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

【国会】应对疫情之际调涨税收、费用 梁文辉忧无助坚定民众对政府信任

在当前面对疫情和经济等严峻挑战,国人对政府的信任尤为重要。不过,前进党非选区议员梁文辉就指出,政府一方面出台应付冠病危机的措施,但同时又急着增加税收和水电等收费,并无助于坚定民众对政府领导的信念。 梁文辉在本月14日在国会参与副总理兼财长王瑞杰的部长声明。他列举了近两周内宣布增加成本的部分,首先在9月29日,全民重症保险计划终身健保明年初起,从以往的11.5巴仙增至35.4巴仙,即指保费从每年的1千元增至1千350元。 不过随着保费上涨,保险范围有随之增加,梁文辉坦言,对于因疫情受到打击的人民来说,确实是令人欣慰的消息。 其次,9月30日,新加坡能源有限公司(SP Group)宣布在今年最后一个季度(自10月至12月)上调了9.3巴仙的电费。 “自2012年开始,电力市场自由化以来,却赚取数十亿元,在首次电费上涨后,就在电费上涨的路上“前进”,即使在新加坡人正遭受疫情的打击。” 尽管价格上涨是因为电力公司的成本相对提高,但梁文辉认为,新加坡能源公司可以轻易地从过去赚取的利润中吸收,而不是将增加成本的费用推到消费者身上。 “增加税收和收费显然无法借此提高人们的信心。与此同时,政府却承诺给出冠病19补贴措施,如同给人民一颗糖后,再给你一巴掌。” 另一方面,梁文辉也指出陆路交通局上周也宣布,自10月12日起,将会在中央高速公路六个收费门架提高电子道路收费(ERP)1元,以缓解高峰期的拥挤路况。 梁文辉认为,这无疑给新加坡的家庭户增加了数百元的支出,而且也质疑是否在未来,消费税也会因此提高。 “这些难道不能推迟到以后再实施吗?新加坡能源公司能否以过去的利润来吸收关税的增长?ERP不能再缓缓吗?保费增长也不能再推迟一到两年,因为目前的保险索赔毕竟仍远远低于收取的保费。 梁文辉也表示,虽然政府一直不想透露国家储备状况,但根据目前以公布的资料而言,截至2020年3月底,我国共拥有1.35万亿元的金融资产。…

张素兰:对无理不公政策 公民有权批评

建屋发展局和市区重建局在本周一出台调高违例停车罚款额的政策,人权律师张素兰对该政策发表看法,认为人民行动党政府只懂得加重罚款、落实更严苛的刑罚。 “在处理违例停车问题上,却不去反省自身在规划停车位上缺乏效率,且有差别待遇,例如部长可任意停车等。” 不过,就有网民Robert Wee留言反击“难道你反对用罚款来敦促良好公民行为的手段?那么你的解决方案又是什么?” 张素兰特此撰文回应,她忆述当惹耶勒南(JB Jeyaretnam )在80年代早期成为国会里唯一的反对党议员,很多人也不客气指责他只会提问,没有建设性方案,甚至指他连课题也没研究,但他们似乎忘了,惹耶勒南是以一己之力,硬撼满堂的行动党议员。 她很遗憾,如今当她对于时事课题表达疑问,就被要求提出解决方案,否则就闭嘴。 她形容这样的态度也说明,如今群众依赖政府,以为政府做什么都是为他们好的盲从现象,不鼓励人民自己话事当家(disempowered )。 “难道我们是等着被喂饱、然后送上屠宰场的牲畜?我们甚至还不如牲畜,如果我们没钱,政府没有义务养活我们,只能依靠自己的家人,所以我们为何就不能批评自己的政府了呢?” 有权批评有害社稷的政策 他告诫Robert Wee,我们都是新加坡公民,有权评述、批评和反对任何可能对社稷有害的政策。“不幸的是,我没办法站到国会前举海报抗议,这么做会遭致牢狱之灾。所以我只能尽我所能,透过脸书表达我的异议。”…

Lee Hsien Yang alleges unfairness in Attorney-General’s Chambers’ prosecution against eldest son Li Shengwu regarding criticism of Singapore courts

The younger brother of Prime Minister Mr Lee Hsien Loong, Mr Lee…