The following is an article written by Xu Kaixian, a member of the People’s Action Party’s Paris Ris West Branch. The article was published in the latest issue of Petir, the PAP’s newsletter. The views are his own and TOC does not support them. We publish it here for discussion. (Also, visit TOC Facebook for “PAP penetrating into tertiary institutions – via the back door.”)
Petir Jul/Aug 2009
That essential journey
The proposed changes to the electoral system will see at least 18 participants in the House who will not be from the ruling party. There will be nine opposition MPs (including Non-Constituency MPs) and nine Nominated MPs (NMPs).The NMP system will also be permanent.
I hadn’t anticipated such a large increase in possibly opposing voices in Parliament.
I’ve always been sceptical about Western-style democracy, which advocates democracy as a panacea for all problems. Democracy is probably the best existing political system and all countries should adopt democratic ideals. The question is the type of democracy they should have.
Currently, any deviation from Western-style democracy is denounced as authoritarian. But should that be the case? Wouldn’t it be better if each country practised a democracy which best suits its situation? Is there really a need for democracy in Singapore to mirror the West’s?
Going by a dictionary definition, democracy is a system in which the governing power is vested in the people, who exercise this power directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held elections. As such, democracy need not involve the presence of an opposition.
The fundamental reason people think it is better to have opposition voices in Parliament is for these opposition elements to act as a check on the government on behalf of the people.
If this is the case, wouldn’t it be more efficient if people were directly involved in the governing and decision-making process? Wouldn’t having referendums on major decisions more accurately reflect the true desires of the people rather than having more opposition voices in Parliament?
The recent suggestion by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong for Singaporeans to be more involved in Town Councils is a better move in this direction. In such a situation, people would have direct control over what they want improved in their neighbourhood, without anyone having to second guess.
For this reason, I am cheered that the NMP system is going to be permanent. Being independent members of the public with no political affiliations, NMPs are often more able to contribute more effectively because they are free from political baggage.
They may not feel obliged to serve the people, but their opinions would be reflective of segments of the population. And by stepping forward, they are clearly motivated to help build a better Singapore for Singaporeans.
Why am I so sceptical about opposition parties? The fundamental question is whether the presence of more opposition voices represents a better and more efficient democracy. After all, as long as a ruling party is focused on its continued survival, pragmatism will drive it to act in the interests of the people and the country.
Having a vocal opposition or a regular switch of power to another party does not automatically translate into better policies for the country and more effective governance. If it did, the United States would have reformed its healthcare system long ago.
It is still trying to do so, as the ruling Democratic Party is critical of the proposals of President Barack Obama, a party member. Indeed, the two do not see eye to eye on several issues, indicating that having a party dominate government does not guarantee that its leader has an easy time in office.
In fact, with the elimination of the partisan tensions and incentives to milk political mileage, lawmakers should surely have the space for genuine and meaningful debates about the best policies for a country because there is no need for politicking to gain political points.
The presence of more NCMPs raises the possibility that the quality of political debate will be lowered. After all, parliamentary debate is one of the best avenues for a person to build up credibility as a politician who cares for and fights for the people, and so there is the danger of participants opposing proposals for the sake of it and to gain political mileage.
Theoretically, having more opposition voices translates into more effective governance, but the reality is often the converse. The debates in the US Congress highlight this: Most Republicans refuse to budge from their party’s position regardless of the merits of reforms proposed by the Obama administration.
Evidently, having opposition voices does not mean better governance and hence, more satisfied people.
Politics is a cruel zero sum game. If an incumbent is incompetent, he will be voted out. If the opposition is simply not good enough to get into power on its own merits why should it be given a hand and a say in Parliament? And how can such representatives claim they are acting in the interests of the people?
The proposal to increase the number of non-ruling party voices in Parliament is a shrewd one, as it caters to the preferences of the people. The current tensions in Iran are a reminder of the perils of ignoring such preferences. However, will people appreciate such micromanaging?
