Rejected by ST Forum
Comparison Between Singapore and Switzerland
When Lee Kuan Yew was Prime Minister, and he still is in all but name, he set a national goal for Singapore and his government: that Singapore should 'catch up with the Swiss standard of living (of that year) by the new millenium.
To his government and the people's credit, Singapore has seemingly made giant strides towards that goal.
But alas, while we have made large gains towards the Swiss standard of living of that past year, we have departed far, far from the Swiss standard of democracy, which would have been an even nobler goal.
To use Switzerland as a model and goal for economic development is laudable; not to use the Switzerland as a model for democracy and freedom is execrable.
Both are small nations with little resources except people.
But Switzerland has managed affluence with democracy and freedoms while we have sacrificed all freedoms for what we now have.
Switzerland does not get much into the world news, except for its large and healthy stock markets and huge banks. And, of course, a country that runs like (Swiss) clockwork does not get into the headlines, only the business news. To a large extent, editors of the media still consider bad news as good news. And good news is usually dull.
I recalled this long-ago goal of LKY recently when I read that "the Swiss conduct frequent Referendums". Now, that is interesting. If it is so, then it is perhaps a democracy that is closer to the people than any other democracy in the world and perhaps close to the original Greek invention of democracy where all citizens (but not slaves) can gather at the Forum to speak their minds on any issue of the day. In Singapore, we are more like the Greek slaves who have no part in the democratic process, except the right, heavily coerced, of casting a slip of paper once every 5 years.
A pity.
Because, in this day of the Internet and the miracle of WAP phones, a click is all that it takes to register a citizen's vote on any issue.
And frequent referendums can easily be managed by present technology and future development. These open up great possibilities for democracies to consult their people on major issues. A truly Consultative Democracy is possible, if not immediately, then within less than 5 years of development if governments put their minds to it. And Singapore, thanks to its small size, is the most wired up in the world, with broadband access into nearly all homes and with almost half of all households connected to the Internet, a penetration higher than the US.
So a Consultative Democracy is indeed very possible.
To some extent, this is already so in most democracies. In the present race for the White House, for example, George Bush and Al Gore are rated professionally and frequently in polls so we have almost daily ratings of their standings vis-a-vis each other in the race. The 2 men are in no doubt as to what the voters think of them and as they court the voters with pronouncements on policies and visions for their country, the polls instantly convey what the people think of them.
In Singapore, there are no Referendums and no polls. I may be wrong. A government that spends so much money and has so much expertise in spin doctoring cannot not know the people's will, though they may ignore it and suppress the results. I believe that polls are constantly conducted, only that the results are not made public because it would be embarrassing to know what Singaporeans really think of their leaders and their policies.
LKY has clearly stated that the 'duty' of the people is to return a 'good' government at the polls, meaning the PAP, and after that, have no say whatsoever in the running of the country, until the next General Elections. Even by-elections are not held, a sore point with the opposition, when an incumbent PAP MP dies or resigns in disgrace. That is to prevent a repeat of the disastrous by-election in Anson which saw Mr Jeyaretnam become the first opposition MP in many years of total PAP monopoly.
Thus, while there are publicised poll results of some minor or non-controversial issues in Singapore in the newspapers, there aren't a single one on our leaders' standings with the electorate. Or the opposition leaders' standings with the electorate. In one recent posting in soc.culture.singapore, a PAP lackey who responded to an anti-LKY posting repeated no less than 4 times that "Lee Kuan Yew is popular because...". This is a desperate attempt to convey that LKY is popular. I wonder what the polls would say. Or have said. LKY boasts constantly that he would rather be "feared than loved". And that "if people don't fear me, then I am meaningless.".
Without publicised polls on what Singaporeans think of their leaders and their policies, there can be no feedback. No real feedback. We do have many Feedback Units but these are more Drawback Units because people who are called upon to say their say dare not say what is really on their minds.
Singaporeans desperately need Referendums and even polls to consult them on issues and to give them a sense that their wishes and opinions count, as in a real democracy. Not to do so is to breed a generation of apathetic citizens who turn cynical and begin to distrust everything the govt says. I think it has already happened. Even the PAP constantly asks the people to wake up from their apathy and to take an interest in society and their collective future. But that is only lip service. The fundamental cause of the apathy is the lack of consultation with the people.
Indeed, if a Consultative Govt can be implemented, it is entirely possible that the PAP gains more from it than the Opposition. Imagine if the people have a chance to influence all major policies. Then it is possible that they wouldn't need the opposition to articulate for them because they can articulate their desires directly through the Referendums, at a click of the mouse or the press of a telephone button. The infrastructure is already there, or at least, easily developed within 5 years.
Until then, apathy rules. This may be convenient for dictators who only want to exercise power directly and unfettered by the niceties of democracy but it cannot be good for the country. Democracy, as Winston Churchill said, is the worst form of government -- except for all the rest.
Robert Ho