Tag Archives: 2-party system

Why Workers’ Party might be wrong

During the Workers’ Party launch of its manifesto, Sylvia Lim claimed that one-third of Parliament should be held by the opposition, so as to block the governing party from amending the constitution at will. The PAP then responded that there is no model for First World Parliament, that bitter partisan struggles which result in inefficient government are prevalent in developed countries…criticism which S’poreans have often heard, and I think many of us believe this. A few weeks ago, a friend commented that a two-party system, with one party saying ‘yes’ and the other saying ‘no’, would lead to deadlocks in government, so it is absolutely unworkable. On the surface, perhaps.

However, while it is desirable for the opposition and some S’poreans to have a substantial check in Parliament, it might NOT be possible. Often we think of Singapore as a ‘country’, but it is nothing more than a small city, a city-state to be precise. Hence Singapore has a few characteristics:

  1. There’s no real geographical divide. There’s no lowland vs. hilltop, coastal vs. inland etc, rural vs. urban. Parties can hardly spring out from Bukit Batok or Potong Pasir and claim to represent a special group of people; there’s none.
  2. An overwhelming majority of the population lives in public housing, and there is no concentration of rich areas or slums. When parties root for support in a particular ward, this ward is not likely to diverge greatly from the national average.
  3. Even the ethnic make-up in each ward is likely to be similar to national statistics, part of it might be due to the Ethnic Integration Policy. There’s no concentration of Malays or Indians such that they can create strongholds or safe deposits.

From these characteristics, parties which represent narrow interests are likely to fail miserably. Instead, personalities are very important for political parties to win individual wards. Hence Chiam See Tong holding Potong Pasir for more than two decades, yet his parties did not expand their parliamentary presence much. These characteristics also ensure the longevity of the PAP’s dominance. It’s partly because of history, and partly because of Singapore’s city context, that the PAP has enjoyed such dominance.

Furthermore, the first-past-the-post system means the winner takes a seat even if he has a winning margin of 1 percent. The system has a tendency of throwing up strong governments with a clear majority. In Singapore, this is complicated by the existence of GRCs, which homogenizes voting patterns across a few wards – the election results of a GRC has a tendency toward the national average. And if we include gerrymandering, this means that it is more difficult for opposition parties to capture parliamentary seats.

With these conclusions, a predictable outcome is that a strong party can win more than two thirds of the seats to form a government with a supernormal majority. Of course, critics will have you believe this is because of the PAP’s engineering of the electoral system to benefit themselves, but I think geographical circumstances have been neglected.

In Singapore, a two-party system is likely to be this:

  1. Strong governing party (PAP) with supernormal majority
  2. A token representation by one or two parties
  3. A few other active parties but with no parliamentary presence

So that’s why the WP might be wrong in thinking it’s possible for one-third of seats to be occupied by opposition members.

However, since the system and context of Singapore are skewed to produce strong governments, an opposition party does not have to capture a few seats and gradually build its strength for 50 or 100 years. What it can do is simply to proclaim that it is willing and capable to form the next government, and seek to contest every single ward. Education Minister Dr Ng Eng Hen has challenged the opposition to form a new government. It is obviously impossible, because the opposition parties have no intention to take over the government.

But I think if an opposition party, or even an alliance, simply declares this intention and fields candidates in all seats, and given the right set of circumstances, this serious threat will by itself create a two-party system. A two-party system does not require one opposition party or a few of them holding a substantial number of seats. The only meaningful system which will work in Singapore is simply a threat of replacement.

For example, in 2031, the WP might have a core leadership consisting of a potential prime minister, finance minister etc. This core team can declare an early intention to field candidates in all wards, to slug it out with the PAP at the polls. If the ground is not so sweet for the PAP, then either they attack the WP or respond to the influence exerted by the (few or solo) WP opposition MPs of the day.

Obviously the limitation to the growth of opposition parties is the lack of talent, but this general elections might be the start of a trend in which highly-qualified individuals i.e. former government scholars are willing to join them. It might take years, decades before any opposition party can claim to form a new government. That’s why all the opposition parties are desperate to a win a GRC, as a sizable number of elected MPs can help them expand in terms of political influence and attraction. But I doubt one-third would be won or could be won…

In any case, if one day a non-PAP government were formed, this government is likely to have at least a two-thirds majority. And that is all which is needed to undo PAP policies or amend the constitution – perhaps to lock out the PAP for good. History shows ruling parties do not last forever, so making the system fair to give themselves a second chance will seem to be good foresight later on.

