“Inner-party Democracy” (党内民主) - Maybe we can learn from the Chinese Communist Party and understand how
they do it. This was suggested by Prof. Su Guaning who was the moderator of the
Mandarin Symposium “China’s Future: Transition or Transformation?”
What is “Inner-party Democracy”?
The inner-party democracy is the wishes of the party members and party organizations, advocates fully express the enthusiasm and creativity into full play. The four parts of the inner-party democracy: democratic elections, democratic decision-making, democratic management and democratic supervision. All party members of the Communist Party of China, regardless of position, are entitled to the rights of the Party Constitution and should fulfill its obligations; party's leading organs at all levels should be elected; Party committees at all levels to implement the collective leadership and individual responsibility combined system; within the party discussed and decided to implement the principle of majority rules; party members the right to know and the right to directly participate in party affairs. #
In his follow-up remark to Prof Meng Qingguo’s “Inner-party
Democracy” as a new political reform of democratic process or transformation in
China after economic and social transformation in China since 1979, Prof Su
gave this suggestion.
Prof Su commented that like China, in Singapore, we also
had a strong one-party government and maybe we can learn from them the way of “Inner-party
Democracy”. He said Singapore also faced the same problem of
transition or transformation for our future. So, there is a need to learn from
others.
Perhaps, Prof Su thought he was in China and the audience
was Chinese. In some way, the symposium was
like a Chinese symposium held in China as the questions raised were very ‘China
centric’ and the questions, that Chinese residents here asked, were mainly regarding
issues in their home country.
The suggestion of “Inner-party Democracy” makes me thinking
of National Conversation immediately. Does it look like a ““Inner-party Democracy
within the PAP”?
The PAP leadership now extends more opportunities to their
members, associates, and concerned parties through National Conversation –
giving them the chances to air their views openly and showcasing a ‘wayang’ of
“Inner-party Democracy”.
Does it mean there is no “Inner-party Democracy inside
the PAP” in the past? Now with the National Conversation, it provides a new
channel for PAP members to air their views and opinions – to show and exercise
their democratic right as party members.
Singapore has been a democratic country since independence. Our Constitution and National Pledge have never ever mentioned a word a one-party state, let alone a PAP state. (Correct me if I am wrong)
It is so sad and disappointed that Prof Su, being a
senior educator, being a former president of NTU - one of the top 100
universities in world, giving such a remark to an audience of more than 400 at
NTUC Auditorium on 5 Oct.
We have a multi-party political system even though it is not fully exercised. The framework is there. If we select “Inner-party Democracy”, we are going back in history and moving backward to an undemocratic and authoritarian state. While the case of China is different, after economic and social reform, there are needs for some kinds of political changes and reforms. “Inner-party Democracy” to them may be a step forward but to Singapore it is a step backward.
From Prof Su’s point of view, we can imagine the type
of education, especially university education that we are giving to our youths.
No wonder, even the most liberal college – Yale-NUS can only allow political discussion
within the campus that clearly shows and proves the “Inner-college Democracy”.
Weibo, Social Media not public opinion
Prof Su has another interesting observation that is in
line with the PAP and is ‘political correct’ in Singapore. Referring to his
reading about a book on Chinese history, especially the greater trends in
history, he asked the panel of speakers why the Chinese government was so
serious about the weibo (similar to twitter) and in his view, weibo (微博) is not a representation of public opinion (民意).
Similarly in Singapore, the PAP government has always
told (and warned) citizens the credibility and reliability of social media.
They always praise and stress the trust and reliability of mainstream media.
However, they cannot stop the widespread and wide ‘reach’ of social media.
Perhaps, the Chinese government sees weibo as another “Inner-party
Democracy”. Hence, they have to response
and answer to the happenings in the social media, even sometimes there are incorrect
or wrong information. They also have to
clarify rather than like Singapore ‘we do not answer to rumor’. Because there are so many rumours in China, “Inner-party
Democracy” in some ways can help to prevent more rumours from spreading among
CCP members.
Investment return on attending the symposium
In her opening remark, Low Yen Ling, CEO of Business
China (also a PAP MP), gave a very typical cost-benefit analysis of attending
the symposium. She said participants,
who spent a Friday afternoon, some even forgoing their time with family, would
have a handsome return by attending the symposium.
She wanted to stress the value and worth of the
symposium but like typical PAP analysis, she had to emphasize the word
‘investment return’. The PAP government thinks too much about financial figure,
so do their MPs and members.
But money, investment and value are not always equal
and it is even more difficult to measure worth and value using return on
investment analysis.
Protocol
Business China aims to teach and share knowledge with
Singaporeans. However, it also needs to
present a right protocol to Singaporeans.
Otherwise, they may end up wondering why a good negotiation throughout
meeting still results to no deal concluded.
At the end of the symposium, Low was to present souvenirs
to 3 speakers from Tsinghua University.
Without the help of MC or other assistant, the first to receive the gift
is the most junior among the three. It
is important we get the protocol right.
Even for the not so calculative western world, this protocol still needs
to maintain and observe.
The westerners may still award the contract to someone
who is ‘not so protocol’. But for the
Chinese, this is clearly ‘not behaving like a human being.’ （不会做人）
It is a case of good start not equal to good ending.
Doing business in China has its protocol, so do other places. A small detail makes a big difference. In
chapter 64 of Laozi, we learn about good start and good end:
Amateurs often fail at the verge of success.Be focused in the end as in the beginning,Then there will be no failure.
民之徒事，常于幾成而敗之。慎終如始，則無敗事。
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Tao_Te_Ching_(Wikisource_translation)#Chapter_64_.28.E7.AC.AC.E5.85.AD.E5.8D.81.E5.9B.9B.E7.AB.A0.29:
The symposium never gave a clear answer on “China’s
Future: Transition or Transformation?”.
This is a complicated question and we may need a fortune teller to make
the forecast.
And really, will “Inner-party Democracy” help the CCP
and China to maintain a sustainable growth?
#
Comments
Post a Comment