Multi-party politics: As Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others
I REFER to Tuesday's letter by Mr Li Hongyi, 'Case yet to be made', which mentioned the challenges facing multi-party democracies.
British wartime prime minister Winston Churchill said democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. Although democracy has its problems, it provides the checks and balances necessary for the proper functioning of a government acceptable to its people.
Mr Li argued that countries that navigate through turbulent situations are mostly successful with an uncontested leadership rather than vigorous debate. During most of World War II, Churchill was prime minister of a wartime coalition government of Britain that included elements from opposition parties. He saw no contradiction between uniting all parties in the cause of defending Britain in a time of war, and bringing in the participation of opposition politicians.
While it is fair to argue that too much bickering can paralyse a government when it needs to act quickly in a crisis, it is undesirable to have a dominant government so ossified in its ways, it cannot respond nimbly and effectively to ever-changing situations.
Mr Li suggests Singapore is too small to sustain a sufficient talent pool across multiple parties. A marketplace of ideas that allows different parties to offer competing ideas will expand the talent pool, because more talented people will be attracted to join different parties.
An analogy is when Singapore liberalised its telecommunications industry in the 1990s, which saw an increase in the range of services, better service quality and a bigger market. In contrast, Chinese history is replete with examples of talented officials whose services were ignored by the emperor, so they ended up as eccentrics, recluses and wandering scholars. A single-party state risks shutting out talented people.
Mr Li said one must consider both the merits and disadvantages of a multi-party democracy. Hong Kong, where I live, never had a full democracy, yet it prospered. A key ingredient in Hong Kong's success is its checks and balances through its independent judiciary and free press, to make up for its lack of democracy. Even ancient China had its checks and balances, as imperial censors were appointed with the right to criticise the emperor. Even in communist China, the late leader Deng Xiaoping provided checks and balances by limiting the term of the leader and preparing a successor to replace him.
I do not claim that multiple parties are always needed to provide the best political system, but there must be checks and balances. Independent non-political experts are one possible means. For example, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has criticised the economic policies of both the Republican and Democratic parties in his newspaper columns. The reason universities like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are world class is they have brilliant professors who are not afraid to criticise both the incumbent United States administration and the opposition.
Even in a one-party state like China, the ruling party might not be united. China's princelings like Bo Xilai and Xi Jinping (tipped to be China's next leader) have seen their parents, who were senior officials in the Chinese Communist Party, imprisoned, persecuted or killed during the Cultural Revolution by other leaders of the same party.
If it happened in China that the ruling party was split into warring factions in the 1960s and 1970s, the possibility cannot be ruled out that in future the People's Action Party might split. Since one ruling party cannot be guaranteed to remain united, why not have multiple parties?
Toh Han Shih
I REFER to Tuesday's letter by Mr Li Hongyi, 'Case yet to be made', which mentioned the challenges facing multi-party democracies.
British wartime prime minister Winston Churchill said democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. Although democracy has its problems, it provides the checks and balances necessary for the proper functioning of a government acceptable to its people.
Mr Li argued that countries that navigate through turbulent situations are mostly successful with an uncontested leadership rather than vigorous debate. During most of World War II, Churchill was prime minister of a wartime coalition government of Britain that included elements from opposition parties. He saw no contradiction between uniting all parties in the cause of defending Britain in a time of war, and bringing in the participation of opposition politicians.
While it is fair to argue that too much bickering can paralyse a government when it needs to act quickly in a crisis, it is undesirable to have a dominant government so ossified in its ways, it cannot respond nimbly and effectively to ever-changing situations.
Mr Li suggests Singapore is too small to sustain a sufficient talent pool across multiple parties. A marketplace of ideas that allows different parties to offer competing ideas will expand the talent pool, because more talented people will be attracted to join different parties.
An analogy is when Singapore liberalised its telecommunications industry in the 1990s, which saw an increase in the range of services, better service quality and a bigger market. In contrast, Chinese history is replete with examples of talented officials whose services were ignored by the emperor, so they ended up as eccentrics, recluses and wandering scholars. A single-party state risks shutting out talented people.
Mr Li said one must consider both the merits and disadvantages of a multi-party democracy. Hong Kong, where I live, never had a full democracy, yet it prospered. A key ingredient in Hong Kong's success is its checks and balances through its independent judiciary and free press, to make up for its lack of democracy. Even ancient China had its checks and balances, as imperial censors were appointed with the right to criticise the emperor. Even in communist China, the late leader Deng Xiaoping provided checks and balances by limiting the term of the leader and preparing a successor to replace him.
I do not claim that multiple parties are always needed to provide the best political system, but there must be checks and balances. Independent non-political experts are one possible means. For example, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has criticised the economic policies of both the Republican and Democratic parties in his newspaper columns. The reason universities like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are world class is they have brilliant professors who are not afraid to criticise both the incumbent United States administration and the opposition.
Even in a one-party state like China, the ruling party might not be united. China's princelings like Bo Xilai and Xi Jinping (tipped to be China's next leader) have seen their parents, who were senior officials in the Chinese Communist Party, imprisoned, persecuted or killed during the Cultural Revolution by other leaders of the same party.
If it happened in China that the ruling party was split into warring factions in the 1960s and 1970s, the possibility cannot be ruled out that in future the People's Action Party might split. Since one ruling party cannot be guaranteed to remain united, why not have multiple parties?
Toh Han Shih
