TR EMERITUS

Electoral Reform Proposal – Constituency Reserved for Minority Scheme BRIEF The Government has established that multi-racialism is a fundamental tenet of Singapore society and that it is necessary to ensure minority representation in Parliament. The Group Representation Constituency (GRC) Scheme was incepted to uphold multi-racialism by guaranteeing minority representation in Parliament. However, the GRC Scheme hinders political competition, fortifies the incumbents and works against democracy. NSP proposes that the GRC Scheme be abolished, the nation reverts to Single Member Constituencies and the Constituency Reserved for Minority (CRM) Scheme be implemented. In this paper, we shall explain how the CRM Scheme works. The CRM Scheme will be as effective as the GRC Scheme to ensure a multi-racial Parliament but without exacting the heavy price on democracy as the GRC Scheme does. Read the full paper here. 3 July 2014  Read More →

Lawrence Wong I refer to the 3 Jun 2014 Straits Times column “Towards a 'problem-solving democracy'” by Minister Lawrence Wong. Wong claim 1: Western democracy = ineffective government Mr Wong claimed that many Western liberal democracies have failed to deliver stable, legitimate and effective governments. The following are the top scorers for Government Effectiveness in the latest (2012) Worldwide Governance Indicators. 18 of 21 top scorers are Western liberal democracies. Thus, an overwhelming majority of the most effective governments in this world are Western liberal democracies. Mr Wong’s descriptions of dysfunctional governments in mature democracies is thus far off the mark given that most Western democracies achieved above 90 percentile rank for government effectiveness. Country/Territory Culture 2012 WGI Government Effectiveness score 2012 WGI Government Effectiveness percentile rank FINLAND Western Liberal 2.21 100 SINGAPORE East Asian 2.15 100 DENMARK Western Liberal 1.97 99 SWEDEN Western Liberal 1.94 99 NORWAY Western Liberal 1.89 98 SWITZERLAND Western Liberal 1.88 98 HONG KONG East Asian 1.82 97 NETHERLANDS Western Liberal 1.8 97 NEW ZEALAND Western Liberal 1.79 96 LIECHTENSTEIN Western Liberal 1.76 96 CANADA Western Liberal 1.75 95 LUXEMBOURG Western Liberal 1.66 95 AUSTRALIA Western Liberal 1.61 94 BELGIUM Western Liberal 1.59 94 GERMANY Western Liberal 1.57 93 AUSTRIA Western Liberal 1.56 93 IRELAND Western Liberal 1.53 92 UNITED KINGDOM Western Liberal 1.53 92 ANDORRA Western Liberal 1.52 91 ANGUILLA 1.52 91 UNITED STATES Western Liberal 1.51 90 Mr Wong’s claim that Mr S Rajaratnam had anticipated Western liberal democracy’s failure to bring about effective long-term governance forty years ago is thus wrong because Western liberal democracies continue to dominate the top rankings for Government Effectiveness in the Worldwide Governance Indicator. Wong claim 2: Western voters losing faith with democracy Mr Wong claimed that Western voters are losing faith in their democratic systems so much so that a recent US visitor who used to preach Western liberal democracy has stopped doing so. The following table lists West European democracies (formerly communist nations excluded) by their satisfaction with how democracy works in 2013. Contrary to Mr Wong’s claim, most West European democracies continue to enjoy relatively high levels of faith and support for their democratic systems, except France, UK and the PIGS nations. Country Total satisfaction with how democracy works in country (Euromonitor Spring 2013) Denmark 86% Sweden 81% Luxembourg 80% The Netherlands 75% Austria 74% Finland 74% Germany 72% Malta 71% Belgium 69% France 55% United Kingdom 55% Ireland 50% Italy 30% Spain 23% Greece 15% Portugal 14% The following chart from Euromonitor also shows that satisfaction with democracy in Northern Europe remains high over 10 years. Only in Southern Europe has satisfaction with democracy dipped over the years. Mr Wong could have said that Southern Europeans are losing faith in democracy but not Northern Europeans. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/07/22/the-growing-economic-and-ideological-breach-between-northern-and-southern-eu-countries-is-pushing-europe-towards-a-perfect-storm/ Even in the UK, the majority of British adults (63%) agreed that 'for all its faults, Britain's democratic system is one of the finest in the world'. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/02/happiness-index-how-much-trust-government Mr Wong’s constant harping on Washington’s gridlock and paralysis, which by the way only occurred for non-essential services for 16 days in 2013, should not dissuade us from recognizing the continued healthy functioning of the great majority of democracies in Northern and Central Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Wong claim 3: Young western voters are disengaged from public life Mr Wong claimed that young people in Western democracies have become disillusioned and disengaged from public life. Far from it, according to a report by Democratic Audit UK (http://www.democraticaudit.com/?p=3296), the youth in Britain, France and Germany are more likely to engage in more visible forms of democracy like demonstrations. Wong claim 4: Falling voter turnout means declining trust in government Mr Wong claimed that falling voter turnouts shows declining trust in governments in Western democracies. But according to the Edelman Trust Barometer, government trust has always been low amongst Western democracies (2010 Edelman Trust Barometer, page 8). Low trust in government has always been the hallmark of democracy versus high trust in government which is the hallmark of communist or absolutist countries. Wong claim 5: Democracies spend more than they collect Mr Wong quoted the late James M. Buchanan as saying that democracies would spend more than they collect in taxes. But