Political Theme Song for Singapore Election Results-Bruckner Symphony No. 7 in E Major WAB 107

The recent election results in Singapore have been termed water-shed for the ruling party People Action Party (PAP), opposition parties especially Workers Party (WP) and all voters. The outcome can mean many things to many some of which includes:

• time and tide might NOT heal everything and over time, people might NOT forget. Politics is no longer a once in 5 year event during election campaigning,

• whether there is a need to revamp the voting system especially the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system towards a system that moves us towards a more direct form of democracy,

• what messages are the voters telling both PAP and the opposition parties on the brand of democracy they want to see in Singapore not only in the future but also in the near future within reasonable bounds,

• last but not least, voters were politically emphatic about the voting scene due to the lack of choice in credible alternatives opposition parties in the past but is begining to realize that every vote counts and it starts with their own vote now that we have more credible, brave and altruistic opposition parties.

My position is not a binary one that runs along party lines of PAP or the opposition but how we as citizens of Singapore can participate more actively in the political process rather than treat it as a once in 5 year event. The fault for current state of democracy lies both with PAP as well as our political empathy in the past 30 years or so creating a vacuum of political power dominated by PAP. Perhaps the one party rule in the last 30 years by PAP has been an accidental fortune in that sense. A focused non-partisan rule could have been one of the major ingredients for our phenomenal economic and social growth achieved mainly by well tried and tested economic development model based mainly on foreign investment, regional service centers and export led of certain industrial clusters likes petrochemical, electronics, disk drive, wafer-fab, pharmaceutical and bio-technology. Leveraging our labour cost advantage, investor friendly policies and good industrial infrastructure, the unemployment problem was plugged by PM Lee Kuan Yew and his team. The foresight and gumption of the second generation leaders lead by PM Goh Chok Tong with the advantage of Lee and his team supporting Goh. The single party enabled Goh to execute a unilateral risky but calculated strategic move away from labour intensive to skill intensive by raising wages, skills and infrastructure in one bold orchestrated move and it worked again.

PM Lee Hsien Loong son of Lee Kuan Yew took over the reign from Goh. Lee jr started his reign with an unfair disadvantage having to defend nepotism right from the start. His father's generation was equated to building the hardware. Goh's dispensation built the software. Now that we have a complete solution in computer speak, Lee jr now is now charged with building the heart-ware to bring it from 3^rd world to 1^st world. Besides nepotism, Lee jr did not have a good economic and political developmental template to depend on unlike his dad and Goh. His team actually did not have the full mandate with his dad and Goh still looking over his shoulders closely most probably until recent past with his dad and Goh stepping down by exiting the cabinet formally.

Lee jr filled his team with capable technocrats that mostly graduated in the top tier of ivy leagues and I believe that most were well meaning in wanting to bring Singapore to 1^st world. Besides the unchartered water that Lee jr and his team were maneuvering into, they also had to face an aging and dwindling population as the total fertility rate headed south to reach 1.2. The technocratic team went into short term mode to cure it in a measurable manner that they knew best and with dated advice from his dad and Goh. Tax incentives and more child friendly policies were put in place to very little effect and the team sent in the crash cart and tried to revive the dying patient by immigration on a massive scale. Being a relatively young emigrant country, it was in the process of building a common identity. The mass immigration created a whole host of issues like depressing the wages of the lower strata of society and lead to a growing GINI index that accompanied good news rise in GDP. All was not exactly rosy on the domestic front for example health care cost faced by the population escalated because of a combination of aging population and public healthcare policies like mean testing. The escalating price of private housing spilled into public housing. Transport system was also facing congestion on public roads as the Electronic Road Pricing and Certificate of Entitlement meant to curtail usage and ownership respectively were not only unable to curb the congestion but lead to an increase in transportation cost overall. Public transportation was faced with sardine packed mass transit railway during peak hours mirroring the situation in Japan.

