Skip to main content

Will PM Lee do a ‘Chiang Ching-kuo’ in Singapore?



After May 7 election, PM Lee made some changes that seem to be big changes in Singapore.  Some observers even said he had re-discovered himself and been fully in charge of the government by his own judgment (less the influence of Lee Kuan Yew).

It is too early to tell whether PM Lee’s commitment to change and listen to the people will go deeper and become a permanent change in Singapore politics.

However, comparing to Chiang Ching-kuo of Taiwan in the 1980s, PM Lee is still far behind. Firstly, Chiang initiated political change without the pressure from voters.  Secondly, the changes that Chiang made have far greater impact and meaning than the changes announced recently by PM Lee.

Key changes made by PM Lee

The followings are the key changes introduced by PM Lee:

* Announcing a younger cabinet without MM, SM and other not so popular ministers;
* Reviewing the ministerial pay and senior civil servants;
* Reducing the demand on foreign workers;
* Improving the public housing programme; and
* Improving the public transport system.

If you compare these changes to Chiang Ching-kuo, may I use the famous quote? It is just a peanut.  

Chiang lifted martial law and media control

Let see what Chiang Ching-kuo did in Taiwan then we can have a better understand of the meaning of change. He created a democratic system in which the people could choose their ruler. He lifted martial law and the ban on political parties and non-official media.

These changes or contribution to Taiwan democracy are both recognized by the Kuomintang and the Democratic Progressive Party.  This is something strange in Taiwan politics that these 2 parties rarely agree on one common agenda.

PM Lee never touches on the ISA, the media, a fairer political competition and system, even the role of elected President is confusing as many people are not clear about its function after more than 20 years.  The law minister and a former senior minister need to come out to clarify the appointment and function of the Elected President. 

PM Lee recently announced changes may result to future acknowledgement of the PAP and the oppositions but it is really a bit too far from any impacting or influencing change in Singapore politics. 

Political elites’ attitudes towards democracy

Ching-fen Hu is his paper “Taiwan’s Geopolitics and
Chiang Ching-Kuo’s Decision to Democratize Taiwan    pointed out that political leadership can change the democratic process. (http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal51/china2.pdf)

Hu said: Taiwan’s successful transition from authoritarian regime to democracy suggests that neither a Leninist party structure nor a Confucian cultural heritage is a bar to democratization. Taiwan’s experience also clearly illustrates that democracy can be achieved through political leadership, a mode of democratic transition that has been emphasized in recent scholarship by Samuel Huntington, Bruce Dickson, and Steven Hood, the lattermost of whom argues that democratic transitions are brought about by political elites who have changed their attitudes about democracy.

Political learning and democracy

In the paper, Hu also stressed the importance of political learning that I am not sure whether it is equal to the PAP’s stress of listening to the people.  

Hu said “this process has been described by Nancy Bermeo as “political learning,” meaning the process by which “authoritarians come to realize the benefits, or in some cases their only option for survival, is to move towards a democratic solution.”

The paper further explained “As the paramount leader of the Kuomintang (KMT), the decision to move forward with Taiwan’s democratization in 1986 ultimately belonged to Chiang Chingkuo (CCK). Although CCK initially supported the status quo, he eventually came to realize that a democratic solution would benefit the KMT, and that failure to liberalize the system could result in violent conflict.”

We will have to wait and see the changes in attitude of Singapore political elites and their political leaning about democracy from GE2011 and the coming Presidential election. 


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 ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...