It is clear that a country’s political system needs to evolve as people’s aspirations and needs change. It is a journey that every country has to take, especially a young nation like Singapore.
The writer is a member of the Pasir Ris West branch.
—–
Read also: Current system lacks accountability - Gilbert Goh.
——
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
Let’s be fair, the PAP government’s have done a fairly good job in delivering goods and services to the people. Singapore has become fairly prosperous in a relatively short time and remained so. The PAP has played a role in creating this situation.
However, we need to put things into perspective. Yes, PAP had good policies but our prosperity was more than the PAP – it was the efforts of millions of Ah Peks toiling away. Basic economics worked in Singapore. Many of our local business people did not get costly government protection and had to face COMPETITION from foreigners.
History has shown that COMPETITION is good for society. Americans made better cars once the Japanese came into the market. Ericsson made better phones when faced with Nokia and so on. EPL has a high standard of football because…good clubs play good clubs – there is COMPETITION.
So what makes this writer think that government is somehow immune to COMPETITION. In business it is true that competition improves things. The same is actually true in politics. Contrary to what PAP might tell you – there is no such things as a perpetually wise and benevolent ruler who will guide the people in all eternity.
Let’s live in this century and understand that fairy tales are just that – even if told by the PAP – the real world is quite nice.
I could not recall a time when PAP had allowed a referendum in Singapore.Was there one that I have missed?Also,is there a democracy of one nation which has no
oppositions?.I have missed this one too.If the PAP truly believe that major policy
changes should reflect the desire of the people,how come they ramped through
us on issues like building gambling dens so-called IRs,decriminalization of anal
sex btw two opposite sex.I would like to see a referendum on whether Singapore
should allow same sex marriage or sodomy.PRESTON LOON
again this seems like a 1way communication – someone by the name of this Xu wrote something and published. But where are the rest of the people’s views?
Are they published?
2 way communication is where after 1 speaks, there is debate or alternative views presented or feedback on what the speaker has said.
This is where TOC has played the role.
Anyone can say what they want.
The people have to agree with you else, what is the use?
to be fair, it is true that the PEOPLE made the decision for the last 50 years straight. Many are wondering is it the PEOPLE accept the level of Transparency?
Is it the PEOPLE willing to TRUST? Despite?
regards
propagoondisarcx
If Ms Xu thinks we can have town-hall democracy and referendums, instead of voting in our representatives into Parliament, both ruling and oppo, that’s fine by her. The only problem is that if a country does that for every single legislation, it would be too distracted to govern itself.
That’s why even the Romans, who took the format of voting when they were a Republic, not an Empire, decided that representative, republican democracy was much better for them. So they voted in their Senators and magistrates to help them vote on behalf of the people on important matters of the state.
In short, Ms Xu, with all due respect, still probably needs to brush up on her history.
@75) Die-hard Singaporean on August 13th, 2009 6.13 pm
On efficiency, bear in mind these are just echoes from the same script writers. We DO have a new detention center built specifically for MSK but now that M’sia ain’t handling him over to us, yes, that are “prisons” without inmates. Wasn’t recently LSS also echo 10 workers to do the work of 11-12? So, even peanuts can be given out less.
82) theonlinecitizen on August 13th, 2009 7.01 pm
TOC,
Any ideas what Petir’s circulation is like? I mean, people actually pay real money for such things, huh? Or like the national flags during ND, they are freely distributed FOC? Then can claim people very “patriotic”, what. (I already have 3 flags + 1 with a pole!!)
The dark clouds will pass.
The sky will be clearer.
And so will there be no more PETIR (thunder)!
At first i thought this writer Xu Kaixian is crazy.
