Authority and Power
Thus far we have used the term power but let's do some differentiation between power and authority. Authority is what is legitimately conferred upon a person and it can be operated upon formally and directly and is very positional. Power on the other hand is influence that a person holds informally for reasons other than his formal position. While power and authority has a lot of semblance, it is very different in terms of its source, operatives and principles of engagement. A person with a lot of power without much authority can be as important as his counterpart with more authority. In addition, authority can be controlled to a larger extent than power as the former operates on a more formal level whilst the latter operates on a more personal level. While the topic is one of power as it is more reflective of the ground reality, the changes that we are proposing would most probably operate on the more formal authority and hopefully, wisdom would rule the day on a personal level to affect the distribution of power.
There is no doubt here that elder statesman LKY wields a tremendous amount of power even though he is no longer in the authoritative premiership position held by Goh Chok Tong. On this note, I personally believe that even if LKY is no longer in the PAP, he would still hold considerable power so long as PAP, the vessel of his making, is still in power. In addition to this, he still has the eyes and ears of the electorate. Perhaps, the religious harmony bill should have a parallel with regards to out of office politicians in curtailing their influence on the electorate. The same argument he put forth for the existent of the bill that if you want to be in politics, declare your intentions, face the election, earn your stripe to office and then address the crowd.
Absolute Power
As an anti thesis to the animal farm paradigm, many organizational leadership theorem postulates that without sufficient power, leadership would falter and the organization might be headed towards failure. It is so easy to sell the maxim that weak leadership equal ineffective governance. It all seems that the day belongs to the absolute camp. On the scene in Singapore, LKY has argued somewhere along this line that Singapore is such a small island state that western brand of democracy is not relevant because the margin of error is so small that a mistake can wipe Singapore out. On the need to have a system of check and balance which is one of the key ingredients of democracy, PAP has maintained that the key is to bring in upright leaders of immaculate integrity. Basic premise being to focus on the quality of the input rather then doing then weeding along the way. Is this practical? You draw your own conclusions.
Perfecting the Imperfect
Democracy was borne out of a strong sense of social equality based on the one man one vote system and is one of the many social equalizers. Above that, it is very much like a perfect tool for an imperfect world. Let me explain this further. In an imperfect world where everything and anything is open to abuse, democracy uses consensus decision making in the form of a periodic appointment of the powers to be through the ballot box.
When a vote is caste for an individual, the voter is voting for a basket of values and ideas that he believes the candidates have and will possibly carry for the tenure of the office.
First, it is a vote of a collective manner in that he might not agree fully with everything the candidates represents but collectively, it is the best choice in his mind. Secondly, there is an element of crystal ball gazing into the future as the tenure is normally for a period of 4 to 6 years normally. Is it not practical to vote individually on each and every issue although separate referendum might be carried to seek populace mandate on very fundamental issues.
In addition, where power is distributed fairly even, there is less chances of an anarchy leading to political unrest as people tend to feel more in control and able to influence the process through legitimate means. However, where power is highly concentrated, there is strong temptation from those in power to abuse their position to stem out contrarians viewpoint. This can actually be in very legitimate forms like making changes to constitutions, laws, regulation an rules to weed out their opposition. Although a highly polarized power can also translate into a weak government, the absolute power situation might be a scarier position to be in. Perhaps, we should consider a change to limit the maximum length that a person can be in power for some key positions like the premiership and the presidency. I believe that Singapore has recognized this danger and has put the elected presidency into place with veto power but is this really effective enough as an instrument of check and balance?
Reality Check
Let's take a drive down Singapore's reality lane and see some of the situations that have gathered much controversy in the past. Firstly, it is not uncommon to see a string of legal suits being filed against the opposition after each election. I am totally convinced about the individual merits of each and every case but collectively, they do not paint a very good picture for Singapore. In established democracy, it is often taken as something that comes with the turf of holding public office and such action is normally taken on a very selective basis. There is a strong belief that the free press would create a balanced view as readers would also judge the merits against the writer's reputation and the ability to use the free press to defend one self also helps. Might be better to allow more latitude in the area of press freedom and let the situation correct itself than to seek legal redress although this is a personal right of everyone including politicians in power.
Connected to the first set of events, the independence of the judiciary was called into question not too long ago. The government had to defend this position and set the record straight very firmly as it is a very fundamental and important issue and the government did the right thing in doing so. However, it is my personal belief that there are less chances of this happening if the politicians have chosen to fight the battles on the open press instead of using the court room as the battle field.
Lastly, the creation of the group representation constituency to the electoral laws has also invited strong opinion about the motivation for doing so. While there are strong merits for making this change, it is no doubt that this change would dis-advantage the opposition party. The opposition already has problem enlisting enough candidates individually much less as a group in a populace that has grown so politically indifferent and numb over the years of simple majority party PAP rule. In addition, the re-zoning of electoral boundaries especially in wards with marginal wins has also not been seen favorably.
Although a polarized power structure might not be very efficient and effective compared to the current power structure in Singapore but it most probably provides better checks and balances and a perception of greater social equality in our society. Economic barometer is a very important measure as a hungry man can make little use of his freedom but it is not the only and ultimate measure of well being of a society. As a young nation like Singapore matures, the perception and yardstick will hopefully change too.
lkypeter@gmail.com Safe Harbor. Please note that information contained in these pages are of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Peter Lye (c) Peter Lye 2014