Singapore’s missing pillars of democracy (Part 1): The importance of democracy
OPINION
In the opening speech for the Third Amartya Sen Lecture on Sustainable Democracy, the former prime Minister of Thailand, Anand Panyarachun listed seven main pillars for the artchitecture of democracy: elections, political tolerance, rule of law, freedom of expression, accountability and transparency, decentralization and civil society.
In order to study and understand the missing pillars of democracy in Singapore, we must first ask ourselves the quintessential question: why do we need democracy?
Years of systematic de-politicization by the autocratic regime and relentless propaganda by the state media have diluted the sense of awareness among Singaporeans on the importance of democracy and promulgated two pervasive public misconceptions:
1. Democracy has nothing to do with bread-and-butter issues.
2. “Western-style” democracy is incompatible with an Asian “Confucian” society like Singapore.
Unless we debunk the above two misconceptions and educate our fellow citizens on the role played by democracy in their everyday life, we can never wake them up from their deep slumber.
How can we ever expect democracy to arrive when we never bother to fight for it?
Democracy is not some lofty ideal or concept conjured up by western philosophers to be found only in the books.
On the contrary, it is intricately connected with our everyday life from the schools we attend, the taxes we pay and the newspapers we read.
Democracy may not be a perfect form of government, but it is the least of all evils for it gives the people the power to determine their collective destiny instead of leaving it entirely to the hands of a few.
Singaporeans are perpetually obsessed with the value of their flats, their livelihoods, and other material comforts in life, but they have to realize that without political rights, whatever economic rights they may enjoy now are only ephemeral in nature.
For example, GST was raised from 5 to 7 per cent in 2006 by the regime arbitrarily without any consultation with the people. Despite widespread resentment and disgruntlement on the ground against the move, the regime still goes ahead to raise GST anyway.
It is able to do with impunity because there is no organized opposition either in parliament or in civil society to check on them. Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang also tried to introduce GST last year, but was forced to back down after street protests broke out from the Hong Kongers.
That’s the difference between Hong Kongers and Singaporeans – though Hong Kong is a self-administrative region of communist China, the people enjoy far greater political freedoms and democratic rights than in Singapore and therefore they are in a position of strength to negotiate with the government.
Another case study in point: the prices of HDB flats have sky-rocketed in the last two years bringing tremendous hardship to ordinary Singaporeans who have to take up higher and higher loans to finance the mortgage.
The regime shows no intention or sign of cooling the property market because they face no external pressure to do so.
At the same time, HDB had blatantly refused to divulge the real land and construction costs of each unit of flat to justify selling them pegged at market prices of resale flats.
Again, the regime is able ride roughshod over the people with little accountability and transparency because the people have been deprived of the necessary political and democratic rights to resist.
In the 1980s and 1990s when the four Asian tigers were creating economic miracles one after another, Singapore strongman Lee Kuan Yew would travel around the globe expousing his “Asian values” as a key contributory factor to Singapore’s economic growth.
His “Confucian” doctrine were ridiculed by then South Korea opposition leader and later president Kim Dae Jung as an excuse for authoritarianism. Lee would become more subdued in recent years following the success of South Korea and Taiwan in transforming themselves to full-fledged stable and functioning democracy.
Both countries were once one-party states like Singapore (and definitely more “Confucian” than cosmopolitan Singapore) ruled by dictators, but they are now vibrant democracies which demolished Lee’s argument that “western style” democracy is incompatible with Asian societies.
Even Lee’s concept of “western style democracy” is inherently flawed for democracy is a system of governance based essentially on certain criteria like the seven pillars as outlined by Anand Panyarachun – it has nothing to do with race, culture or nationality.
As South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and to a lesser extent, Hong Kong has shown, economic prosperity and political freedom can co-exist peacefully together without society degenerating into chaos and upheavals as often suggested by the regime.
Totalitarian states may prosper for a short span of time for as long the dictator is firmly in control, but once he passes on, the foundation on which his regime is built on will be dismantled and collapsed like a pack of cards as in the example of Indonesia.
Ultimately is much safer, reliable and practical for a country to have competing centers of power rather than one single monolithic regime in control of all levers of the government including crucial institutions like the media and police.
The people should be the guardians of the state and not the other way round. The role of the government is simply to govern and not to entrench itself in power perpetually.
