I REFER to Dr Tan Wu Meng's letter last Friday, 'Why Singapore's political system works', and the follow-ups on Saturday, 'Logic favours two-party system' and 'Governments better off with checks and balances'.

Full Story

Your parents will be so proud of you Mr Li.

By the way, I am in awed of the kinds of talent PAP has been attracting. I agree that surely there can't be anymore other people who are talented but yet inexplicably NOT want to join PAP.

If you are smart and want to be in politics, you should be with the PAP.

One can be very objective, academic and dispassionate about favouring a certain model of political system. But it is only fair to let readers know certain facts first to avoid any hint of controversy and speculation.

Dear Mr Li,

Your parents and grandparents must be very proud of you writing in to support them. But, don't be too unhappy if people throw cold water over your head. Since you like to refer to the American system to compare with Singapore's autocracy. The recent financial tsunami was a good example of both Republicans and Democrats working hand-in hand to come up with a rescue package. Yes, it did face obstacles in congress, but came out was a better tuned package that both Republicans and Democrats agreed. You can't say the same for Singapore. PM Lee raised his pay by a million dollars, no even including the bonus, did Singaporeans agree to it? It was a disaster to his reputation that he had to give up his payraise while the rest of the cabinet just kept quiet. Real quiet. Now, if we had a 2-party or multi-party system that can do check and balances on the obscene pay hike, which is the right thing to do, Singapore will benefit from it.

Singapore will always need strong leadership, this is not unique to the little red dot. As a matter of fact, strong leadership is must to survive in this world. However, a strong leadership has failed to transfer to the 3rd generation leaders. As a aresult, we have seen a rise in screw ups in the last few years, even after the humongous pay hike. Uncontested leadership will only succeed if the leaders are capable.

Singapore does not have talent? Now, that's slapping your fellow Singaporeans' face. Turn around and look, do you see talents or do you see slaves? PAPA believe only they, the elites, are born to rule over the slaves. We, on the other hand, truly believe that Singapore has talents abundant. Only if they are brave enough to stand up against the hegemony.

Hongyi brought up some valid ponts and there are others for him to consider as well.

For example, he observes that "competitive elections reward skilful demagogues rather than effective policymakers, simply because success in elections comes from winning votes rather than good policy." That's may be right but the parties don't usually go on to win several terms at a stretch. In many countries with one party political system, we have also not seen good policy making either.

Hongyi should also note that a large pool of policy-making talent resides outside the PAP, in the civil service, in academia and even in the private sector. The "accumulated wisdom" that Dr Tan pointed out probably resides in a handful of the old guard Ministers. If these accumulated wisdom are worth anything, they should be able to withstand the challenge of a parliamentry debate.

Nevertheless, it is academic to talk about a 2-party system at this stage. The PAP will enjoy an absolute majority in Parliament for some time to come. The more practical approach is to have the opposition win a couple of GRCs and see what happens first.

to Really100:
your point about Republicans and Democrats working together to solve this current financial crisis fails to address how the crisis came about in the first place. Because of poor policies and regulation, this crisis blow up the way it is doing now. Of course Republicans and Democrats need to work together to solve, they created it in the first place.

if the problem-solvers are heroes, then people who prevent problems from happening in the first place are saints.

let's look at Thai politics now. Why is there this massive demonstration and effort to cripple the current government? The PAD charges that the 1-man-1-vote system will cause government to adopt populist policies as the majority of Thai people in the rural areas will vote for a party which promises them direct benefits, not a party which will govern Thailand in its best interests. The PAD wants to curtail the voting rights of the rural poor and give more voting rights to people in urban centres who are presumably more educated and hence, in a better position to make decisions.

While the PAD is no saint, what it says about the danger of populist policies is true, just as Karl Marx is wrong on communism but spot-on about the ills of the capitalism.

A so-called multi-party election can only work well when the following conditions are present:
1) the electorate are informed enough to think of bigger and longer term goals and objectives for the country.
2) political parties campaign on their plans to deliver economic progress and field capable candidates who can manage a country.

However, these 2 conditions are seldom present to the extent for the ideal multi-party system to work. In addition, a dictatorship is hardly desirable.

In other words, all forms of human government are doomed to fail if followed to the letter.

A poor multi-party government will result in whoever promises more benefits to electorate will be elected. All these at the expenses of a country's long term viability.

#8
bah.. PAD is just asking for a party that give THEM direct benefits instead of to the rural people. I think they are selfish bast@rds who want a 'meritocracy' which gives them even more, resulting in a bigger income gap, which I hardly think is good for the long term interests of the country.

I just want to say that regardless of the validity of Thaksin's populist policies, PAD's idea of curtailing the voting rights of the rural poor and at the same time advocating giving more rights to the people in urban centres is even more ludicrous. It is a step moving the country backward to the feudal times when the rural poor were enslaved. This would be a recipe for disaster in the future when masses of the unrepresented, poor underclass rise up to stage a bloody revolution overthrowing the rich. History would merely be repeating itself.