Originally posted by LazerLordz:
Business Times
May 24, 2006 Wednesday
Panelists call for electoral reforms; Separate polls at municipal and parliamentary levels urged
Uma Shankari
PANELISTS at a post-mortem of the recently concluded general election in Singapore last night called for reforms in the electoral system with separate polls at the municipal and parliamentary levels. Ho Khai Leong, a political scientist from Nanyang Technological University, said that issues such as lift upgrading should be settled at the municipal level.'Parliamentary elections should be used to elect legislators,' he added.
Prof Ho was speaking at a political dialogue hosted by the National University of Singapore Society.
He said the civil society in Singapore - such as the community of lawyers - could have spoken up more during the campaign period, noting there was deafening silence from this sector when issues were joined during the hustings.
In addition, he called on the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) to reform itself, saying that the current system of having a Prime Minister, a Senior Minister and a Minister Mentor has 'eroded the constitutional authority of the Prime Minister'.Renowned author and political commentator Catherine Lim noted that Singaporeans' belief in an infallible PAP is changing.
Professor Ho has raised two critical issues in this forum:
(1) Need for political reform.
(2) The political system has been seriously undermined by creation of superfluous cabinet positions like SM and MM.
It is very clear that under our authoritarian system over the years, such important changes have been allowed to seep into our parliamentary system with hardly any debates or serious debates.
Under a freer open and accountable system, our elected representatives could have more objectively and thoroughly debated such issues with better options thrown up to serve our needs and circumstances.
Our authoritarian leaders have simply overruled open debates and discussions undermining good coproate governance and accountability essential to creativity and entrepeneurship of the system. We could have done much better than the solutions citizens have been compelled to accept.
Many of the past authoritarian policies have out-served their original purposes. Times and circumstances have changed. People's needs and aspirations have changed. Yet the old guards continued to dish out the old policies which hardly upgrade or improve the economy or social vibrancy of our people.
To be competitive, it is critical for any system to self-renew and to self-renew it has to be an open and accountable system where the leaders are held answerable for lack of abilities to keep up with change.
Singapore has come a long way initially because it was served originally by a parliamentary democracy where the best has been elected by the people from one-man-one-vote universal franchise.
From among the bests so elected, a second round of election takes place to throw up internally a prime minister to form the government. The government is then choosen by having the best from among the bests of MPs to be the ministers.
But in latter years, sadly the whole system has been gerrymandered to suit one party rule. Election process was changed to keep the leaders in power. They could have fought a more honourable battle based on their abilities instead of legalistic manoevring to stay in control and power.
Why on earth must a parliamentary system appoint non-constitutional mentors and senior ministers who have no specific hierarchy of responsibilities yet they are able to possess immense authority or power to determine the fate of the lives of the whole population.
If we must reward the old guards for their valuable experiences or data banks there are other constitutionally correct and accountable way to do so without undermining the whole onstitutioal authority of the government and the head.
There are many ways to do so - forming of institutions of such experts in various fields will allow government of the day to consult them on policy issues in selective committees examinations of legislation or economic strategic planning.
Voters, she said, were torn between their heads and their hearts when making a choice. While they might wish to vote for the PAP due to pragmatism, they want 'more humaneness and more heart', which could have led to votes for the opposition.The elections, she said, will definitely lead to a maturing of the PAP as well as a better opposition. Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan and Workers Party candidate Perry Tong - who were also panelists - spoke on the need for electoral reforms.
There is definitely a need for political reform starting with review of the constitution. The original constitution has been circumvented by various legalistic changes into a GRC system compromising our original one-man-one-vote system responsible for our initial success.
The most effacious one-man-one-vote parliamentary election system has been hampered by a system said to be protective of the racial minority was in the final analysis found to be one legalistically engineered to serve the narrow agenda of the one-party rule.
Dr Chee said the reform of the electoral process was needed to ensure a free and fair election.
Mr Tong made several proposals. He would like to see 'serious' opposition parties receive some sort of funding from the government which he said is the case in some North European countries.In addition, he would like to move away from the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) scheme.Allowing single candidates to contest each other would make for a fairer system, in his view.
Finally, Mr Tong suggested a study on why about 10 per cent of eligible voters chose not to vote.
Also at the panel was MP for Jalan Basar GRC Denise Phua, who was the flag-bearer for the PAP.Looking back at the elections, Ms Phua said that the James Gomez saga did cost the PAP some votes.
And looking forward to the next elections, Ms Phua said that a lot will depend on the performance of the new PAP MPs, and whether the PAP will be able to show its softer side.'The party (PAP) is not what people make it out to be; there are more sides to the PAP,' she said. 'The party must be able to communicate more.'
Over the years, under one-party rule there was little serious debates over all the major issues affecting the future of the country with the press playing a very subsevient role and the judiciary practically second guessing the key pronouncements and policy wishes of the authoritarian rulers.
Good idea have been overwhelmed and over-powered by presumptuous legalistic leadership assumptions of all kinds unable to face up to the real test in larger arena of change as seen in the general helplessness witnessed in the last two prolonged recessions. The economic restructuring has yet to be seen other than erratic investments flowing in due to final recovery of the general world economy.
People's living standards have dropped to the third world while the domestic sector of the economy remained in the doldrums. Yet despite major problems such as the languishing lack of technological upgrading and languishing domestic economy, we are seeing our leaders still making pretentious claims of their self-proclaimed success.
That is why today, Singaporeans are not flourishing as yet as a vibrant and competitive cosmopolitcan and inclusive community equal to its economic status.
Singapore is falling behind because the ideas of a few have been imposed to such an extent that there is no room to grow social and cultural aspect of nation building.
Denise Phua's quick rebuttal of the internet slant against the government is precisely symptomatic of the self-serving justifications of self-righteousness under the above-stated one-party rule.
