Courtesy of Profirio. This deserves a thread of its own. Not to mention that the "bicycle thief" was coined in this forum by Porfirio. More comments in next post.
Ho Kwon Ping's op-ed in 4/5 ST
Towards a First World electorate
A NEW generation will decide
Singapore's future in a few
days. One of the ruling People's
Action Party's (PAP) concerns
is to find a future prime
minister from this generation. The opposition
must also fill its ranks with voices
from the future, not the past. And as a nation,
the baton that was successfully
passed from the founding generation to
its custodians, the baby boomers of my
generation, is now being handed to Gen
Y.
Across the entire world, Gen Y - those
in their mid 20s to 30s - is coming of political
age. They have already made their
mark in the Arab Spring, though arguably
their inchoate, even naive democratic ideals
may not translate altogether successfully
from the street to the halls of government.
In China, Gen Y is still more concerned
about economic self-improvement
than the future of the Chinese Communist
Party, though they too are demanding
more accountability from their
government.
How should governments that have enjoyed
more than a half-century of uninterrupted
and unopposed rule respond to the
winds of change with a firm yet enlightened
touch? Political science textbooks
provide no answer. Established liberal democracies
with routinely rotating ruling
parties have no such dilemma at all.
Current events have not been inspiring.
Arab leaders have no qualms about
quashing youthful dissent with bloodshed
in order to perpetuate their rule. Halfway
across the world, China's response is to
simply clam up, with arrests of dissidents
representing more a lack of imagination
about how to deal with the imperative for
change than a clearly thought through policy
of repression. Besieged Arab governments
and stubbornly recalcitrant Chinese
leaders are certainly more reactionary
than proactive.
The history of former colonies in the
Third World trying to achieve First
World economic and socio-political maturity
is replete with failures. To achieve
consistent economic growth with
broad-based gains for entire populations
has hitherto been a rarely scaled hurdle.
To maintain exemplary, transparent governance
with an entrenched ethos of incorruptibility
is even harder. The Singapore
that the PAP built has already risen
to the top of the list of successful newly
independent states with these two accomplishments.
Can it remain in power with
a clean sweep of all the seats on Saturday,
denying the opposition the role of a
"co -driver7' ?
If history is anything to go by, this
task will be daunting. History has not
been very encouraging - whether it be Israel's
founding Labor party, India's Congress,
Taiwan's Kuomintang or Japan's
Liberal Democratic Party. Ruling parties
have generally foundered after about a
half-century, then lost their original visionary
leadership and mandate to rule.
Some have been voted - usually temporarily
- from power, others have splintered.
The only ruling parties with zero challenges
to their authority, even after a
half-century of rule, are those that do not
subject themselves to elections at all. If
the PAP can buck the trends of history, it
will have set a new paradigm.
And it is by no means impossible that
the PAP will do precisely that, but possibly
with greater difficulty than it took in
achieving its earlier goals. The PAP may
have to amend its aims and accept - if
not in this general election, then in the
next - that a robust multi-party system
with a single dominant ruling party but
several responsible opposition parties in
Parliament may be a rnore sustainable
and stable prospect.
With the PAP possibly holding the
world record for the longest, uninterrupted
stint as a governing party, the Singapore
story may provide an example of
how other countries can make a successful
transition from what has been called
"developmental authoritarianism" to a robust,
sustainable multi-party system.
But everyone in the game must cooperate
to make this happen: an enlightened
ruling party less obsessed about its own
dominance than the survival of the system
it helped to create; opposition parties
peopled by pragmatic, capable idealists;
and most of all, a demographically young
yet emotionally mature electorate.
Whether the PAP should continue to
rule without its efficiency being hamstrung
by a "co-driver" - or whether the
car can bear the weight and lower speed
in exchange for the extra safety and insurance
that a co-driver will bring - is what
Singaporeans are essentially going to
choose on Saturday. Despite the importance
of issues such as housing, transport
and cost of living, the drama and the significance
of this general election is the
prospect of Singapore moving towards
a First World electorate - in an evolutionary process that may
take another two or three elections over thenkt two decades.
If all goes well, the winner in this watershed election may well be
multi-party system in this election or the the system that nurtured them. If anynext
- towards, in other words, what the thing, they claim to want to protect the
Workers' Party calls a First World Parlia- system they grew up in, by playing the
ment .
Whatever happens, three myths have
been debunked by this election.
The first is that because the PAP has
exhaustively searched the country high
and low and its candidates are the best in
the land, there is a dearth of talent out -
side the ruling party. Therefore, a robust
multi-party political system is not sustainable
and even dangerous because
there simply are not enough capable men
and women to make this work.
In this election, the number of qualified
opposition candidates has rendered
this myth difficult to maintain. The opposition
parties have fielded many candidates
who are clearly not the disgruntled,
self-interested and virulently anti-PAP
"bicycle thieves'' of the past.
Some share the same backgrounds as
the PAP'S "star" candidates: government
scholarship holders and senior civil servants,
blue-chip professionals from the establishment
and university -educated professionals
from the HDB heartland, all of
whom have openly praised the PAP and
same kind of role as the elected presidency
does on another front - to serve as a
check on the government of the day.
The second myth - favoured by the opposition
- is that the PAP will do anything
to perpetuate its rule, from gerrymandering
electoral constituencies and
creating ever-larger Group Representation
Constituencies to threats of not upgrading
housing estates in opposition-
held wards. Certainly, in previous
elections, the PAP had adopted a much
more aggressive, no-holds-barred approach
than it has in this.
In this election, the noticeably generous
coverage of the opposition in the
mainstream media, the inclusion of previously
disallowed social media as legitimate
means of campaigning, and even the
unprecedented appearance of a senior
minister in a television debate with opposition
candidates, have clearly not been
the actions of a ruling party that wants
only to perpetuate its rule by any means
possible. The younger PAP leadership has
chosen to liberalise the political landavowed
no interest-at all in destroying scape in Singapore even at the risk of losing
more opposition seats, and even possibly
going against the instinct of the old
guard.
The third myth is that young Singaporeans
are generally apathetic and concerned
only about their narrow interests.
Although the huge buzz in online forums
about the election may represent only a
fraction of yopth at large, although the
large turnout in rallies by young people
may only be for their entertainment, although
the many young PAP and opposition
candidates may just be flashes in the
pan - the myth of apathy that older Singaporeans
may have held about Gen Y is
clearly no longer viable. As the baby
boomers pass into retirement, it is very
encouraging to see young people coming
out and making their voices heard.
Unless we have a freak election with
unexpected results, Singaporeans be
proud both of the ruling as well as oppo>--
tion parties. And of themselves too as an
electorate whose demands are increasingly
shaping the responses of both players.
Singapore may be moving deliberately
yet irrevocably towards a First World
electorate - in an evolutionary process
that may take another two or three elections
over the next two decades - but one
that embraces common values so that the
electorate, not the political parties, demand
civility, intellectual rigour and competence
of all their politicians, whatever
their affiliation.
If all goes well, the winner in this watershed
election may well be Singapore's
future.
Ho Kwon Ping's op-ed in 4/5 ST
Towards a First World electorate
A NEW generation will decide
Singapore's future in a few
days. One of the ruling People's
Action Party's (PAP) concerns
is to find a future prime
minister from this generation. The opposition
must also fill its ranks with voices
from the future, not the past. And as a nation,
the baton that was successfully
passed from the founding generation to
its custodians, the baby boomers of my
generation, is now being handed to Gen
Y.
Across the entire world, Gen Y - those
in their mid 20s to 30s - is coming of political
age. They have already made their
mark in the Arab Spring, though arguably
their inchoate, even naive democratic ideals
may not translate altogether successfully
from the street to the halls of government.
In China, Gen Y is still more concerned
about economic self-improvement
than the future of the Chinese Communist
Party, though they too are demanding
more accountability from their
government.
How should governments that have enjoyed
more than a half-century of uninterrupted
and unopposed rule respond to the
winds of change with a firm yet enlightened
touch? Political science textbooks
provide no answer. Established liberal democracies
with routinely rotating ruling
parties have no such dilemma at all.
Current events have not been inspiring.
Arab leaders have no qualms about
quashing youthful dissent with bloodshed
in order to perpetuate their rule. Halfway
across the world, China's response is to
simply clam up, with arrests of dissidents
representing more a lack of imagination
about how to deal with the imperative for
change than a clearly thought through policy
of repression. Besieged Arab governments
and stubbornly recalcitrant Chinese
leaders are certainly more reactionary
than proactive.
The history of former colonies in the
Third World trying to achieve First
World economic and socio-political maturity
is replete with failures. To achieve
consistent economic growth with
broad-based gains for entire populations
has hitherto been a rarely scaled hurdle.
To maintain exemplary, transparent governance
with an entrenched ethos of incorruptibility
is even harder. The Singapore
that the PAP built has already risen
to the top of the list of successful newly
independent states with these two accomplishments.
Can it remain in power with
a clean sweep of all the seats on Saturday,
denying the opposition the role of a
"co -driver7' ?
If history is anything to go by, this
task will be daunting. History has not
been very encouraging - whether it be Israel's
founding Labor party, India's Congress,
Taiwan's Kuomintang or Japan's
Liberal Democratic Party. Ruling parties
have generally foundered after about a
half-century, then lost their original visionary
leadership and mandate to rule.
