Minimum nine opposition MPs from now on
by Yawning Bread
There will be a minimum of nine opposition members of parliament
from the next general election on, announced Prime Minister Lee
Hsien Loong, 27 May 2009. Why nine?
There will be twelve Single-Member Constituencies (SMC), up from
the current nine. Why twelve? Why not thirteen? Why not
twenty?
There will be fewer six-member Group Representation Constituencies
(GRCs), he said. Why "fewer"? How many exactly? Why not none?
On the whole, the proposed changes to Singapore's electoral system
moves in the right direction, towards more non-government voices in
the legislature and a slightly lower hurdle for opposition parties,
but the thing that struck me was how arbitrary the changes
were.
One should always disapprove of arbitrariness. When something is
not grounded in clear principle, it is very easy to change it
tomorrow when it does not work to the ruling People's Action
Party's (PAP's) advantage.
Specifically, the changes announced were:
1. The Constitution and the Parliamentary
Elections Act will be amended to permit a maximum of nine
Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs) the exact number in each Parliament to
be equal to the difference between the number of opposition MPs
elected and nine. No more than two NCMPs may come from the same GRC
ward.
2. Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) will
be a permanent feature of Parliament from now on, with the number
fixed at nine.
3. There will be fewer six-member GRCs and a few
more smaller ones, such that the average GRC will not have more
than 5 members.
4. There will be 12 SMCs. He did not say whether
the additional three (up from the present nine) will be carved out
of existing GRCs, or if they will be newly created constituencies.
Lee's reference to "voters numbers increase" seems to suggest that
they will be new constituencies.
As I said, the announced changes move in the right direction. But
many unsavoury features remain.
Why are some voters lumped into GRCs, while others get to be in
SMCs? On what basis? Now, adding to that, why some voters in
gigantic GRCs and some other voters in slimmed-down GRCs? On what
basis?
It will be up to the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee, said
Lee. This body is appointed by the Prime Minister and reports to
the Prime Minister. It has never publicly justified why some
precincts are GRC'd and others SMC'd. Or for that matter, why the
geographical shape of some constituencies look like elongated
salamanders.
The system for selecting NMPs is also opaque. A committee of
mostly-PAP parliamentarians invites certain civic groups to submit
names (why those groups and not other groups?) and then makes a
decision behind closed doors.
A more principled structure needed
True reform would require a more principled structure for elections
and Parliament. There should be clear formulae for the minimum
number of opposition voices instead of an arbitrary nine.
He should have
reduced all GRCs to no more than three members, if not abolished
them altogether.
The Prime
Minister should have announced plans for an independent Electoral
Boundaries body and an independent Elections
Commission.
He should have stipulated a minimum of six months between any
announcement of boundary changes and the calling of
elections.
The election period should also be longer than the present nine
days, which is too short for voters to connect with and know their
candidates.
Media
liberalisation is also essential for the true spirit of democracy
to flourish. In this regard, the recent changes to the Films Act,
tightening it under the guise of "liberalisation" is a sick
joke.
And as for the NMP scheme, I've always disliked it. The selection
method is unfixable.
If Lee likes the "magic number" of 18 non-PAP voices in Parliament,
he should have instead provided for up to 18 NCMPs. If he is really
sincere about a future where there is a healthy, responsible
opposition with the ability to be a government-in-waiting, then
allowing opposition parties more parliamentary experience through
greater numbers is better than restricting them and filling up the
seats with NMPs.
But why?
The really interesting question is: Why did Lee make these
concessions at all?
To be honest, there was no groundswell of pressure to change the
system. The PAP's grip on Singapore is as tight as ever. He didn't
need to make these changes.
One possibility is that Lee is sincere in wanting to give
Singaporeans more space to "learn democracy". His approach is still
as paternalistic as ever in the way he doses out his step-by-step
learning modules to children, but he is trying to prepare for the
day when the PAP may really cock up, anti-government feeling surges
up, and instead of the electoral system absorbing and channelling
the demands for change, the system proves so rigid and therefore
brittle, it collapses altogether.
Another possibility is that his PAP's ears on the ground have
indeed detected a rising disaffection with the ruling party, and he
is gambling that it is better to provide the safety valve of more
NCMP seats than risk losing a GRC or two to the opposition
altogether.
He may hope that a typical fence-sitting voter's calculation goes
like this: Since
it is likely that in my GRC, opposition support is high enough for
opposition candidates to get one or two NCMP positions, it's good
enough to meet my desire for a check on the PAP, so I can
guiltlessly throw my vote to the PAP now.
The third
possibility is the most interesting of all. Perhaps he is concerned
that there is a rising sympathy for those who denounce the system
as beyond saving, and who would use civil disobedience. Perhaps out
of frustration that alternative opinions and parties will never get
a fair shake under the electoral system, the politics of the street
may be gaining traction. This cannot good for Singapore's future
stability.
Lee's hand is forced. He has to allow more opposing voices into
Parliament before the street becomes more attractive than elections
and the stuffy chamber.
If you take a step back and look at these electoral changes in the
context of the new Public Order Act that clamps down even harder on
street protests as well as the recent amendments to the Films Act
outlawing filming of unlicensed street activity, you begin to think
that Possibility Number Three is, by a whisker, the most plausible.
All these changes tie in together as a carrot-and-stick scheme: A
big stick for those protesting in public; sweet carrots for those
who would play by the rules.
If so, to whom should we credit these small steps to greater
liberalisation?
http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2009/yax-1030.htm
