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
Tsk tsk tsk
“Low crime doesn’t mean no crime”
That’s why we need checks and balances.
the downfall of PAP. As of such, LHL is already stepping on his own toes. Try to push your luck somemore?
To 149) koyomin,
“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.”
Can you name one example?
TSK and GIC losses?
Public Order Act?
CPF Life?
…….
I can summarise PAP’s motives
This is what i infer,
PAP ::
I want , your money, your freedom, and eternal reign of leadership, and you must agree, no such thing as dont agree. If you dont? we will find ways to “make “you.
Faggot Xu,
Get a life. Perhaps you might want to consider emigrating to North Korea? Kim Jong IL just named his son as successor and his son might need an assistant to help him translate English! You may probably ‘fit’ into their requirement!
Think before you write next time. And pls be environmental friendly. Precious paper wasted on such a junk piece of yours! Btw, do you have any idea how much it cost to get your piece of shit printed on ‘Petir’ newsletter?
Mr Xu carried balls ( bosses ) at all cost, what the hell is environmental concerns to him ?
He should be lived in North Korea indeed
Yes. Too a certain extent, the author is right that democracy does not necessary needs an opposition. If PAP lose an election one day and another political party forms the government, Singaporeans won’t need the PAP as the opposition.
The whole purpose of a democracy is NOT so much to ensure that the best and most capable men are elected to government. It is more important that the people elected to government are those who have the greatest interest of the people at heart. Ideally a country gets the best and most capable men who at the same time cares for its people.
Who is the best judge whether a government cares for its people? Especially the rank and file PMETs who are struggling to make ends meet? A capable government might have been able to steer the country out of recession by opening its doors to FTs. But thats not enough. A caring government will extend special help – in whatever forms it takes – to ensure its citizens do not end up as the garbage-end of a society dominated by talented foreigners.
While I do not think there is any jealousy of FTs doing well here, I think the resentment at the ground that the same government that gave the FTs the opportunity is betraying the very people who elected them to power by overlooking their interests.
Citizens elect their governments based not purely on judgment of their abilities BUT much more on judgment of their motivation to help the electorate. If this sense of betrayal takes root, the electorate will go for the seemingly less able but more sincere candidates.
“Democracy need not involve the presence of an opposition,”
Yeah, and getting pregnant need not involve sperm.
I’m sorry Mr. Xu Kaxian, your theory that “Democracy need not involve the presence of an opposition” is wrong. The nearest analogy i can imagine is Singtel’s monopoly on wireless service and products in the 1980′s. The PAP decided in fact that because of Singtel’s monopoly, the wireless market is not efficient nor does it provide diversity in services and products to the customers, hence the PAP introduced competition such as M1 and Starhub and now even more players. Therefore, we should introduce “competition” into our political system as well to shape up the inefficient PAP dominated government because so far, the PAP has been very slow to adapt to the fast changing needs of SIngaporeans.
The writer seem to confuse democracy of a country and democracy of a local council. In Singapore the lines are really blur.
“I’ve always been sceptical about Western-style democracy, which advocates democracy as a panacea for all problems”
TALK COCK!
A US president can rule for a maximum of 2 terms(8 years if re-elected) but here the ruling despot soon to celebrate his golden aniversary. So is our “democracy” a panacea for all problems?
In the past Singaporeans have been indoctrinated that strong oppositions in parliament will create a stumbling block in going forward with the right decisions. Now we see that a strong check and balance will ensure PAP do not make the wrong decisions.
I came to this late, but how come everyone assumes that Xu Kaixian is male? It says “writer”; I think I know who she is.
My classmate Kaixian was a Youth PAP member ever since I knew her, and she used to take the MRT down to Pasir Ris to do social work and grassroots level work when I was reading my degree at NUS. Although I don’t agree with all of her political views and I certainly won’t join the youth PAP, some of the comments are really harsh. I wonder, do some of the authors of the really inane comments to her piece even do anything remotely close to her work? I certainly won’t spend my whole Friday and even school holidays working for strangers, who obviously don’t appreciate what I do.
My point is this simple corrective: some of the comments made are so derogatory, yet you guys don’t do anything for Singapore. SHE does.
Admittedly, since most commentors don’t know the person directly, they rely on what she says to make their judgements. Fair enough; but even TOC assumes that she’s male – sexist? This reminds me of something that everyone should know – you can’t trust everything you read, and even for those that you can trust, there are things that you might not know.
Wow, after reading all the comments, I am surprised by Shawn. Your sentence ‘you can’t trust everything you read, and even for those that you can trust, there are things that you might not know.’ sums up what i have to say.
Sadly, many cannot comply with the basics : making sure you get your facts right and accurate. Seems there are many anti-MIW/govt online. There ae htings we cna be unhappy about but don’t get personal ?