Goh Chok Tong’s remarks on role of opposition raises
many alarm bells
Written by Ng E-Jay
27 July 2008
Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong’s recent remarks on the role of
the opposition in Singapore are certainly thought-provoking. But in
my mind, they also raise many alarm bells which concern me
deeply.
Goh Chok Tong was speaking about the role of the opposition at a
National Day dinner in Hougang SMC on Saturday night (26 July). The
following excerpts are taken from a CNA report entitled
“SM Goh confident PAP will eventually
win back Hougang” published online on the same night as well
as a Straits Times article entitled “SM: Tweaks to system yes, but the core must
remain” published on 27 July. My own comments follow each
excerpt.
Goh Chok Tong said that Singapore’s political system must change
to keep pace with an evolving society, yet there are certain things
that must not change. “Whatever the refinements we may make
to our political system down the road, some core principles must
remain the same,” he said.
So what are those core principles that must remain constant? Goh
Chok Tong said, “One, any changes must be fair to all
parties and give them an equal chance to contest and win; two, they
must not lead to democratic chaos and politics of division; and
three, they must not put Singapore’s unity and harmony, growth and
prosperity and long-term interests at risk.”
On the surface, Goh Chok Tong’s statement appears very
reasonable. But let’s dig slightly deeper.
Firstly, is the current political system fair to the opposition?
My answer is a firm NO. While the GRC system is ostensibly created
to give minority candidates a level playing field, in reality it
has put the opposition at a disadvantage because the opposition
does not have the same kind of access to resources and manpower as
the PAP. Over the years we have seen the GRCs get bigger and
bigger, and now there are even monster 6-member GRCs. This is
blatantly unfair for the opposition.
The Elections Department is still under the Prime Minister’s
Office, and the PAP can redraw electoral boundaries at their own
discretion. Electoral deposits have also increased to as high as
$13,500 per candidate, which imposes a financial burden on
opposition candidates who have to raise large amounts of funds just
to contest in elections.
If the electoral system is to be made fair to all parties, then
it must undergo serious reform.
Secondly, what does Goh Chok Tong mean when he says that
political changes must not lead to chaos and politics of division?
That to me is a very loaded statement.
Who defines what is chaos and politics of division? Is it the
PAP themselves? If Singapore is to become a real democracy, then
there must be open debate about political issues, and opposition
parties must be free to contest and free to provide a robust
challenge to the ruling party. Who decides what is fair debate, and
what is divisive politics? It cannot be the ruling party that
decides. It must be the people who decide through the ballot box as
well as by speaking up individually.
It is high time that the PAP stops insinuating that free debate
and competition has the tendency to degenerate into chaos and
divisive politics.
More importantly, we should recognize that some amount of
conflict will arise in an open society where people are free to
debate on any issue, and this is not necessarily bad for the
nation. If Singapore is to be a mature democracy, it must learn to
handle such conflicts as they arise in a manner that does not
involve repression or discrimination. The PAP must stop babysitting the nation if we
are to grow up politically. More pertinently, the PAP must stop
using babysitting as an excuse to further entrench its
monopoly on political ideology.
Goh Chok Tong noted that the opposition parliamentarian for
Hougang SMC since 1991, Low Thia Khiang, believes his job is just
to ask questions and check the ruling party, but not to offer
solutions to problems. The Senior Minister said this is a rather
narrow view of the role of an opposition.
He also said, “Ideally, our political system should
facilitate the emergence of a strong, effective government after
every election and a responsible, constructive opposition. But no
matter how you design it … there is no guarantee because it depends
on whether good, honest and competent people come forward to stand
for elections and the wisdom of the electorate when they cast their
ballot.”
Again, this statement looks reasonable on the surface, but the
question remains: Has the PAP been walking its talk?
There has been a gradual de-politicization of the electorate
since Singapore’s independence, no thanks to the PAP’s repressive
and authoritarian style of government that discourages free and
unfettered dialogue about political issues and criticism of the
PAP. To this day, the PAP Government is still winning defamation
suits against political opponents, has a monopoly on the mainstream
media which it uses to its advantage, and uses repressive laws that
restrict the freedom of the people to assemble in public or speak
freely. In this oppressive culture, the growth of the opposition is
hampered, and people entering opposition politics sometimes have to
pay a heavy price.
A responsible, constructive opposition is necessary if there is
to be political plurality in Singapore. But the PAP’s definition of
what is responsible and constuctive opposition is at odds with my
own. The PAP’s notion of a constructive opposition is one that
works within the system and always speaks with a moderate voice.
This to me is not a
constructive opposition, but a sham opposition.
A constructive opposition to me is one that dares to challenge
the system where the system is flawed, and speak out vociferously
against laws and rules that are manifestly unjust. An opposition that merely works within
the system is one that will support the system rather than change
it.
The sad reality is that the PAP Government has been slowly
indoctrinating in the people its own notion of what constitutes a
good opposition. But the PAP’s own idea of a good opposition is one
that will merely provide token resistance to its policies, and
further entrench its own power and preserve its political hegemony.
Singapore needs political
opposition that will challenge, not preserve, the PAP’s grip on
power.
Goh Chok Tong also warned that democracy does not guarantee an
effective Parliament. Citing Taiwan as an example to bolster his
point, he said, “Taiwan’s democracy is more liberal than
ours. But it has divided the society.”
My view is that Singapore has been economically successful, not
because of the lack of liberal democracy, but in spite of it. There
is no guarantee that state of affairs will last forever, and that
is why liberal democracy has to be advanced in Singapore, so as to
give Singapore citizens the right to self-determination and the
ability to peacefully vote out an incompetent incumbent.
Democracy in itself will not bring economic success or cultural
maturity to a nation. But we should stop attempting to pursue these
at the expense of democracy, because it is unjustified in principle
and increasingly untenable in practice in the age of the
Internet.
http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=347#more-347
First, it started with Lee h loong, next is his father lky and
now we have Goh choke tong joining them to be paranoid about the
oppositions. If PAP are on the right track governing
Singapore, oppositions will not pose any threat to them.