February 20, 2010
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.
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/02/20/pitching-the-case-for-democracy-in-singapore/