Skip to main content

A ‘Backfiring’ EP Proposal Turns Into A Political Liability of the PAP

A ‘Backfiring’ EP proposal turns into a political liability for the PAP

The proposed changes to Elected Presidency will become a People’s Action Party political liability.  It will not only affect coming EP election but also the future General Elections.

The ‘backfiring’ effect will be the real test for the PAP after the death of Lee Kuan Yew.

Ideal political design of the PAP in the past is one thing. The outcome of the proposed EP design can be another thing as seen in the recent Hong Kong Legislative Council elections as well as PE2011.  The Legco election results indicate the aftermath of the (unsuccessful) amendments to Hong Kong Chief Executive election.  The 2015 proposed framework of 2017 Chief Executive election in Hong Kong seems to favour a pro-Beijing candidate. The framework was rejected by Legco, an embarrassment for the pro-establishment and pro-Beijing group.  Of course, we should not forget the Umbrella Movement and the relationship between the movement and the recently concluded Legco elections.

The CE election is like our Presidential Election while Legco is similar to our Parliament general election.  There is a co-relationship between the two.

Singapore’s Presidential election, General Election and Hong Kong’s Chief Executive and Legco elections are very unique in the world.  Full democracy is missing in both cities.

However, when you give voters a choice, there is a political risk the designers of the election system have to face. Your ‘kiasu-ness’ will be exposed and you may end up a loser.  

If you read Yi-jing (Book of Change), the more design inputs you put in the political election system, the nearer you reach the upper limit and the next will be a change of fortune. You create opportunities for others.

All clever designs are still subject to change and challenges. 25 years ago, Lee Kuan Yew designed the PE and now Lee Hsien Loong wants to change it. Early than the PE design, Group Representative Constituencies were introduced. All designs face challenges and we have seen the breakthrough in GRC. PE2011 shows a possibility of change. An unfair election can also create upset.

So, the ‘backfiring’ effect of the EP proposal will have direct impact on both PE and GE in Singapore.

If I were PM Lee Hsien Loong, I will go back to the ‘good old days’ of parliament appointed President as recommended by the Constitution Commission.  This is a ‘kiasu’ way but the very safe way.

However, PM Lee thinks the EP requires a mandate. Mandate means there is a contest or mandate can be a walkover. Is walkover a mandate?  A ‘walkover’ mandate is no better than the ‘good old days’ appointed President.

Also, enough qualified persons to stand for PE does not mean we have at least 2 candidates apply for PE certificates.

If the mandate is a contest with at least 2 candidates, then there is a political risk like the PE2011. Perhaps, Lee Hsien Loong thinks he can design PE 2017 into a contest like the first PE election in 1993 - a weak and a strong pro-establishment candidate.  Again, how can he ensure the elected President in 2017 will not turn into another Ong Teng Cheong?

This is a spirit and ethic issue.  And it poses a great challenge to future Singapore.

Singapore’s success is based very much on Asian value (e.g. Confucianism) and Western ethic and capitalist spirit. Both are gone now.

End of Asian value:
When Ong Teng Cheong died in 2012, it signals the end of ‘Chineses educated’ value in Singapore.  Chinese schools are gone, so do the dialects and even the written Chinese.  What does changing Chinese High to Hwa Zhong Institution mean? Value addition or deduction?

End of Western ethic and capitalist spirit:
In Max Weber’s ‘The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism’, protestant ethic is the driving force for development and industrialisation. Lee Kuan Yew in some ways represents this type of spirit. With his passing in 2016, it also ends the ‘English educated’ value in Singapore.

Singapore is at the cross road with no strong foundation in either ‘Chinese educated’ or ‘English educated’ values.

What we have are ministers with ‘profit’ orientation and no more value, mission, duty and responsibility.
However, they claim they have and they are like their older leaders.

This explains why Lee Hsien Loong needs to change our constitution so often, just to protect the continuation of the existing and future PAP (4th generation) leaders as they have lost their mission, duty and responsibility as compared to the old (first and second generation) PAP leaders.

The changes in PE and constitution is a matter of value, ethic and spirit. A man with no principal, no value will always want to find some changes to cover himself, cover his weakness.  

So, Chinese or non-Chinese, does it matter? It matters a lot to Lee Hsien Loong as he wants to see the PE changes through. However, it is also a matter of cognitive dissonance.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting

因为有比较, 才知道做得不够, 才明白什么叫做易通。

  因为有比较, 才知道做得不够, 才明白什么叫做易通。 如果只有一套解决方法,很难看出好坏,方便还是不方便,易通还是不容易通。用新方法代替旧的系统,人们当然会做比较,尤其是科技产品,使用的人很多,一用就马上看到结果。 这是一个竞争的世界,即使一党独大,也要考虑到便民。当人民觉得不方便,不好用,不易通,就会反映,发声,不满。为什么没有预先想到,最可怕的是测试时,已经接到反应,还是不加改善。或许,行动党还抱着“令伯”最大,用者自行解决问题。 易通公交收费系统的整合,似乎缺少一种人文,沟通,反而更加多表现出政府的独断独行。尤其重要的是,如果只有一套系统,我们是看不出问题,做不出好坏的评价。 这其实证明国会里不可以只有一把声音,没有比较,没有进步。

After 60 years, after 3 failed political imaginations, the PAP is deteriorating...