according to the table below, full democracies have higher percentage of countries registering a surplus on average between 2002 and 2012 compared to flawed democracies and hybrid regimes. We also know that many authoritarian regimes are rich in oil, natural gas or minerals. Types of democracy Number of countries with deficit on average 2002 - 2012 Number of countries with surplus on average 2002 - 2012 Total countries Percentage of countries Full democracy 16 9 25 36% Flawed democracy 37 10 47 21% Hybrid regimes 27 5 32 16% Authoritarian regimes 19 12 31 39% If we adjust for receipts from oil, natural gas and minerals, full democracies have the highest percentage of countries registering a surplus on average between 2002 and 2012. Thus, democracies have the least tendency to spend more than they collect compared to lesser democracies. Types of democracy Number of countries with deficit on average 2002 - 2012 Number of countries with surplus on average 2002 - 2012 Total countries Percentage of countries Full democracy 20 5 25 20% Flawed democracy 47 4 51 8% Hybrid regimes 33 3 36 8% Authoritarian regimes 46 0 46 0% Other claims Mr Wong wrongly claims that Singapore’s history is young. Modern Singapore’s history stretches back exactly to 1819, we are nearly 200 years old already, not young as has been alleged all these years. Mr Wong reasoned that unthinkingly importing institutions from other countries can do more harm than good. Similarly, unthinkingly restricting the import of institutions from other countries, when the situation calls for it can also do more harm than good. Mr Wong exhorted that we should evolve our own system of democracy. But democracy at its simplest is just the people calling the shots. Any evolution that deviates from this basic principle is devolution from democracy. Mr Wong wrongly referred to Mr S Rajaratnam as our founding father. He should understand that a founding father is not someone who merely received independence but someone who put his life on the line to fight for his people’s independence. Problem solving democracy Mr Wong urged Singaporeans to follow Mr S Rajaratnam’s kind of democracy – a problem-solving democracy involving citizens actively engaged in working together for the public good of the community. Details of Mr Rajaratnam’s calling can be found below: • The Straits Times, 29 Jul 1982, page 10 Giving to society is real democracy says Raja SINGAPORE will have real democracy when every adult who can think and who has opinions contributes towards society, Mr S. Rajaratnam said last night. You get real democracy when all the adult Singaporeans - anymore from 15 onwards who can think, who has opinions - when they do something for SIngapore," he said So democracy simply means everybody learning to do things for other people. • The Straits Times, 29 Apr 1983, page 13 Democracy in action RCs allow people to solve their own problems, says Raja The residents' committee is a testimony to democracy in Singapore because it allows people to deal with the problems of the areas where they live. The Second Deputy Prime Minister (Foreign Affairs), Mr S Rajaratnam, who called this system "problem-solving democracy," said it gave the people their rights and responsibilities as citizens to ensure that their living conditions were improved. • The Straits Times, 29 Apr 1988, page 21 Be more involved, Raja urges S'poreans SINGAPOREANS must take on more responsibility in running their own affairs ... Mr Rajaratnam, said that this and the fact that it is compulsory for every citizen to vote in elections for MPs who really represent them is what democracy really means … this kind of democracy is put into practice when people help out in community organisations such as RCs. We all know what the RC represents today, an extension of the reach of the People’s Association whose core business is to connect the government of the day – PAP, to the people. If that is democracy, then what is hypocrisy? Thank you Ng Kok Lim Straits Times, Towards a 'problem-solving democracy', 3 Jun 2014, Minister Lawrence Wong THE issue of "constructive politics" was the focus of the debate on the President's Address in Parliament last week, and rightly so. Politics is not just about campaigns, elections and votes. As President Tony Tan Keng Yam said, politics is fundamentally about enabling us to move ahead as one united people and improve the lives of all citizens. How can Singapore keep its politics constructive? Some people have suggested we should simply follow the way of mature First World democracies. This is not a new idea. Indeed, after the Cold War ended, several predicted a new era of global convergence: In the battle of ideas and political systems, they thought that Western liberal democracy had triumphed, and history had come to an end. But Western liberal democracy has not turned out to be a magic formula for success. In many countries, it has failed to deliver stable, legitimate and effective government. Even voters in the West are losing faith in their democratic systems. I received a visitor recently who used to serve in the United States administration. Ten years ago, he would not have hesitated to preach the virtues of Western liberal democracy. But with the ongoing gridlock and policy paralysis in Washington, he has become more circumspect. He acknowledged that the American system was far from perfect, and that political reform was necessary. He is not the only one. Two editors of The Economist magazine recently wrote a book calling not just for political reform, but a fundamental "Fourth Revolution" in Western democracies. They note that "in America (today), the federal government has less support than George III did at the time of the American Revolution". As they put it, "interest groups have proved remarkably successful at hijacking