He/she said
“Going by a dictionary definition, democracy is a system in which the governing power is vested in the people, who exercise this power directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held elections
AS SUCH democracy need not involve the presence of an opposition”
The key word is AS SUCH. The problem is he/she did not explain the link within the two sentences very well. The logic is embedded several paragraphs down the whole article, he/she did a bad job of linking the ideas. When you make the link, you can see the logic of the paradoxical statement. Let me explain:
Let us say, the PAP is really very good and extremely responsive to public feedback and really meet the people to discuss in public forums openly with frank feelings from the heart (euphoria!). And then the PAP does 101 things good for the vast majority. All your complaints about Minibonds, CPF, Transports costs, Temasek, etc are well taken care of, the cheated investors get reasonable refund, CPF is returned when demanded, transport for elderly are more humanely provided, and Ho Ching is sacked immediately and replaced by a very well respected professional and so on…, That is to say, the PAP operates extremely efficiently (remember this is hypothetical) consistently for many years, and wins everybody’s hearts. Now the elections time come. They get 90% of votes. Only 10 % vote for opposition, either for academic reasons or for some private reasons, but by and large, the incumbent did so well that even the harshest critic would have been neutered.
In that sense, strictly speaking, from a logical point of view, demcrocacy DOES NOT need opposition. Democracy allows the OPTION of creating an opposition, but Democracy does not DEMAND or NEED that an opposition must exist – it all depends on how well the incumbent perform. Yes?
Back to the real world>>> As it is because the PAP’s performance is extremely atrocious, arrogant and unacceptable to the vast majority today (just my opinion based on gut feel), the citizens have a right to exercise the OPTION, as provided in the Democracy definition. The suppression of this OPTION in subtle ways, is the surest sign of the incompetence of the incumbent. If the incumbent has done his job properly they have no fear and dont need to resort to draconian measures to silence ANY alternate views. Because of this, the NEED to have an opposition has grown stronger than ever. However such need does NOT arise from the definition of Democracy,
The bottom line is, let us have a good transparent reasonable non-arrogant government. This is sadly lacking in Singapore today, so it is crazy for Xu Kaixian to keep on supporting the system using a philosophical idea – which i have to admit is not flawed – but let us be PRACTICAL, we need the opposition today because the incumbent has completely gone berserk in its management of the country.
Zero
When a govt cannot be kicked out, of course it will become arrogant.
my question: complaints and complaints and nothing changed. so what you guys plan to do?
One of the world’s best democracy are practised by the peoples of Papua New Guinea.
But not having an Opposition makes it more difficult to practice democracy.
To 110) Ben:
I plan to wait (not sure about you)… the time for change will come soon – no one lives forever. Worst case scenario is another 6 more years.
Xu,
“I’ve always been sceptical about Western-style democracy….”
Then?
So, what is your BASIS when you have not experienced?
Your basis can be stronger IF there is such democracy in singapore. Then when you complain or write about it, it sounds more convincing.
“Theoretically, having more opposition voices translates into more effective governance, but the reality is often the converse.”
How old are you? How much do you know about democracy?
Nobel laureates come from the west mostly.
Many things in this world and advances in technology mostly come from the west.
We learn basically everything from the west.
Things we use basically all come from the west in terms of the origination of the technology. Asia may copy from the west but mostly originates from the west. The best form of flattery.
“…in reality…”
In reality we have not practised that form of democracy.
Why not you change your stance and promote it so that at least for ONCE, for 5 years, we can experience it and then the PEOPLE and you can decide?
ah Xu, what do you say?
In Singapore, we do not even need PAP MPs for our type of democracy. We are just wasting our money. 84 MPs x $150K = $12.6million.
Have the old man appoint ministers. MPs are just for show, contribute nothing to the welfare of the people, advising the government on how to squeeze more from the people.
Does anyone knows if this REACH portal ever reply to ppl queries? I don’t seem to get response from them. If we do not have an opposition party, our voice will go unheard.
I am surprised this piece ran in Petir. Such a narrow understanding what democracy entails will alienate Singaporeans, especially the well-travelled, the young, and those who would count as our best and brightest. In a country where resources are limited and because we are such a plural entity, you’d think the PAP would be thoughtful about entering the intellectual arena. At the very least, lean on the side of moderation and accept there are two sides to every coin. Surely even Petir must rise above party-politics and political ideology for the greater good of Singapore.