Some have been voted - usually temporarily
- from power, others have splintered.
The only ruling parties with zero challenges
to their authority, even after a
half-century of rule, are those that do not
subject themselves to elections at all. If
the PAP can buck the trends of history, it
will have set a new paradigm.
And it is by no means impossible that
the PAP will do precisely that, but possibly
with greater difficulty than it took in
achieving its earlier goals. The PAP may
have to amend its aims and accept - if
not in this general election, then in the
next - that a robust multi-party system
with a single dominant ruling party but
several responsible opposition parties in
Parliament may be a rnore sustainable
and stable prospect.
With the PAP possibly holding the
world record for the longest, uninterrupted
stint as a governing party, the Singapore
story may provide an example of
how other countries can make a successful
transition from what has been called
"developmental authoritarianism" to a robust,
sustainable multi-party system.
But everyone in the game must cooperate
to make this happen: an enlightened
ruling party less obsessed about its own
dominance than the survival of the system
it helped to create; opposition parties
peopled by pragmatic, capable idealists;
and most of all, a demographically young
yet emotionally mature electorate.
Whether the PAP should continue to
rule without its efficiency being hamstrung
by a "co-driver" - or whether the
car can bear the weight and lower speed
in exchange for the extra safety and insurance
that a co-driver will bring - is what
Singaporeans are essentially going to
choose on Saturday. Despite the importance
of issues such as housing, transport
and cost of living, the drama and the significance
of this general election is the
prospect of Singapore moving towards
a First World electorate - in an evolutionary process that may
take another two or three elections over thenkt two decades.
If all goes well, the winner in this watershed election may well be
multi-party system in this election or the the system that nurtured them. If anynext
- towards, in other words, what the thing, they claim to want to protect the
Workers' Party calls a First World Parlia- system they grew up in, by playing the
ment .
Whatever happens, three myths have
been debunked by this election.
The first is that because the PAP has
exhaustively searched the country high
and low and its candidates are the best in
the land, there is a dearth of talent out -
side the ruling party. Therefore, a robust
multi-party political system is not sustainable
and even dangerous because
there simply are not enough capable men
and women to make this work.
In this election, the number of qualified
opposition candidates has rendered
this myth difficult to maintain. The opposition
parties have fielded many candidates
who are clearly not the disgruntled,
self-interested and virulently anti-PAP
"bicycle thieves'' of the past.
Some share the same backgrounds as
the PAP'S "star" candidates: government
scholarship holders and senior civil servants,
blue-chip professionals from the establishment
and university -educated professionals
from the HDB heartland, all of
whom have openly praised the PAP and
same kind of role as the elected presidency
does on another front - to serve as a
check on the government of the day.
The second myth - favoured by the opposition
- is that the PAP will do anything
to perpetuate its rule, from gerrymandering
electoral constituencies and
creating ever-larger Group Representation
Constituencies to threats of not upgrading
housing estates in opposition-
held wards. Certainly, in previous
elections, the PAP had adopted a much
more aggressive, no-holds-barred approach
than it has in this.
In this election, the noticeably generous
coverage of the opposition in the
mainstream media, the inclusion of previously
disallowed social media as legitimate
means of campaigning, and even the
unprecedented appearance of a senior
minister in a television debate with opposition
candidates, have clearly not been
the actions of a ruling party that wants
only to perpetuate its rule by any means
possible. The younger PAP leadership has
chosen to liberalise the political landavowed
no interest-at all in destroying scape in Singapore even at the risk of losing
more opposition seats, and even possibly
going against the instinct of the old
guard.
The third myth is that young Singaporeans
are generally apathetic and concerned
only about their narrow interests.
Although the huge buzz in online forums
about the election may represent only a
fraction of yopth at large, although the
large turnout in rallies by young people
may only be for their entertainment, although
the many young PAP and opposition
candidates may just be flashes in the
pan - the myth of apathy that older Singaporeans
may have held about Gen Y is
clearly no longer viable. As the baby
boomers pass into retirement, it is very
encouraging to see young people coming
out and making their voices heard.
Unless we have a freak election with
unexpected results, Singaporeans be
proud both of the ruling as well as oppo>--
tion parties. And of themselves too as an
electorate whose demands are increasingly
shaping the responses of both players.
Singapore may be moving deliberately
yet irrevocably towards a First World
electorate - in an evolutionary process
that may take another two or three elections
over the next two decades - but one
that embraces common values so that the
electorate, not the political parties, demand
civility, intellectual rigour and competence
of all their politicians, whatever
their affiliation.
If all goes well, the winner in this watershed
election may well be Singapore's
future.
