Strong Government - One ruling party vs Coalition of parties

sarek_home SG

On Nov 9, 2004, ST report titled "S'pore still needs strong govt: PM"

"EVEN as society is freeing up and Singaporeans get more say in decision-making, there is still a need for strong government, said
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong."

The following is some data compiled from various sources to compare the press freedom, GDP, quality of life, and ompetitiveness between the Singapore's strong ruling party government vs the Finland's coalition government.

Hope this will lead us to rethink the strong government topic and how Singapore may do better.

- Is strong government means one strong ruling party government?
- Can coalition government be strong government? How?
- Is coalition government the way to inclusive society and social liberty?

======================================================
Basic facts - Singapore

http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/article/0%2C2297%2Csid%25253D11410%252526cid%25253D16077%2C00.html

Population 4.2m
Main languages Chinese, Tamil and English (all official), Malay (official and national)
Fiscal year Starts April 1st
Currency Singapore dollar (SGD)
Inflation 0.5% (2003)
GDP per head US$21,790
GDP growth 1.1% (2003)
GDP sources 0% agriculture, 32.2% industry, 67.8% services

Basic facts - Finland

http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/article/0,2297,sid%253D11410%2526cid%253D15959,00.html#2

Population 5.2m
Main languages Finnish (official), Swedish (official), Lapp- and Russian-speaking minorities
Fiscal year Starts January 1st; for corporations, the fiscal year is the financial year
Currency euro ()
Inflation 0.9% (2003)
GDP per head US$31,000
GDP growth 1.9% (2003)
GDP sources 4.2% agriculture, 32.2% industry, 63.6% services

The head of state is the President of the Republic. The incumbent president, President Ms. Tarja Halonen, was elected in 2000.

Finland is a parliamentary democracy. The present coalition overnment, formed in Juni 2003, is headed by Prime Minister Mr. Matti Vanhanen, the leader of the Centre Party.

Political environment

Finland is a parliamentary republic. Co-operation among the major parties is traditional; diverse "rainbow coalition" governments are common. The Centre Party (KESK) currently leads a centre-left, three-party coalition government headed by KESK leader Matti Vanhanen. General elections are scheduled for 2007.

Each parliamentary group has its own office in the Parliament House and funds are appropriated in the state budget for this purpose. The parliamentary groups elect their own leaders and each group has its own staff. Parliamentary groups generally meet on Thursdays.

Parliamentary Group Seats
Finnish Centre Party 55
The Social Democratic Parliamentary Group 53
National Coalition Party 40
Left Alliance 19
Green Parliamentary Group 14
Swedish Parliamentary Group 9
Christian Democratic Parliamentary Group 7
True Finns Party 3

Uppdated: 13.8.2003

=======================================================
Third Annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11715

1 Finland 0,50
147 Singapore 57,00

-----------------------------------------

GDP 2003 - Data source: 2003 CIA World Factbook

http://www.photius.com/rankings/gdp_2003_1.html

48 Finland $ 136,200,000,000
57 Singapore $ 105,000,000,000

-----------------------------------------

Nordic nations score highly in quality of life
By Neo Hui Min
For The Straits Times

For the past four years, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) has
ranked Norway top of its Human Development Index (HDI).

Singapore came in 25th and Hong Kong, 23rd, in the HDI rankings.

But Singapore and Hong Kong had better GDP per capita rankings - 22nd
and 17th - than many of the countries ranked in the top 20 of the HDI
list. This meant that the two lagged behind countries like Norway,
Sweden and Canada in life expectancy and education.

And it is not just Norway. It would appear that there is something
special about Scandinavia in general - Sweden is ranked second in the
index, Iceland 7th, Finland 13th and Denmark 17th.

-----------------------------------------
WEF Ranking

http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/KB+Country+Profiles

Finland S'pore Taiwan

Growth Competitiveness Rank : 02 04 03

Technology Index Rank 3 17 2
ICT Subindex 3 5 10
Innovation Subindex 3 20 2

Public Institutions Index Rank 1 7 27
Corruption Subindex 1 5 23
Contracts and Law Subindex 1 9 33

Macroeconomic Environment Rank 14 1 6
Macroeconomic Stability 3 1 11
Country Credit Rating 11 18 23

Microeconomic Competitiveness Rank : 02 09 16
Company Operations and Strategy 4 14 16
Quality of National Business Env 2 5 13
-----------------------------------------

robertteh SG

Strong government has too many implications.

