Responses to PM Lee's One Dominant Party Stance

Two letters published in TODAY, Voices, p. 24, address Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's view that a two-party system cannot work in Singapore.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

What if PAP should falter?
Letter from Gerald Giam

I REFER to “Adversarial two-party system not for S’pore” (Nov 17).

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong feels that the two-party system cannot work for Singapore and that we are much better off with one dominant party.

Mr Lee’s familiar argument is that because we are small and lack talent, if we split our talent into two groups, we will end up with “two second-division teams”. This is akin to saying that it is better to put all our eggs in one basket, than to have two baskets with fewer eggs each. I disagree.

While few would argue that the People’s Action Party (PAP) has performed commendably over the past 40 years, past performance is no guarantee of future success, as investment advisers always caution.

Mr Lee said that if ever the PAP becomes ineffective or corrupt, many opposition parties will spring up to take on the Government.

Therein lies the danger: If the PAP ever becomes corrupt, there will be absolutely no time for a viable alternative party to suddenly “spring up”, since political organisations take years to build up credibility.

Furthermore, a corrupt government with a firm control on the levers of power will tend to use that power to entrench itself, stifling any potential opposition from arising. This is because their corrupt leaders will know full well that they will face prosecution if anyone else takes over the government.

Singapore may then be left in a disastrous situation of having a bad government with no capable alternatives.

For a small city-state like Singapore with little margin for error in governance, this could spell an unrecoverable decline leading to our very obsolescence as a nation.

It is therefore in the national interest for a well-organised, competent and morally upright alternative party to emerge, so that should the PAP falter, there will another party to take over the reins of government at the next elections and ensure that our country continues to prosper without interruption.

Obviously I do not expect support for an effective alternative party to come from the PAP, since it goes against its partisan interests.

However, I hope more Singaporeans will realise that greater political competition can produce not just better governance now, but improved stability for our future as well.

******

Democracy a question of maturity?

Letter from Yak Chin Hua

I REFER to “Adversarial two-party system not for Singapore” (Nov 17).

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was quoted to have commented on the United States presidential election: “The opposition party campaigns on the message of ‘change’: Change, change, change. Never mind change to what — just change ... The new government comes in on that message and then they start to think change to what.”

I believe political leaders should not assert that an adversarial two-party system will not work for nations big or small.

The very preaching in favour of a one-party system contradicts the basic principles and the real beauty of democracy — that such a decision should be left to a politically-mature electorate to decide.

The same applies to political change.

The more important issue is whether the electorate is politically educated, mature and motivated to decide on whether they would want a two-party system and other political change. If the electorate is not ready to decide on this, it undermines the democratic system the political leader governs.

The electorate should be educated to decide on whether they want a two-party system and other political change, and not to get rid of it for the sake of supporting a modified one-party system, even if the latter is sure to succeed.

In this lies the beauty of the system of democracy. I cannot be sure if our political system and electorate match the maturity of the US adversarial two-party system.