Everybody is equal under the law. No individual or party has the “mandate from heaven” to govern Singapore forever. All governments are merely servants of the people and are subjected to their collective will.
Democracy does not mean simply conducting elections every five years. Other integral components such as a free press, an independent judiciary and an active civil society must be present as well without which democracy becomes only a hollow name, a facade put up by the regime to legitimatize its rule.
So out of the 7 pillars of democracy, how many are Singapore missing? Find out in part 2 of the article.
Loading ...
AussiePete on Mon, 26th Oct 2009 11:25 am
A very good article indeed. The day would come when your paper shall be hailed as making a great contribution to the liberation of Singaporeans from the tyranny and despotism of LKY.
UD on Mon, 26th Oct 2009 12:22 pm
Agreed. Unfortunately, the people DO believe in a mandate from heaven. Our grasp of political understanding hasn’t grown much from our monarchist roots. Even the concept of a “royal bloodline” of governance is perfectly acceptable here.
How does one pursue democracy when the majority sees it as deconstructive behaviour? For goodness’ sake, the propaganda’s so bad that they even blatantly referred to protests as disruptive and destructive on Crime Watch last weekend. And every viewer nods their head in agreement as they watch it!
It’s sad.
Lehman Brothers on Mon, 26th Oct 2009 1:41 pm
Don’t you know? Democracy and our national pledge is just an aspiration!! =D
Eugene on Mon, 26th Oct 2009 2:06 pm
You want people to vote, you need to field opposition in all wards or the people has no choice how to vote? Walkover all the time means no vote.
I recommend you run for election and try to address the issues. if not, there will be no changes.
Defects on Mon, 26th Oct 2009 2:21 pm
7 qualities of democracy: elections, political tolerance, rule of law, freedom of expression, accountability and transparency, decentralization and civil society.
In singapore we have the following so called democracy by the Lees and PAP.
1. Elections: GRC robs away your vote when it’s a walk over.
2. political tolerance: Opponents of ruling party are charged, jailed, driven out of country, bankrupted, characters assasinated by local propaganda machines.
3. Rule of law: People call our judicial kangeroo and we have kangeroo court not for nonthing.
4. freedom of expression: 1 person protest is considered illegal.
5. Accountability and transparency: The PAP government is not responsible for throwing away billions dollars of tax payers money and they play hide and seek with citizens.
6: Decentralization: Many knows that it’s a centralised of one famiLees in the name of nation.
7. civil society: Some people up there prefer elite society not civil society. Remember?
cy on Mon, 26th Oct 2009 2:38 pm
talking abt democracy, hong kongers just held a demonstration to protest against sky high home prices leading to response from hong kong govt.
citizenofSG on Mon, 26th Oct 2009 3:10 pm
Singapore is a democracy. The government is popularly elected by the people.
How much democracy is truly democracy?
If you look back at the performance of our opposition parties, you would have realized that they are the one who are at fault for the failure of competing against the PAP then the doing of PAP themselves.
Strong opposition candidates like LTK and CST are popularly elected too.
The fault does not solely lie on the people for not voting opposition or PAP itself. The opposition must not be opportunist but people of commitment with real abilities. In order for that to happen the netcitizen is the first pillar to encourage the right type of people to come forward without fear. We are behind you and you got our blessing and support. So go out and try for the trophy. You need not have any PHD but you must be able to resonate with the people, work for the people be of the people. I wish you luck.
Morpheus on Mon, 26th Oct 2009 3:33 pm
Whatever the situation maybe, every 5 years its the People who continue to vote for them.
fair and square on Mon, 26th Oct 2009 4:16 pm
I cannot agree that it is oppostion’s parties’ fault!
this is irresponsible and inconsiderate observation!
No doubt,in the past ,some lesser educated oppostion members
may have unwittingly said the wrong things in elections.
But,HEY,look at people who were recently put down..
you think they are clowns???
I SAY AMEND THE SYSTEM IF WE SINCERELY WANT OPPOSING VOICES of
‘different minds” as i heard on ROSE CHARLIE recently.
