But who will watch the watchmen?

The grand flaw in Singapore’s political system

This week Singapore’s cabinet experienced a reshuffle. In contrast to most countries where this event often causes a stir, the process here was seamless; our Prime Minister announced the various changes in appointments, explained the rationale behind the changes, and life continued as before.
The guardians of Singapores future

The watchmen of Singapore's future

In a turbulent time like this, the smooth transition of power may be hailed as a strength by some observers. Responses to the current economic downturn require a kind of decisiveness only present where the leadership is united and the political will robust. Thailand, for example, currently suffers from a two-pronged problem of economic recession and political strife, where each problem exacerbates the other to create a situation almost impossible to redeem. However, the move also betrays a grand flaw in the Singapore political system, something which both the public and the ruling politic would do well to pay heed.

One of the strongest merits of a democracy is the abundance of checks and balances in the system. Checks and balances help to moderate against any excesses the ruling politic may commit, be it poorly-made decisions, oppression of citizenry, or malpractices like corruption. In a democratic system, checks and balances exist as internal (i.e. government-related) forces like intraparty politics, the parliament, government watchdogs (like the CPIB) as well as external forces, such as civil society groups, the press, and of course, the voting public.

The worrying fact about Singapore’s political system is that its modern history reveals a complete absence of external checks and balances. The PAP monopolizes the political space, giving the voter little choice; civil society groups are suppressed by law; the press, while not exactly a propaganda instrument, suffers from limited power nonetheless, as seen in a recent example. Like a corporation, key decisions are center around a few individuals, whose identity, roles and functions are shrouded in mystery. Take MM Lee’s role for example - to date, Singaporeans cannot properly define what the portfolio of a Minister Mentor is; even a snapshot from the government’s own website doesn’t provide any answers, causing outsiders to question the credibility of the system.

Having said that, the system has actually served us well so far. Since their inception in 1959, our leaders have maintained strong track record of making decisions with great foresight, witnessed by electric economic growth over the decades; and they have also upheld very impressive record against corruption by international standards, out-performing many respected democracies.

But the question remains: can we continue to look to the system to churn out leaders that are capable, credible and compassionate? Suppose one day, a Madoff-like character infiltrates the ranks, one harbouring insidious intentions but an expert at maneuvering around the system. Once discovered, the consequences would be catastrophic. Like a table balanced on a single, sturdy leg; though it is stable on most days, the moment the leg gives way, the whole table collapses because there is nothing else to provide support. While this has not happened yet, it has occurred at other levels before (e.g. NKF), and hence cannot be ruled out as a remote possibility.

Of course, the questions posed above are ultimately rhetorical, since all the checks and balances are kept within the system. Meanwhile, the public must sit in the dark and take a gamble in a game where the odds have been decided for them, and the rules partially revealed. So, to answer Plato’s age-old question: who will watch the watchmen? Somebody inside there, but certainly not us.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25723.1