As for the piece, I’d like to tell the writer there is nothing “Western” about democracy.
To 82) theonlinecitizen
Petir is sold in bookstores and the online version is available to the public as well.
So, yes. It is meant for the public.
>> Thanks for the clarification. My error.
To: Xu Kaixian and those who support this call
This piece of shallow and naive article sounds very much like the explosion that erupted due to the accumulation of gas in our digestion system. It stinks for sure.
Opposition is optional in democracy? I think this XKX fella studied the wrong book.
“Does anyone knows if this REACH portal ever reply to ppl queries? I don’t seem to get response from them. If we do not have an opposition party, our voice will go unheard.”
REACH portal becomes Out of REACH ?
But does having the response make any difference if you going to receive standard model answer ?
Will we get this type of response ?
Caller: I want more opp party.
Parrot of REACH: Singapore is already democratic country. Vote to have more opp party then. Does this answer make you happy ? If not, try again.
Caller: No
Parrot of REACH: Singapore has a honest government that full of integrity and credibility. Our government care for the “people”. Does this answer make you happy ? If not, try again.
Caller: You are not listening, you dumbass !
Parrot of REACH: Beep, Beep. Because you not asking the right question. Does this answer make you happy ? If not, try again.
Consider that there is so much displease with Petir as it is nothing more than propaganda tool, it will be more successful if it is promoted as Laxative.
“Laxatives (or purgatives) are foods, compounds, or drugs taken to induce bowel movements or to loosen the stool, most often taken to treat constipation.” wiki
PAP may want to consider this million-dollars laxative business.
14/8/09
Dear All
As a Citizen of the state of Modern Singapore, we all have a right to express our view objectively and we are doing so in this Forum but this young Punk Xu will find his match in the ring one day should he be noticed and selected to stand as a PAP MP, all have not lived up to the expectations of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, just ignore him as a guy who is trying to outshine his fellows in Young PAP.
Perhaps there will be another Singapore Lee Kuan Yew instead of Singapore Anwar Ibrahim to put the state of Modern Singapore back in the right direction and more people orientated and relevant, he may not be from the PAP since the former PM Goh Chok Tong government,all did not lived up to the expectations of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.
Regards
Andrew Chuah
Heard the author was tiu arrow to write the article. Her original version was editted many times by at least 4 PAP superior prior to publishing. Of course, the purpose is to distort the democracy and re-define it to align with PAP objective. After all, what can you expect coming out from PAP beside crap and propaganda.
Singaporeans, regardless of what the PAP says, or tries to hoodwink, do the right thing. Vote for democracy. For change. It will be a better Singapore.
“If this is the case, wouldn’t it be more efficient if people were directly involved in the governing and decision-making process? Wouldn’t having referendums on major decisions more accurately reflect the true desires of the people rather than having more opposition voices in Parliament?”
Uh…actually no. Referendums are costly and difficult affairs, and yes while very major decisions e.g. Singapore’s soveriegnity – should we merge with Malaysia?, merit referendums, other decisions are much better made by elected representatives who represent the views of the people. (That *is* what they are for).
The author should note that his(her?) position differs significantly from that of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, who believes that the government should “lead” the people, rather than “follow the desires of the people”.
Joseph, I think that’s because the author was in a hurry to please his/her party leaders, but forgot to get a grounding in basic political science. In the end embarrasses him/herself.
We are at a dangerous point in the development of Singapore – when we allow such tripe such as that put out by Xu Kaixian to appear in official newsletters. It would look as if we have allowed the comforts of materialism to seduce and blind us into accepting the rule of the PAP as divine mandate.
Yes, we have had to endure the ignominy of the bucket system not so many decades ago – but seriously, are we that much happier now that we are able enthrone ourselves on porcelain pedestals with a flush system?
Have we become so fettered by the pursuit of materialism that we have lost the use of reason?