government" and "the practice of democracy in the West is diverging ever more from the ideal… with the… general public increasingly disgruntled". In short, dysfunctional government has become a major problem in many mature democracies. Politics is increasingly acrimonious, divisive and polarised. Young people have grown disillusioned and disengaged from public life. In America and many European countries, voter turnouts have been falling and surveys show declining trust in governments. None of this should come as a surprise. There is a long tradition of concern over the limitations of liberal democracy as a system of government. Public choice theorists like the late James M. Buchanan, a 1986 Nobel laureate, worried that democratic politicians would pander to their electorate, spend more than they collect in taxes, and run up unfunded obligations and debt - a worry that has been proven prescient. I highlight the problems of mature democracies not to run down their systems, or to suggest that we have the answers. We don't. We, too, have to discover a workable way forward. Political systems in all countries have to evolve and adapt to the changing, globalised environment. As new generations come of age, better connected with one another and more exposed to the world, they will have different life experiences, aspirations and expectations. Political leaders must respond to this new situation, and political systems must evolve to remain effective. Every country will have to change in its own way, and strike its own balance between individual rights and the common good. Singapore is a city-state with a very young history and an ethnically diverse society. So we must evolve our own system of democracy to suit our needs and our conditions. Unthinkingly importing institutions from other countries can do more harm than good. One of our founding fathers, the late Mr S. Rajaratnam, was a fervent democrat. He set out the goal of building a "democratic society based on justice and equality", which we recite in the Pledge. But Mr Rajaratnam was also realistic about what democracy could or could not deliver for Singapore. Forty years ago, he had anticipated that Western norms of liberal democracy, like a confrontational opposition and adversarial politics, would not bring about effective long-term governance. So he called for a different kind of democracy for Singapore - one which involved citizenship participation at all levels, to "get people away from adversarial democracy" and to "solve practical problems in a practical way". Mr Rajaratnam's vision was for Singapore to be a "democracy of deeds, and not words". It is a high goal worth striving for, which gets to the heart of what makes for a healthy democracy - an active citizenry, engaged in the community, working together for the public good. This is why we must continue to encourage all Singaporeans, and our youths in particular, to get involved in causes and projects that help build a better society. For while the Government can and will do more, it is ultimately the spirit of our people that will shape our nation's future. Singaporeans already undertake many ground-up initiatives and community projects. These form an important part of constructive politics. It is because we believe in that collective "democracy of deeds" of active citizens that we launched "Our Singapore Conversation". Through the OSC, 46,000 people shared their views on issues that mattered to them and their future. They helped to shape the new strategic directions of this Government. Importantly, the conversations are continuing in various policy domains, like the MediShield Life review, and the National Masterplan for Ageing. There has also been positive response to new platforms for contribution like the Youth Corps and the SAF (Singapore Armed Forces) Volunteer Corps. And many Singaporeans have come up with ideas and projects of their own to commemorate our 50th anniversary of independence next year. It's easy to be cynical and brush aside such participation as "talk-shops" or "going through the motions". Such cynicism will lead to apathy and reluctance to get involved. It is a corrosive attitude which has no place in our public life. On the contrary, these acts of participation and involvement from ordinary Singaporeans should give us hope, and inspire us all to do better and do more. They show that Singaporeans care deeply about one another and about our nation. They show that we are truly making progress towards becoming a problem-solving democracy, a democracy of deeds. That ultimately is what "constructive politics" means. The writer is the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth and Second Minister for Communications and Information.  Read More →

I was shocked to learn that DBS Bank can transfer funds from account holders to pay outstanding property tax without the customers' authorisation ("Fail to pay tax despite reminder? Bank can step in"; last Thursday). Are other banks in Singapore, including foreign ones, also allowed to do this? This is a wake-up call for Singaporeans, to find out that banks can transfer money from their accounts without authorisation. Do banks have absolute authority over customers' funds? Is the Central Provident Fund Board also allowed to do the same with members' Ordinary Accounts, especially if they have accumulated more than the Minimum Sum? The big question is: Where is the safest place to keep our money? Should I store my savings in a "biscuit tin", or turn to banks in neighbouring countries like Malaysia and Indonesia? I hope the authorities can clarify the rights of the people. Government agencies should not have unfettered access to citizens' assets and properties. Lim Tong Wah * Letter first appeared in ST Forum, 3 Jul, "Do banks have absolute authority over customers' funds?"  Read More →