Singapore's competitive advantage is getting its politics right, the Prime Minister said at a recent forum, and that means politics which is clean and constructive and draws good men and women in to lead. But the opposition says the PAP does not live up to its own rhetoric. Rachel Chang explores the issue.
The Straits Times, 20 Jul 2013
IN THE past month, politicians on opposing sides of the House have advocated "good politics".
And a debate over what that means has come to the fore in a dispute between the People's Action Party (PAP) Government and the Workers' Party (WP) over payment for the cleaning of two hawker centres in Bedok.
Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Vivian Balakrishnan said that WP MPs had been untruthful about the situation, and challenged them to press defamation charges.
WP chief Low Thia Khiang said this was not good politics: "Personal attacks and asking people to sue."
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong swiftly countered this, arguing that "good politics is first and foremost about integrity".
The hawkers in Bedok were just the latest catalyst for this round of mutual exhortation to practise good politics.
In reality, the tussle over what constitutes "good politics" in Singapore has intensified as the country has moved towards greater political pluralism.
At the heart of it is the PAP Government's fear that a politicised Singapore would mean a divided and weak one, stripped of the elements that have made it successful for so long.
In early 2010, Prime Minister Lee said that "a weak government or a divisive national politics would be disastrous for Singapore".
But with the 2011 General Election delivering an unprecedented number of seats to the opposition and the two by-elections since then going the WP's way, can the PAP's version of "good politics" prevail against the electorate's desire for more diversity in parliament?
Or is it just a rallying cry for those yearning for the days of one-party dominance?
Three Cs
OVER five decades and three prime ministers, three "Cs" loom large when PAP leaders describe a good political system.
This is one that is clean, constructive and conducive to continuity - both of policies and of leadership.
At a forum with business leaders organised by DBS Asia two weeks ago, PM Lee was asked what was needed to ensure that Singapore remained successful.
What was needed was good leaders, he said, and to get good leaders, Singapore needed "good politics", politics that is "constructive, clean, where you're solving problems and not just slugging it out, fighting with one another".
The prospect of a politics mired in conflict, instead of focused on action and long-term policymaking, has often been invoked by PM Lee.
In 2006, during the first GE he called as Prime Minister, he said that if the opposition held 10 to 20 seats in Parliament, he would have to spend a lot more time engaged in political battles and focusing on "how can I solve this week's problem and forget about next year's challenges".
Later, he painted a picture of a Parliament where "we're going to spend a lot of time countering them, and they are going to spend all their energies frustrating the Government rather than helping the Government".
During dramatic parliamentary debates in the last few years over cuts to ministerial salary and the Population White Paper, the WP's eight MPs put forward proposals of their own and voted nay to policies, while an unusual amount of time was spent by ministers and PAP MPs countering their points.
This made a bigger difference to political theatre than to proceedings due to the PAP's overwhelming majority, say politicians like National Solidarity Party vice-president Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss.
"There are eight opposition MPs out of 87. It's no significant proportion, and it's a leap to think we are having a foretaste of the kind of politics you see in other countries. If a change is happening, we are Stage 1, or 0.1," she says.
But the WP's long-term goal is to win a third of the seats in Parliament as this would allow them to block constitutional change.
This intention to block government policy, warned Law and Foreign Minister K Shanmugam during the 2011 General Election, was a precursor of the gridlock and dysfunction of other "First World Parliaments", in a reference to the WP's election manifesto.
The United States - where almost all of the President's legislative agenda is blocked by partisan opponents in Congress - is an example of political bickering overriding national interest, note government leaders.
Political leaders who have to focus more on taking positions to get them elected and re-elected, could end up acting in politically expedient ways which are ultimately not in the longer-term interest of their voters, they add.
Decisions affecting the country's future get delayed, or kicked down the road, sometimes indefinitely. The mounting national debts in some Western countries, and inability to tackle this, are often cited as a cautionary tale.
But some observers say that this scenario is unrealistic in the context of Singapore's centralised, Westminster system.
Former Nominated MP Calvin Cheng points out that the Westminster system rules out the possibility of gridlock. By definition, the party that holds the parliamentary majority forms the executive branch of government, unlike in the US.
"We have one chamber, and it's impossible to have a stand-off because we have a fusion of powers, not a separation of powers," he notes.
"The worst-case scenario for us is a hung parliament like in Britain, and even then, once majority government is formed, legislation can be passed."
The WP's goal, said chairman Sylvia Lim during the GE, was not to create chaos or block the Government, but to stop the "mutilation of the Constitution".
The opposition party has consistently emphasised that it does not want to block policy but help in its refinement.
Even so, argues PAP MP Vikram Nair, the danger lies not in their ability to upset legislation.
Rather, it is in the way the presence of a sizeable opposition can influence the thinking and priorities of the elected government.
"If the WP one day has a third of the seats, the Government will not be sufficiently confident of its mandate beyond the immediate horizon," he says.
"So you start getting short-term policies. The Government must start to think more tactically, looking from one election to the next. That's the bigger problem."
Continuity crucial
THAT the PAP Government does not have to look "from one election to the next" in Singapore has often been cited as a key factor in the country's success.
This crucial element of continuity is central to the ruling party's philosophy of governance.
There is a degree of trade-off between a system of regular, free and fair elections and one where long-term policy planning is possible.
