TR EMERITUS

OPINION

The ruling elite of Singapore has come under increasing pressure recently with both Singaporeans and foreigners questioning the legitimacy and viability of its archaic one-party system dominated by the PAP which is in control of all critical state institutions.

Though PAP leaders love to portray Singapore as an “electoral democracy” to the international community, Singapore resembles more like a medieval feudal dynasty than modern democratic state.

U.S-based Freedom House categorized Singapore as “partly free” in its 2009 report. The Economist described Singapore as a “hybrid state” (just slightly better than authoritarian regimes) and not a democracy by virtue of its democracy index of 5.89 which lies below its neighbors Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. Human Rights Watch condemned Singapore as a “textbook example of a politically repressive state” in its latest annual report.

In the opening speech for the Third Amartya Sen Lecture on Sustainable Democracy, the former prime Minister of Thailand, Anand Panyarachun listed seven main pillars for the architecture of democracy: elections, political tolerance, rule of law, freedom of expression, accountability and transparency, decentralization and civil society.

Other than conducting unfair elections heavily tilted in its favor once every five years, Singapore lacks all the other pillars of democracy: there is little tolerance for political dissent, Singaporeans have no freedom of expression, the system is based on implicit “trust” (according to Finance Minister Tharman) instead of proper accountability and transparency, the state micromanages the lives of citizens right down to the finest detail and civil society is almost non-existent in Singapore.

As Singaporeans become more educated and exposed to the world, especially the younger generation, they are beginning to clamor for genuine reforms to liberalize the political system so that the power to govern the nation is devolved into different centers instead of being concentrated in the hands of a few.

The gradual change in the national mindset is becoming a threat to the PAP’s legitimacy to rule such that Law Minister Shanmugam is floating the idea of introducing “political education” in schools to counter the rise of these “undesirable” influences.

Mr Shanmugam insisted that the best political systems are those that fit the society they govern and for a small nation like Singapore, it needs strong leadership which can respond rapidly to changes in the external environment – in other words, it should not have a troublesome opposition blocking its policies and thwarting its plans.

His views were echoed by a PAP supporter Dr Yik Keng Yeong who wrote to the Straits Times Forum lately arguing that “the filibustering in various foreign Parliaments……is pernicious to a country, paralysing it with worthless rhetoric when firm and decisive leadership is needed.”

While democracy does has its drawbacks, the dangers of a one-party system like ours are too big to be ignored:

1. Without a strong opposition in parliament and an independent judiciary to hold the ruling party accountable, gross abuses of power will always remain a possibility.

2. A government dominated by one single party like ours may be able to make faster and bolder decisions, but they are also more prone to atrocious mistakes, accidents and  mishaps which will affect millions of innocent lives.

3. Nobody has the monopoly on the truth. No single leader or a group of people can claim to know what is best for a country.

4. Autocracies are inherently repressive and paranoid by nature, thereby stifling creativity and innovation of its people.

5. Democracies allow for a smooth and legitimate transition of power from one party to another. Autocracies only appear to be stable so long a strong leader is able to hold the fort, but can easily slide into chaos after his/her demise.

If we examine the countries in the world in terms of incorruptibility, quality of life, GDP per capita and technological innovation, we will realize that most of them are democracies.

Accountability:

According to Transparency International, all but two of the 30 least corrupt countries in the world are democracies (the exceptions are Singapore and Hong Kong, and they are considered semi-democratic).

Singapore is an anomaly because of the presence of a strongman to keep corruption at its bay and not because of the strength of its institutions which provide few options to get rid of corrupted leaders should they assume positions of power.

The two nations which rank above Singapore – Finland and Denmark are both democratic states.

[Source: Transparency International, 2009]

Quality of life:

The top ten most desirable places to live in are: France, Australia, Switzerland, Germany, New Zealand, Luxembourg, United States, Belgium, Canada and Italy, all democracies.

Singapore is ranked a pathetic 70th position, below the likes of Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia, former communist states of the Eastern bloc which though are flawed democracies, are more democratic than Singapore.

[Source: International Living, 2010]

GDP at purchasing power parity per capita:

This is a crude estimate of national wealth which does not reflect the cost of living in different countries nor the income gap between the rich and the poor.

The ten richest countries in the world are: Qatar, Luxembourg, Norway, Brunei, Singapore, United States, Switzerland, Ireland, Netherlands, Austria and Kuwait, out of which seven are democracies.

Now, let us examine their Gini Coefficients (income gap between the richest 20% and poorest 20% of the population): Singapore has the highest income gap among the developed countries.

In fact, there seems to be an inverse relation between a nation’s democratic index and income gap – the more democratic a nation is, the less the income gap between its rich and poor.

[Source: World Economic Outlook Database, October 2009, IMF]

Technological innovation:

Despite its massive investments in R&D, Singapore lags far behind other developed countries in the number of patents produced per million population.

The top ten countries are: Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, Israel, South Korea, U.S, Finland and Luxembourg.

A climate of freedom is most needed in a knowledge-based economy, where independent thinking and innovation are vital. Every economy in the top 25 of the Global Innovation Index is a democracy, except Singapore and Hong Kong.

[Source: OECD]

Political stability:

On the State Fragility Index, which is produced annually by George Mason University and studies variables such as “political effectiveness” and security, democracies tend to do much better than autocracies.

 Tito’s Yugoslavia was stable, as was Saddam Hussein’s Iraq – but once the straitjacket that held their systems together came off, the result of a release of pent-up pressure, and a golden opportunity for demagogues bent on mayhem.

[Source: The Economist]

Singaporeans need not be afraid of democracy as it has a proven track record of bringing good public governance to many countries in the world.

Contrary to what the PAP would like us to believe, a more democratic Singapore will not only be more politically stable, but will probably usher in a higher quality of life for all of us as the ruling party will then have to pay more attention to the concerns of the people with a credible opposition to hold it accountable instead of implementing flawed policies hastily to the detriment of the common man in the street.

The last few years of PAP rule have more than adequately demonstrated the pitfalls of Singapore’s present political system. Has your life improve during this period of time? Are you saving enough for retirement? Are you feeling insecure about your future and that of your children?

The answer is obvious. We need to have an alternative center of power to challenge the PAP without which we will forever be “sheep” being herded around by a group of hungrey jackals led by an aging, senile and blind lion.

21 Responses to “Pitching the case for genuine democracy in Singapore”