An interesting post I encountered on sgforums lately which I added some thoughts of mine too. Just to back it up here so that I can use it for my “Government and Politics of Singapore” module.
My primary disagreement was that the “engagement” of the ruling government is promoting an “Athenian Democracy” in Singapore, and hence opposition parties can be done away with. That I felt was a little too far a stretch for an argument. There is simply no way for such engagements to prevent unfavorable bills (bills that everybody doesn’t like) from being passed. Not in a parliamentary system, especially a unicameral one.
Instead, the nightmare scenario can be considered. The government, without opposition parties, passes unfavorable bills despite negative reaction from the people. AND ONLY AFTER the unfavorable laws are in place, the citizenry react to it, and provide “feedback” to the government to tweak it (if they even decide to). Instead thinking before action, it will become a action then think, feedback loop. Eg, pass laws to raise tax levels to 50% first, then “engage” the citizens to see how they like it, and then whether we should adjust it. The country would just be a step away from a totalitarian state.
Point is; never do away with Opposition Parties. The thought if it shudders me as it reminds me of the Nazi Party and the “Night of the Long Knives…”
My reply on the forums:
Even McCain had alternatives and he campaigned on them.
I liked that one! Hahaha!
As far engaging the government goes, its a good thing but at the end of the day, still something thats not substantial when compared to parliamentary votes against an unfavorable bill. Hence, there is a need for opposition parties, not in the sense to “oppose” but rather to act as a check and balance to prevent a single party from passing any bill they like.
The ordinary Singaporean can only complain even if they encounter an unfavorable bill or decision. Only in parliament, can there be actual action taken against something that the people obviously don’t want. For example, suppose the ruling government decides to increase income tax to 50%. They engage the people who complain all they like, but at the end of the day, the bill passed is turned into law because the representation from the ruling party is too great ( greater than 2/3). At the end of the day, what can “engagement” give a democratic society?
A feedback channel perhaps, but definitely nothing tantamount to parliamentary vote. Hence to say that Singapore is becoming an “Athean (I think u mean Athenian) democracy” would be a fallacious arguement simply because our “citizen democratic action” simply has no power to influence any bills concretely.
But when you consider a different and more even parliament, where the representation is roughly even, such a ludicrous bill would present an opportunity to the opposition parties to vote against and throw that bill out of the window, scoring brownie points with the electorate (us). Especially important if GEs are round the corner.
Having said that, opposition parties cannot simply oppose a bill for the sake of opposing it. It seems that many Asian democracies have a tendency to encounter policy making paralysis when the opposition parties get too zealous with their (pardon the pun) opposition. Example, a much needed healthcare update plan, is drawn out into a long and unnecessary debate and consistently voted against by such overzealous opposition parties.
However, that would not be an irreparable occurance since the next GE would result in fewer electoral votes for such pain in the ass oppositions, thereby reducing their influence in parliament. Opposition parties would then have shot themselves in the foot.
In my opinion, Singaporeans do not fear the ruling government. After all, they can put them out of power by just voting for oppositions. What Singaporeans fear I feel, would be uncertainties. Uncertainties of a new and more complex parliament and politics. The possible implications on their lifestyle and financial standing. Uncertainties of whether a new ruling government can be up to the task of managing the country and crafting strong economic policies that we are used to, that we benefit from. ”Kiasuism” seems to be the word that pops into my head.
At the end of the day, Opposition Parties need to strengthen their positions by showing that they are capable people, and are able to consider a strategic level that will benefit and secure Singaporeans. Just criticism of current policies isn’t enough, they really need to be able to propose strong and sound alternatives!
I really liked what the original author commented about McCain!