Advertisements

5 Comments

Filed under Analysis, Predictions, Strategy

PM Lee on 2-Party System in Singapore

But no system lasts forever, as even MM himself acknowledges in his latest book called Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going.  So we do not assume that the PAP will remain dominant indefinitely.  We have to ask ourselves a question – what is the alternative?  It could be another party, just as dominant, or it could be some other configuration.  Now what other configuration could that be? A lot of people say, “Can we have a two party system?” That is the ideal that is many developed countries work, that is what you should aim for, a change of government from the first party to the second, and from the second to come back, and then you are considered to have matriculated.

PM Lee agrees with his father MM Lee, that the PAP would one day NOT become the government of Singapore. I’d watched the video of new PAP candidate MG (NS) Chan Chun Sing, before reading PM Lee’s speech. In Chan’s speech, he mentioned the “Lanfang Republic” and “Sultanate of Demak”, using them as examples of why countries fail. I’ve never heard of these two states before, and I’m sure his audience has not too. But that’s probably his purpose, to illustrate how small countries do not last long, and that they pass unforgotten into the sands of history…

But Chan should also know one hard truth – just as small countries and city-states do not last long, so do ruling parties. I’m sure there are plenty of examples of ruling parties or regimes which are voted out or ousted. I think MM Lee and PM Lee understand this, that dominance is not forever, even if the ruling party was strong in the past and appears so in the present. But on the other hand, from the paragraph which I quoted, PM Lee seems to think for the case of Singapore, a historical aberration might just occur. He points out that a ‘two-party’ system is considered ideal for developed countries, yet he denies this would ever take root here.

But how could this happen in Singapore that we have two parties?  I can imagine several scenarios.  First, the society splits based on race or religion. You have one party representing one race or religion, another party representing another race or religion.

Is this happening in Singapore now? Are opposition parties split along ethnic or religious lines? Granted, PM Lee might be trying to peer into the future of how a two-party system is like in Singapore, but I think his analysis is inaccurate. Firstly, he is assuming that in a future Singapore, S’poreans vote along ethnic and religious lines. That would really be a bleak scenario, and a huge leap backward since Singapore was established as a secular state.

But are S’poreans voting along such lines NOW? No doubt that race and religion would be very emotional flags to swing votes in a tight election, but if we believe in surveys conducted by the media, economic issues like cost of living, employment etc are the perennial focus of S’poreans. Hence it makes little sense to predict that S’poreans would vote their same colour or same religious brethren, because economic issues affect anyone, regardless of race, language or religion.

The second possibility is that you divide on class lines.  We do not get our economic policies right or maybe it is just that the world trends are such, the rich get richer, the poor do not make progress.  After a while the poor lose hope in the system, the rich lose interest in the rest of society.  So one side says, “Tax me less, let me keep my wealth”.  The other side says, “Give me more transfers, more welfare, more goodies, more benefits”.  And you have two parties forming, one representing one group, the other one representing the other group, rich and poor.

This is a better prediction, albeit still pessimistic. The income gap in Singapore is growing, even though employment rate is at a record low. One might have a job, but his real wages are stagnant or falling. A two-party system might evolve this way…but I don’t really think. As much as we think of Singapore as a ‘country’, we are fundamentally a ‘city’. I’m referring to a geographical definition: urbanized, densely populated, communications node, commerce hub, a complex system of public services e.g. transport, sewage, finances.

And in our city-state, 90 percent of our population lives in public flats. There are no slums or concentrated areas of poverty, though all of us will agree there are concentrated areas of the very rich (think Holland V, Bukit Timah). But these are pockets within larger electoral wards i.e. the rich areas do not by themselves form a ward. I hope you’re getting my drift. Even if two parties, the Pro-Rich and Pro-Poor, are set up, neither would win sufficient seats in the first-past-the-post system to form the government, because Singapore’s geography is rather homogeneous.

Each ward is likely to represent the national average, and only a few have above-average proportions of rich, poor, Malays etc. To win the most number of seats, not least the majority, a party has to be national in the sense it appeals to all income groups. Pro-Rich or Pro-Poor parties might win some seats here and there, but unlikely to win the most, because their expected supporters can’t be found concentrated anywhere. In a wild card scenario, it is possible a coalition government can be formed by a Middle Ground Party with Pro-Rich or Pro-Poor Party. However, first-past-the-post system naturally produces a strong government with a clear majority. Hence I doubt such a two-party system based on class would evolve in Singapore.

The third possibility is that we split on policy grounds, you argue that this set of policies will be best for Singapore to grow, promoting MNCs.  They argue that no I do not want MNCs; sending them all away and depending on Singaporeans and Singapore companies is the way to grow.  And we cannot reconcile and we split and we argue over the policies and fight it out at the polls.  I think that could happen but it is not so likely because the PAP is a pragmatic party and we are ready to take in good ideas.  If you look at it at a higher level, frankly, the range of feasible options of Singapore is not that wide.  So it is possible it could happen, but it would mean that something has gone wrong too.

