...
A two-party or multi-party system is no guarantee against groupthink. In some countries, competing parties - to capture the swing vote - have moved so close to each other as to become nearly indistinguishable, even as those without access to special interest lobby groups or patronage suffer.
Tactically that is the position that alternate parties will move into, so that there is no loss of votes. This is something that the opposition parties remain blissfully ignorant.
Elsewhere, two-party politics has become the politics of obstruction, with government decisions blocked and debates filibustered. Indecision and paralysis prevail, even in the depths of economic crisis - and it is the ordinary men and women who suffer for it.
That is a conjecture.
It can also be constructive politics where the ruling party makes a special effort to ensure that their policies benefit singaporeans and not themselves, their cronies or those they loved.
In such a case, politics of non-obstruction leads to ordinary men and women suffering for it.
In yet other nations, multi-party politics has led to division, as short-term sectarianism trumps the long-term national interest.
Is this ALWAYS the case?
The key issue is not the form of the democracy, but the results of the political process.
And what are the results?
Our current dominance is not a pre-ordained right. Every election we must earn anew, at the ballot box, the mandate of our fellow Singaporeans. It is a process which is honest and open to contest.
The truly honest process is to have either proportional representation or single ward seats.
The SDP had given a good explanation why the electoral process is not that honest. Perhaps you might like to have a national referendum on whether the electoral process is unbiased.
Our political system brought Singapore from Third World to First. In partnership with the people of Singapore, PAP governments have kept this nation afloat through the 1970s oil shocks, the 1980s recession, the 1990s Asian financial crisis, the post-9/11 aftermath and Sars. Which other party in the world has this depth of experience?
That is leveraging on the PAP brand which has proven itself during the days of LKY and GCT.
Is that brand still valid?
Were this accumulated wisdom and concentration of talent to be dispersed across multiple parties, Singapore would be the poorer for it. And in these times of global economic turmoil, it would be foolhardy - and a disservice to our fellow citizens - to throw away what has kept Singapore strong these 50 years.
On the contrary, singaporeans will be the richer for it, even if we only regard that investments losses will be less.
Also a diversity of talents across different platforms will result in these talents speaking their minds, proposing and evaluating each other's policies to the extent that the final policy would have gone through a rigourous debate.
Talents in the same party are seen not heard. They are seen in pictures on display in town centres.
...