It may mean more self-centred or intuitive top-down decisions or policies that lead to strait-jacketing of whole government machinery from openness and competitiveness.

As admitted by retired civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow, a spartan system will only lead to extinction. He had characterized the top-down policies of our leaders as creating to auto-piloting of many policies that could not and did not work thereby holding back our entrepreneurship possible under diversified Athenian system.

For many years, streaming of schools and allocation of jobs based on meritocracy while feeding the public sector economy is not doing justice to mass participation in the overall entrepreneurship. The whole populations have probably lost out on competitiveness to other more entrepreneurial ones believing and practising mass paticipations in knowledge applications.

On the other hand, based on our leaders' proclaimed best leadership approach and being paid the best salaries in the world, there is no reason people cannot have more say on their effective performance of duties.

From the point of view, it is not strong government that we need. It is accountability and transparency that our highly paid leaders and civil servants who could not measure up to expectations of masses will have to relent and back off.

Is there a system to examine our leaders' performance based on effective performance or results and not justifications portrayed by the press or media.

Performance of duties should be the key not utterances to justify past mistakes from top-down management. Laughing

laurence82 SG

Does strong gahmen mean -

a. stable gahmen, with no power struggle, capable leaders, able to communicate and discuss ideas and listen to feedback...

or

b. freedom of speech is allowed, but everything must be reviewed by the gahmen, and is really restricted, making the gahmen strong enuff to control strong political opinions?

pkchukiss SG

By strong government, I believe he was extolling the virtues of a one party rule, which is the current existing system. Whether that is an exercise in the advancement of propagandation of the PAP's agenda of politicking, or simply an order given pyramid-like.

"I tell you what is good for you, and you will go and do it. Clear?"

Admidst the apparent opening up of the country itself, such a comment should be treated with caution. Does he imply that he advocates Singapore to remain perpetually as a one party ruled state, or does he welcome any significant shift in the power balance?

LazerLordz SG

KNN.They think the SAF is the world huh...

robertteh SG

In my humble opinion, a strong government is made up of:

(1) Highly educated workforce who are actively involved in applying their knowledge to increase efficiency of governance inclusive of entrepreneurship needed to support a high standard of living and social life.

(2) A responsive central government based on 7 points of true democracy to reassure the population of fair and equitable solutions to problems openness and accountability.

Central government is only a tool but not the master should respond to and carry it the people's collective wishes. (Customers are always right : eg. EM3 in education is counter-competitive)

Under such a definition, it will be seen that the key to strong government or central governing machinery is its responsiveness to people's wishes. For this key to be used by the people, there has to be accountability and transparency. For accountability and transparency, there has to be the 7 practical points of democratic practices to assure of due diligence and progress.

Without responsiiveness of central government or accountability of processes of governance, the government will be weak no matter how the press or media projects it to be or how the pro-establishment beneficiaries try to have others to believe because it will fail to carry the whole economic prowess of the people which is the real power. Eventually, through poor performance, self-centred government will not receive the support of the people and will be eventually replaced. Laughing

Otingocni SG

If there is anything wrong with the system, it lies with the management.

robertteh SG

Yes, we are probably saying the same.

The governing machinery exists for the people to use it.

However, if the people filling the positions do not respond, it will be for the people to decide what to do such as making sure that the system cannot be bent to suit people in power and to make their opinions and views heard and respected. Rolling Eyes

pikamaster SG

such a problem is like the proverbial chicken-and-egg.

Either it can be that there si a bad mangement corrupting a good system, or a bad system corrupting a good management. It's not always one-way traffic...

the pikamaster

robertteh SG

Hi, Pikamaster,

Quote: "such a problem is like the proverbial chicken-and-egg.

Either it can be that there is a bad mangement corrupting a good system, or a bad system corrupting a good management. It's not always one-way traffic..."

I think the chicken comes first. Remember god first created men before their seeds.

More likely the chicken of political system will have to be fundamentally sound engrained in the practical 7 points of true democracy as the only practicable way to assure citizens of accountability and transparency.
Idea Idea Idea

iveco SG

Coalitions are always better. Do you know why?

