My response to your comment on gridlock and the understanding of the masses.
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.
Chieh Schen Tengsays:
The parallel you drew is timely. There are many symptoms of groupthink that can be seen from your examples, such as a stereotyped view of the enemy, (whether Woodford or Goodyear), which is one advantage for the group in getting foreigners. There also appears an unquestioned belief in the group’s morality. However, change in the Singapore situation is more difficult and need to come from the masses, which is why I am somewhat less optimistic, for several reasons. First, the masses here do not understand or do not want to understand. Second, it is always someone else’s job to do it. I am still a little optimistic because if the second is solved, the first solves itself. I am somewhat bearish in that after the tipping point is reached (which it will), instead of change, there is gridlock, and the masses get punished in a different way.
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.