Session II: "Electoral Authoritarianism' No More? The Future of the political system in Singapore.

Prof Wang Gungwu. member of the board of governors of the IPS is now introducing the next session.

Panelists:Janadas Devan, Viswa Sadasivan and Ken Kwek.

Janadas:
- phlosophical analysis of 2006 elections
- seeking to be deceived?
- compares SG/MY with TW/KR/HK in the 60s. He made a good set of points about how in the 60s, MY and SG were really the leading lights in democracy, regularly held elections etc and TW/KR were ruled by generals and HK by the Brits. Those three countries were not democratic by any stretch of the imagination, and yet, 30 or so years later, they have surpassed SG in creating and maintaining a perception of liberal democracy. SG, in the meantime, has stayed stagnant. Yes, we do have regularly held elections, but there is missing the X factor.
- he suggested that the way SG evolved the political system today can be traced back to a by-election held in June/July 1995 in Hong Lim. The PAPy had lost two preceding attempts at winning that seat and when it fell vacant, the by-election was seen as a chance to prove itself to stand up to the Tengku and UMNO. When the election was over and the PAPy won that seat, there was a sense of thumping one's nose at KL which probably snowballed to the ejection of Singapore from the Federation of Malaysia on August 9 1965. The thesis is that the by-election was the turning point in the PAPy gaining stronghold in Singapore and explains how they continued to bulldoze through subsequent election. I think it is an interesting theory. In Gladwell terms, that was the tipping point. I think that there has been another tipping point at this election with the WP winning a substantial mindshare. In 10 years, we can probably verify that this was indeed the key event that toppled the PAPy's stronghold only to be replaced by another party's!

Viswa:
- larry diamond's paper quoted
- independent election commission
- most countries have it. esp commonwealth countries. Canada, USA, Malaysia, Romania, S Korea. They have tenure as well. What is it that we do not have it? Does having it make the level playing field? Who chooses the members? Will they have tenure?
- constitutional boundaries: made know well in advance. Popular belief is that is is redrawn to favour the PAP. 15K voters moved from Marine Parade to Aljunied via GerryMandering? Amazing isn't?
- Adequate time and scope for campaigning. 9 days is what we have legally and it does no one any good. Of course the PAPy benefits as they have been able to use the government machinery *before* the elections to project themselves.
- adequate and fair info in media
- pork barrel politics should be avoided. We do not have to do it, we are Singapore!
- right of citizens to vote; vote to be secret; I hoped that he would have brought up the need to invalidate the walkover scheme as it robs the very essence what it means to be able to exercise the very right to vote and participate.
- fair and established framework: law applies well. defamation action seems to work in favour of the ruling party.
- conclusion: there is no fair and complete system. we need to keep improving it none the less. Good and honest introspection.

Ken:
- every election over the last 15 years labelled "watershed". but what is a watershed election?

Q&A:
- PAP monopolizing the definition of "talent". Talent is what they define it to be and not what is generally accepted. They claim they have the "talent" within their party. How can that be an honest statement?
- "We rule, you shop" compact
- "stomachs full, minds empty"
- The US is referred to as a aircraft carrier on which any dancing and jiggling will not upset the ship, however, Singapore is a sampan which cannot afford that kind of a shake. The suggestion is that we cannot continue to be a sampan and we have to become a catamaran - two hulled and balanced. Two hulled in that we have a functioning two party system with checks and balances in parliament.