Will it
kill us to have 20 opposition MPs?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Straits Times reported on its front page, 17 March 2006, that
the "No.1 concern" of potential Singaporean voters, aged 21-34 was
the "cost of living, followed by jobs and housing." [1]
One would have thought that's typical the world over for almost all
age groups, but it's headline news in Singapore.
What is unique about the political scene here is that, "about 40
per cent said political freedom issues would influence their vote,
compared to 89 percent who said costs would." This was revealed 9
paragraphs down.
This is unique because in many other countries the question of
political freedom is not even a concern. It is enshrined in their
constitutions and earnestly protected by various independent
institutions. They can take political freedom for granted where we
can't.
Now 40% is higher than I expected. For a population that has often
been said to be entirely switched off, this is a large
number.
However, one voter whom the newspaper quoted may typify the other
60%. "I just want to have a job, have enough money, live in a safe
country," Lina Salimah, 26, a restaurant hostess, said. "I will
support whoever can promise me that and deliver on the promise."
[2]
While her yardstick may be fair and unremarkable in most other
countries with open elections, it isn't really meaningful in the
Singapore context.
First, let's put aside the question whether any government short of
a communist one running a centrally-planned economy can deliver
jobs and money to every citizen. In Singapore at best our
government can only create the optimal conditions for a healthy
economy, rather than directly find you a job and send you a weekly
paycheck.
However, our opposition parties aren't even in a position to be an
alternative government. That being the case, it is absurd to expect
them to make promises about delivering jobs and money in your
pockets. So how does one apply this yardstick to opposition
candidates when they are in no position to form the next
government?
But if not that, then what other yardsticks are more realistic to
measure opposition candidates by?
Singaporeans need a more sophisticated understanding of where we
stand politically, and therefore what choices, realistically, are
before us.
One unique feature of our political landscape is that some 80% of
Singaporeans live in government-built flats. Unlike those living in
private condominiums who have to form their own management
committees and maintain their common areas, the 80% who live in
public estates look to the political authorities to maintain the
common facilities (e.g. lifts, covered sidewalks, exterior
repainting) and oversee sanitation matters.
As a deliberate measure to reduce the average Singapore voter to
myopic small-mindedness, the People's Action Party (PAP)
government, from the 1980s onwards, has made each Member of
Parliament increasingly responsible for the municipal affairs of
his constituency. The implied threat is that the sanitation and
upkeep of your housing estate, and thus the resale value of your
home, is contingent upon who your MP is. If he is managerially
incompetent, or if he is not a PAP man and therefore gets no
co-operation from other government agencies, the general condition
of your housing estate will deteriorate and the value of your
property will fall.
One has to admit that this has been a rather successful weapon,
even if the intentions behind it were less than admirable. It has
made voters ever so conservative when it comes to how they
vote.
It has heavily skewed our parliament in favour of the PAP, but also
created in many voters' minds the notion that the "right" person to
send to Parliament is an efficient estate manager. It does not
matter if the man (or woman) has no views on trade globalisation,
environmental degradation, educational reform, healthcare or human
rights, so long as he can ensure the estate is swept every morning,
blown bulbs changed promptly and shrubs pruned, then he's "my
man".
The PAP having made this their selling point for several elections
in the past, the result you can see: we have some of the dullest
"debates" in one of the world's most emasculated parliaments. Many
observers have noted how even the Nominated Members of Parliament
ask better questions than PAP members [3].
Yet, what is seldom realised is that by many accounts, the
opposition-held wards of Potong Pasir and Hougang have so far
compared creditably with the PAP wards. Even the Straits Times
reported that,
In fact, so dominant is the PAP's association with efficiency and
quality that one young voter, interviewed by one of my colleagues
recently, had no clue she was living in one of only two opposition
wards in Singapore.
Hougang was so clean and well-run that who else but the PAP could
have been in charge, was her assumption.
-- Straits Times, 17 March 2006, Why PAP's
report card is glowing, by Laurel Teo
So, by this measure, it appears that even if estate management
skills is all you want out of your MP, it doesn't mean that the PAP
candidate is necessarily the better one.
The second main area of contact between voters and their MP is when
voters want help in their struggles against the bureaucracy. That's
where the weekly meet-the-people sessions come in. MPs can advise
what help schemes are available for people who find themselves in a
bit of a fix, or perhaps write a petition letter to give a little
boost to the constituent's case.
Conceivably, a PAP MP may have more influence over the bureaucracy
than an opposition MP. Bureaucrats may take more notice if the
appeal letter is written by a PAP MP. Though this may be a fact of
life, it would be a sorry fact, for one of the key principles of a
democratic state should be the political neutrality of the civil
service. They are not supposed to favour one political party over
another. To expedite appeals from PAP MPs and turn a deaf ear to
letters from opposition MPs would be malignant to the integrity of
the civil service.
Rather than be a reason to vote PAP, this should be cause to watch
eagle-eyed the way our bureaucrats do their jobs, in the
longer-term interest of Singapore.
Now let's come back to jobs and the cost of living.
As I mentioned above, the reality is that the PAP will form the
next government. They will be the only ones with the ability to
determine economic policies. Asking opposition candidates what
they're going to do to secure jobs and lower the cost of living is
a moot question.
But this doesn't mean that whom we send to Parliament has no impact
on jobs and the cost of living. What we need to ask ourselves is
whether the best possible economic policies come out of a
legislature with 84 PAP members (100% of seats), 74 versus 10, or
64 versus 20.
For many of us, intuitively, we believe that decisions are better
when facts, assumptions and rationales are robustly challenged. The
most dangerous form of decision-making is when everybody is in
group-think mode, combined with too much deference to rank. Nobody
dares tell the emperor, as sometimes must, that he has no
clothes.
Yes, ultimately, it's a matter of faith rather than specifics. The
opposition candidates can't tell you exactly what questions they
are going to ask in Parliament over the next 5 years of the
legislature's term. Their role must necessarily be reactive. Nor
are all opposition candidates of equal calibre (but then neither
are all PAP candidates of equal calibre). The voter has to ask
himself: is this particular opposition candidate standing in my
constituency more likely to ask searching questions and speak up
for my concerns in Parliament than the PAP candidate?
Because if your MP doesn't speak up courageously in Parliament, he
is throwing away your voice. And he is not doing his job to ensure
that our government designs the best possible policies.
In the lopsided political situation that is Singapore, this is the
question voters should ask when they cast their votes.
Yawning Bread