Many initiatives were put in place in the arena of heart-ware like giving the arts and cultural scene a lift and liberalizing censorship laws. These initiatives not only take relatively more time than hardware and software to show results but is also less measurable.

My reasons for choosing Bruckner as the theme song or symphony for this occasion are due to the following historical insights on this piece:

• this symphony was the piece that launched the composer Anton Bruckner career into stardom. I sincerely hope that this particular water-shed election results will lead to a right angle turn for our country as a whole,
• the second movement Adagio was used to announce 2 historically significant turning points like when Admiral Karl Dönitz announced Adolf Hitler death on 1^st May 1945 and also just before announcing his defeat in Stalingrad on 31^st January 1943. On this note, I do hope that the election results as a clarion call for danger ahead if we maintain status quo and dismiss the election results as noisy crying babies that can be easily pacified and forgotten.

It cannot be business as usual for PAP, opposition parties and the voters all alike and may we have a right angle turn like what Bruckner had with this symphony.

For those that like to have a deeper understanding of Anton Bruckner and Politics, there is a book "Bruckner's Symphonies-Analysis, Reception and Cultural Politics" by Prof. Julian Horton. Cambridge University Press (2004) ISBN-13 978-0-521-82354-8. I have not read the book personally but a cursory browse says it can be quite academic.

Cheers,,,,, Peter Lye


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. Copyrights of all contents in this blog belongs to Peter Lye unless stated otherwise.

Singapore Election Outcome-Direct or Representative Democracy?

It is evident that democracy has become more eugenic amongst Singaporean for the rulers or rulers wannabe and the citizens of Singapore. Our elder statesman Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has made no bones that we need democracy in Singapore but not as what the West understand democracy to be. Now that that the election results are out, I shall factually attempt to look at the outcome using the dimensional framework of Direct Democracy and Representative Democracy. Direct democracy is loosely one in which the citizens participate more directly in the decision and law making process as opposed to representative democracy where citizens vote periodically for representative(s) to be their proxy for decision and law making. The two is not mutually exclusive but represents a continuum and where each state places itself along the this continuum and the mix of tools like elections, referendum employed in decision making.

The Facts
The election results although a landmark point in time event but what affects the results have to do with relevant happenings in the recent past and people's expectation of the future outcome based on their vote.

1. Creation of the Group Representative Constituencies (GRCs) in 1988 on the basis of ensuring that minority racial communities will be represented in parliament. To ensure this, at least 25% of total number of Members of Parliament ( MPs ) must be from GRCs and each GRC must have at least 1 MP from the minority race. As of now, out of the total 87 electoral districts, 15 are GRCs with 75 MPs another 12 independent electoral districts with the normal single MP or what is called Single Member Constituencies (SMCs).