So,all the best and thank you FOR STANDING UP for us,fellow sinagporean,despite the circumstances!!!
citizenofSG on Mon, 26th Oct 2009 5:39 pm
@fair and square – the opposition always fight among themselves in the past. That’s a fact. Who started the reform party? JBJ. Why a former secretary general of workers party need to start a new reform party? Who started the SDP? CST. Why did he as a founder lose his own party?
Whatever the reason its bad image for the opposition is all I can say.
You are naive to think that the system will change to suit the opposition. Get real man. You think when LTK won his constituency, the rules then were very much different from now. No.
You think we are playing child game here, give the opposition chance because they do not have enough players. If people do not have enough ability why do you want to entrust million of dollars of Town council funds to them.
I say if we have really good and strong opposition, surely the people will vote. We must pressure the opposition as much as the ruling party to make things work. Let us be a strong mature voters and not one that continue to make the mistake of the earlier generation.
After all said, I still say lets vote the opposition and hope by doing so we will disturb the PAP so much that they will split. Make known to them that the wind of change is coming and the PAP MP will lose their position if they do not come out and form their own party.
AnotherCitizen on Mon, 26th Oct 2009 6:43 pm
A “Free Wheeling” Democracy does not equate to political freedom which leads to the argument what is “political freedom?”
And another question which to me is more important, to what ends do we want this political freedom to lead to ?
I do hold the view that more often than not, the democratic examples we see are that people in a group are ruled by herd and mob instincts. Thus the politics involved is the use of mob persuasion.
However without the choice to vote for the party we want, because of walkovers and too poor an opposition (perceived at least), our alignment to the present political party becomes distant.
I will frame it in this way, for a start we need political choice and NMPs dont cut it… it may seem wordplay … but the word freedom connotes more “wildness” even to my own liking.
btan on Mon, 26th Oct 2009 7:06 pm
@citizenofSG on Mon, 26th Oct 2009 5:39 pm
You need to read up more on opposition before saying its their fault.
It’s like saying in a 12-aside soccer match, one team has 2 player and enormous goal post and no goal keeper and the other team has 20 players with tiny goal posts and 3 goal keepers and you said the small team is at fault for losing.
The “is not the job of the government to level the playing field for opposition” is a much heard sophistry mouthed by brainwashed PAP supporters. Yes, it is not their job. Neither is their job to pile obstacles after obstacles in front of opposition so much so that any time they are about to win, PAP do some dirty tricks (redraw GRC, sue opposition, launch tax evasion charges, arrest them via ISA etc…)
Don’t blame the opposition. Instead, they deserve all the respect and admiration we can give them as they put themselves up front, subject themselves to fixing by PAP, ridicule by jaded Singaporean voters and host of other personal dangers, just so they can serve us.
And we wonder why no “credible” opposition candidates? We have to ask ourselves are we worthy of their public service? Have we given mental, psychological, spiritual and material support to them, during and in between elections?
Yeah Singapore may be bad but are others better? on Mon, 26th Oct 2009 8:04 pm
Whats the fuss about comparing SIN to HKG? Reading the South China Morning Post last week, the average starting salary for HK fresh uni grads is HKD10,300 (S$1871). FOr those with a Masters Degree it is HK$11,800 ($2145). The average starting salary for fresh grads in Taiwan is S$1200. In South Korea it’s not that much higher.
The cost of living in HK is really high – the rent for a 40sqm apartment can be HK$10,000 a month. How can you survive in HK on those salaries?
Also – the median monthly household income in HK is HK$18,000. (S$3272). In Singapore, it is close to S$5000 a month. So our monthly median (not average – so it’s not skewed by the ministers or Ong Beng Seng) household income is 52% higher than HKG’s.
Most in my cohort of Singapore uni graduates started at about $45,000 to $50,000 a year in 2006/7 (granted those were really boom years), and many 2-3 years into their graduation are doing $60,000 a year all up. Of course the lawyers are making the most, some up to $100,000 or more a year, but that’s understandable seeing as they work crazy hours.
And to all the Australian apologists out there who think Australia is heaven on earth – the median house price in Sydney is now A$610,000. Assuming you’ve a 20% deposit and a 6.5% loan, the monthly payment is about $3000. Say interest rates rise to 9% and it’s nearly $4,000 a month. Median household income in Australia is about A$70,000. (After tax it’s probably closer to $50,000) Please tell me how a median household can cope with the mortgage of a median priced house in Sydney?
