A TWO-PARTY system will not work in Singapore, which is much better off with 'one dominant, clean and good party,' said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Sunday.
But he acknowledged that the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) 'should not have a carte blanche'.

Full Story

try 3-party system then . may work !

PM Lee was being modest, calling America a superpower. By the yardstick of LKY and PAP, America is just a backwater country. The proof is in the US President salary. Comparing to our PM Lee salary, all US President, past or present, must be a President with a talent or brain size of a monkey then. As compared to our GREAT Singapore President, indeed the US President is a monkey brain, confirmed!

Even in a big country, 2 party system may not work. India is another example. The problems of India does not come up on our radar screen as the west and ST prefer to focus on the wrong things (things thar are not right) in Chna. The recent problems is also confusing with people taking to the streets to abolish democracy. One should not just look at whether it is one party or two parties, in Japan and the US, regardless of which party is in place, the 'old timers' are always in power, so changing of political parties does not make any difference.
China is also unique, although it is one party but there are sufficient check and balance amongst the different factions at every level.

The underlying assumption we have is that democracy = good. Why would more parties lead to better outcomes, economically, socially, or otherwise? Competing ideas? We can see how well that worked out in history. Look at South Africa, Weimar Germany, and I suspect, the US now.

You want to boggle the mind? Try Mencius Moldbug's blog.
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/

Insofar as I'm concerned, Singapore is already run very much like a corporation. Not that it's a bad thing. And as befitting a corporation, its CEO has to be paid very well. And whoever heard of a corporation's leadership being challenged by two differing teams?

And the previous comment about nothing changing is very true. Also, the civil service(in any place) has a huge inertia and its own agenda(jobs), and doesn't take too well to meddling politicians. The result: largely stasis and status quo. Again, not that it's a bad thing in Singapore...

A one-party system without clear, independent checks and balances [judiciary, civil societies, religious groups, political parties] is not a desirable option for a healthy and thriving Singapore that will benefit all.

#4

India is a multi ethnic nuclear power with neighbours like Pakistan. It is also crawling with separatists and communists in some of it's more boisterous states. In a one party dictatorship it's going to have some other forms of problems.

South Korea on the other hand is a country that has made a succesful transition from military authoritianism to multi party democracy. While it doesn't have the multiple religious and racial factors to consider, it does have several potentially hostile and much larger neighbours to consider. South Korea is proof that a Confucian Asian society can adopt multi party democracy and thrive.

#5 I don't see how Weimar Germany a state with inbuilt instability from it's conception could be a minus against multi party democracy. Any form of government in such a situation would have been disadvantaged from the start unless you are a government that will play brinkmanship games with your neighbours again and again.

The problem with autocracy is that you cannot gurantee a Lee Kwan Yew all the time. A capable well run government will prosper the country in such a system. An incompetent one however will abuse the safeguards meant to protect a competent government to prevent being removed from power.

Eventually, another party will emerge. And to ensure that a party of clowns do not appear to run our country, it would be prudent that the ruling party creates an atmosphere where, if and when an opposition party appears and goes into power, (let's say by a freak result due to one single act of public anger at the polls for some transgression by the ruling party or one of its members), it will be able to effectively run the country.

This way, no matter which party is in power, only style and policies will change but the country still moves onward and upward.

We also have to build a civil service which is totally independent and non -partisan, so that if and when there is disarray at the executive level, the country and its systems still runs smoothly.

Take Thailand for example. If they didn't have a civil service which is totally independent, whenever they have a coup or change of government, the whole country would fall apart. Instead of that, no matter who goes in or gets kicks out in Thailand, the country still runs relatively well while the politicians bicker.

There are also a couple of things we can learn from China. After all it's the strongest one party country that does well for more than 60 years! To some extend China has a very large base of nominated legislators from diverse background and ethnic region. Their feedback process from all these delegates can be very useful too. Of course all government appointed/annoited feedback program tend to be "propaganda" to some extend but China's system is interesting. We should also be actively studying others's system as well and tap on the broad array of Singaporeans scattered all over the world.

nobody asks the pap to form another oppo party. just let others play in an even and just field, not the same old "kill your enemy" tactic.

looks like it won't happen from the pap. the people hv to take the lead!