Reform alone will not save Singapore party

By Bilveer Singh

The Singapore ruling party's attempt to change the one-man-one-vote system has come up with strong public resistance. This is the first of two articles attempting to capture the problems with the proposal.

SINGAPORE (JP): Singapore has in the past and continues presently to debate the utility of Western social and political concepts, including the practices of liberal democracy and human rights that flows from them. The latest "Western political practice" to receive attention in the country has been the one- man-one-vote system that has been practiced in the country since the first general election was held in April 1955.

Abraham Lincoln's statement of democracy being "government of the people, by the people, for the people" has come to be accepted as a powerful symbol and expression of "people's power". Essentially it means government controlled by its citizens. This in turn has made elections a critical element of any political system with voting perceived as the single greatest act of political participation. It is believed that as long as elections are held, the people, not the executive or any other public official, holds the ultimate ruling power.

While Singapore has operationalized compulsory universal suffrage since 1955 with all citizens above the age of 21 being eligible voters, there have been questions raised about the desirability of the one-man-one-vote system. In a way, the republic has already altered some aspects of the universal suffrage system through three reforms. If it is agreed that the one-man-one-vote system in a system of first-past-the-post has been the norm, then the introduction of the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament, the Group Representation Constituencies and the Nominated Member of Parliament would entail fundamental alteration of the established principle. In other words, "people's representatives" can gain admission to Parliament without necessarily following the winner-take-all in the one-man- one-vote system.

However, these three reforms were aimed primarily at empowering the "people" with a more representative Parliament as the final outcome. In view of this, the present suggestion that the one-man-one-vote system should be altered is a totally different ball-game altogether. While the past electoral reforms were aimed at resolving certain abnormalities in the electoral system, the present suggestion is aimed at totally revamping the concept of universal suffrage and people's consent of the government.

It is thus worth asking whether this is an idea whose time has come or if, in fact, it is long past. The crux of the matter is that while, since 1955, Singapore has adopted the theory that voting is a right of every citizen, the new suggestion would alter this only to make it a privilege. This would represent a fundamental change of political norm in the country.

The present suggestion is not really new. It has its roots in the declining votes which the ruling PAP has been receiving since 1981. Thus, immediately after the 1984 general election results were known, the then prime minister, while admitting that the electorate had become more sophisticated, also admonished it for practicing what he called "dangerous brinkmanship".

He argued that the one-man-one-vote system may need alteration and "it is necessary to try and put some safeguards into the way in which people use their votes to bargain, to coerce, to push, to jostle and get what they want without running the risk of losing the services of the government because one day, by mistake they may lose the services of the government".

As such, the attempt to alter the one-man-one-vote system would appear to be aimed at ensuring that the right type of voters would be able to elect the right type of government. The realpolitik and ulterior motive of this proposal is, thus, more to address the PAP's declining electoral appeal rather than any other substantial political problem in the country.

In an interview in March 1994 Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew argued that Singapore may change its one-man-one-vote system with those aged 40 to 60 and with families being given two votes each. He argued that people in this age group would most likely be cautious and would cast their votes for the sake of their children.

They would be far more serious than the unpredictable under- 30s when it comes to voting. He also argued that there were problems with people over 65 which, incidentally, would also include Lee. While the Senior Minister admitted that there would be technical problems in implementing the scheme, the country would implement it if needed. Later, Lee revised his proposal by lowering the two-vote-citizens from 40 to 35 years old, something which has gone unnoticed in the national media.

For a resourceless small country and where political stability is one of its key assets, one can well understand the need for certain reforms to the electoral process, as were the case with the NCMP, GRCs and even the NMP schemes. If deemed necessary, the one-man-two-votes for 35-60 years old could be easily implemented as 95 percent of the parliamentary seats are held by the ruling People's Action Party. The question is not the technical problems associated with the scheme as much as what it would mean politically for the country.

The proposal signaled that something was politically amiss and that something needed to be done to address it. The key question here is whether the diagnosis and the accompanying prognosis is a correct one. If the diagnosis is wrong then the prognosis is invalid. Even if the diagnosis is correct but due to various blindspots the prognosis can also become invalidated.

If somebody has an itchy arm, it will do them no good to scratch the leg. Will giving the voters aged 35-59 more weight in voting solve the problems of the PAP when indeed this group of people can be expected to have even more serious problems and thus demands than those in the 1920s, 1930s and 1960s?