My post at singaporealternatives.blogspot.com
Power To The People
This is Workers Partys motto for the past 15 years or so but
there is hardly any deliberation on this concept as many see it as
elementary. I decide to write on this topic basically because it
is related to my previous post on Mandate to Squeeze.
I should clarify here that though I am a member of Workers Party
CEC but what I am going to put up here is solely my interpretation
of our slogan Power To The People and it got nothing to do with
Workers Party at all.
The key word of this slogan is Power and how it relates to the
People. There are few questions need to be asked:
1. Why do the people need the Power?
2. Power to do what?
3. Where do the people derive this power from? (Under what
circumstances will the people have Power?)
4. When do the people have Power?
5. How could the people exercise their Power?
Why do the people need the Power?
The political scientists will have lots of intellectual theories on
the concept of Power but I should not use such theories in my
illustrations. I am basically an economically trained person and I
should use very elementary economic observations to explain my
interpretation on Power To The People.
The concept of Power To The People most probably come about from
the French revolution that fought against monarchy rule. Monarchy
rule is basically a despotic, autocratic rule. The characteristics
of a Monarchy rule are somehow equivalent to a Monopolistic
company. Both of them depend on the monopoly of power, be it in
political power or market domination.
These monopolies would and COULD exploit the market to the
fullest simply because there are no competition in the market. And
most important of all, they are in control of goods and services
that are a NECESSITY to the people. Good political governance is
also a NECESSITY to a stable environment for people to live in.
They derive their power basically because what they are providing
is a necessity and they are the only ones who are providing these
goods or services. If we view political governance as a kind of
services, it is not difficult to understand the correlation
between market monopolies and monopolies of political power. If the
power of these monopolies are not curb, the people will suffer one
way or another.
Of course, we could hope for benign monopolies just like ancient
people always hope to have good Emperors or Monarch to take care of
them, but these are rare exceptions from the historical perspective
though it is not totally impossible.
The Power to do what?
The reason for people to have POWER is basically because they
need the BARGAINING POWER to balance the monopolies power. If
they do not have this bargaining power, their needs would be
neglected and the products and services will be overpriced.
Many people have wrong understanding of their political power in a
democratic political system. Some thought their power as a citizen
is to vote. This is merely the means to the essence of their
power. Some thought their power lies in their ability to
overthrow or replace the ruling party. This is also merely the
means to the essence of their power. The essence of their political
power is the BARGAINING POWER to get those in ruling to provide
BETTER and MORE services. This is similar to the Bargaining Power
of consumers when they could just switch their loyalties to another
competitor for better goods and services when the current one
sucks. The changing of loyalty is just a mean to the end: to
pressure the companies to respond or sensitive to their needs, to
serve them better.
Thus it is the power to GET THE BEST DEAL for everyone that matters
most.
Where do the people derive this power from?
To curb the exploitation of the system by these monopolies, there
are two primary ways of going about it. One way is to REGULATE
these monopolies. The other way is to create COMPETITION by setting
up alternatives to the monopolies.
Many goods or services have Natural monopolistic characteristics.
For example, due to the sheer size of investment, certain
industries have Natural monopolistic characteristics. Examples are
electrical power, public transportation etc. For these monopolies,
we set up a system of rules to regulate them so to make sure that
they did not exploit the consumers simply by virtue of the
endowment of monopoly power. In the context of political system,
there could only be one government at any one time. Thus the
governing rules over the government which is endowed with great
powers are the Constitution of the country. It is unhealthy for the
ruling party to constantly change the rules which are supposed to
regulate themselves and most of the time, Constitutional changes in
other countries require a National referendum.
The other way to protect consumers right is to make sure that
there are enough competitors around. Competition would lower prices
and increase quality of goods and services. The classic example I
could quote is the development of our telecommunication industry.
Back in late 80s and early 90s, SingTel is the sole provider of
telecommunication services in Singapore. When more players are
allowed into the industry, prices start to drop and the quality of
services improved. Ten years ago, nobody could imagine that a
consumer could get a free handphone simply by registering a line
with a mobile phone company! This is the explicit example of how
consumers bargaining power could be increased tremendously when
competition is being introduced.
The same could also apply to the political system. Citizens could
only enjoy a tremendously increase in their bargaining power if and
only if there are political competition. Although there could only
be one government at any one time, but as long as there are
alternative parties that continue to challenge the ruling partys
power base, the ruling party will have no choice but to respond.
How could they respond in order to keep their power base? There are
similarly two OPPOSITE and CONTRADICTORY methods as to voters
perspective.