• The minority race factor especially for Malays is a sensitive topic as Singapore is a small country with a Chinese majority and sizable Malay minority geographically enveloped by two large Malay/Muslim countries i.e. Malaysia and Indonesia. I have used Malay and Muslim interchangeably as there is almost a direct equation of the Malay and Muslim especially in Malaysia although one recognizes that the former is a race and the latter is a religion. On this basis, I do stand behind the basis on which the GRCs changes were made as an antidote against possible cracks along racial or religious lines and also why a referendum on this issue is not possible because the referendum is likely to run along racial or religious lines rather than a more altruistic note. Just like the various equal opportunity initiatives in USA championed by the Union in the north against the confederates in the south. However, you will notice that there is a lack of a clarion call by the minority within Singapore as well as neighboring Malaysia and Indonesia in and around 1988. It hardly won us any significant brownie points with Malaysia or Indonesia. Is minority representation a reason or an excuse?
• The creation of GRC could actually have the un-intended effect of making it more difficult for opposition to field candidates for elections as can be seen during the initial days that the un-contested electoral districts tend to come from GRCs rather than SMCs. In 1988 general elections, 3 of the 5 un-contested electoral districts were GRCs and we can say that this is marginal but if we compare the number of MPs it would be 9 out of a total of 11 MPs that belongs to uncontested GRCs. (Source: Singapore Election 1988 parliamentary results). The figures are more telling in the next election of 1991 for which 10 out of a total 11 uncontested electoral districts were GRCs representing a total of 40 of out a total of 41 un-contested MPs were from un-contested GRCs. (Source: Singapore Election 1991 parliamentary results). 
• One of the basis tenets of democracy embodies choosing a government from the people, by the people and for the people made famous by President John F Kennedy. The opposition parties have raised this point and the incumbent government has challenged them on the basis that it was not the fault of Peoples Action Party (PAP) but that of the opposition not being able to find and field candidates to avoid this problem of un-contested entry into parliament through tail coating on more influential candidates within the GRCs. We cannot deny the fact that the incumbent PAP government have two third majority in parliament to enable the party to change even the constitution of Singapore. We cannot totally exclude that the GRC system might have a more insidious intent of ensuring PAP's share of political power. Political science is rife with such examples of the danger of the incumbent misuse of their power and authority for their own end rather than representing the voice of the people. One good example is the fielding of Ms Tin Pei Ling in the GRC ward of Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong. Even before nomination day, the social media has enough noise that it is not probable for PAP not to have heard the voice of the people against fielding a relatively in-experienced person and there were public outcry that if Ms Tin Pei Ling were to stand, it is only fair that she be fielded in a SMC rather than tail-coating under Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong's Marine Parade GRC ward. Even Goh Chok Tong was very candid to have remarked before nomination day that Ms Tin Pei Ling was not really his choice but that of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. The reason for fielding a young candidate of 27 years old was for her to connect the PAP to the younger voters. PAP has clearly ignored the voice of the ground by fielding Ms Tin Pei Ling under Marine Parade GRC rather for her to earn her own stripes by standing alone in a SMC. I doubt we can believe when PAP leaders say that they hear the people but perhaps that is where it stops; hearing but not doing enough. Political science is actually clear that political party is one of the necessary evils of a democratic system and this is clearly a case in point where the political party and the people's interest can run counter to each other and yet triumph over it.

2. Contest between local and national interest. Like most Singaporean, I personally feel very sorry for Mr. George Yeo. If the system were to allow the people to choose between Ms Tin Pei Ling and Mr. George Yeo, the choice would be very obvious for the latter. The implementation of democracy is far from perfect and this is one of the more "unjust' outcome of the system.

The positioning of candidates by the party on nomination day can be more important than the outcome on election day itself. One of the key differential in this election was the appearance of a number key influential opposition candidates with stellar background to match or even exceed those of PAP candidates. My admiration goes to these people for choosing to take the more unconventional choice of riding on a lesser opposition vessel instead of the almost guaranteed easier route to power, wealth and glory via the PAP vessel. In the past, the main opposition characters that PAP had to watch carefully were Chiam See Tong, the late JB Jeyaratnam, Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim. This time round, we see more of such new blood like Chen Shao Mao, Kenneth Jeyaratnam,  Vincent Wiseneraya,  Ang Yong Guan etc. With such a backdrop, the stronger opposition parties has decided on a 'show hand' in polker game speak strategy by putting their best candidates into GRC instead of SMC. WP, SPP and SDP had almost all their chips in Aljunied, Bishan-Toa Payoh and Holland-Bukit Timah GRCs respectively.

PAP was not without choice in my view. They could firstly avoid a clash of the titans by placing all their current and potential cabinet MPs out of these GRCs to ensure minimal disruption to the cabinet lineup post election. This would also mean a very good chance of losing one or a few GRCs making it a history in Singapore as no opposition party has managed to win a GRC until the 2011 general elections. However, this route seems unlikely for the all mighty PAP as my guess is that they want total control of government by occupying all seats in parliament. This can be seen from the post election reaction in 1984 when PAP lost two seats in Tanjong Pagar and Potong Pasir to Jeyaratnam and Chiam See Tong respectively. In other countries, the ruling party would have popped champagne and call it a landslide win but it was a sombre occasion for PAP on why has the people in these two electorates given the man-date to the opposition. If the PAP had taken this route, it would have made it an easier choice for the voters in these 3 GRCs by voting purely on the merits of the candidates and their position on local issues.

