Reform alone will not save Singapore's ruling party (2)

By Bilveer Singh

This is the last of two articles attempting to capture the problems with the ruling party's proposal to change the one-man- one-vote system in Singapore. The first part appeared yesterday.

SINGAPORE (JP): From the outset, the proposal appears to be a shrewd political move, where through political constitutional gerrymandering, the People Action Party (PAP) hopes to hang on to power at all cost. There is a denigration of the importance of elections and people's consent. What the one-man-two-votes system means in reality is that the majority of Singaporeans would be losing their voting rights: from one vote they would now enjoy only 0.5 vote (see Table).

This is a major diminution of people's political power with the government no longer concerned with political accountability to the same degree as the past. What it would also mean is that it would give the government the license to tamper with the political system any way it wishes. If this scheme is implemented it is not illogical to deduce that the PAP can legislate that it rule the country without elections if the 35-59 years old fail to deliver their votes in the near future.

It would appear that this particular reform is not intended for the betterment of the people as much as a device to load the political dice in favor of the PAP. It is a self-seeking political maneuver aimed at perpetuating the reign of the PAP. It would succeed in dividing voters into two classes: the two-vote citizens and the one-vote citizens. This discrimination, it would appear, is to be based on political loyalties rather than any other criteria. The PAP realizes that there is nearly a 40 percent anti-PAP vote bank in the country with the figure likely to rise by 1996. This tide, however, cannot be reserved by political gerrymandering: people's needs and problems must be addressed, something which the PAP appears incapable of doing at present.

If all was equal, one would have expected that a party in power for 35 years would have succeeded in harvesting the fruits of loyal voters who would have voted the party back to power. Instead, by proposing to alter the one-man-one-vote system, what the PAP is telling the people is that it no longer have confidence in people aged between 21 and 34 and above 60, and would rely on a political minority to stay in power. This would indicate that the PAP is admitting that it has failed as a party to keep voters on its side and would now like to cut losses by tampering with the system.

More important, the PAP was voted into office by the people and only the people can decide how long the PAP can stay on. This is and must always be the decision of all the people and not a select few with whom the PAP is comfortable with. If this is allowed to actualize, tomorrow, it is plausible that someone else would come to office and tamper with the system to suit its needs and what Singapore would have acquired by default would be typical Third World system which changes with personalities and parties.

This must be avoided at all costs. In the final analysis, any self-seeking attempt to load the system will lose the party more votes than it can imagine. No amount of gerrymandering is going to save the party if it is not worth saving and only the people can be the final judge of this and not the PAP. Thus, the Machiavellian scheme of one-man-two-votes should be aborted as it insults the people. More importantly, it represents the PAP as if it cannot face the people and survive in a fair competition. The PAP must not behave as if it is suffering from a bankruptcy of ideas in ruling Singapore.

What is becoming clear is that the problem is actually with the PAP and not the voters. The leadership should think more in term of reforming the PAP rather than loading the political system to suit a political party that is increasingly losing its appeal and thus legitimacy. This appears to be a desperate political measure of a party in retreat. The PAP is becoming ossified and is unable to come up with solutions to address current problems that are at the heart of the populace grievances. It could easily rule a pliant and uniformed population as well as a backward state.

However, it is unable to rule with similar confidence a population that has become conscious of what governments are all about and more important in a developed setting. What the PAP leadership must realize is that the children of PAP have grown up. Today, solutions and toys meant for children are no longer appropriate for political adults of the country. The needs of the Singaporean voters have changed fundamentally and the political leadership must take cognizant of this.

Otherwise, the electorate would have moved in political gear four while the leadership is still driving in gear two. As the political clock cannot be turned back, the only way is forward and this requires that the PAP come up with new vistas and vision rather than rely on anachronistic solutions of yesteryear to perpetuate their political authoritarianism. Otherwise it will only be fit for the dustbin of history.

While countries are approaching the twenty-first century by widening the corridor of democracy and empowering its people, Singapore seems to be entering into the reverse gear of politics. Instead of enhancing people's participation in government and widening political representation, the political leadership appears bent on diminishing people's participation in politics. The one-man-two-votes system would represent a major act of de-politicization and political denial of citizens' rights to decide what type of government they want. If enacted the proposal would represent the single most regressive step in the political evolution of modern Singapore as it would have disenfranchised the majority of its citizens. Giving one vote to a political minority aged 35-59 and 0.5 vote to a political majority aged 21- 34 and above 60, and to have a government decided by this formula means in reality to have a government by a minority. The proposal is not a solution but the aggravation of PAP's declining appeal.

Dr. Bilveer Singh is a lecturer in political science at the National University of Singapore.

Window: While countries are approaching the twenty-first century by widening the corridor of democracy, Singapore seems to be entering into the reverse gear of politics.