification for their actions, often, they use the carrot and stick approach to persuade smaller, more vulnerable, non-permanent members of the UN Security Council to vote in their favour. It is all too easy to get countries like Lebanon, Gabon, Colombia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Nigeria to vote in favour of the UN resolution in exchange for "goodies".

In contrast, it is interesting to note that the five abstaining countries - China, India, Brazil, Germany and Russia - are larger countries that can withstand the pressure from the US and its allies to vote in favour. Together, the abstaining countries make up almost half the world's population. And yet, they are powerless to stop the mindless aggression unleashed against Libya by the US and its allies.

[Or perhaps for countries like Bosnia, Nigeria et al, the plea for help to prevent violence and genocide is one they can readily identify with because of their history? Perhaps they wish there were outside help for them?

As for the abstainers, China will of course object to any foreign intervention even at the request of the citizens under attack by the leader. Do you remember Tiananmen Square? If China approves of such action, they open themselves to such options if ever they need to clamp down or use violence on protesters in their cities, or in Tibet, or Mongolia, or any other restive province. Same for Russia.]

The 2003 invasion of Iraq has been shown to be an illegal act of aggression that resulted in the unnecessary and brutal deaths of at least a million Iraqis. No weapons of mass destruction have been found in the country. The US had deliberately misled the rest of the world in order to pursue its personal agenda of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Sadly, we are now seeing the same scenario unfold in Libya.

Where is the evidence that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi is massacring civilians as claimed by the US and its allies?

[See story below. Open your eyes. Read widely. And not just from US Conservative media. So what lies are you claiming the US are telling now?]

The real agenda here is the removal of Col Gaddafi himself (under the guise of supporting the Libyan people in their fight for more democracy) because he has been a thorn in the side of US designs in the area for years, given his consistent opposition to US policies.

The US and her allies must stop meddling in Libya's internal situation. Real change for the country must come from within, not without.

Siow Jia Rui

[So why are you writing to the ST? You are uninformed, misinformed, and biased. I do not even see the point of your letter. Unless you believe the ST is an agent of the US.]

Apr 4, 2011

Ship brings rare glimpse of Libya's bloodiest front

BENGHAZI (Libya) - THE wounded men on the aid ship from the besieged city of Misrata, most of them torn apart by shrapnel and bullets, tell of the bloodiest front in the revolt against Libya's Muammar Gaddafi.

They speak of a city under lockdown that has gone weeks without electricity or running water, where snipers have cleared the centre and mortar rounds and rockets rain down at random on residents huddled inside their homes.

The more than 250 patients were brought on Sunday to the rebel port of Benghazi on board a Turkish aid ship, which was to pick up another 100 or so wounded people from the eastern front before steaming on to the Turkish port of Cesme.

On board, a pale Mohammed Muftah, 34, describes how he was sitting at home on a quiet Friday morning when a barrage of mortar rounds fired by Gaddafi's forces slammed into his residential neighbourhood.

'They killed entire families, women. I have a neighbour who lost his wife and his three children,' he said. 'They did it just to terrorise people.' Mr Muftah has shrapnel wounds up and down his legs and in his back and neck, but soon he will receive further treatment in Turkey. His wife and six children are still in Misrata.

Mohammed Ahmed, who sits on the mattress next to his, has a thick bandage around his right arm with surgical pins sticking out. He was standing outside his home with friends and neighbours when a mortar bomb exploded next to them, the shrapnel killing six of his neighbours and carving off most of his upper arm. 'The doctor said it's serious... it's down to the bone,' he said. 'I'm with the revolution, but I don't have a gun,' he said, as tears streamed down his face and his voice broke into sobs. -- AFP

[If the US wanted to illegally invade Libya, they had reason or excuse over a month ago.]

http://theweek.com/article/index/212363/violence-in-libya-should-the-world-intervene

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.]

Why I should stop reading the ST Forum Page

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

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

Exhibit 1 (for today)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glen Lee

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

Nov 19, 2008
GOVERNING SINGAPORE
Two-party system better

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gilbert Goh