Gilbert Goh / Writer
Recently, I wrote an article on the reasons for a two-party democracy in reply to PM Lee Hsien Loong’s endorsement of a one-party system and it was published on Straits Times. In my letter, I argued that a one-party system allows group think to flourish and that there will be a gross lack of checks and balances.
There was a passionate yet civil exchange between supporters of two-party democracy and advocators of the one-party system. Many vocal netizens on the ST Forum supported a two-party democracy. Reading the published letters and views, I realised that both systems have its merits. A new question dawns on me: which system would be more applicable for Singapore‘s context today?
Are the Arguments for One-Party System skewed?
Advocators for the one-party system generally favour a stable and authoritarian government as history has showed that the two-party democracy has brought forth many political problems. Many cited the example of Taiwan with its ugly fist-fights when parliament is in session. Chairs and tables were often hurled at opposition camps when ruling party members could not see eye to eye on common topics that affect the country. Surely, Singaporeans would like to see their parliamentarians to avoid engaging in uncivil acts.
Malaysia was also cited as a bad example of multi-party democracy as the country is seen as unprogressive and chaotic. With the rise of Anwar Ibrahim, much is yet to be seen. He managed to unite some splinter parties to form a large coalition and challenged the mandate of the ruling coalition Barisan Nasional. Only time will tell whether Anwar Ibrahim will manage to topple the ruling party UMNO and the Barisan Nasional from their traditional power bases. While Anwar Ibrahim was persecuted under the Internal Security Act by some UMNO members, one should take heed it was the Malaysia Prime Minister Abudulah Badawi from UMNO who released him. It is unpatriotic of any political party to clamp down another political party for the sake of holding onto power.
The two-party democracy in the USA is a common example that is cited by proponents of both the one-party system and two-party democracy. Some advocators of the one-party system argued that the USA President and other holders of executive power can potentially be a stumbling block to the country’s progress by curtailing certain proposals for political reasons, but political reasons exist regardless if the country adopts a one-party system or a two-party democracy. On the other hand, many favoured the American two-party democracy as the Congress provides the necessary check and balance on the executive power holders. Moreover, the American two-party democracy discourages entrenchment of individuals in executive power as no President can remain in office beyond 2 four-year terms.
Proponents of the one-party system are wary that two-party democracy may throw up unnecessary debate and other parliamentary procedures which will hamper certain policies from being implemented. This is known as filibustering. One finds filibustering a problem if one supports the policy being pushed in parliament. In Australia, the ruling party Labour has difficulty pushing through certain policies as the Shadow government uses all its might to oppose Labour in parliament. For example, Labour had wanted to introduce school ranking to the Australian public school system, but the Shadow government had put up such a strong resistance that the plan was postponed indefinitely.
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew claimed that the one-party system is superior over the two-party democracy, citing the past success of the People’s Action Party (PAP) in transforming Singapore into a modern city state. However, this only qualifies as a potential reason to vote for PAP during General Election and why PAP should be the only political party if Singapore adopts a one-party system. It does not actually explain why a one-party system is better than a two-party democracy.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien loong claimed that Singapore does not have room for one more party to share in the governance of Singapore becase political talents in Singapore is so scarce that it is already so difficult to recruit a team of ministers, talk alone to form an equally capable alternate Cabinet. While his arguement does not acknowledge the climate of fear in Singapore, it also highlights PAP’s interest to ensure that no political talent will join the ranks of the Loyal Opposition.
Which system is more applicable to today’s Singapore?
Singapore‘s multi-party system has evolved into a dominant-party system over the years. This is evidenced by the presence of various Loyal Opposition parties in Singapore. They are Reform Party, Worker’s Party, Singapore Democratic Party, Singapore People’s Party, Singapore Malay National Organisation and National Solidatary Party. In 2008, only 2 elected Members of Parliament (MP) and 1 Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) represent the Loyal Opposition. The parliament is dominated by the 82 MPs from PAP – an overwhelming parliamentary majority that provides ease for the introduction and entrenchment of unpopular public policies and laws.
Many have cited PAP’s overwhelming parliamentary majority as a result of relentless persecution of the Loyal Opposition in Singapore. There is some truth here as depicted by the many instances of unfair political tactics used during election campaigning period and also the use of law suits to destroy Loyal Opposition candidates. Such acts have propagated a climate of fear so much so that many able men and women will avoid politics unless they are standing on the PAP’s side. This effectively dampens the rise of an influential Loyal Opposition party. If one day something were to happen to PAP, surely Singapore will be doomed if there is no strong viable alternative. Why should Singapore put all its eggs in one basket?
However, the PAP did attempt to improve representation of dissenting voices in Singapore. The NCMP scheme was first introduced in 1984 to provide greater legitimacy and public confidence to the Singapore‘s political system. The sole 5-year NCMP seat is typically offered to the best performing Loyal Opposition candidate in each General Election. The Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) scheme, first introduced in 1990, is open to a maximum of 9 unelected MPs for a 2-year term, after which they may be re-appointed. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong lately liberalised the local political space by allowing demonstration to take place at Speaker’s Corner without the need for a permit. The recent popularity of Speaker’s Corner demonstrated that there always have been a much needed avenue for political freedom in expressing an alternate voice in governance.