One is to kill competition, destroy your competitors. Second is to
be sensitive and quick respond to their voters (clients or
consumers) needs and demands.
Voters must understand that what they want is the later and not the
former. The former method of destroying political competitors thus
competition would ERODE their bargaining power in the long term.
Voters should defend their own bargaining power by sending a strong
signal to the ruling party that they reject such unhealthy
moves.
When do the people have Power?
Most people have the misconception that they only have this POWER
when they have the chance to vote. Consumers power does not only
exist when they choose to purchase from another company. Their
power is extended long AFTER they made the choice to switch. Their
switching will send a signal to company that was discarded that
they need to improve themselves. This power pushes the company to
react and make things better.
Similarly for the political system, it applies. When PAP lost four
seats back in 1991, it made them think hard how to improve their
approach to win back the seats. Thus the idea of HDB upgrading,
NSS and stuffs like that are introduced. They have become more
sensitive to the masses demands by expanding the feedback units
outreach.
Thus in this view, the peoples power will have long lasting
effects on the ruling partys behavior even AFTER the General
Elections. As mentioned in my last post Mandate to Squeeze, there
are more things we could squeeze from the ruling party if more
political competition is enhanced.
How could the people exercise their Power?
Ideally, the people will have most bargaining power when there is a
credible ALTERNATIVE GOVERNMENT waiting to replace PAP. However,
realistically at this stage of our political development, the
practical thing is to vote in more alternative parties MPs to
provide the necessity competitive environment that could provide
the base of the peoples power.
Voting in more opposition MPs is only one part of the whole
strategic maintenance of peoples power. The only way to protect
voters bargaining power is to demonstrate strong objections to
things that could erode their base of power. Citizens should
deprive the ruling party the two third mandate to change the
Constitution as they wish. This Constitution is supposed to
regulate the ruling party and protect citizens bargaining
power.
Citizens should also demonstrate strong objections to the ruling
partys hard hit tactic to destroy their opponents in which destroy
the necessary political competition that provide the base of the
citizens bargaining power in the political system.
Demonstration or expression of strong objections or dislike is an
important way to get the better deal for citizens at large. The
recent Eight White elephants saga is one fine example. Although I
think it is a non-issue but look at it this way, at least such
demonstration of dissatisfaction has force LTA to react and do
something. However, the stiffening laws have prohibited
Singaporeans right to make strong demonstration of demands or
objections to various issues. However, those who put up the white
elephants are deemed as law breakers under current laws though they
are exercising their power to demand better deal from the LTA and
transport provider.
PAP has claimed that they are opening up and there are many ways
for people to feedback. However from my perspective, if such
opening up doesnt bring value to voters bargaining power in the
political system, it is not very meaningful at all. We may not want
people to break laws and go on unlawful acts but I think there are
good considerations to be made on the right to demonstrate (as
guarantee by our constitution but administratively deprived by the
ruling party) basically because it involves the bargaining power of
the people. Hong Kong has provided an ASIAN example whereby LAWFUL
demonstrations do not disrupt economic activities nor chase away
foreign investors.
Thus when the reporters who interviewed us ask what do we think
about the open society, my answer is pretty simple: the ultimate
test of openness is whether PAP would give us (the citizens) back
the right to demonstrate lawfully in Singapore. Ironically, if law
and order is really the main concerns, why would PAP willing to
allow foreigners to demonstrate in Singapore when IMF meeting is
going to be held in 2006?
Street demonstration is only one important avenue of peoples
power. Freedom of expressions in any forms is also very important.
Active participation in political discussion and discourse is one
way of exerting peoples power. Artistic deliberations of social
phenomenon and political concerns are one important ways also. Of
course, attending feedback sessions either with ruling party or
alternative parties are important. However many people who have
attended government sponsored feedback sessions are disillusioned
and we should seriously ask why.
Helping alternative parties to strengthen themselves in order to
provide credible political competition is also one very effective
way of making sure that the peoples power is being preserved.
Joining or forming political parties to compete directly at the
ruling partys power base is the most direct way of helping to
preserve citizens power.
Conclusion
In short, Singaporeans as voters, should fully understand what
potential POWER they wield at the end of the day. Giving up their
bargaining power to small incentives like HDB upgrading or NSS or
ERS is really not worth it. There are more substantial things
Singaporeans could SQUEEZE or bargain out of this political system
if they know how to preserve and maintain their political
bargaining power.
We are after all just human beings that is looking forward to
better living style, quality of life for ourselves as well as our
future generations. I am not prepared to sell my future
generations power away and thus, I chose to fight it out. I just
hope that we could continue to preserve and enhance the Power To
The People.
Goh Meng Seng
