PAP Govt Fails "Voice & Accountability" Test

By: Leong Sze Hian

I refer to the article "Chiam: Now, about the $80 milion..." by Derrick A Paulo (Today, Jan 24).

Singapore is not a signatory to the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Perhaps Singapore’s most well known and controversial negative attribute as perceived by foreigners and Singaporeans in the context of political openness and democracy is that of "upgrading" for opposition wards.

This is underscored by Singapore’s low 38.2 score for "Voice & accountability" in the 2006 World Bank report on governance.

Singapore has continued to slip in "voice and accountability", an indicator which measures political, civil and human rights. Singapore scored 38.2 out of 100, declining from 59.1 in 1996, What this means is that Singapore is worst off than about 62 per cent of all countries.

In the Jul – Sep 2006 quarterly newsletter , "Feedback News", of the Feedback Unit, the most number of inputs received from March to May 2006, pertaining to "the public’s hopes and expectations for the new government", were in four areas, one of which was "Lift Upgrading" - "It was felt that life upgrading for residents in opposition wards should not be tied to voter support, as the residents in these wards were also Singaporeans and taxpayers. Life upgrading would alleviate the suffering of the elderly and disabled, especially those living in the other estates where the lifts do not stop on every floor".

In this connection, the Minister Mentor said at the Raffles Forum on September 15, 2006, that "The day Singapore can produce a political opposition group as strong as the People’s Action Party (PAP) is the day the Republic is in a "safer condition" …. My hope is that there will be a government as equal to the job as the PAP was".

At the same forum, Professor Summers, former president of Harvard University said "But the maturation of Singapore as a successful nation will require, over time, some opening …. if the effectiveness of the Government is to be maintained through increasing credible competition between the ruling party and Opposition. He pointed out that dissidence, which often comes with creativity, is a positive driving force in every sphere of society, from arts to business". His hope was that "the Government in Singapore, over the next half-a-century, will come from more than one competent stream of political leadership"

In the context of the on-going debate on whether the provision of services in constituencies should or should not be linked to how residents cast their votes, I am reminded of the Prime Minister’s remarks in his press interviews during his visit in 2006 to Australia and New Zealand.

The Prime Minister said that the policy of placing opposition-held wards at the end of the lift upgrading queue must continue, because putting the national interest above party politics in theory is ideal but in reality is impossible, because people vote for a party that benefits himself or his community. The root cause of this behaviour is the PAP because of its party politics, without which this question would not arise in the first place.

The citizens of a country should vote for a government more so for what it can do for the country as a whole, rather than what it can do for individuals, a block of flats or a constituency.

The continuance of the "upgrading last" for opposition wards policy, may in a sense be encouraging Singaporeans to focus on individualism and selfishness, instead of the national interest and unity.

In so doing, what kind of message are we sending to our children ? That personal material gain is more important. That the principles of equality, fairness, societal cohesion and the national good are subordinate ! Is winning regardless, more important than the principles ?

In this regard, perhaps it is appropriate to quote one of the most renowned and frequently quoted statement of a nation’s leader in modern times, John F Kennedy, former President of the United States, who said that we should not ask what our country can do for us, but what we can do for our country.

An important principle is at issue, in that if we start with lift upgrading, then what’s next ? Priority for building MRT stations, schools, repair of lightings, etc.

Let us not continue to further divide the nation into "upgraded already", "upgrading first" and "upgrading last", and who knows what else in the future.

The definition of democracy is the freedom to choose, without the threat of adverse selection or consequences.

Singapore has had such a wonderful and unsurpassed track record of development from third world to first that we need not continue to subscribe to the politics of denial of basic amenities to citizens who voted for the opposition.

How the rest of the world sees us in this context of political democracy is an unnecessary blemish to Singapore’s numerous top rankings in the world.

We should give more consideration to what the people want and feel as evidenced in the barrage of debate and sentiment in the media and internet blogs, instead of what the PAP wants in order to win more votes.

History shows us that political balance and dominance is a fine line.

In my view, there is no substitute for the current government which has made Singapore into what it is today.

It would be a pity, if the downgrading trend of the share of votes at 66.6 per cent continues to slide because of the upgrading issue.

If the PAP is magnanimous in victory, it may win even more hearts and votes.

As the Prime Minister put it, if you treat everybody the same, people will vote for the opposition because it doesn’t matter as the government will have to take care of the people anyway.

This logic can cut both ways, because as more people get upgrading, more may vote for the opposition as it doesn’t matter anymore too since they are no longer in the queue.

This may become a vicious cycle in that more new carrots may have to be found and dangled before the electorate to entice them not to vote for the opposition.