The incumbent ruling party; Peoples Action Party (PAP), has been ruling this nation state for more than 30 years. For a large part of this period, the PAP has managed to set an unprecedented electoral miracle. In a few general elections, the victory is complete in that they have managed to win every single electoral seat. Of late, this record has been broken by scarce victories by the opposition in 1 to 2 seats out of a total of over 70 seats. Under this backdrop, a few notable developments have also happened which might or might not be related to the electoral process. You be the judge.
Firstly, the electoral process underwent a fundamental change with the introduction of the Group Representation Constituency (GRC). Most Singaporeans would know the basic framework of GPC but I would describe it briefly for those who might not. Essentially, the GRC would group a portion of the electoral seats into a GRC which would consists of between 4 to 6 individual seats. With this change, political parties would have to field that number of candidates to contest in a GRC electoral boundary instead of individually. While there are many merits for introducing GRC like enabling better servitude of the constituency as there are a few representatives instead of a single one to turn to, some of the unintended or intended effect of this new ruling are as follows. Firstly, independent candidates are also not allowed to contest in a GRC by virtue of the fact that they are a one man band. Secondly, this is likely to make it more difficult for the opposition to contest effectively because they now need to field a team instead. Let the results speaks for itself. No opposition party has won any GRC since its introduction. If this is the case, why has the GRC bill pass into law?
Secondly, PAP not only have the simple majority needed to pass most bills but also a two third majority to pass bills that could change the basic fundamental rule in our nation state. Being a parliamentary system, there is a further advantage to the ruling party in terms of the party whip that will force PAP representatives that have views contrary to their party from voting according to their conscience. This has the effect of appropriating additional authority to the ruling party. The party whip can be lifted if the party so chooses to do so but the question is whether it is in interest of the ruling party to do something to reduce their authority? An additional last safe guard which was introduced lately to accord the elected president with veto power to block the passage of bills that the elected president deems as being against the interest of our society at large. However, this power of the elected presidency is being curtailed by the presidential council of 3. My question is why have an elected presidency with electoral mandate and subject him to a presidential council without any electoral mandate?
Thirdly, the issue of political apathy of our society has been so bad that it has become a national concern. It is difficult to understand the psyche of the ruling party on this issue. Are they playing masquerade? It is not uncommon to see a marked increase in court room drama casting the incumbent politicians and political wannabes. The right to legal redress should be available to all including people in high office. However, one should also consider the micro issues with the larger macro issue at hand. Because of the high profile of the caste involved in the court room battle, some coloration by the populace will be the order of the day. What is legal might not be right. The ruling party might have won the court room battle but with regards to winning the war for the hearts and soul of the populace, you decide.
With these behind us, we shall examine the likely behavior of the populace. To be more adventurous, we shall stretched our imagination further a field and come down to earth thereafter for a more balanced view.
Firstly, the basic premise of a democratic system is to have the will of the populace represented by the majority in regular election whereby potential candidates offer themselves for election. The essential ingredient is entrance of potential candidates. While there is a need to exercise a certain level of safeguards to prevent real rouge from offering themselves, such safe guards should be the based on the bare minimum as they would have to pass through the rigid electoral process of the populace and therefore there is sufficient check and balance in place already. In Singapore, some additional requirements like not having a conviction that attracts a certain level of sentence might be too rigid. Like what stock analyst like to say that past performance is no insurance of future performance, it cuts both ways in that a clean record does not guarantee crime free future and a stained record that now necessarily equal to a repeat offender. On this note, as our society matures, we ought to have the concept that there is a differential between the effectiveness of the office bearer and his moral high ground. I am not suggesting that we should have a crook for a leader but some level of tolerance ought to be in place as nobody is perfect and everyone has some skeleton in one’s closet. Although I do not condone what Bill Clinton has done in the private life but it is a fact that the then leader of the Democrat did a fantastic job on the US economy.
Secondly, on the need to impose OB markers on freedom of press, we have grown up as a nation and the racial and religious flashpoint of yesteryears no longer applies. If it does, why is the ruling party concerned with the level of political apathy? The populace is also no so gullible and is able to give the proper gravity to the issues at hand than just take it at face value. The wisdom of yesterday being that the press can incite social unrest but I in today’s society, I believe that suppression is more likely to result in sudden outburst of societal unrest as the suppressed pressure would ultimately need release. It would be better for issues to have an outlet and discussed openly so that misnomers can be addressed.
Lastly, I would like to introduce the concept of Fight, Flight and Silent Anarchy. The first two is common to us in that placed in an uncomfortable or unlikable situation, we would either fight it off or flight away. What one chooses is a complex of many factors including the power differential, perceived chances of winning, perceived level of damage and tolerance for damage, perceived level of losing, possibility of flight etc. As we can see that the option of flight is not open to all but to the select for which there is demand for their wealth or talent. The majority would have to contend with staying put. For those that do stay put, if they do not see the possibility of winning a fight, they are likely to follow the path of evolution and take on the veil of what I call silent anarchy. On the outside, it looks good but on the inside , values that national pride, patriotism and societal altruism ranks way down. Economic success is important but it is not the only measure of success.
With a heritage of a largely immigrant society, we ought to value building of national pride, patriotism and a strong value ( not economic ones ) that galvanized the society together. For the Americans, it is freedom, respect and the pursuit of happiness. For us, we need to and must first create a more inclusive society first that shares a certain strong value system ( not promoted by campaign as campaign fatigue is the order of the day here ) that would galvanized us or we would polarize as a society. If even Hong Kong that had the highest rating for political apathy can slowly but surely achieve that, so can we and so must we.
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
September 2006