Anonymous on Mon, 26th Oct 2009 8:44 pm
Vote for opposition parties and we will bring in all the missing pillars of democracy.
fair and square on Mon, 26th Oct 2009 9:36 pm
@citizenofsg
hey it appears to be you should chane your blogname
to citizen of PAP?
you must be naive to think that i think that the system will
change to suit the opposition.
you have to realise that the present system works against the
OPPOSTION AND I AM PROPOSING-NOT WISHING- that it be changed so that it is fairer to the opposition if we really want to have a varied team like OBAMA”S!!!
pls KINDLY DO NOT TO BAISED AND NAIVE CONCLUSION!!!
fair and square on Mon, 26th Oct 2009 9:37 pm
by the way i do agree with ANONYMOUS,for a true start to changing the system-pinful though the journey- more have to VOTE FOR OPPOSTION!
qussl3 on Mon, 26th Oct 2009 9:54 pm
@Yeah Singapore
Did you not read point 1 of the article?
1. Democracy has nothing to do with bread-and-butter issues.
The question you should be asking yourself is whether or not self determination is important.
Yes the govt has done well for the citizens in the past, but past performance is no guarantee of future success.
What irks so many is how the current leadership can govern by dictat, with little or no accountability.
While democracy is not a perfect solution, the desire to see leadership being held accountable – which cannot be fulfilled in our current system has driven people to want a more open voting landscape.
fair and square on Mon, 26th Oct 2009 10:08 pm
@CITIZENOFSG
from what you mouthed about the opposition,i guess you would think that WE,locals,are at fault for the foreign talent policy?
HEY,THEY JUST STUCK IT IN YOUR MOUTH?
for singapore on Mon, 26th Oct 2009 10:27 pm
@CITIZENOFSG
you say:THE OPPOSTION FIGHT AMOMG THEMSELVES IN THE PAST.
yes .that’s the past,they are typical of “growing pains”
for that matter .if yu read history,you would probably realise that the original PAP -as it was meant to be- also have internal dissension…THAT’S TRUE democracy AT WORK!!!
Have you forgotten the ELOQUOENT DR LEE SIEW CHOR,HE SPLITTED
form LEE kuan yew and formed BARISAN?
So,you see disagreement is not out of order with true democracy.
Wht is important is for the oppostion to learn from past(past!)
mistakes and take on the PAP as one almagated entity!
Debra Soong Mui Hoong on Mon, 26th Oct 2009 10:49 pm
Why is Democracy chosen in the 1st place?
Since we have chosen to be a democracy we must expect a robust and mature democracy.
Aspiring for one is not enough.
We need to put words into action.
Anyone can form a opposition party.
So, its possible to have bad ones.
This does not mean no need for opposition.
Imagine you own a company and you only have 1 team without a shadow team waiting to take over if it fails to do the job as you expected.
Its like improving the standard and quality of your company by having competition. Check and Balance. Keep them on their toes. Real Gold no-scared the heat of fire.
So, from a company owner or stakeholder’s perspective, having a strong opposition is logical, necessary and healthy for the long term.
So, how can singapore have a stronger opposition that can contribute to singapore and benefit her people?
A few problems exist:
1. though more lawyers exist now, we have not seen more of these joining the opposition for some reasons. Lamenting opposition lacks talent and so people don’t join opposition is
not correct. These so-called talents should join the opposition and they can stop lamenting.
2. though the population are more educated in general than before, these so-called talents have not contributed to opposition.
3. Apathy. Period. Of course this is a symptom. What is the Root cause of it? i have my theory but not at liberty to express my views.
4. InExperience. The population does not know what is a 2 party system in the real sense since they have never experienced such a system. For example, you have to visit New Zealand to know how beautiful it is. Seeing from videos is not the same. You can explain how nice it is till the cow comes home and still one will not really understand how nice it is.
5. The Time has not arrived.
amy on Mon, 26th Oct 2009 10:52 pm
How many pillars are missing here? I agree with “Defects”, all 7 are missing one way or another.
However the majority of sillipolans are too brainwashed into thinking
- democracy means unrest and riots
- it is not proper to criticise or protest
- there is no credible opposition
- so long as they are still doing ok currently, it is all that matters
With this kind of mindset, will they care if 7 pillars missing or 1000 pillars missing? Some of the posters in CNA even said things like they would rather not to have elections.