Have we been so overwhelmed by the worship of consumerism that we do not seem to realise that the system has evolved into an economic system controlled by one group? This group only see us people as numbers, as puppets with a finite productive life span to be squeezed for as long as possible before we keel over.
Our brains have been kneaded into submission over the years (evidently thas this happen to the writer) into believing that the true reason for being is to keep the system going for a glorious future that will never come, at least, for many of us.
The fact is that we have been led into thinking and believing over the years that we are living in the best country ever – No 1 seaport, No 1 airport, No 1 incorrupt government, No1 this and No 1 that – and that we should be grateful to be a part of this happy state of affairs.
Have we ever stopped to think that many of us all struggle like beasts of burden under the yoke of rules, regulations and laws that ultimately appear to benefit only the few in positions of power.
The saddest thing of all is when writers like Xu Kaixian shows how far we have fallen when we believe that the pillars of a healthy democratic process — the process of debate between ruling party and opposition — can be done away with.
Democracy in Singapore means we must have NS, FTs, highly-paid ministers while we people suffer!
his argument seems to be entirely lifted on weak stilts; no substance at all.
if his supposed democracy is the way they treat chee soon juan, or the way they perform walkovers in GRCs, then i fail to grasp how much more closer Xu Kaixian’s ideal form of ‘democracy’ can be to being authoritarian; or how much further from what proper democracy entails.
Xu Kaixian has just a warped logic – one that perfectly suits his needs and soothes the ears of the upper echelons. such a mindset will not go far, and to that extent, denigrates his position. i believe no learned person would go as far as Xu Kaixian to appease.
i believe his position in this is obvious; and i salute him for that. it takes guts to be the learned and the oppressed at the same time.
Is this the result of decades of absence of true political debate?
youth Xu,
what you say you can say and say.
A Referendum where ALL adults participate is the only fair way to decide for the country.
Its not up to you.
although your view is your view and you can view whatever you want to view be it hill view or long kang view.
Why bother holding elections at all then?
15/8/09
Dear Proud To Be Hokkien
Our state of Modern Singapore is much much bigger than the PAP and perhaps Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew (with all respect to him for gaining our independence from Malaysia orelse we would be like the non-malays being totally fucked up and abused by the BN-UMNO government died while under police detention or questioned as a witness by MACC (Malaysia Anti Corruption Commission) like the late Teoh Beng Huat of the DAP (currently there is an inquest on going and sure to declare his death as suicide).
Further, we must love our state of Modern Singapore much more than the PAP and our next General Election is around the corner and let us vote in as many Opposition MPs who are equal or better than the PAP and give them a run for their money if we cannot find such qualities, we vote in as many Moron-Stupid ones and make our new Parliament more lively but not half baked and quartter baked who are very dangerous and can be bought by money.
Let us remaind focus, objective and constructive and put our state of Modern Singapore above all things. she belongs to each Singapore citizens especially Singapore born which I have been advocating for sometime.
Regards
Andrew Chuah
in order for true form of democracy to take form and develop, law and order must be upheld. USA has true form of democracy?
Very simply:-
If democrcy does not invovle an opposition. what then is democracy??
Opposition may not mean better governance but it means check and balance, accountability, reduces abuses, reduces self benefiting salary hike, reduces fat govt, reduce croniesa and princelings, and truely reflect hearthanders and people’s voice…
This country does not belong to the dumb-minded YP and pappies
Sure 133) anthonyluciangoh,
In country such as Singapore, law are designed to protect MIW. Especially our well known kangroo courts. Law and order huh? Thanks for the enlightenment.
A completely democracy may arguably produce an administration with no opposition in theory, but a democratic system cannot survive, let alone thrive, without an active citizenry.
The one critical wound that the incumbent administration has inflicted upon its own people over the past forty-odd years is to eradicate any semblance of a participative and thinking civil society.
Eric
You need a PHD to think.
Two words -> Carry Balls
Kaixian,
Two things i would love to relay to you here.
