<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Multi-party politics: Why one party better for Singapore than two
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to the various letters regarding multi-party politics, notably Mr Li Hongyi's letter on Tuesday, 'Case yet to be made' on the lack of balanced argument against Dr Tan Wu Meng's letter last Friday, 'Why Singapore's political system works' by the follow-ups on Saturday, 'Logic favours two-party system' and 'Governments better off with checks and balances'.
In this letter, I will argue why the current single-party political system favours Singapore more than multi-party politics.
A single-party political system is analogous to the single firm in a natural monopoly. Political decisions are controlled by the People's Action Party (PAP) and this advantage, in economic terms, produces legislation at a marginal cost below average cost. This means that there is more efficiency in decision making, and less time is spent on academic debate - and time is money.
=> Vs no debate now and Sporns being made to pay for the Papayas's fiasco thereafter?
This month alone, the Government has pledged $2.9 billion as a stimulus to the economy, nearly half of 2007 fiscal year's surplus of $6.7 billion. The two-party electoral United States government is still deliberating on a new US$500 billion (S$755 billion) fiscal stimulus package, whereas the single-party Chinese authorities have already announced plans to spend US$586 billion over the next two years to stimulate the economy.
=> Cos no debate, it's OK to squander away $80B on bankrupt Yankee banks and offers token sum to help Sporns!
An argument against this obvious benefit of efficiency is that Singapore is 'better off with adequate checks and balances' with a multi-party, or at least twin-party, political system. Narrowing the discussion to a two-party political system, it must be noted that the system fundamentals demand equal capabilities in either party to make optimal decisions, delivering long-term social and economic stability. Indeed, a two-party government may provide better resolution to the issues at hand, as different aspects are addressed.
This may result in greater equity - fairness in policy making - but, at the cost of efficiency.
=> Which is more more important - effectiveness or efficiency? Look no further than Sporns being made to suffer from the Papayas' leegalized corruption in the name of "efficiency".
Furthermore, political problems are never black and white - there are grey areas that logic alone cannot address fully. Political clashes may also result between the parties due to differences. An example is Spain's governing Socialist Party and the main opposition Popular Party clashing over the Basque peace process with the illegal terrorist organisation, ETA.
=> Sure govt is the BEST PAID in the world while the people being told to accept dirt world pay to cope with 1st world cost of living sure spells warped logic!
Also, it must be pointed out that the Singapore Government has its own system of checks and balances. Members of Parliament are elected on a plurality voting basis and ensure the concerns of their constituents are heard in Parliament. The Constitution also allows Non-Constituency MPs to gather opposition views and Nominated MPs to provide community views. In addition, avenues such as The Straits Time Forum are available to the public to express their concerns.
=> Anything to address these concern apart from lip service? If not, why?
Yes, there is definitely room for improvement, with regard to channels to voice concerns and the Government's receptiveness to ideas. Nonetheless, it is unfair to claim that 'our energy in debate was expended wastefully'. It is easy to overlook the progress the Government has made after all the time we have spent in this system. Remember Chek Jawa? How about Singapore's oldest bus stop? Is the Government reading the same newspaper as you now?
The PAP's experience is much appreciated and valued, especially in the global financial crisis. Having survived the Asian economic downtown and Sars, the Government has equipped itself with the tools to battle recession. From the gamble of the integrated resorts to the success of the city's Formula One night race to the Youth Olympic Games, I believe the foresight of the Government may be pivotal to Singapore's economic survival.
=> U call this BLIND FAITH!
Admittedly, Singapore has to adjust as rapidly as the changing global landscape. However, this does not 'necessitate the development of a marketplace of ideas in Singapore' by radically introducing a multi-party system. Taking such a bold step towards the future puts the country in undue danger. With the reliability of the current system and PAP's experience of governance, Singapore can at least take calculated risks in its development.