Singapore succeeded only because it was lucky enough to have a founding generation of politicians who, in Mr Shanmugam's words at a a student dialogue last week, "thought long-term but were also charismatic enough to win elections".
Continuity and stability in Singapore politics has two elements: The first is in policies that may hurt in the short term but pay off in the long term, and the second is in the induction of top talent into government via uncompetitive politics.
Veteran PAP MP Inderjit Singh cites former health minister Howe Yoon Chong and the issue of Central Provident Fund (CPF) retirement savings as a good illustration of these elements.
In 1984, the Health Ministry released a paper, which quickly became known as the "Howe Yoon Chong report", on raising the age of CPF money withdrawal from 55 to 60 years old.
It sparked a huge backlash, and the Government did not act on the recommendation, but a few years later, after Mr Howe had exited politics, it moved to raise the minimum sum required in CPF savings.
"You could not have done that if politics was more competitive," recalls Mr Singh. "And we lost a minister for it. Retirement savings would be in terrible shape now if we didn't do it."
Mr Howe himself was a good example of the sort of technocrat who, by personal admission, was not a natural politician. Yet when the PAP dominated, he was electable. This continuity of leadership - whether from top civil servant to minister or for future ministers to be groomed over several years - is also now under threat from more competitive politics.
The days when "introverted policy-wonk politicians who don't want to be involved in the cloak-and-dagger aspect of politics" populated the PAP slate are gone, said former NMP Mr Cheng.
Several PAP MPs and ministers have noted the growing reluctance among some individuals to enter the harsher political landscape of present day.
The unhappy state of electoral-cycle policies and a revolving door of ministers can be seen in countries from Japan to Spain.
However, this reasoning has met with scepticism in some quarters. "It's not either/or," said NSP's Ms Chong-Aruldoss. "The efficiency of a one-party system as opposed to the chaos of a pluralistic system is an unnecessarily dichotomous framing by the ruling party."
At the NUS forum attended by Mr Shanmugam, a student said the minister's views suggested that "a strident opposition or a critical press is a hindrance to long-term thinking".
Mr Shanmugam denied that this was so and noted that since World War II, both countries run as dictatorships and those with multi-party systems have failed as they largely "did not achieve the maximum potential for their people".
The exceptions, he said, were China, Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore - and Singapore was "sui generis" simply for its luck to have a team of leaders that could win elections, but also think long term.
"Choose people who can deliver," he urged the students. "Please vote them in in a way that gives political stability."
But when he concluded that "I think our people are smart enough to make those choices", moderator Viswa Sadasivan, a former Nominated MP, responded:"If you think people are smart enough to make those choices, why do you think it is your task to tell people that?"
The WP's contrasting definition of continuity in politics is that there must be "insurance" against the Government becoming incompetent in the form of a viable opposition.
In this argument, good politics also leads to stability and continuity - not because one party continuously forms the government but because the country has the capacity to switch governments with minimal disruption.
The reason why this argument has proven attractive to some voters, says PAP MP Mr Singh, stems from the Government's "long-term thinking" taking too much precedence over short-term gain.
He points to various concerns that have been voiced in recent times, from high housing prices to strained public infrastructure, that have been caused by a rapid population expansion.
In a speech to top civil servants earlier this year, PM Lee acknowledged the need to address such concerns and frame policies with a eye on electoral cycles, telling them that "policies and programmes have to deliver not only practical results but also political dividends".
If not, the political leadership will be unable to "carry the ground", he said.
As politics becomes more competitive, the PAP leadership's definition of what it means to get Singapore's politics right may be increasingly contested.
But as the Prime Minister has made clear, the larger and more important battle is not that between political parties but the fight to keep politics above narrow, vested interests.
The ultimate goal must be to maintain support for the kind of politics that ensures sustainable benefits for Singaporeans across the board.
SHORT-TERM POLICIES
"If the WP one day has a third of the seats, the Government will not be sufficiently confident of its mandate beyond the immediate horizon, so you start getting short-term policies. The Government must start to think more tactically, looking from one election to the next. That's the bigger problem."
- PAP MP Vikram Nair
LONG-TERM GAIN
"You could not have raised the CPF minimum sum if politics was more competitive. And we lost a minister for it. Retirement savings would be in terrible shape now if we didn't do it. (But) while sometimes the short-term pain is worth it for long-term gain, people have been suffering for very long now."
- PAP MP Inderjit Singh
FEEDBACK PROCESS
"The short electoral cycles help us to adjust long-term planning to short-term needs and medium-term trends. Elections are a feedback process for the refinement of long-term planning. This is also an issue of political education, and in this respect, the vast majority of Singaporeans do think in the long term (especially for their children) and will not succumb to short-term gains and populist policies."
- NUS sociologist Daniel Goh
SMALL NUMBER
"There are eight opposition MPs out of 87. It's no significant proportion and it's a leap to think we are having a foretaste of the kind of politics you see in other countries. If a change is happening, we are at Stage 1, or 0.1."
- National Solidarity Party vice-president Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss
FUSION OF POWERS
"We have one chamber, and it's impossible to have a stand-off because we have a fusion of powers, not a separation of powers. The worst-case scenario for us is a hung parliament, like in the UK, and even then, once majority government is formed, legislation can be passed."
- Former Nominated MP Calvin Cheng
No comments:
Post a Comment