1. If the both of us were to live in the 60s with the current mindset we have as individuals now, I would have been a PAP supporter (who were then fighting for equality and social and economic progress through democratic means) and you (who do not believe in democratic progress..real democracy i mean..)would have been a proponent of the Malayan Communist Party. You would have then count the days you have left before the authorities transport you to sentosa.
2.Your flawed arguments is akin to telling big corporations and government regulators that having an audit process does not fully guarantee transparency. Ok, perhaps recent corporate scandals have provern that point, but still, a couple of eyes are needed to “advise” fat cats the legal needs for compliance or else…for the sake of public investors.
Please, I do not see how the PAP legislators are representing the needs of the people as well. I hope you do not this it’s the PAP’s birthright to govern this country.
And if do have such a simplistic mindset, I would not balme you for that. but at least have some audicity not to tarnish a political newsletter in a democratic country like ours.
Whether be it democracy or dictatorship is not important, these are tools to ensure the governing body having the mandate to rule. Dictatorship is fine with me, as long as s/he is wise.
For the current PAP, they have neither the wisdom nor the capability to rule the country. If they cannot rule well, why not allow other to co-partner with them and manage Singapore Inc better.
The PAP thinks that they are the best of the best, reward themslves shamelessly with high wages, though what they produce is just MEDIOCRE results.
141)
You give opposition a bad name, are you from the PAP camp playing reverse psychology?
Birds of a feather they do flock together. PAP looks towards the Chinese Communist Party for guidance. A delegation from the PAP youth wing was sent to China recently to study the CCP’s methods of command and control. Now we see the results of the trip.
Sad thing is that the authoritarian non democratic People’s Republic of China has a more fair play level of representation at the grassroots and district committee level than what we are allowed here in Singapore.
All this could be leading up to the doing away of political parties in Singapore. Every citizen will automatically become a member of the PAP at birth or upon attaining citizenship. Might as well also give membership to permanent residents and work permit holders. As it is the existing alternative parties have all been emasculated to the point of ineffectiveness.
Never laugh at the North Koreans marching in goose-step singing praises to their Dear Leader and his progeny. They are but a cruder version of ourselves. When the CPF coffers are cleaned out by bad investments, we too might resort to eating tree bark at the Botanical Gardens in our twilight years.
opposition = to oppose
without the pap, they oppose who? themselves?
imo, opposition here sometimes empty vessels, make the most noise.
but sometimes you need them lah, add some colors to our political scene, and of cos, maintain websites like this to add some humor to our hectic lives :)
if there’s no opposition, then who will scrutinise PAP’s action??
Cause of no opposition and 1 party rule, things like corruption and cronyism will arise. As of such, it already has.
“without the pap, they oppose who? themselves?”
If you believe in God, you have to believe in the devil. You cannot believe in one, but says the other one is not important or does not exist
“without the pap, they oppose who? themselves?”
If you believe in God, you have to believe in the devil. You cannot believe in one, but say the other one is not important or does not exist
thanks to opposition who keeps the govt in check.
a bigger thanks go out to the men and women in the public service who is corruption-free and keeping the agencies clean. i salute you for you hold integrity close to your heart and guard it with your lives.
“if there’s no opposition, then who will scrutinise PAP’s action??”
our govt has built up a system that will check the incumbents. we do not need the opposition to scrutise their actions. they will keep themselves in check for they have built the system. and whoever is the reigning party will be in check.
Poor KaiXian, your mind is programmed by your beloved party, dear leaders as well.
PAP was honoured by the praise that they are the only ever rod eon the back of tiger ( Malayan Communists and the Leftists ) and came dowm after beaten the Tiger into a dead cat
But, they also have learned the art and tactics of communists,
Don’t ever under-estimated them.
The sad thing is that most of the so-called top brains, scholars who wish to have a bright and RICH future, have to join them to uphold the systems that benefcial to them, this coulkd be the begining of downfall of the red dot.