Events of late have show that the current dominant-party system with all its self-checking facilities can only do so much. For example, the recent town councils’ exposure to investment fiasco has caused quite an uproar and many only recently realised that Town Councils make investment from their accumulated Service & Conservancy Charges (SC&C). They were both shocked and frustrated. Many who learned that the PAP Town Council funds have accumulated nearly S$2 billion were also irked over the possibility that they could have been paying excessive monthly SC&C. How and who can they take their grievances to?
Right now, Singaporeans can only depend on MPs, NCMPs and NMPs to question the respective ministry over emerging issues in parliament. Yet when PM Lee Hsien Loong stressed that the party is the fundamental unit of parliament and when NMP Eunice Oslen, who is not in charge of any Town Council, did all the questioning in Parliament with regard to the issue of the town council’s investment, it is no longer clear if all elected parliamentarians prioritise nation-building over party allegiance. Many people wrote to the ST Forum to voice their concern and anger – the citizens’s main outlet for specific dissent and concerns.
Indeed, the dominant-party system has major flaws here and adopting one-party system will further entrench these flaws in Singapore‘s political system via elimination of all Loyal Opposition. The self-checking system only works when its own MPs will attempt to do the dirty work and speak on behalf of the people regardless of real or perceived consequences. Unless the Whip is lifted, many PAP MPs may not want to press on any issue by going against the grain. They may put up their questions to the ministry but may not want to cause any mayhem in Parliament.
The lack of strong interest groups in Singapore does not help to keep group-thinking among PAP MPs in check. In many developed countries, these interest groups act as a strong check on the public policies being pushed by the ruling party. For example in Australia, the powerful environmental groups have spoken against the emission of carbon dioxide in the country and the government sometimes has to invite such groups for their opinions when they formulate environmental policies. Such groups not only provide a voice to many who may share similar concerns on the environment but also act as a check against unilateral implementation of environmental policy that does not address social, political and economic concerns adequately.
Which political representation is better for Singapore & Singaporeans?
One-party system and two-party democracy have their inherent advantages and disadvantage.
Those who advocates for an efficient and effective system tend to favour the one-party system as it allows the ruling party to implement many policies for the country without much fuss and fury. This group are slightly apathetic and they prefer to let the government does their job without questioning. As long as the government provides peace. economic progress and stability, they are contented while remain oblivion to their blind faith that the ruling party can deliver the goods indefinitely.
Those who want a check and balance system for our governance will gun for the two-party democracy even though it may throw up some friction between political parties. They prefer the government is checked to prevent excessive power excercised on the people. Different political parties are sensitive to different issues to different extent, so having more than one political party in parliament would adequately capture interest and concerns of the people. Politicians would finally do their necessary part of speaking up for the people.
Whether an individual choose a one-party system or a two-party democracy must be backed by the interest of long term benefit for Singapore and Singaporeans. My personal opinion is that the current system seriously lacks accountability now and if left unchecked may prove to be disastrous for all Singaporeans. As the population is increasingly upset by many hiccups occurred this year alone, a two-party democracy is the most logical and reasonable political representation. An effective check and balance system is an essential instrument to safeguard Singapore‘s future.
———
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
in order for true form of democracy to take form and develop, first law and order must be upheld. What is democracy and what is freedom.
“Trash my views not if they sound heavyweight or not.”
Same here and vice versa so that you know. The wonder of free speech.
“If you can’t control your temper, how can people trust your vote.”
Same here, if you can’t control your own sense of proportion and fair play and the need to be dominant, how can people trust you with their vote.
I do not know which group of people you are referring to. Candidates do not need to trust my vote or the others, candidates just have to earn it lah. You sound like all of us owe our vote to them lah. So what if you do not trust their vote, steal it from them ???
Do not expect people to stand still.
How do police and soldiers show their temper when doing the dirty enforcement job. They do sweet talk first. If this does not work, they do the nasty talk. If this does not work, they use force. If you use more force to retaliate, they just shooooooooooooot you lah.
Temper does not come out of nowhere lah.
“we need quality control on oppositions for any hope of getting multi-party system to work in Singapore.”
And who should be doing this quality control. By the very group of people whose own quality may be replaced ?????
cjc
“why are many Africian countries not progressing [1]?”
You have to understand. I am the brotherhood liaison. I have a mission here. That means my time is very important. I dont want to be rude, but you may be wasting my time here by attempting to draw apple to strawberry pie comparisons here; tell me, is it possible to compare the taj mahal to our merlion in marina bay? What about the grand canyon to the Nicoll Highway sink hole?
Then why are you comparing dysfunctional democracies with what may or may not have happened to account for the basket case of the African continent? I dont understand. What possible learning outcome can we possibly glean from there?
Go! And get an apple to apple comparison. And I promise you cjc. I’ve walk you through the A – Z of this whole discussion and show you the error of your ways.
Trust me, you will see the world clearer after this.
Go!
SD
Hi smallvice585,
My apologies for the late follow-up. Have been under the weather these past few days. Now, let us return to where we left off.
