COMMENT: “Ownself check ownself” a legitimate Singaporean concern

BY MOSES LEMUEL

Is the Singapore government changing its approach to governance? Is it more receptive to alternative voices? The recently proposed political changes seem to suggest that the answer is, at the very least, “We are working on it”. However, other ongoing political developments indicate that the changes can only be skin-deep.
_______________________

“I am the state,” the renowned French king Louis XIV was supposed to have said, boasting of his absolute power to rule. While Louis’ model of government is no longer fashionable today, in a paternalistic system, the government may still claim the right to make most decisions without consulting the people. After all, do voters really know what is best for the nation?

That said, perhaps spooked by its electoral performance in 2011, the Singapore government has been trying to change its approach. Engagement is the new buzzword and the government has repeatedly promised to listen more closely to the public. Does this imply that Singapore is moving on from its paternalistic brand of government?

In a show of its seriousness, the government has announced significant changes to the political system: A reduction in the size and number of Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs), an increase in the number of Non-constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs), and potential changes to the Elected Presidency.

Announcing the raft of proposed measures late in January, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that the changes are aimed at keeping the government on its toes and ensuring that it will always be motivated to look after the interests of Singaporeans. So far so good, we might say. He seemed to be sounding the right notes aimed at those who might be disillusioned with the system.

But much debate has already ensued in political circles. Although the boost to NCMP seats will bring the number of opposition politicians in parliament up to 12, topping up the number of elected seats with unelected NCMP seats, the opposition sees the change as something of a poisoned chalice. Workers’ Party leader Low Thia Khiang stated that NCMP seats are ‘rootless’ as they are not tied to constituencies.

Suspicions are that the change may be a scheme by the ruling party to divert votes away from opposition parties, as voters know that they would be guaranteed a fairly significant opposition presence in parliament anyway. This move could therefore deprive the opposition of real power bases in constituencies on the ground. Low Thia Khiang’s chosen imagery of “duckweed” to describe NCMP seats has become a symbol of the political football match.

Moreover, the saga of Lee Li Lian’s rejected NCMP seat was still unfolding when the PM made his announcement. She had lost her seat as MP for Punggol East in the 2015 General Election, but was offered an NCMP seat as the best performing losing candidate. However, she rejected the seat, arguing that her voters wanted her to be their MP and not their NCMP. Subsequently, the Workers’ Party filed a motion in parliament to declare the seat vacant and proposed that another one of its candidates, Daniel Goh, take the seat instead.

The ruling People’s Action Party responded with a political manoeuvre: Government Whip Chan Chun Sing said that the seat would be filled but proposed the insertion of an amendment to the motion so that it “reflects the truth”. The amended motion includes a statement that Parliament “regrets” that Lee Li Lian decided to give up her NCMP seat “contrary to the expressed will of voters”. PAP MPs voted for the amended motion in unison and it passed. Daniel Goh has since taken up the seat as the third NCMP.

Government Whip Chan Chun Sing addressing Parliament on the amendment to WP’s motion. (Photo: Mediacorp)

This episode serves to showcase the character of Singapore politics, laying out the crux of the matter with regards to the paternalism of the system. The PAP claims that voters’ will was for Lee Li Lian to take up the NCMP seat offered. Yet, as the Workers’ Party correctly argues, what was asked to voters through the ballot was whether they wanted her to be their MP. Voters had not actually been asked whether they would like her to be an NCMP. Hence, we may wonder where the confidence in the “expressed will of voters”, mentioned in the amendment, came from.

Indeed, we can ask similar questions about the political changes that have been proposed: Do voters want more NCMP seats in parliament? Do they want changes to the Elected Presidency? How many of them want changes to the GRC system?

These political changes are no ordinary everyday concerns. Yet, even for such non-routine decisions, what voters think does not seem to matter. If the changes are deemed to be in the interest of the people, they will be proposed, deliberated on by parliament, and likely implemented. If any change requires constitutional amendments, those can typically be made with a two-thirds majority in parliament, something that the government easily commands. Thus, even constitutional changes are up to the ruling party to decide on its own.

In truth, Articles 5(2A) and 5A of the Singapore Constitution do specify that any amendment to certain parts of the Constitution, such as those governing fundamental liberties and the president’s powers, requires the support of two-thirds of voters in a national referendum. Yet Articles 5(2A) and 5A have never been brought into force when they should, the government’s reasoning being that it needs to maintain operational flexibility. Hence, in practice, the government is free to make any changes it sees fit despite what the Constitution says.

Is it any wonder, then, that cynical Singaporeans describe the government’s position as “ownself check ownself”? Through the recent political developments, the government has also displayed its freedom in interpreting the will and interest of voters in whichever way it chooses.

We could say that this is just the way the Singapore system is, and there are good reasons for that. But if we are looking for a departure from the traditional paternalistic approach, then the changes that Singapore needs are not yet in the making.

Top photo: 2013 Population White Paper protest, Xinhua

Inconvenient Questions is hosting a panel debate on the political changes entitled “Political Reforms: What and Why?” on 23 February at 7 pm - 8.30 pm. Join us for this conversation through our live stream!

Moses Lemuel is a member of the Inconvenient Questions editorial team. He has a background in politics, philosophy, economics and media studies, and tries to keep up with his reading during lengthy commutes. The views expressed are his own.