Rilek1Corner

Tag: democracy

  • Leon Perera: WP Working Within Flawed System To Bring About Democratic Progress

    Leon Perera: WP Working Within Flawed System To Bring About Democratic Progress

    Just finished the debate in Parliament on filling the vacated NCMP seat. Most of the People’s Action Party members of the House were present for this particular debate. Over the past few days, when the House debated national issues and Parliamentary questions, the attendance often dipped to 30 or 40 (or less). Interesting priorities. Please read the text of the PAP’s amendment to our motion. It speaks volumes about their approach to politics and Parliamentary debate.

    I was asked me why I accepted the NCMP position if I opposed the NCMP scheme as bad for Singapore in the longer-term. I believe the NCMP scheme serves the PAP’s interests by enabling it to ask voters to vote only for the PAP to entrench the current one party hyper-majority in Parliament. It is fully elected Opposition MPs who assure political balance. But, as Mr Low Thia Khiang explained (amidst occasional laughter from the PAP MPs), we need to work within a flawed system, one that keeps getting changed and “refreshed” by the ruling party.

    Why do we do this? To do whatever we can to help build a democratic society. In the 1960s, the Barisan Sosialis left Parliament in protest at what they saw as unjust policies. We choose to stay and work within the system, in spite of its many unfair aspects and challenges. A democratic society has to be fought for, step by step and brick by brick.

     

    Source: Leon Perera

  • Analysts: Critical For Diverse Views To Be Heard

    Analysts: Critical For Diverse Views To Be Heard

    The need to refresh the political system as Singapore’s circumstances change highlighted by President Tony Tan in his opening address to the 13th Parliament last night (Jan 15) caught some political observers’ eyes, as they suggested the Government could tap new approaches to better capture the full spectrum of diverse perspectives on the ground.

    While they acknowledged the Government’s efforts to this end, in terms of dialogues and public consultations, the analysts said going beyond these existing initiatives would go towards Dr Tan’s call for Singapore to stay cohesive and move forward together.

    Calling for views to be gathered from avenues beyond Government-endorsed dialogues, such as blogs, forums or civil society, former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Siew Kum Hong said: “There needs to be the recognition that disagreement, dissent and conflict are not necessarily unhealthy, as without those things, we are doomed to fail.”

    “If you want to be fully inclusive, bring (these groups) in and engage them on their own terms.”

    In the face of greater diversity of views in society, changing Singaporeans’ mindsets is also important, said former NMP Eugene Tan. Singaporeans also need to be open-minded when considering different perspectives and allowing robust debate could help drive this mindset change, he added.

    “(Diverse views) reflect a society that is becoming more complex … The only way you can deal with it is for people to be able to engage in robust debate … and not treating the differences in values as existential challenges,” said the Singapore Management University law don.

    Institute of Policy Studies’ deputy director Gillian Koh noted, however, that a government-society partnership is not without challenges since ideas being pushed for may be driven by personal interests.

    “The argument should be done with integrity and for that purpose and not with some hidden agenda … We want shared governance, but this is the real danger of that shared governance going wrong,” she said.

    The experts also cited a list of other possible tweaks when it comes to refreshing the political system, including expanding the Non-Constituency MP slate and changing the selection process for NMPs.

    Smaller Group Representation Constituencies could also be instituted, they said.

    On the five key aims set out by Dr Tan for Parliament’s new term, the political observers flagged the focus on renewing the economy as the most pressing concern to Singaporeans.

    Not only will Singaporeans be keeping close tabs on how the Government rejuvenates the economy, Associate Professor Tan said they will look at how the authorities will help those who could emerge as “losers” with economic restructuring.

    Dr Alan Chong from the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies also flagged the dark clouds over the economy now, citing the stock market turbulence in China and the US Federal Reserve raising interest rates.

    The economy and urban infrastructure like transport are naturally closely-watched as they are tangible aspects that will affect daily lives, he added.

    Assoc Prof Tan said security is also likely to be one of the Government’s top priorities, given the string of Islamic State terror attacks, including most recently in Jakarta two days ago.

    “(The Government will) want to assure not just people living here but people who are invested in Singapore, people who might want to invest in Singapore,” he added.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Would Myanmar Nationals Want A Government Like Singapore’s?

    Would Myanmar Nationals Want A Government Like Singapore’s?

    I read with amusement how Myanmar nationals are hoping for change and that the Myanmar junta would be replaced by a government like Singapore’s PAP.

    People from third world countries like Myanmar, Philippines and Malaysia admire the Singapore government for the outer facade it presents: strong Sing dollar currency, non-corruption (we Singaporeans know better how truly corrupted the Singapore government is the legal way), safe (unless you offend the wrong group), ample employment opportunities, number of shopping centers (oh you be surprised they gauge how wealthy a country is by the number of shopping malls it has) and etc. These foreign nationals mistakenly believe that Singapore is a pride of Asia and that an “Asian” country can be as good as any first world countries.

