In 2012, the World Bank puts Singapore in the 55th percentile in the area of Voice and Accountability. Taken into the global context, this means that we are slightly ahead of Indonesia but worse off than India in terms of government accountability to the electorate. As more and more social problems engulf our country, Singaporeans are feeling the brunt on the PAP minister’s apathetic attitude while suffering in various areas ranging from MRT breakdowns to immigration influx.
Forcing policies down our throats?
In the past, Singaporeans were more receptive towards an authoritarian government given the benefits of all-inclusive economic growth. As growth starts to benefit the rich more, Singaporeans are starting to question the balance of what was essentially a one-party state. In the late 1980s, Singaporeans were more or less apathetic in regard to an elected president, which was seen as a thinly disguised ploy to block opposition control. Today, however, Singaporeans nowadays can no longer tolerate nonsense such as the passing of the population white paper using the party whip.
High Ministerial Salaries? A gross lack of accountability?
This month will see the 6th anniversary of Mas Selemat in circumstances which were laughable: a crippled man escaping from a high-security facility without any help. More than just the international embarrassment this brings to our country, this incident reflects the infallibility and lack of accountability from the PAP. Even though WKS has claimed to offer his resignation – unlike other countries - the accountability here seems to have fallen on the civil service rather than at the ministerial levels.
Openness towards the electorate – is this fair?
Even as more inroads are being made by the opposition into parliament, there are still many things which Singaporeans are not aware of. For example, attempts to question the government about the breakdown of foreigners into their home countries have been met with resistance, as has the standing of our CPF monies. Elsewhere in the world – even in India – governments have implemented Right to Information (RTO) Acts which allow opposition parliamentarians a right to information.
These are key issues which affect the lives of Singaporeans and we have the right to know. In this regard, I put forth that it is sad that we need to substantially reduce the PAP’s standing in parliament just so that we can ascertain our rights. By getting parliament a 1/3 minority, we would then have the power to block any reforms put forward by the PAP.
Negative side-effects without checks and balances?
It can be argued the current situation that we are in is largely due to a lack of checks and balances in the parliament. For example, a lack of checks against the government has led to controversial fiscal decisions: this includes Temasek’s controversial purchase of Thaksin’s Shin Corp as well as a $4 billion dollar loan to IMF. Even though Kenneth Jeyaretnam sued, this was proven to be unsuccessful but more opposition in parliament may have opposed this.
In any case, more opposition poised for takeover would result in keeping the PAP on their toes.
Concluding remarks?
As the PAP gets more nonsensical than ever, it is time to send in more and more oppositions so that our voices in Singapore would have a better hearing in parliament. As John Tan puts in the 2011 SDP rally, “We want to make them accountable for every issue, for every problem, whether it is created by them, and there are many of those, or it is just a global problem. No more lame answers.”
Joseph Kheng-Liang Tan
* The author is a 21 year-old polytechnic graduate who is currently pursuing his law degree in Australia. Widely quoted for his views, he has contributed extensively in his personal capacity to top socio-political sites such as TRS and TRE. He is also supremely homophobic and would rather vote for the PAP should the opposition send in a homosexual representative.