Skip to main content

China also wants to reform politically, what are we waiting for?




As a preparation of the post LKY-era, Singapore should engage in political reform – moving away from a system that is so much associated with Lee Kuan Yew’s successes and failures.  Moving ahead, the new political normal should go back to the basic democracy – power back to the people.   The new order is People first and Economics second – the origin of the People’s Action Party.    

China wants to have political reforms so that they can avoid the tragedies of Cultural Revolution.  More importantly, the Chinese Communists Party hopes to stay in power by reforming itself.  
Some may argue this has nothing to do with Singapore. We don’t have Cultural Revolution and we are not a one-party state.  Furthermore, we don’t have tragedies like Cultural Revolution. So, what is the need?   

However, we do operate like a one-party state. We do have the ISA and political prisoners. We do have the state-control media and our economy is run like a central planning near monopoly of GLCs.   

Fortunately or unfortunately, Singapore has developed into a stage that we need to do things differently from the past. As what Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao told a news reference: ‘China needs not only economic reform but also political structural reform, especially the reform of the leadership system of the Party and the government.’

Yes, the Party and the government, so do the PAP and the Singapore government.

China realises that they can no longer use economic development to solve their problems.  They have to bring up their development to a higher level – politically, socially and mentally.

Our long overdue reforms

Based on our economic development, political reform in Singapore should take place 10 or even 20 years ago.  Then we thought of Swiss standard of living, and indeed when Goh Chok Tong became Prime Minister, we did see some lights of liberation. However, this freedom was short-lived and soon it was back to square one.

Till now, we have yet to achieve the Swiss standard of living even though our income per capita is quite close to the Swiss.  Not only we do not have the Swiss standard of living, we certainly are quite far behind from the Swiss standard of political freedom and system.

The political reform in Singapore is far overdue.  Our political system is in stagnation while our economic system and development achieve tremendous progress.  Like the rich-poor gap, the gap between economic and political development becomes bigger and bigger.  Can this situation sustain forever?

Not only our political system never progress with time, it seems to turn backward.  When we gained independence in 1965, we have ISA, it still exists today.  However, when our economy develops upward, our political development goes backward.  The PAP keeps on adding new political restrictions and controls to their advantages, for example, the introduction of GRCs, boundary changes, presidential elections and the required certificates to run for the office.  In addition, the PAP creates monopolies – the 3-in- 1instant coffee power type of political relationship (the PAP, union and government), the monopoly of media and the monopoly of GLCs.         

The CCP knows that their long-term survival depends on political reforms and for China to continue to progress and develop; they just cannot let their political system remains unchanged.  They realise political change will not only affect the CCP but also the whole China.  And any uncertainty in China will affect not only Chinese people but the whole world.

The PAP should think more about Singapore and Singaporeans.  Opening up political system and engaging in political reforms are good for the PAP too as it can face the real challenges and convince Singaporeans that they are real fighters and fight to win in elections.        

Below is the full report about Wen’s view on political reforms from Shanghai Daily on 15 March 2012. It is not only a refreshing piece but a reminder to Singapore and the PAP. 

[[Premier Wen Jiabao warned yesterday that turmoil that engulfed China during the so-called "cultural revolution" could re-emerge unless the country tackles political reforms.

In a three-hour news conference, Wen said China needs not only economic reform but also political structural reform, especially the reform of the leadership system of the Party and the government.

Wen warned that historical tragedies like the "cultural revolution" may recur if the country fails to push forward political reform to uproot problems occurring in society.

"Now reforms in China have come to a critical stage," Wen said, warning: "Without successful political reform, it's impossible for China to fully institute economic reform and the gains we have made in these areas may be lost, and new problems that popped up in the Chinese society will not be fundamentally resolved, and such historical tragedies as the "cultural revolution" may happen again in China."

The "cultural revolution" was 10 years of anti-establishment and radical egalitarianism from 1966-1976 that spiraled into violence which saw millions persecuted and many Party and government leaders jailed, sent into internal exile or left to die.

Wen noted that after the crackdown on the Gang of Four, which included Jiang Qing, the wife of Chairman Mao Zedong, the Party adopted resolutions on many historical matters and decided to conduct reforms and opening up. Still, he said, the mistakes of the "cultural revolution" and feudalism have yet to be fully eliminated.

"The reform can only go forward and must not stand still, much less go backwards because that offers no way out," Wen said.

He said he had addressed the topic of political structural reform in China on many occasions in recent years.

He said his long interest in political reform comes from "a strong sense of responsibility."

As the economy continues to develop, Wen said, such problems as income disparity, lack of credibility and corruption have occurred.

The premier said he believed that any member of the Party and government officials with a sense of responsibility must fully recognize that further reform is "an urgent task" for China.

"I know very well that the reform will not be an easy one and the reform will not be able to succeed without the consciousness, the support, the enthusiasm and creativity of our people," Wen said.
(Shanghai Daily, 15March 2012)]]

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...