    Unfortunately, due to the vast gap in understanding democracy and the real definition of a first world country, they fell under the false impression Singapore is an ideal country which they wish their government would be like so. Perhaps in their eagerness against the very evils of their own governments, they sought relief from a new country where its government constantly lie about non-corruption, citizens-first and with-you-for-you war cries. They teared along when they heard Lee Kuan Yew died; knowing nothing of the evils the dictator did. Singapore is their utopia and Singaporeans who complain were told they are more than happy to trade their Prime Ministers for Lee Hsien Loong.

    Blinded and frustrated by the sorry state of affairs in their homeland, foreigners who praise the Singapore government are honestly those with very shallow and backward mindsets, with their understanding of governance and societies at superficial levels and knowing nothing about macro-economics, political dynamics, sustainability, positioning and the very dangerous consequences of having the kind of leadership Singapore has. In their point of view, Singapore is on the right track and there is nothing to worry about Singapore and even so for the next 50 years. Including new citizens and PRs, they were not brought up through the Singapore system and were largely ignorant of the sacrifices and trade-offs of being a Singaporean.

    After all, people who reached maturity do not make flippant suppositions like trading their Prime Ministers for Lee Hsien Loong. Take up the Singapore citizenship, Lee Hsien Loong will make sure you take back your words. Till then, good luck hoping for change in Myanmar.

    Alex

     

    Source: www.tremeritus.com

  • Singapore: Popcorn Democracy?

    Singapore: Popcorn Democracy?

    Confrontational politics, social media and political apathy — some of the issues raised during MARUAH’s post-election forum What’s at Stake?

    After the unexpected landslide victory of 69.9% of the popular votes by the People’s Action Party (PAP) in this year’s Election, pundits, academics and other politically-minded individuals shared their analyses of the result and its implication for Singapore.

    Against this backdrop, MARUAH, a human rights group, held a forum called What’s at Stake? on Saturday, 19 September. It comes eight days after polling day

    Speaker Alex Au who was one of six speakers at the forum, avoided giving a mere explanation of the result. Instead he posed “provocative” questions for people to consider,among which was the state of opposition politics. Speaking directly to Workers’ Party’s dip in performance — he touched on their reluctance to “boast” of their performance in Parliament and questioning PAP on a number of issues. He felt their inability to score on such matters may have backfired.

    Confrontational politics

    The writer behind the blog Yawning Bread spoke about the importance of party branding. To differentiate themselves from each other, opposition parties should not just criticise the PAP, but each other, he said.

    According to him, in people’s minds, the opposition parties are all the same. Hence, opposition parties should “forget about opposition unity” and be unafraid of contesting each other.

    When an audience member questioned the need for “confrontational politics,” Au said, this is “unavoidable”.

    Disputing this point, political analyst Dr Derek da Cunha pointed out that the Workers’ Party (WP) had actually performed well over the years because it took a moderate stance.

    Role of social media

    Dr da Cunha also took to task social media’s role in determining election outcomes. He said it had “zero impact” and that he has been saying this “forcefully for six years.”

    Terry Xu, Chief Editor of The Online Citizen (TOC), said that prior to this year’s Election, he would not have agreed with Dr da Cunha, but now does. He noted that despite the satires of PAP politicians his publication put out, voters were hardly swayed by them — presumably to vote for the opposition.

    Xu took issue with new sites like SIX-SIX.COM, Mothership and The Middle Ground, urging the audience to ask where funding for these sites comes from, even implying, without any proof, that they may be backed by the Government.

    Author and blogger, Sudhir Thomas Vadaketh pointed out the question of funding and the need to moderate one’s content is an issue all media outlets deal with. He added that readers should decide for themselves the credibility of a news site.

    Dr da Cunha questioned TOC’s credibility after putting out articles from anonymous sources. He said that while he used to think the site was good, it has over the years become “more extreme.”

    In reply, Xu said the people who write the anonymous articles are teachers and academics who are afraid their positions in the workplace might be compromised when they are associated withTOC.

    Death of the new normal

    Au said that the one point all the speakers could probably agree with is that “the new normal” of higher political engagement after the WP won a Group Representation Constituency (GRC) in the 2011 election “was a figment of our imagination.”

    In the same vein, Thomas said the 2011 result might have just been a “blip” and the presumed “death of the apathetic Singaporean” was false.

    Singaporeans might be interested only in “popcorn democracy” where they engage with politics once in every four or five years during election season, instead of actively engaging with politics every day, he said.

    “Maybe Singaporeans just want the veneer of democracy.”

    Going forward?

    As per its discussion theme, What’s at Stake?, MARUAH’s forum laid out issues of concern for Singaporeans after the recent election.

    Braema Mathi, President of MARUAH, had asked the speakers to provide some ideas for electoral reform as well. Dr da Cunha suggested that GRCs be of “uniform size,” following the practice in 1991 where there were four-members each for every ward.

    He also said that the EBRC should publish its report on boundary shifts no less than four months before polling day and that policy changes like the introduction of sample count this election should not be announced “just days before polling day.”

