Change from Inside and Outside

PM Lee is not totally wrong that change must come to Singapore and that it should be from within the ruling party. The PAP must change fast if they wish to retain their glamour over Singaporeans. Speakers’ Corner turning into a protest corner, the ISA no longer used to contain opposition leaders and the lighter touch in the Internet are modest attempts at change.

However, this change would not have come about if the opposition and the people were not vocal about these demands directly and indirectly. I would think that if there is another strong contender for our votes, the PAP would change even faster and more aggressively. Likewise, the other contender would also react to the PAP’s changes to win our votes. Brinkmanship in politics between parties to court voters sounds excellent for us. There should always be space for another main party in Singapore politics. Give our inherited parliamentary system a chance to flourish, and Singapore to really break out of the spell that only and only the PAP alone is good for Singapore.

Nov 16, 2008
PAP cadres conference – Change must come to PAP

CHANGE must come to Singapore – but within the ruling People’s Action Party rather than in the form of having a two-party system.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Sunday stressed that the PAP must constantly evolve to keep up with the times. This means renewing its membership and leadership ranks, and coming up with fresh ways to engage Singaporeans.

Mr Lee, who is secretary-general of the PAP, said: ‘Change has to take place in Singapore but change must take place not (between parties) but within the PAP.

‘As long as the PAP changes itself, and continues to provide clean and good government, and the lives of Singaporeans improve, the country is much better off with one dominant, strong, clean, good party.’

Addressing over 1,000 cadres at the annual PAP Conference at the Toa Payoh sports hub, Mr Lee acknowledged the desire for change among electorates across the world.

‘It has happened in Australia, it’s happened in New Zealand recently,’ he noted. And most notably, in the United States too, where Democratic candidate Barack Obama swept to victory on his campaign platform of change.

Observed Mr Lee: ‘So the country is set on a new direction. And if Obama succeeds, that’s good.

‘If he doesn’t succeed after four years or eight years, the Americans will try again with a new President, change party, the Republicans set a new direction.’

But while the US is a big country with a big pool from which to find political talent, there is no such guarantee in smaller countries, he said.

‘In Asia, it very seldom works because having two or more parties has not guaranteed good governance or progress,’ he added, citing Taiwan as an example.

In the last decade, its unhappy voters had swung from the Kuomintang (KMT), to the Democratic Progressive Party, and back to KMT again.

‘By Western definitions of democracy, Taiwan qualifies because it’s got two changes of government – in, out, in.

‘But it is not a political system which is working properly. And I don’t think you want that kind of political system in Singapore,’ he said.

He added however that this doesn’t mean that the PAP has a blank cheque: It has to account to voters at the polls every five years. New parties will emerge quickly to take it on if ‘something goes wrong with the PAP’, he said.

Neither did it mean it was the job of the PAP to build up the opposition, he added. ‘It’s hard enough to find one team to look after the country. How can you find two? As a small country, we must have a first division team, an outstanding group of people who can make up for our many limitations,’ he said.

The PAP has managed to survive more than 50 years because it kept itself ‘vigorous, lean, relevant, able to win elections’, and adjusting its leadership styles to ‘suit new generations of Singaporeans,’ he noted.

He cited initiatives such as the PAP Policy Forum in which younger party members discuss policy making issues, intra-party elections to district committees, and establishing a presence in the new media.

It is difficult for political parties to stay vigorous, he allowed.

In Japan for instance, the Liberal Democratic Party has been in power for half a century, but ‘has not sustained its vigour’. With no nurturing of younger talent, there is a loss of energy and fresh ideas, observed Mr Lee. ‘So for more than a decade Japan has had a series of weak governments.’

China’s Communist Party, on the other hand, is trying to keep itself strong, vigorous and tied to the ground. This was why it was very interested in Singapore’s political experience, and sent many study teams here.

Mr Lee cautioned however that this did not mean the PAP had found the magic formula to keep itself strong. ‘It is always difficult to carry out self-renewal, to respond creatively to new challenges, to reinvent ourselves. But it is vital for the PAP to make every attempt,’ he said.


2 responses

  1. smallvice585

    PAP Policy Forum is hardly inclusive as it is only open to PAP members. Furthermore, Young PAP is hardly young. Young PAP is led by people who are in the range of 35-45 years old. Being the overwhelming majority in Parliament, this demographics hardly reflects the youth of Singaporeans.

    To add insult to injury, PM Lee said: “(McCain’s) personal sentiments will not alter the task of the Republican party over the next four years — and their job, as the Republicans in the opposition, will be to undermine the Democrat party and in the next elections … get back into power.”

    PM Lee is no doubt politically backward. He still maintains the idea that Loyal Opposition exists to undermine the ruling party. The Loyal Opposition exists to act as the Devil’s Advocate and point out flaws in whatever PAP is proposing in parliament. In essence, the Loyal Opposition ensures that PAP has no blank check, while PM Lee says this blank check should be regulated internally by PAP’s own mechanism.

    Moreover, different political parties are sensitive to different political, social and economic issues. A single-party state would end up in monopolisation of single thought, and not interests of the people will be adequately captured. Hence it is essential for the parliamentary system to grow into a 2-party state. Ideally, we have one socialist party and one conservative party in parliament to reflect the mandate and interest of all Singaporeans.

    November 17, 2008 at 1:21 pm

  2. Krusty

    but i love deep deep being under one party rule. they decide for me what is best, they define for me who talks crap and who talks sense, they provide for me…the list goes on and on.

    November 19, 2008 at 8:28 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s