Sudhir Thomas Vadaketh

We Singaporeans know not to pee on trees. What might elsewhere be thought of as fun, or fertiliser, is here considered sacrilegious, a needless provoking of dormant tree spirits. How do we know this? Like any old wives’ tale, it is based on unverifiable anecdotes. Over time, these tales becomes ingrained in society and accepted as fact.

Similarly, there exist several political axioms in Singapore that discourage people from voting for the opposition. These have been passed down from one generation to the next and are rarely debated. But with elections round the corner, it is worth now asking—which are actually myths and which are true?

1. Singapore Inc’s efficiency will suffer with too many opposition politicians

There is this idea that if we elect “too many” opposition members of parliament (MPs), Singapore will sputter and stutter and grind to a halt, akin to throwing a wrench into a well-oiled machine. I recently suggested here that it would be beneficial for Singapore to elect up to 20 credible opposition MPs.

Immediately some asked if 20 is “too many” for our country to handle. The truth is that none of us, really, has a good idea about what “too many” means for modern Singapore. For the past forty-odd years, we have had a one-party state.

It is important, therefore, to explore what really drives Singapore’s efficiency. It is certainly not just about politics. More important, in my mind, is our lean, efficient civil service that implements government policy. Many people I speak with, however, believe that Singapore = PAP = Civil service. That is not true—our civil service is in no way beholden to the PAP. It will continue its great work regardless of who our politicians are.

Also important are things like infrastructure and the rule of law. These are also not beholden to the PAP. Singapore’s power supply and corporate framework are not going to suddenly go haywire if Singaporeans elect “too many” opposition MPs.

No doubt, political consensus matters too. But even if we accept that Singapore works best with one strong party, how many parliamentary seats does the PAP actually need to govern efficiently?

At a minimum, the PAP requires 44 of the 87 elected seats. With more than 50% of parliament, the PAP can still pass legislation unhindered—the opposition cannot block any new laws or policies.[i]

In order to make any amendments to Singapore’s constitution, however, the PAP will need at least two-thirds of the parliamentary vote, i.e. 58 of the 87 elected seats. Note that constitutional amendments are not everyday necessities, but extraordinary changes.

Two of the most significant constitutional amendments in Singapore’s history are

a)     the creation of the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system in 1988; and

b)    changes to the president’s powers in 1991

So let’s assume that that the PAP wins between 44 and 57 seats (50.6%-65.5%). The PAP will still be able to pass laws and run Singapore. In order to make any changes to Singapore’s constitution, however, the PAP will have to convince a few opposition politicians about its viewpoint, and get them to vote along with it. Some might consider this the ideal long-term scenario for Singapore.

But what, if by some freak of nature, the PAP wins fewer than 44 seats? This scenario will undermine the functioning of Singapore as we know it. With less than half of the parliamentary seats, the PAP will need to secure buy-in from the opposition on every single issue. The opposition will effectively be in a position to block legislation. This would indeed be “too many” opposition MPs. (Nevertheless, some might say there is a potential benefit to this arrangement as well. If there is a policy that many Singaporeans disagree with, the PAP will not be able to easily bulldoze its way through.)

However, as long as the PAP wins 44 of the elected seats (around 10 GRCs), Singapore will continue to function smoothly. In other words, the opposition can win up to 43 seats without anything dramatic happening to us. Don’t worry.

2. If Singapore is not a one-party state, it will be like the UK or the US.

Establishment folk love to bandy this myth around. The line of reasoning usually goes something like this—“Not happy with Singapore’s system? Would you rather be like the UK or the US?”

This argument is terribly problematic. First, it presents us with a false dichotomy, i.e. the erroneous claim that there are only two choices. In fact, there are many. Singapore does not have to be a one-party state, nor does it have to be like the UK or the US. We should be striving for something much, much better. What might that be? Opinions differ. I personally would like to see a majority PAP-government with a strong opposition.

Second, there are fundamental differences between Singapore and most other democracies, including the UK and the US. As a result, our political systems can never be similar. For instance, most other democracies have huge rural and urban populations. This influences the nature of politics—rural and urban residents have some different desires, needs and preferences, which parties must appeal to. By comparison, Singapore’s electorate is urban, relatively homogenous and crammed into a tiny space.

In my opinion, there is no basis for comparing Singapore’s political system to giant, multi-party democracies. We are not, and will never be, like them.

3. If I vote for the opposition, the government will blacklist me.

Pointing to serial numbers on voting slips, some suggest that the government blacklists those who vote for the opposition. This is absolute bunkum. Everybody’s vote is secret. I know people who have voted for the opposition their whole lives and not been disadvantaged in any way.

Unfortunately, the above three myths have been circulated in Singapore for as long as I can remember. Come every election, somebody will surely repeat them, trying to convince all and sundry. The point of this piece is to try and debunk these myths—not advocate voting for the opposition.

Ultimately, we each have to decide based on the quality of the candidates who are running in our districts. It is important that we choose the party we feel can do the best job for Singapore. If you believe that is the PAP, then do vote for them.

If you believe that is an opposition party, however, then do vote for them. There is really nothing to fear. It is much safer, I imagine, than peeing on a tree.

—————–

The writer is an editor at The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). The views expressed here are purely his own.