Even people like “citizenofSG” whose postings indicate he is leaning towards opposition, is also laying the blame on opposition instead of on pap.
Hence I feel the article title of “missing pillars of democracy” may not resonate with many people, maybe something along the lines of “Improving on the Singapore system of governance”. Sorry, not meant to criticise, just my 2 cts.
fair and square on Mon, 26th Oct 2009 11:18 pm
may i propose the following to the more democratic-thinking
party elites of the ruling party;-
LET’S ALLOW MORE OPPOSITION NMPS rather than merely getting
people who are not fully committed.
why beauty or a model,not a truly comitted oppostion member
who foght the genuime eclections and lost by garnering say 35 pct?
YOU SEE IT MAKE SENSE AS AT LEAST THE PARTICULAR OPPOSTION MEMBER IS NOW REPRESENTING 35 PCT OF THE RESIDENTS’ VOTE?
now is this more meaningful for democracy and garnering “different minds” than jst appointing people who did not fight the elections nor win 35 pct of teh votes?
JUST A HUMBLE BUT HOPEFULLY USEFUL SUGGESTION.
qussl3 on Tue, 27th Oct 2009 1:57 am
In the current climate the formation of a “credible” opposition will likely be a result of the incumbents incompetence and the voting public’s desire for any alternative rather than the emergence of a truly outstanding individual.
Take it from the individuals perspective, a successful individual will likely have been one to consistently choose the lowest risk greatest reward options throughout his/her career. In our political landscape the greatest risk reward option is to join the incumbent govt, where else in the world can politicians dictate policy with little concern for accountability?
In fact very much like how the mega bankers with their MASSIVE pay packets were incentivized to take short term bets with no concern for long term repercussions as when the shit hits the fan they have already paid themselves millions, our comparatively massive ministerial pay packets could be causing similar problems.
Assuming this kind of asymmetric risk reward payoff, why would a rational individual want to stick their neck out as the opposition?
citizenofSG on Tue, 27th Oct 2009 2:03 am
Extract from http://www.singapore-elections.com/political-parties.html -
Singapore Democratic Party-
>>>Founded on 6 August 1980 by Chiam See Tong and Fok Tai Loy and officially registered on 8 September 1980, it was once the strongest opposition party in post-independence Singapore with a record of three seats in Parliament after GE1991, becoming the first opposition party with more than one seat since BS in 1963. Due to internal conflict, Chiam resigned as secretary-general on 17 May 1993 and quit the party before GE1997, which saw it lost all its seats. Replacing him was Dr Chee Soon Juan, whose confrontational style defers from that of his predecessor. Owing to hefty legal suits, Dr Chee became a bankrupt and the party now faces the possibility of being wounded up.<<<
At one stage SDP were being considered as the opposition leader of Singapore and they actually had three MPs. Their cartoon behavior in parliament really made good comedy. Fighting among themselves in front of everybody in parliament and on TV, talking cock and bull story.
This kind of incident should not be repeated or else Singaporean will lose their confident in opposition totally even though they needed one badly.
If there is a super strong opposition leader rising, if he resembles something like Obama, then there is hope. Should such a leader exists I am sure just like America, the young will lead the way to revolution and even present and former good PAP people will come and join him because everyone agree we needed change. However we need to know who is leading us to change.
If you want PAP to change the rules to suit opposition and give some chance, you can wait till the cow come home. Politic in Singapore is not so bad if you were to compare it with Zimbabwe. There is no such thing as fighting fair and square. You can dream on. LOL.
ah beng on Tue, 27th Oct 2009 7:35 am
Come to think of it, our 7 new NMPS have all hidding under the rock after the “highfalutin aspiration” incident? no sight no sound for so long….
Anonymous on Tue, 27th Oct 2009 9:09 am
@ ah beng on Tue, 27th Oct 2009 7:35 am
…”no sight no sound for so long…….”
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. Not one of them come out publicly to take a position on the “wet markets” issue which angered so many Singaporeans.
Why are they there by selection of the incumbent and not election by the public?? Only a one-issue cause they are interested in?
Is this not a public shame of “opposition” inside Parliament when they could, perhaps, do a lot better, perhaps, outside Parliament speaking up on a whole range of issues?