The value of any deductive theory lies in its loyal representation of reality, but sadly, there is no proof that a multi-party political system will work for Singapore. The only practical approach then, is to wait for other parties or individuals to step up, and show the people we have the talent pool required. Randy Ong
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to the various letters regarding multi-party politics, notably Mr Li Hongyi's letter on Tuesday, 'Case yet to be made' on the lack of balanced argument against Dr Tan Wu Meng's letter last Friday, 'Why Singapore's political system works' by the follow-ups on Saturday, 'Logic favours two-party system' and 'Governments better off with checks and balances'.
In this letter, I will argue why the current single-party political system favours Singapore more than multi-party politics.
A single-party political system is analogous to the single firm in a natural monopoly. Political decisions are controlled by the People's Action Party (PAP) and this advantage, in economic terms, produces legislation at a marginal cost below average cost. This means that there is more efficiency in decision making, and less time is spent on academic debate - and time is money.
=> Vs no debate now and Sporns being made to pay for the Papayas's fiasco thereafter?
This month alone, the Government has pledged $2.9 billion as a stimulus to the economy, nearly half of 2007 fiscal year's surplus of $6.7 billion. The two-party electoral United States government is still deliberating on a new US$500 billion (S$755 billion) fiscal stimulus package, whereas the single-party Chinese authorities have already announced plans to spend US$586 billion over the next two years to stimulate the economy.
=> Cos no debate, it's OK to squander away $80B on bankrupt Yankee banks and offers token sum to help Sporns!
An argument against this obvious benefit of efficiency is that Singapore is 'better off with adequate checks and balances' with a multi-party, or at least twin-party, political system. Narrowing the discussion to a two-party political system, it must be noted that the system fundamentals demand equal capabilities in either party to make optimal decisions, delivering long-term social and economic stability. Indeed, a two-party government may provide better resolution to the issues at hand, as different aspects are addressed.
This may result in greater equity - fairness in policy making - but, at the cost of efficiency.
=> Which is more more important - effectiveness or efficiency? Look no further than Sporns being made to suffer from the Papayas' leegalized corruption in the name of "efficiency".
Furthermore, political problems are never black and white - there are grey areas that logic alone cannot address fully. Political clashes may also result between the parties due to differences. An example is Spain's governing Socialist Party and the main opposition Popular Party clashing over the Basque peace process with the illegal terrorist organisation, ETA.
=> Sure govt is the BEST PAID in the world while the people being told to accept dirt world pay to cope with 1st world cost of living sure spells warped logic!
Also, it must be pointed out that the Singapore Government has its own system of checks and balances. Members of Parliament are elected on a plurality voting basis and ensure the concerns of their constituents are heard in Parliament. The Constitution also allows Non-Constituency MPs to gather opposition views and Nominated MPs to provide community views. In addition, avenues such as The Straits Time Forum are available to the public to express their concerns.
=> Anything to address these concern apart from lip service? If not, why?
Yes, there is definitely room for improvement, with regard to channels to voice concerns and the Government's receptiveness to ideas. Nonetheless, it is unfair to claim that 'our energy in debate was expended wastefully'. It is easy to overlook the progress the Government has made after all the time we have spent in this system. Remember Chek Jawa? How about Singapore's oldest bus stop? Is the Government reading the same newspaper as you now?
The PAP's experience is much appreciated and valued, especially in the global financial crisis. Having survived the Asian economic downtown and Sars, the Government has equipped itself with the tools to battle recession. From the gamble of the integrated resorts to the success of the city's Formula One night race to the Youth Olympic Games, I believe the foresight of the Government may be pivotal to Singapore's economic survival.
=> U call this BLIND FAITH!
Admittedly, Singapore has to adjust as rapidly as the changing global landscape. However, this does not 'necessitate the development of a marketplace of ideas in Singapore' by radically introducing a multi-party system. Taking such a bold step towards the future puts the country in undue danger. With the reliability of the current system and PAP's experience of governance, Singapore can at least take calculated risks in its development.
The value of any deductive theory lies in its loyal representation of reality, but sadly, there is no proof that a multi-party political system will work for Singapore. The only practical approach then, is to wait for other parties or individuals to step up, and show the people we have the talent pool required. Randy Ong
Last edited:
