bawling ([info]bawling) wrote in [info]sg_ljers,
@ 2008-11-18 12:17:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
PM Lee Says Singapore not suitable for a 2-party system
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_303018.html

CHANGE must come to Singapore - but within the ruling People's Action Party rather than in the form of having a two-party system.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Sunday stressed that the PAP must constantly evolve to keep up with the times. This means renewing its membership and leadership ranks, and coming up with fresh ways to engage Singaporeans.

Mr Lee, who is secretary-general of the PAP, said: 'Change has to take place in Singapore but change must take place not (between parties) but within the PAP.

'As long as the PAP changes itself, and continues to provide clean and good government, and the lives of Singaporeans improve, the country is much better off with one dominant, strong, clean, good party.'

I'm sorry, PM sir, but I have to disagree. Using UK parliamentary system as the base, the alternative government (or opposition) is important in creating good governance. In a short analytical note by Duncan Hiscock of International Centre for Policy Studies (http://www.icps.com.ua/doc/Opposition%20in%20the%20UK%20E.pdf), he said that given the first-past-the-post system of UK (SIngapore has it too), it is advantageous for the main opposition party (or parties) to present themselves as a credible alternative government.

The following remarks about the Role of Opposition is also made in the report:

The Opposition should not only be able to take over as Government but be seen as such. In order to win it had to have the confidence of the people; it therefore had to be viewed as responsible, respected and united and its policies perceived as relevant to people’s day-today lives. It needed to use parliament effectively, to promote a team (not only individual leaders), to continually review its overall approach and ensure that it interacted effectively with independent institutions to formulate new policy.

The Opposition needs to be effective as an alternative government. Effective in the sense of holding the current government accountable and thus increase the quality of decision-making, not in building popularity and become a populist opposition. But for the Opposition to be effective, the conference of Commonwealth leaders has this to say:

for the Opposition to be effective there needs to be acceptance on the part of both the Government and the wider society of the essentials of parliamentary democracy. There has to be agreement on the ‘rules of the game’ and all-round acceptance that the Opposition had an important role to play.

mechanisms to promote accountability and exposure would only be effective if there was a general ‘culture of accountability’ and commitment, by Government as well as Opposition, to the overall effectiveness of the parliamentary system

PM Lee said in the news article:

"'As long as the PAP changes itself, and continues to provide clean and good government, and the lives of Singaporeans improve, the country is much better off with one dominant, strong, clean, good party." and

"The PAP has managed to survive more than 50 years because it kept itself 'vigorous, lean, relevant, able to win elections', and adjusting its leadership styles to 'suit new generations of Singaporeans"

Perhaps he needs to understand that the continual renewal and change PAP is taking is a survival strategy, not a reason to justify a one-party system. There will always be a need for check-and-balance and preferably the conflict of interest should be eliminated by having the check-and-balance party be of no affliation to the dominant group.


Comments?
 



(Post a new comment)


[info]dnwq
2008-11-18 05:45 am UTC (link)
The PAP thinks differently, at least (obviously). Remember PM Lee's notorious slip of the tongue in 2006?

Supposing you have a Parliament with 10, 15 or 20 opposition members out of 80, then instead of spending my time thinking what is the right policy for Singapore, I will spend all my time, I have to spend all my time thinking of what is the right way to fix them, what’s the best way to buy my own supporters over.


i.e., that political competition rewards electioneering rather than competence. This is something a lot of Americans have been grousing about. How true is it?

As a separate issue, the UK has several features that Singapore doesn't. The UK has a famously neutral civil service (despite being technically responsible to the legislature). All three viable UK parties (Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat) are moderate enough that none can plausibly be said to be capable of destroying the country if they win, so ruling groups readily surrender power during a transition (contrast the PAP, which openly contends that Singapore will be utterly doomed under the opposition). Last, there is a very strong - and very cynical - democratic culture in the UK: if any party tried to monopolise power in the name of saving Britain/leading Britain to power and glory, voters would simply sneer and laugh. Hell, their own civil servants would ignore them.

Liberal democracies have elements of all three; Singapore is lacking in each. This doesn't make a multiparty democracy impossible, but it makes it much, much harder to maintain.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]juzzywuzzy
2008-11-18 07:32 am UTC (link)
thats a clever observation. i should read more on UK system, having been fed with a diet of the US system the past 1 year! haha :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]bawling
2008-11-18 07:53 am UTC (link)
There is a good book written (A Citizen's Guide to Government and Politics in Singapore) on the Singapore system with background reference to the history and British system.

http://www.selectbooks.com.sg/getTitle.cfm?SBNum=34714

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]bawling
2008-11-18 07:57 am UTC (link)
Another feature that Singapore doesn't have is the bicameral (2 houses) parliament which serves as a check for each other: House of Lords and House of Commons

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]dnwq
2008-11-18 08:20 am UTC (link)
The House of Commons is amazingly dominant; there isn't really anything substantive that the House of Lords can do about it. The legislative powers of the Lords are severely limited, presumably to prevent aristocratic conservatism from stalling reforms, but the modern feeling is that the Lords should reflect the popular will in some sense anyway (in the same sense that the Queen technically wields an amazing amount of power, but should it try to actually use any of it against the popular will, expect all that power to evaporate in short order. Many UK institutions are like that.).

So it can't really resist a popular mandate proposed through the Commons. It's much, much weaker than, say, the US Senate; several Lords have pointed out that as things stand the UK may as well be unicameral.

In any case Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland are all unicameral, so it's not really a requirement for effective multiparty democracy ;p

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]bawling
2008-11-18 09:49 am UTC (link)
I read about the limited power of House of Lords in the book recommended below.

Perhaps a more representative unicameral parliament would render the multi-cameral parliament less effectual?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]tonight_23
2008-11-18 09:40 am UTC (link)
Both- are still dominant.

There will always be a need for check-and-balance and preferably the conflict of interest should be eliminated by having the check-and-balance party be of no affliation to the dominant group.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]filmografik
2008-11-19 04:55 pm UTC (link)
Precisely. What use is a check when it is internal?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]tonight_23
2008-11-19 06:25 pm UTC (link)
As far as "People"-Action-Party is seemingly exponent; besides arguing over a third party system, old sovereign need a NEW revision exponently addressed so as to not having affiliation. Now, who can actually address that? We are jitters in a kernel! Get out of the mole; be more in sync with the world. Get back to the mole, and scrape it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]nyved
2008-11-23 02:01 am UTC (link)
It's a feature that countries such as New Zealand doesn't have. But New Zealand is pretty liberally democratic, no?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]schizojuc
2008-11-18 11:35 am UTC (link)
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And who defines what is broken?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]bawling
2008-11-18 11:39 am UTC (link)
I think it is starting to leak, don't you think so?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]tonight_23
2008-11-19 05:51 pm UTC (link)
lol

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]filmografik
2008-11-19 02:02 am UTC (link)
Best find ways to plug a leak, or build a second dam after the first. We're Singapore, being kiasu is what we do best..it should logically translate into politics too.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]tonight_23
2008-11-19 06:55 pm UTC (link)
'kiasuism' began to feel more like a dogma. can there be justice towards anything?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]laetis
2008-11-19 06:55 am UTC (link)
I think I'd agree with the PM in the context of Singapore, not that an opposition party to check them won't work.. I personally don't see any opposition party being competant enough to provide for credible constructive competition. At least not now.

And instead of sitting and waiting for them to play catch up, the PAP will continue to evolve and improve itself, is what I'm getting from his message. The thing is, by doing so, its further widening the gap between the PAP and its competitors... not that its a bad thing either, since it is the PAP thats in power.

(Reply to this)


[info]kelvintan73
2008-11-19 11:08 am UTC (link)
The average Singaporean will simply reply:

"Wan Sui Wan Sui Wan Wan Sui"

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]filmografik
2008-11-19 04:55 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, average.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]tonight_23
2008-11-19 06:52 pm UTC (link)
another default case. engrish please-

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]nyved
2008-11-23 02:13 am UTC (link)
Political Scientists tend to notice that plurality electoral systems (first past the post system) tends to produce a two-party system.

In this sort of system, big parties are clearly favored, hence that's why there's either one major party or two, and smaller ones don't have much of a say. You can point out the LibDems in the UK. Over 18% of the vote in UK GE2001, but 8% of the seats in the UK Commons. Clearly, Labour and Conservatives, being stronger parties, have that advantage.

I cannot emphasize this more, but we have 1 major party and maybe 6 or 7 minor ones. And please don't take this as scoffing at the opposition, but, honestly, i think they are weak, generally leaderless, out of ideas and having no clear platform. And ironically, this is the accusation that is lashed out at the PAP by the Opposition. Tsk, tsk.

If only we have a proportional representation electoral system. That might work better for the Opposition, so that they're bound to get some seats under this system, but it's not the Government's job to help the Opposition into power. The Opposition has to do that themselves.

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…