Burden of Proof on Tue, 27th Oct 2009 10:12 am
Its clear that there are more than 80 capable and qualified talents in singapore to form a new party to give them a run for the money. In fact, we can say there are thousands.
Many of existing leaders also started from scratch without much experience.
Our beloved MM was an Opposition leader.
Look at how nice this opposition leader turn out to be and how well singapore has developed.
Can a democracy exist healthily and soundly and whiter than white eternally without a strong Opposition to keep things in check?
What is the effect or risk of having 1 party eternally?
Or who can Assure with his life that there will be perfection and flawlessness eternally?
Thankfully, the losses so far is only several tens of billion usd. This means the system is still sound.
If a strong Opposition is needful or useful or necessary in the long term, why start late?
Look at our system, almost zero nepotism , cronism and all succeeded based on their own capability without prejudice or favor.
Well done singapore.
fair and square on Tue, 27th Oct 2009 11:57 am
As one blog here mentioned if you want PAP to make the change,you can wait till the cows come home?
who says we are waiting for the PAP to make the any changes to
suit the OPPOSITION…/
We are not going to wait for that,we are proposing!
And if we are sincere,we vote for the opposition.
Leaders with heart for the people is better than leaders with mere academic excellence.
And by the way,acadmic excellence need not equate to better leadership.
AND ,htere is no need to highlight on “internal conflict” of the SDP or Dr Chee being made a bankrupt either.
You tell me first that there was no internal conflict amongs the origianl PAP/ THEN why did Dr LEE SIEW chor and a group of other PAP members of parliamnet splitted from LKY IN THE EARLY 1960s to form BARisan Socialists?
Well,like any newly formed organisation,people come from different backgrounds and they are trying to agree with each other.And,that’s democracy at work.Now do you think it is for the good of SINAGPORE when alll members-even if they don’t truly agree – of the PAP said ‘YES” ON EVERY ISSUE TABLED,cos they want to keep their salaries?
Well,wasn’t JBJ also made a bankrupt?This is nothing new and i am sure i don’t need to spell out the simple reason for you?
I say let’s propose to make real changes-vote opposition!
fair and square on Tue, 27th Oct 2009 12:11 pm
For those who are interested to read more about the OPPOSTION
works and their trials and obstacles in “standing up for the rest of us”-including those who cast doubts on their sincerity-please go to the Library and look up for
Bloodworth,Denis 1986,The Tigers and the Trojan Horse,Singapore:Times Book International 1986.
There,you would find why PAP WAS SPLITTED just like SDP in recent times and WHY AND HOW THE FIRST OPPOSITION was formed by Dr lee SIEW CHOH who later joined JBJ to strengthen the OPPOSTION stand>
fair and square on Tue, 27th Oct 2009 12:26 pm
Just one final observation.
The OPPOSTION was not formed by a bandwagon of crooks but by people higly regarded by folks like you and me.
WORKERS party founded by Mr David Marshall,prominent and good lawyer,our FORNER CHEIF MINISTER.
SDP founded by Mr CHIAM SEE TONG.MP and accredited lawyer of REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE BAR.
so do not worry,we have crdible people,some are not here in sinagpore for various reasons.
LOL on Wed, 28th Oct 2009 3:05 am
@CitizensofSG,@fair and square
I agree with fair and square.
And,Ithink it’s a snide and silly remark made by CitizenofSG to
imply that just because SDP or WP had “internal conflict”,they are therefore not credible?This is flawed argument.
Like fair and square rightly pointed out,even the PAP had their share of ‘GROWING PAINS’ and therefore it is part and parcel of the democratic process.
Nowadays,PAPies MPs simply tow the line in Parliament as there
CANNOT be any sincere dissension.
So,as suggested by fair and square,I borrowed the book he recommended and I think CitizenofSG owe an apology for his uncanny remark and fair and square’s comments.LOL to yourself
CitizenofSG.It’s a shame to pass such unrighteous and biased remarks at Dr CHEE and the others.
I can’t in anyway believe that you support OPPOSTION by saying one thing and mean another????
suk hoi on Wed, 28th Oct 2009 4:09 am
Youtube – One Nation Under Lee (video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17qhGIwyGj0