As expected, PAP responded to the opposition 'show hand' by doing the same by fielding part of their cabinet in these GRCs. This put a heavier burden on the voters as theirs is no longer based on the merit of the candidates and local issues alone. Their vote could result in a few cabinet ministers losing not only their MP seats but also their cabinet position as Singapore law makes it mandatory for cabinet positions to be MPs. Now that the election results are out, we know that in the case of Aljunied GRC, PAP lost the battle. To me, this election is water shed for a few reasons. Firstly, opposition party winning a GRC and secondly, cabinet ministers like George Yeo losing both their MP and cabinet position. I can only make a guess on what went on cerebrally for the voters in Aljunied GRC. My guess is that majority of these votes for the opposition was a vote for a more democratic future of Singapore against the shorter term set back of losing a few good man like George Yeo. What was telling was also the drop in the percentage of popular votes from 66.1% in 2006 to 60.1% this time round. I would like to refute the reasons that PAP is facing a younger generation of voters this time round as one only need to look at the population pyramid going more inverted now than previously.

What if PAP has chosen the second option of preserving their cabinet members by not fielding them in these 3 GRCs? My guess is there is a greater likelihood of PAP losing possibly up to 3 GRCs but all would be well within the cabinet lineup. Even with this worse case scenario, PAP would still have two third majority in parliament with mandate to change anything and almost everything including the constitution of Singapore. Sometimes, it might be better to lose a few battles and win the war but my guess is this is not likely to be within the vocabulary of PAP.

Finally, 'absolute power corrupts absolutely' in animal farm speak but 'democracy without proper law can lead to anarchy' in paraphrase by the Grecian wise sage of old Plato in 'The Republic'. No explanation but fodder for you to consider seriously when casting your vote in the next election.

Please do circulate to as many friends as possible and can visit my blogfor other writings.

Cheers,,,,, Peter Lye


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. Copyrights of all contents in this blog belongs to Peter Lye unless stated otherwise.

Singapore Election Theme

With so much written on our coming general election in Singapore, I would like to take a slightly different view for voters to ponder. I take this as an open letter to all Singaporeans as it is in my blog.

1. Are we really too small to afford a more balanced parliament with sufficient check and balance ? How about some of the smaller European countries with about similar population that have done so. In Animal Farm speak "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" and it must be done constitutionally both in the letter and spirit with another quote from Plato's Republic in paraphrase "democracy without law leads to anarchy'.


2. Minimal government can sometimes be prosperous like Hong Kong pre-1997. Bad government can lead to chaos and under-development I do not dispute. However, does well paid government leads to superior performance for the country if we were to take a co-relative longitudinal study of a few countries for comparison? I am not too sure it can lead to better government in my humble opinion. I would challenge that a study be done to proof the case and not get emotional on this and let the facts speaks for itself. Whilst paying so called market rate for government talent might reduce corruption but it might not as well as Mr. Paul Getty, one of the richest American billionaire when asked by a journalist at his death bed what is enough, his answer was just a little bit more. In addition, those who want to be in government must have a certain degree of altruism and not purely on economic grounds alone.


Please do circulate to as many friends as possible and can visit my blog for other writings.


Cheers,,,,, Peter Lye


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. Copyrights of all contents in this blog belongs to Peter Lye unless stated otherwise.

German/British Parentage

An award show host who was of German/British parentage remarked that his German part would like to take over the world but his British part is too polite to say so.....(source not traceable but have a good laugh. The original joke I lifted from a show did not have the German and British as it was a BBC program. In this way we do not have to think too hard to have a laugh.

Cheers,,,,,, Pete

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. Copyrights of all contents in this blog belongs to Peter Lye unless stated otherwise.