Simple. They do not always last as long as single-party rule. Meaning the likelihood of Fascist-type domination we are having is reduced to zilch. The allies of the anchor party can always pull out if they can't see eye to eye, resulting in the possibility of fresh elections before the end of the parliamentary term.

robertteh SG

Singaporeans should emulate the more advanced democracies to evolve towards having two- or three- major-party model to form a pool of political talents from which the country can draw at every election to form the best government.

Foreign politicians should be welcomed after a period of domicile and citizenship to stand for election since we are a small country with lesser talents.

This open policy is good for our political evolvement as we can then attract the best political talents which are hard to find as admitted by our leaders.

If we are offering the world's highest salaries to our politicians, we can attract the world's best not just the Singapore's best talents.

This principle of getting the best talents should not just apply to domestic and economic areas but across the board.

May be only foreign talents now are able to help us re-structure our political process in order to meet the highest world standards in terms of accountability and transparency. Broad minded politicians are the only people who can help in lowering of costs and re-vitalizing our economy now suffering from a lack of initiatives. Idea Idea Idea

CX SG

my feeling is that this whole talk about Sg needing the strong hands of the PAP to guide us into the next century is pure BULL...

no single party, no single individual has a monopoly on truth. and in this uncertain day and age, who dares claim that the decisions they make are the absolute right ones?

by refusing to let go and allow for a more plural political scene, they only serve to perpetuate their own interests and stifle the very society the claim to serve.

after so many decades of emulating switzerland, why didn't anyone stop to think that switzerland itself is ruled by a coalition government?

LazerLordz SG

They're too ensconced in their cushy world for too long.It's time for them to go to school... Twisted Evil

pikamaster SG

the problem with coalitions is that it is possible for extremist parties like Eno-Nazis or Neo-Fascists to come into power, since PR usually comes along with it.

the pikamaster

sarek_home SG

Finland's coalition government works because "Co-operation among the major parties is traditional".

The fact that Finland is doing better compared with Singapore shows that PAP style 1 party domination is the the only way to do things.

It also shows that 2 parties system is not the only alternative to 1 party domination.

However, coalition government does not work well if there is no "Co-operation among the major parties". In such case, the coalition government works by making deals with individual parties to get the required majority votes.

If Singapore is moving toward a diversive, inclusive society, coalition government is a viable option. It is also more preferable. The policy change will not be too drastic when new coalition government is formed compared with that in two parties system.

sarek_home SG

You need to qualitfy how possible such situation may happen. Otherwise, your speculation is meaningless.

pikamaster SG

go read history on the rise of Hitler and the Nazis...

sarek_home SG

So you are referring to the isolated occasion where the social/political/economic condition allows such things to happen, a low possibiity risk we don't really need to worry too much.

On the other hand, Hitler and the Nazis is an example of 1 party domination. So what should Singapore learn from a history lesson like this?

CX SG

your posts suggest that you DON'T know enough history.

coalition gov't leads to the rise of extremist dictatorships bent on terror and global domination? Laughing

how did Hitler get into power? with great difficulty... why? because for a long time, hindenberg refused to offer him the chancellorship and because for a long time, there were other parties contesting the votes so he could never achieve an outright majority.

when hitler finally got the chancellorship, the nazi party was the single largest party in the reichstag, but he STILL did not have a 2/3 majority. even the enabling act that brought him to absolute power was achieved by blocking all socialists from voting and beating other pple who voted otherwise senseless.

hence, hitler rose to absolute power not because there was a coalition govt, but because there WASN'T an opposition strong enough to stop him.

mussolini? our friend did so in a rather simple way...

by marching his black-shirts up to rome to scare the living daylights out of victor immanuel.

he was never voted in... the italian system was such that the P M was appointed by the king... elections were actually a sideshow... they were changing PMs like a traffic light changes colours. so mussolini was appointed. that was also one reason why italy no longer has a king after the war... the people never forgave victor immauel for not kicking ol benito out of office when he always had the power to do so...

again, the rise of a dictatorship was because good people said nothing and did nothing... suggesting that coalition governments were inherently weak and led to the rise of dictatorships shows an abject ignorance of history and political systems.

so how come switzerland hasn't fallen into the clutches of extremism yet?