Courtesy of Littlespeck.com:
Politics
We need a Democratic PartyIf we want to prevent the government from moving too far towards corporatism at the expense of Singaporeans. By Seah Chiang Nee.
Oct 5, 2008
When the US House of Representatives first rejected the $700b rescue package, I couldn’t help wondering what Singapore would have done under similar circumstances.
It took me a whole few seconds to conclude that the ruling People’s Action Party would have done pretty much what the Republicans did.
It would have rushed to save the major corporations – particularly the government-linked corporations (GLCs) - in order ‘to save the economy from collapsing’.
The Democratic Party had demanded a more equitable rescue, not just one that helped Wall Street firms hit by the credit meltdown.
It also wanted bail-out for American people who had lost their homes because of it and the ridiculously high salaries and bonuses for corporate CEOs to be capped.
Traditionally, the US Republican Party has been conservative and pro-business (not far different from the PAP) while the Democrats tend to be liberal and closer to ‘Main Street’ the people.
But while the two parties fight tooth and nail over policies, they eventually buried their differences to produce a compromise, an example of how a responsible two-party system operates.
Americans were (still are) very angry that so much of their tax-dollars are used to bail out failed companies, while millions of Americans still suffer – unaided - from the crisis.
The Democrats helped make it fairer.
Had such a rescue package gone before the Singapore Parliament, I told myself, it would surely have passed with 82 out of 84 votes without any real debate or the benefit of alternative input from a mature two-party system.
There would have been no ‘Democratic Party’ here to debate any fault or shortcoming. In such a case, Singaporeans - individually and collectively - would have paid for it.
There would have been no alternative plan that reflects the interests of ordinary citizens to balance the objective of rescuing large corporations and the economy.
This meltdown is now spilling into Singapore and the people of Singapore will suffer for it.
A sustained recession will likely arrive with Singaporeans facing the prospect of lower income, unemployment and business failure. They need an opposition party strong and capable enough to ensure their concerns and needs are looked after.
An America in trouble has shown how important a two-party system is to serve the interests of all Singaporeans - not just Big Business – when coming up with solutions to confront the coming crisis.
In fact Singaporeans need more protection than Americans against overly protective measures to protect business profits when faced with a serious economic crisis without sufficient regard to the people's welfare.
Many of the corporations that supply crucial public services - public transport, electricity (remember the 21% price hike!) rents, etc – are owned or controlled by the government.
In such troubled times, there is are tremendous pressures from these firms for increased charges or fees that often more than required. There is a political need for a credible opposition that provides a balance.
The approaching period of hardship for all will not be well served by an authoritarian government that excludes (or even ‘fixes) the opposition.
Instead, it needs a ‘Democratic Party’ type opposition to work together with the PAP to produce inclusive, equitable solutions by involving all citizens to take part.
A two-party system like presupposes there are enough Singaporeans, who are ready and capable to play the role - not an easy task.
It, of course, runs counter to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s rejection of multi-party democracy.
He had always hinted that he could have done a lot more for Singapore had it not been for a one-man-one-vote system.
For years, Lee had maintained that his PAP was non-ideological, but pragmatic and doing what was best for the country.
While this was true at one time, it is less so today.
Over the years Singapore had been run like a large corporation, vigorously bent on accumulating profits and reserves. The city-state has, in fact, come to be called Singapore INC.
At this stage of development, it needs more than just a one-party rule with only minimal opposition role.
A US-type Democratic Party could bring it back a little to the centre and create a more inclusive society.
At least it could work for the interests of a large disaffected segment of citizens – not only for the nation’s gross national product.
By Seah Chiang Nee
http://littlespeck.com/content/politics/CTrendsPolitics-081006.htm
Politics
We need a Democratic PartyIf we want to prevent the government from moving too far towards corporatism at the expense of Singaporeans. By Seah Chiang Nee.
Oct 5, 2008
When the US House of Representatives first rejected the $700b rescue package, I couldn’t help wondering what Singapore would have done under similar circumstances.
It took me a whole few seconds to conclude that the ruling People’s Action Party would have done pretty much what the Republicans did.
It would have rushed to save the major corporations – particularly the government-linked corporations (GLCs) - in order ‘to save the economy from collapsing’.
The Democratic Party had demanded a more equitable rescue, not just one that helped Wall Street firms hit by the credit meltdown.
It also wanted bail-out for American people who had lost their homes because of it and the ridiculously high salaries and bonuses for corporate CEOs to be capped.
Traditionally, the US Republican Party has been conservative and pro-business (not far different from the PAP) while the Democrats tend to be liberal and closer to ‘Main Street’ the people.
But while the two parties fight tooth and nail over policies, they eventually buried their differences to produce a compromise, an example of how a responsible two-party system operates.
Americans were (still are) very angry that so much of their tax-dollars are used to bail out failed companies, while millions of Americans still suffer – unaided - from the crisis.
The Democrats helped make it fairer.
Had such a rescue package gone before the Singapore Parliament, I told myself, it would surely have passed with 82 out of 84 votes without any real debate or the benefit of alternative input from a mature two-party system.
There would have been no ‘Democratic Party’ here to debate any fault or shortcoming. In such a case, Singaporeans - individually and collectively - would have paid for it.
There would have been no alternative plan that reflects the interests of ordinary citizens to balance the objective of rescuing large corporations and the economy.
This meltdown is now spilling into Singapore and the people of Singapore will suffer for it.
A sustained recession will likely arrive with Singaporeans facing the prospect of lower income, unemployment and business failure. They need an opposition party strong and capable enough to ensure their concerns and needs are looked after.
An America in trouble has shown how important a two-party system is to serve the interests of all Singaporeans - not just Big Business – when coming up with solutions to confront the coming crisis.
In fact Singaporeans need more protection than Americans against overly protective measures to protect business profits when faced with a serious economic crisis without sufficient regard to the people's welfare.
Many of the corporations that supply crucial public services - public transport, electricity (remember the 21% price hike!) rents, etc – are owned or controlled by the government.
In such troubled times, there is are tremendous pressures from these firms for increased charges or fees that often more than required. There is a political need for a credible opposition that provides a balance.
The approaching period of hardship for all will not be well served by an authoritarian government that excludes (or even ‘fixes) the opposition.
Instead, it needs a ‘Democratic Party’ type opposition to work together with the PAP to produce inclusive, equitable solutions by involving all citizens to take part.
A two-party system like presupposes there are enough Singaporeans, who are ready and capable to play the role - not an easy task.
It, of course, runs counter to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s rejection of multi-party democracy.
He had always hinted that he could have done a lot more for Singapore had it not been for a one-man-one-vote system.
For years, Lee had maintained that his PAP was non-ideological, but pragmatic and doing what was best for the country.
While this was true at one time, it is less so today.
Over the years Singapore had been run like a large corporation, vigorously bent on accumulating profits and reserves. The city-state has, in fact, come to be called Singapore INC.
At this stage of development, it needs more than just a one-party rule with only minimal opposition role.
A US-type Democratic Party could bring it back a little to the centre and create a more inclusive society.
At least it could work for the interests of a large disaffected segment of citizens – not only for the nation’s gross national product.
By Seah Chiang Nee
http://littlespeck.com/content/politics/CTrendsPolitics-081006.htm