First and foremost, allow me to thank Gilbert for a very well-written article that encapsulates every point that has been covered thus far on the discussion of whether Singapore is better off with a one or two-party system of governance. There are some ‘notions’ that have to be put right
The reason why I sidetracked it when I made my first comments was because I felt we have wasted enough time talking about an issue that is really a test of one’s intelligence. Even as I agree with you that indeed it came from the PM and that it merits the attention it has attracted, I cannot help but to see it as a topic to divert the people’s attention away from more pressing issues at hand.
More importantly, by continuing to discuss the issue, we are essentially helping the PAP to fine-tune its One-Party policy. How so you may ask. Well, as with most past PAP policies that when it had no idea where it would be heading, it is always best to lay it out in the open for ‘debate’. By so doing, comments will stream in and this is where the PAP will look at it and prepare its counter-arguments, all to its benefit. The MSM will be roped in to blow up their positive points and to equally blow up the negatives, practically ignoring the positives on the opposing camp. End result is, we always lose even when we have better reasons to theirs. And in this debate, I believe the two-party advocates have better reasons to believe they are on the right track. And I do understand that this is what Gilbert is attempting to put across.
The Fandi Ahmad Syndrome
Generally, this is my take on the political situation in Singapore. I would call it the ‘Fandi Ahmad’ syndrome.
Since the age of 17 years, Fandi Ahmad, our local foot-balling icon, burst into the limelight and became the mainstay of local football for the next twenty years, how many other footballers, particularly strikers, were left out in the cold because there is only room enough for one?. Year after year, it was Fandi Ahmad and Fandi Ahmad alone. Others like V Sundramoorthy had to play second fiddle. For as long as Fandi Ahmad was still playing, there wasn’t enough room for another. The end result was the regression of Singapore football especially after leaving the M-cup to set up our own S-League. It took some years to get to where we are now, with the consecutive successes at the ASEAN Cup tournaments.
It is only recently that we are seeing new talents like Khairul Amri, Indra Sahdhan, Nor Alam Shah. Why now and not before? Simply because, no one was dare enough to let go, of an aging Fandi, who had outlived his potency after twenty years. Similar to PAP? Why are we still clinging on to LKY and his supporting cast that does not have any real talent to crow about? It will take years and a new system (S-League) to uncover new gems. This is what the PAP is telling us NOT to believe because there is only room enough for them, THE talents of the land. You believe? If you do not believe that they are the only talents in the land, then you would surely advocate an alternative that contains these other talents that would be able to provide an alternative solution or approach when the need arises.
Alternative or Checks & Balance?
How often we have been made to believe that the opposition’s primary role is check & balance. How wrong this perception is. Agreed, the short term purpose of an opposition is to effect check & balance but the long term goal is to promote and institute an alternative – as TKL rightfully calls the opposition. For the moment, it remains an opposition but we, the people, must see beyond opposing, to the set up of an effective alternative, that can provide an alternative choice for the people. Look at the British system, it has more than two strong parties, Conservative and Labour. It has strength in a sizeable third party like the Liberal Democrats. Why can’t we look toward such a political composition?
Effective & Efficient?
We have heard comments like a one-party system is an effective and efficient system. These are sweeping statements that harps on the laurels of the performance of PAP’s predecessors. As soon as we have a group of inept politicians in power, we will all be in deep shit. They will be effectively and efficiently introducing policies that are detrimental to the people to safeguard itself first. Will this happen? I am afraid it already has without the need to elaborate further.
Still not convince? Let’s discuss then. Politicians from all over the world generally are there for the main purpose of serving the larger community. In Singapore, and in LKY’s own words, that it cannot attract talents to serve the larger community without paying them astronomical salaries; it clearly shows that the politicians up here are there because of the monetary incentives. Do we then blame them for not caring for the people more than they care for their own livelihood, their job? Indeed, it is job first, people second; if there is a second at all. They are not there to serve the people. It is another job for them, to produce the best result for the party, and they have no qualm to equate the PAP with the country, to confuse the people even further.
We are going through the pangs of child birth. It is a painful process and one we cannot run away from, if we want to cherish the joy of a new born child. Do not let the PAP abort us, for this is what it is striving to do.
I have a lot more to say on this but have so far refrained from adding to what have already been offered. I just felt the need to correct some notions. I think I have also taken up enough space in one post. So this is it for now.
Check and balance in a democracy is essential although it could be messy sometime. Recent events such as FT/FW and Tamasek issues could have been avoided if there were check and balance in a question and answer session. We were kept in the dark until foreign news agency reported the events.The selection of CEO to manage state owned companies and asset should be more accountable otherwise the rest of world believe we practise nepotism. Our judicial system reputation had suffered severely over the years and the world believed we do not have an independence and fair system. Are we isolating ourselves from the rest of the world and totally disregard what they think of us? We are a trading country and we need foreigners to visit us to spend their money with us and if they believed we are a country with no rule of law then no matter how clean our country is they will not include us as a holiday destination. So far we are still doing alright but the situation could change drastically if we continue to receive bad press from the Western media.