[i] I have refrained from discussing the influence of non-constituency members of parliament (NCMPs) and nominated members of parliament (NMPs), partly because they have limited voting rights in parliament.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

菲中期选举前夕 棉兰老岛爆炸

为迎接菲律宾中期选举,该国军警纷纷高度戒备,预防暴乱血腥事件的发生,但该国在选举前期仍传出了爆炸事件。 据菲律宾媒体报导指出,周日晚上约10时30分至选举日清晨,在南部棉兰老岛马京达瑙的哥打巴托市发生两宗连环爆炸事件,所幸并未促成任何伤亡事件。 这两宗爆炸案疑似手榴弹爆炸事件,地点靠近该市的市政厅,其中一起更发生在投票开始前不久。 据当地警方指出,有关爆炸案是由40毫米口径的迫击爆弹所致,但是两宗爆炸案仍然不知谁是肇事者,也不清楚是否和菲律宾中期选举有关。 该国选举委员会发言人表示,今年的选举仍较去年平静。 据该国警方统计,自今年1月份选举开始,已发生了多宗与选举有关的暴力事件,至少有20人死于43宗相关暴力事件中。 该发言人之前也表示,有24人在相关暴力事件中受伤,其中包括涉及了枪击、打伤和单独袭击、刺伤、打耳光、骚扰、扫射和非法开火的案件。 警方除了和军方合作,分别部署了将近10万军人和16万警员之外,还发布了对使用枪支的禁令,以及出售和饮用酒精产品的禁令。

OCBC调查:逾半民众面对不时之需捉襟见肘 三分二退休生活积蓄未达标

尽管大部分新加坡人都有储蓄和坚守自己的预算过日子,但若说要认真规划退休生活,仍有多数人未有妥善规划。 据《今日报》报导,华侨银行昨日(15日)公布最新金融幸福指数发现新加坡人普遍不清楚如何透过投资和其他方式聚积足够财富,近三分一的人民仍认为投资就如同赌博。 该网络调查于5月份执行,邀请了2000名在职人士,年龄介于21-65岁,以一系列的问题试图画出他们整体的金融健康状况。受试者平均每月工资为6300新元,其每月工资中位数则落在3500新元。 尽管新加坡人在每月存款、支付医疗保险以及日常开销上都拥有良好的表现,但结果发现,近一半以上的人民都无法维持自己的积蓄超过6个月,另有逾一半以上的人民在面临不时之需时,则出现捉襟见肘的状况。 三分二受访者退休储蓄未达标 另一方面,对于储蓄钱财来维持退休后生活,有三分二受访者未达标。大部分打算依赖一般储蓄维持退休后的生活。 其中有40巴仙受访者在,受访时反映面对财务困扰状况。 研究以10项金融幸福的指标为基准,由银行内的财务专家实施测验,旨在了解新加坡人的金融健康状况。 10项指标包含储蓄习惯、金融危机的保障、定期投资、退休规划、定期的检讨、赌博习惯、过度投机、向亲密的人借钱、超出一人的开销、可控范围的债务。该研究则按照以上指标进行测试。 许多本国人虽已开始计划退休但却仍落后 研究以0-100分打分,0-24分表示“未开始计划”;75-100表示“已开始计划并超前”。据整体平均显示,新加坡人民的分数是落在63之间,表示“已开始但却落后”。 结果显示,不同年龄曾的新加坡人民,其金融差距相差甚大,其中20几岁比起其他年龄层更认真储蓄与规划开销,但近一半的20岁人士依赖家人或朋友的规划和贴士进行理财规划。尽管并没有太多研究支持,但结果显示发现这已是影响投资表现的主要原因。…

个人代步工具意外频传 陈笃生医院:意外通报案例激增

个人代步工具(PMD)意外频传,引起大众的关注与讨论,陈笃生医院昨日(21日)的一份数据也显示,PMD相关意外发生案例有明显上升迹象。 陈笃生医院昨日公布一项数据,比起2017年,今年有高达68巴仙的个人代步工具相关意外发生。在2017年1月至2019年9月,院内共接获213个人代步工具相关意外被送入院治疗,其中有6宗是死亡案例。另外,院内也接获6宗遭个人代步工具而受伤的通报。 于213个人代步工具意外中,20至39岁的伤者达五成以上;其次40至59岁的人占近三成;而9巴仙的人则是60岁以上的人。此外,根据数据显示,四分之三以上均属男性。 医院亦透露今年的意外比起以往更多,根据第三季度的记录显示,就已经接获79宗个人代步工具相关意外的通报,比起2018年的87宗以及2017年的47宗,其数据是相当高。 其中伤者最常伤到头部与颈部,再来是外伤与撕裂伤,在46宗重伤案例当中,有28人自己摔倒,近半蒙受包括割裂伤、脊椎和头部伤势。据医生的说法是因为很多都没有做好防护措施如带上头盔,而提高了头部受伤的风险。 医生Teo Li Tserng告诉《今日报》,与头部相关的中度至中度损伤的恢复期可能需要延长。 “很多头部受伤患者,其恢复程度也会随着损伤程度有所不同,如果头部严重受伤,很可能导致伤者在余生中在植物人的状态度过”,因此,他亦呼吁在骑乘个人代步工具时应该佩戴安全装备。 尽管没有记录显示事故发生的原因,但医生推测大部分受到中度或重度伤害的个人代步工具是来自于自行失控打滑。 普杰立曾表示考虑禁PMD 随着意外事件频传,本社日前报导,交通部兼通讯及新闻部高级政务部长普杰立医生亦曾表示,若用户的使用心态未有改善,当局或考虑全面禁用个人代步工具。…

“Blocking the residents’ needs and wishes is demonstration of uncaring and lazy leadership”: SDP’s chief Chee Soon Juan urges Bukit Batok MP Murali Pillai stop being “unreasonably obstinate”

In a Facebook post on Wednesday (14 October), Singapore Democratic Party (SDP)…