    Besides Dr da Cunha, Au seems to have been the only other person to have sketched out some steps forward, with his suggestion that opposition parties brand themselves better and that opposition parties collaborate more with civil society.

     

    Source: http://six-six.com

  • Liberal Reflections On Loss And Acceptance In GE2015

    Liberal Reflections On Loss And Acceptance In GE2015

    The People’s Action Party’s (PAP) political narrative for Singapore has always insisted on our exceptionalism. For the longest time, I had suspected that this was just an excuse to impose an unnatural dominance on the populace. I had assumed and hoped that, given time, given information and given choice, Singapore would one day become a democratic society like any other – with more than one strong political party, all realistically vying for power, ensuring diversity and providing checks on each other.

    But I’m big enough to admit when I’m wrong.

    In the Sept 11, 2015 General Election, voters gave the PAP 69.9 per cent of valid votes, an increase of 9.8 percentage points from 2011. They handed 83 of 89 seats to the PAP. This wasn’t just a national swing to the PAP. This wasn’t just a vote in favour of the ruling party’s policies over those offered by other parties. This wasn’t even about picking the group at municipal level that best proves itself at the hustings or on the ground thereafter.

    Such analyses try to shoehorn the facts into the framework of a typical democracy. They miss the point entirely.

    This was a vote confirming the type of system that Singaporeans want to live under.

    Of course, the number of Parliamentary seats has not changed significantly from 2011 (when there were also six opposition seats). But, by giving the ruling party nearly 70 per cent of the popular vote, Singaporeans are essentially saying that they do not want to move towards a system where any other party has a realistic chance of taking over any time in the foreseeable future.

    In fact, contrary to views at the time, 2011 was not a watershed or inflection point marking the start of an upward climb for the opposition. Rather, 2001 may have been a bottom inflection point and 2011 marked the top of the curve. If I am right, barring seismic events, the PAP’s share of the popular vote is destined to oscillate (by five to six points) around the fulcrum of 66.6 per cent attained in 2006.

    Singaporeans want a monolithic government. They are comfortable with power consolidating in the hands of very few, presumably in the interests of effectiveness and efficiency. They do not believe that leaders necessarily govern better if they must answer, day to day, matter to matter, to critics. They do not generally require diversity of views for its own sake.

    Singaporeans have freely chosen to be governed by an entrenched elite aristocracy. Singapore may well be the only country in the world that, offered a truly free and informed choice, has so chosen.

    An aristocracy need not be of noble birth; according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, an aristocracy is “government by the best individuals or by a small privileged class”. By this definition, the PAP and its ruling class constitute a political aristocracy.

    And regardless of what critics might say, Singaporeans this time round definitely had access to the information necessary to choose.

    Social media and technology levelled any communication advantage that the PAP might have had in the past. Education and voter maturity have reduced fear as a motivating factor.

    Opposition parties gave us credible alternatives and made cogent arguments why they, rather than the PAP’s picks, should be given our mandate.

    Singapore voters rejected these choices without coercion.

    Does that mean Singaporeans don’t want democracy at all?

    I don’t think so. But I am ready to admit that maybe it means Singaporeans do want our own brand of democracy, one that is compatible with entrenched aristocracy.

    The problem then is that the models of democracy out there (including the one we currently have) may not meet our needs.

    All these models rely on a realistic chance of displacing incumbents to generate certain conditions crucial to a functioning democracy.

    There are at least two such conditions.

    First, having a body of “professional oppositionists” whose “job” is to provide well-thought-through alternative views that challenge and thus help refine the status quo.

    Second, the strong incentive for transparency and honesty that comes from knowing that internal workings will be thrown open to external scrutiny upon regime change. It would be dangerous for us to simply assume that these conditions will be generated by our Westminster parliamentary democracy, if we consistently signal that we do not intend to check our elected political aristocracy with a strong challenger in Parliament.

    If voters consistently show they are willing to consolidate the political dominance of the PAP, where, apart from elected opposition, can we build pluralism? How else can we generate conditions of transparency?

    I believe we must seriously explore how to generate these conditions in some other way. Either by strengthening existing institutions (such as civil society, the presidency, the media, the judiciary) or by creating new ones (such as an ombudsman or other mechanisms that don’t yet exist elsewhere).

    Crucially, whatever means we choose, we must insist that these institutions be given legal and political teeth; they must be independent from the political aristocracy, be empowered to work openly, and have direct access to the public, such that we have the benefit of their guidance whenever we head to the polls. If we then choose, in our own unique way, to endorse our aristocracy, we do so on a free and informed basis.

    We need to understand what GE2015 tells us. And then we need to be brave enough, Singaporeans, governed and governors together – to imagine a system, perhaps one quite different from any other in the world, that addresses what Singaporeans clearly want, but that also protects our democracy.

    • The writer, Eleanor Wong, is a lawyer, playwright and an associate professor at the National University of Singapore Faculty of Law.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com