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 ...

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...