MAY 11 — Firstly, congratulations to all Singaporeans who took part in the 2011 elections — the contest has seen a great deal of blood, sweat and tears as well as immense bravery from many individuals and groups.
Congratulations most of all to the voters, who voted for an alternative in greater numbers than ever before (two out of every five Singaporeans voted opposition!) — signalling a growing political consciousness and openness to change that I feel our neighbours in the south should be well proud of.
My grasp of Singaporean politics is, alas, not strong enough to offer much intelligent comment on the results, save perhaps to say that I hope the PAP government will truly understand that this is an imperative for them to disabuse themselves of their authoritarian tendencies.
During the campaign, someone tweeted this quote: “I have always thought that humanity was animal-like. The Confucian theory was man could be improved, but I’m not sure he can be. He can be trained, he can be disciplined.”
The man behind the quote? Lee Kuan Yew, of course.
Should Singapore continue this ridiculous and fascist line of thought, and ape Malaysia’s worst examples of repression of thought and expression, detention without trial, and relentless suppression of critical thinking, I believe support for the PAP will continue on the decline that it is on.
I reckon they can either do some serious evolving (I’m always happy to be a consultant — especially knowing how well they pay down there), or prepare for the unthinkable. All the gerrymandering in the world cannot prevent the tides of time.
An obsession with maintaining control of more than the already artificially high 90 per cent of seats in parliament should not be the gauge of Singapore’s progress — or the PAP’s for that matter. Regardless of who controls how many seats, the focus should be on whether the citizens are growing and maturing as a nation, and moving towards a country and a people that will truly do great things — not just make truly great worker drones.
We will continue to watch and support the efforts of Singaporeans to teach their government what being a first world nation with first world hearts and minds really means.
One person, one vote
On another front, let’s look at some of the numbers and the lessons they offer.
With only 60.14 per cent of the popular vote, Singapore’s ruling PAP won 81 out of 87 seats (93.1 per cent).
Does that seem right to you?
I have some rather long thoughts regarding ideal political structures and systems that would probably be considered radical — you know, the type that would fill one of those books that we never get around to writing (discipline! Grr). Today though, let’s just focus a few specific things.
One problem worth mentioning is sometimes referred to as the one person, one vote problem. In Putrajaya, the member of parliament is elected by some 6,600 voters. In Kapar, the member of parliament is elected by some 112,000. In essence, the vote of an individual in Putrajaya is worth about 17 times more (or has 17 times more influence) than the vote of someone in Kapar.
Another peculiarity of the Singaporean system is the Group Representative Constituency — where a list of candidates contest a certain seat. So if a party wins 60 per cent of the vote in a five-member GRC, they get not three but all five parliamentary seats assigned to that GRC.
Does that seem right to you?
(Of course, this occasionally backfires, where the famed Aljuned GRC provided in this last election five out of the six elected opposition parliamentarians.)
Reflecting true diversity
I have long thought that the Westminister system based on geographically defined constituencies is a gross misrepresentation (ironically, given its attempt to facilitate representative democracy) of the realities of modern life.
The simple fact is this — citizens want different things, defined almost least of all by where they live. Democracy is about negotiating some of those differences in a way that is as fair as possible.
I don’t really know a lot about what it was like in the day where the systems that are currently in place were designed, but I do feel that the system does not allow for a proportional representation of the nation’s interests as a whole.
The bigger issue to me is the idea of proportionality.
Let’s take community X — X being any type of minority, such as ethnic minorities, gays, handicapped individuals, animal activists and so on. These communities comprise citizens who have very specific interests that they would like to see considered by those who chart the nation’s future.
Under our present system, community X could consist of anywhere from one to about 40 per cent of any given constituency (or, importantly, all of them even), yet still fail to elect a single member of parliament to represent their interests. (In the case of Singapore, this principle applies not just to minorities, but to the opposition as a whole).
Does that seem right to you?
Proportional representation
The approach taken by a number of countries to address this problem is often called proportional representation.
In nations like the Netherlands and Israel, there is only one constituency or electoral district: the entire country.
As even superficial research will show, the systems used by countries that practice proportional representation are quite complex — negotiating preferences between parties, individuals using closed lists, open lists, more open lists, and other such terms on Wikipedia that took some effort to understand.
In essence though, the principle is this: the electoral system is designed to ensure that the government and legislature most reflect the aggregated will of the people as accurately as possible - and to take great pains to ensure the 60 per cent of vote vs 93 per cent of seats problem as seen in Singapore’s 2011 election does not happen. No system is perfect, obviously, but just as obviously, some try harder than others.
Ironically, in Malaysia and (to a lesser extent in tiny) Singapore, for the one political entity wherein a geographically based constituency is relevant and important — that of local government — no voting is allowed.
Ideological diversity vs outdated politcal dualities
This article is already quite long, and I won’t make it longer by discussing my weird political ideas at length but let's briefly touch on some ideas before closing out.
Even existing proportional representation systems seem to be based largely on political parties. In this day and age (or more accurately perhaps, “looking ahead”), are they really all that relevant?
The best way to elect a government and ensure day to day adherence to the people’s will and interests is perhaps best left for another time (short answer: think Internet!), but let’s talk about a legislature — what’s the point of filling an august house with people who answer to party bosses and are forced to worry about party/political careers?
I think a legislature (and I suppose, ideally, any national political institution) should reflect the broadest ideological diversity of the people and a more specific agenda/conscience, not artificial left-right divides and such that are mired in outdated political dualities that no longer correspond to reality.
I’ll leave you with that for now; writing this article has helped me see how much about other systems there is to learn about and maybe one day I’ll report back any interesting findings. In the meantime, congratulations again Singapore!
* The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist.
