By Gunfighter, Guest Columnist
Though we are by constitution a Republic with a parliamentary political system, a modern monarchy better describes our system. The almost total representation by the ruling party in parliament gives the PM, which is head of the ruling party, an inordinate amount of power.
The lack of true separation of powers adds to the problem. Whether the real power broker is the SM or PM is missing the point. The crux is that near absolute power is held by a single person.
Some would thus argue that Singapore is a dictatorship. I disagree as dictators do not need a mandate. Dictators exercise their absolute authority through decree and brute force, as in the case of Burma. That is not the case in Singapore. Like ancient China, our rulers continue to attempt to retain their mandate and claim legitimacy to rule.
I make a comparison with ancient China because we are a predominantly Chinese society. To deny that our cultural make up plays an important role in our political system is naïve.
Although we are modern, seemingly westernised and rapidly changing, deeply rooted in our psyche are Confucian values such as deference to and respect for elders. We have an examination based system to bring the most talented people into government like in ancient China.
We may even be inclined to accept rule by a benign and wise ruler than to participate in the political system. This may partly explain our political apathy. Comparing our political system to that of other predominantly Chinese societies – namely Taiwan and Hongkong – is also pointless. They have been subject to powerful external forces – the Americans in the case of Taiwan, and the British in the case of Hongkong - that promoted or even forced western style democracy on their societies while we have been largely left untouched.
If we view our system as a monarchy, then it is much easier to understand why our opposition parties are so ineffective. You cannot vote out a monarch at the voting booth. The opposition is practically useless in Singapore, both in theory and in practice.
Any attempts to build a credible opposition would be put down, by hook or by crook. This is just the nature of things. It has happened and will continue to happen. Dissenters in monarchies are usually swiftly and harshly dealt with. Besides, the opposition is unable to form a credible and viable alternative government because of PAP’s near monopoly of intellectual capital through the scholarship system.
Despite all its drawbacks, government scholars do represent some of our smartest people and most are quite rounded individuals although the heavy emphasis on academic excellence may suggest otherwise.
Fortunately, the transformation of monarchies to democracies is not without historical precedence. In Europe, this took place by way of violent revolutions like the French revolution or the relinquishment of power under the threat of the former.
The common denominator was widespread discontent and even outright anger with the monarchic system. The French revolution was best remembered (by the non French) for sparking off similar revolts elsewhere in the Western hemisphere.
It is thus no wonder that the government is trying to appease the average Singaporean so that violent revolution is unthinkable. In ancient China, the mandate to rule is regarded as sacred and bestowed by the heavens. Once the emperor has been judged to have lost his heavenly mandate, more often than not, he would be replaced through forced abdication, murder, usurpation or by an opportunistic invader.
Having said that, I believe that the PAP has a mandate to rule. The fact that there was no uprising nor political backlash when LKY allegedly imprisoned his political opponents under the ISA leads me to believe that they were not that popular after all.
Neither do I subscribe to wayangparty’s view that the PAP only has 44%(???) of the population’s support as there is no evidence that the people in the uncontested wards would all vote for the opposition. The 44(???)% therefore represents a minimum percentage that is likely to exceed 50% if everyone had the opportunity to vote.
Furthermore, the current government is widely credited for the successful transformation of a resourceless island into a modern city through state capitalism, lifting general living standards far ahead of our resource rich neighbours. Wayangparty is however right to point out that PAP’s popularity is probably lower than what the latter makes it out to be.
Without widespread discontent and anger, with the PAP still keeping its mandate, and with our opposition parties virtually impotent, all is still not lost. For now, the way to make our country better for its people is to enter PAP or the civil service and nobly serve the country.
I do believe, perhaps naively, that there are good civil servants and PAP MPs out there trying to build a better future for us. But they will always be constrained by the realities of our political system and for their long term survival, they will have to at least look like they are toeing the party line. For if not, they will go nowhere in the system and will have no power to do anything.
To move away from the monarchy is much more difficult, if not impossible in the near term. The factors that would force real political change would require a rupture of the existential but seldom talked about social contract – as long as the government deliver some level of prosperity to most of us, most would quietly accept the constraints on liberty and political freedom that concerns, by the way, a minority of Singapore society.
If Singapore’s economy collapses thus invalidating the social contract, this might create the necessary social conditions for real political change. In such a gloomy economical scenario however, we become an easy target for external political interference or even annexation attempts. History is testament to this. Thus I caution those who wish for drastic political change to be careful of what you wish for. You will never know what you are going to get.
For a change in the political system without the uncertainty and risks of economic collapse, the change must come from within the PAP. In my opinion, the most plausible way is that the PAP fall asunder under the weight of its own internal power struggle and perhaps fragment into two or more parts.
There must exist sufficient structural tension within the party, and even then, only after the real power brokers have been weakened. As most can see, this is not likely to occur any time soon.
So ladies and gentlemen, the PAP is going to be with us for a long time to come.
Just an observer.
[Comment: A wonderful piece of article written such fluently which basically explains the general Singapore's political landscape. Though you may not agree with everything (you don't need to) the author writes, most of his/her arguments are rational. More discussions could be found at its Original thread from The Wayang Party]
湖弧荡，影映禅