Since ‘it is not so likely’, why is PM Lee talking about it? Actually most of us know the options for Singapore are few. We can’t farm, obviously, so we’ve to MAKE or SERVE something. I don’t think it’s as simple as promote MNCs vs. grow Singapore companies. It’s as obvious to everyone BOTH are useful, it’s a matter of how much resources we’re allocating to wooing the MNCs or growing Singapore companies. Should we get Lucasfilm to start-up our digital animation industry, or pump money into hopeful firms? Should we create tax incentives for foreign film studios here, or provide grants for independent film-makers? Really, it depends on the context of each industry, each problem of society.

Both the PAP and SDP support the poor, yet both differ in their ways. The PAP way is through Workfare, while that of the SDP is through a Minimum Wage. Again, each proposal affects different groups of people, and again, it is impossible to find the very poor and aged squashed in one constituency, or the very rich towkays running the cleaning companies packed in the other. It’s the Middle Ground voters who would decide on Workfare or Minimum Wage, and that is why, as I mentioned, a two-party system in Singapore means the two parties have to be so wide-ranging to encompass all views, and not a few narrow ones. But PM Lee insists a two-party system is not workable, because…

But the most important reason, why a two party system is not workable is because we do not have enough talent in Singapore to form two A-teams, to form two really first class teams to govern Singapore really well.  More than any country, Singapore needs exceptionally able leadership to tackle challenges and to minimise the risks for our countries.  We are small, we are vulnerable.  With a mediocre government, other countries may muddle through, and have to muddle through, but Singa­pore will fail.  The most effective way to get a two party system, if you really want to do it, is to split the PAP in two.

Assumptions:

1) Singapore is vulnerable, so needs strong leadership (of course!)

2) Strong leadership is provided by talented people (definitely)

3) Talented people are limited in numbers (obviously)

4) Hence one party (PAP, by virtue of being dominant) has many more talents than the other (agree)

5) So a two-party system will not work, because the other party is unable to run the government if given a chance (logical)

I’d create a flowchart if I’ve the time. But the core of the two-party system here, according to PM Lee, is the problem of talent, and the lack thereof. Vulnerable and strong leadership are easily understood and defined. But not so much as ‘talent’, because from the PAP’s view, talent comes from the military, the civil service and the trade unions (government-linked trade unions?). They are unable to draw talent from the private sector, the academia, the non-profit sector, the minorities (in terms of gender, ideology, dunno what you have), the arts etc. Or they are reluctant to recognize that talent would emerge from these arenas. And why should their candidates be exclusively ‘young’? The older are useless, unable to offer fresh ideas?

Ironically enough, the WP’s ‘star catch’ Chen Show Mao can easily fit in as a PAP candidate. This challenges Point 4, that the PAP has a monopoly of talent.

The opposition parties pitch themselves as offering Singapore a fallback should the PAP fail. It sounds plausible, but if you think about it, what does it depend on?  Most critically, it comes back to talent again.  If the PAP cannot assemble a second team, I do not think the Opposition will find it easier to do that.

Well, each opposition party has its fair of talent and cannot-make-its. But it’s obvious which party has the lead among them to have more talent than CMIs…

In this “Question Time with PM Lee“, there was a very funny question:

Yang Junwei [Media Freelancer]:

Would the government abolish General Election instead?

Lee Hsien Loong [Prime Minister]:

NO. The difference between Singapore and China is that Singapore is not a one-party state. Singapore is a multi-party democracy dominated by the People’s Action Party (PAP). In order to win the mandate to govern Singapore, the PAP has to enjoy popular support and be accountable to the people. Every PAP member (including MPs) understands that he is here to serve the people and not simply acting as a government official. There is a big difference between the two.

Well, going by PM Lee’s logic that a two-party system is unworkable, and that Singapore should pool all our ‘talent’ in the PAP, the only outcome is that of a one-party state. And general elections would be unnecessary. We don’t need to have opposition parties, voters can tick ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ for the PAP slate. If the ‘Yes’ falls below 50 percent, then that MP or group of MPs should be replaced.

But PM Lee claims the PAP is dominant in a multi-party democracy, which is both true and false that it can spark an entirely different debate…

Well after saying so much, I think there are STILL a few questions to be answered:

1) Should there be a one-party state?

2) If not, a two-party state or multi-party state?

3) Which system can ultimately evolve from historical and present circumstances?

Next time then try answer…

[All quotes from PM Lee Speech at Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum 2011]

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis, GE 2011