This article is written in response to a comment I received on my latest article. I thought it was important to respond at greater length than the space permitted for comments.

THE COMMENT:

Chieh Schen Tengsays:

MY RESPONSE:

Good points. I agree that currently Singaporeans including those in the Opposition Party ranks are bemused or confused by the notion of democracy, transparency and accountability.  The PAP know exactly what it is and that is why they go to such great lengths to hinder it or to muddy the understanding of it.  When I entered into politics I said, in an interview published in Today newspaper, that my aim was to “normalise democracy.” By this I hope to address what you call ‘First ‘ in relation to the majority of Singaporeans. I also of course addressed ‘second’ by standing and by example encouraging many others to come forward for the first time. So now we have many new faces. These are the “someone else whose job it is” as you say and you are right to be optimistic.

At this moment we have 6, 7or 8? non PAP Parties broadly on the left and more or less all the same from an ideological point and then The Reform Party in the  centre  with a  liberal ideology. To be more optimistic about the “someone else’s” in Singapore we need to see them start  congregating around  a set of principles or ideologies until the aims and the philosophies of the different parties are consolidated. Then the people will be more able to understand and they will have true choice.

Currently too much of Opposition politics is about personalities, egos, springing surprises and one-upmanship. The ideology of many Parties  in Singapore seems to change according to who is in charge at any one time. The philosophies are not stable. The personalities involved change Parties at the drop of a hat. Not because of deep rooted ideological differences as they would in a developed democratic Nation but purely in the quest for power.  Again with the single exception of The Reform Party which is unique in Singapore because it is run as democratic institution ( similar to the NGO Aware)  all the  Parties in Singapore, including the PAP, operate under the cadre system . Therefore those personalties who are more interested in power, media coverage  or promoting their own egos rather than promoting a political ideology  must game-play or wait for a weakness in an established Party. If this fails they simply leave, or start a new Party which will have a manifesto identical to the old one in every substantial detail except for the fact that they are now at the head of their own closed circle cadre. Hopefully this is  merely a stage of development in our experience of political expression.

When Singaporeans can say, I’m a  Socialist, Liberal, Libertarian (or whatever term we have) and therefore I will most likely support X Party because they are the Socialist Conservative or Liberal Party then we will know that we have developed a  framework for democracy.  We must then deal with the  PAP’s mechanisms for preventing that expression from being heard. You finished your comment by surmising that true democracy will bring us gridlock and the masses will be punished rather than rewarded. This spectre of gridlock, currently much in vogue, is one of those PAP mechanisms. It is  a more sophisticated mechanism  than the old ones. The technique  of  blatantly threatening people will no longer suffice if Singapore is to keep a place on the global stage. The threat of gridlock has more in common with MM Lee’s assertion during GE 2011 that we would be daft to oust MBT. The people dutifully complied, helped by some sabotage from within the Opposition itself abetted by a Politcal Party with no specific ideology and willing to take any one on board. This very dramatically took the spotlight away from Tampines allowing the government to  facilitate the resignation of the very minister they told us we would be daft to remove in a democratic manner.

The first step in normalising democracy is to get people used to the mechanical processes involved. To learn to understand by actually participating in an election so that  National Elections are no longer a theoretical exercise.as they are in communist countries and military Juntas.  Certainly we at RP played a major role in ensuring that every seat would be contested last GE and our first GE. It is regrettable that the Tanjong Pagar  representative did not take up my offer of help including the offer of a Commissioner of Oaths. Had he done so then that team would also have entered the contest and every seat would have been contested.  Never mind. By next GE every seat being contested will be a norm for General Elections in Singapore rather than an exception.

So let us now say we reach a stage where we have true Parties with clear, identifiable ideologies and a  people who are habituated to  the mechanisms of elections and democracy. Let us pass over for the moment the obstacles of GRCs , gerrymandering,  The Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, funding obstacles, the Elections Department being in the Prime Minister’s Office , libel laws and self censorship. So despite these obstacles we reach a tipping point. You claim that you fear this will lead to gridlock and that the masses will be punished.

I can’t agree. Gridlock is the new word for  Westminster style politics or democratic politics used by those who claim that it is unsuitable  to  a uniquely Singaporean or Asian culture . That is the whole point of my article. To say that asking uncomfortable questions and an Opposition doing what it is supposed to do will lead to gridlock or chaos is just an excuse for secretive organizations to carry on with a culture of secrecy and prevent shareholders exercising control over the management, in the case of Olympus, or the people of Singapore taking control of their destiny.

Ultimately lack of competition and accountability is a recipe for stagnation and decay. Look at the Soviet Union compared to the USA or Imperial China compared to the West. You say that the masses will get punished if we have democracy. The masses have been punished in Singapore by our government’s focus on achieving easy economic growth through the import of cheap labour and focusing on low technology rather than taking the difficult route of raising productivity. Real incomes have stagnated for the bottom 80%. It was only after we raised the issue of Singapore’s bottom of the league table productivity growth and the disastrous effects of the virtually uncontrolled flood of foreign labour on the incomes of those in the bottom 40% of the income distribution that the government claimed to be reversing course in the last election. While a strong Opposition and the need to answer tough questions may slow down the government’s ability to rush legislation through Parliament, it ensures that the policies we get have been held up to scrutiny first and we get less bad policies, of which Singaporean history offers plenty of examples. It also ensures that feedback on the effects of those policies is heard much earlier and the threat of reverses at the polls forces their reversal.

The criticisms of the US system of government which harp on about gridlock are thus wide of the mark and in fact increased scrutiny and checks on a too powerful executive are precisely what the founding fathers intended. While many in Singapore may point to the time taken to introduce new policies as a shortcoming it has prevented so far at least the quick adoption of the austerity policies that have been so harmful to the European economies.

Fortunately it appears that the tide of history is running in favour of those who favour questioning and accountability rather than secrecy with the rising number of democratic countries in Asia and the protests throughout the Arab world. Even China is not immune as evidenced by the rising tide of public anger over scandals like the high-speed trains accident. The inevitable concomitant of higher levels of education is that people will more control over their own destiny and how they are governed and will be less easy to fob off with the Culture argument. Rather than being punished, a changing political culture will at last ensure that the masses directly benefit from policies enacted in their name.

Published by kjeyaretnam

I'm a Singaporean economist who became an opposition activist. I blog to provide an alternative to the porkies that the Pinkies tell. It just so happens that my alternative is the truth. That's why I've never been sued in any civil or criminal court no matter how hard hitting my criticism. I'm quoted and interviewed and asked to speak across the world but largely censored in Singapore in an effort to silence my political opinions. The left hate me because they think I split their vote and because I eschew their outmoded economic models. Models that don't work. The Right and the Conservatives hate me because I'm a liberal. I'm not sure what the middle think of me. I don't think there are more than a handful of people in the middle, here in Singapore. I'm a Singaporean born and bred, dual heritage, my parents Singaporean established here before the State of Singapore was created. I'm not Eurasian. I read economics at Cambridge and could be broadly described as from the Keynesian school but I believe in interventions. I was formerly a successful hedge fund manager. After economics and politics my greatest interests are history, film and Makan. I run but I run so I can eat like a Singaporean. View all posts by kjeyaretnam