In an Alternative Electoral Reality … giving Diversity a fairer chance
by Dinesh Senan: 20 September 2015
Singaporeans have voted resoundingly for the PAP. But was that necessarily synonymous with a vote against Diversity in the House? Or does the current winner take all Electoral Model inadvertently mask the possibility that Singaporeans might very well have desired both?
In relation to the theoretical alternative competencies-based New Electoral Model, which I had written about several months ago, (published in the Straits Times, May 15, 2015: http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/a-novel-proposal-for-political-reform), I feel it is worthwhile contemplating just how our electorate might have had a very different outcome, having both the competencies of the PAP in the House, as well as the (supplementary) competencies of focused opposition parties, each contesting in their respective Chambers of competencies, to serve the nation better as a whole.
Three key questions come to mind, as I reflect, post-GE, on the theoretical alternative Model: How the outcome could have been different? And why would that model be better? Who would gain from such a New Model?
How the outcome could have been different:
In that conjectured alternative Electoral Model, (which would doubtlessly need substantive fine-tuning in its details in due course, should it be deemed worthy of deeper study for the betterment of our nation), it is proposed that there could be several Chambers of Governance, each taking care of cogently-linked functional clusters, such as, for instance, an Economic Development Chamber, (comprising economics, finance and trade governance), and perhaps a distinct Healthcare Chamber, a distinct Transportation Chamber, a Law & Civil Liberties Chamber, etc. etc.
In that scenario, (as had been more fully outlined in my earlier article), each citizen would get to vote for the candidates of their choice, from amongst all of the candidates put forth by each party that might be contesting for the available seats within each distinct Chamber of Governance. So if there are, say, 5 Chambers of Governance in the House, with 5 seats being contested within each Chamber, the citizen simply votes 5 times … 1 for whichever party’s candidates they think most competent to run each Chamber.
Now some parties might choose to contest for all Chambers of Governance. Other parties might instead choose to focus on putting forth candidates in only certain specific Chambers.
Thus any party believing it has the right competencies to lead any specific Chamber(s) of Governance, could more smartly focus on those Chambers concerned, and put forth their best candidates to run for the seats in just those Chambers.
Why would that model be better?
Consider this ground reality: not all Chambers of Governance are equal in weightage. The Economic Development Chamber carries a higher weightage for the conservative, thinking voter, than any of the other desirable yet less foundationally important Chambers would. The current Model is thus incontrovertibly skewed in favour of the party that can best provide this base level / foundational economic development governance. The consequence of which is that all other desirable / aspirational competencies do not get to be distinctly chosen from amongst other opposition parties which are less capable of rendering strong economic development leadership than the incumbent PAP, as the current winner take all Electoral Model effectively precludes this.
I would argue that the Economic Development Chamber of Governance, (responsible for the GNP of the nation, commanding such governance skills as the Ministry of Trade & Industry and the Ministry of Finance wields), would always carry a higher relative ‘weightage’ in the minds of the thinking, conservative voters, than any of the other Chambers. Reason: The Economic Development Chamber goes to the most foundational level of governance that any society needs … namely the base economic level of primordial physiological needs fulfillment. Thinking, conservative voters will always tend to wish to secure this governance capability within the House first and foremost. All other capabilities will, relatively speaking, be ‘nice‘ to have, once this foundational capability is in place. Those other supplemental / aspirational capabilities are indeed much desired, as well, but resting on top of the former competency.
In other words, the Economic Development Chamber is akin to a ‘need to have’ competency, whilst the other Chambers are akin to ‘nice to have’ competencies, resting on top of the former foundational competency. Thus, the Economic Development aspect of governance will always effectively carry a heavier weightage for the conservative voter than the other governance chambers. And so, we the electorate are not likely to be able to have both the need and the nice … the foundational and the aspirational diversity … within our House, for so long as we have the PAP dominating the economic development realm of governance.
My central argument is that the prevailing Electoral Model, (effectively ‘coercing’ the electorate to pick on a wholesale party vs party winner take all basis), will always tend to favour the PAP today, (given the PAP’s relatively predominant and masterful competency in this Economic Development realm of governance).
Thus, the current system effectively precludes the emergence of any other aspirational competencies which could have been distinctly focused upon by opposition parties. No thinking citizen can readily deny the PAP’s dominance in this Economic Development governance capability. And I would go further to say that neither would most of the opposition parties here either. And hence, the rather unsurprising outcome: citizens vote predominantly for the PAP. But not necessarily against having a diversity of supplementary competencies in other Chambers of Governance … but the latter simply cannot be given expression in our House, due to the strictures of the current Electoral System.
Would this envisaged New Electoral Model benefit ALL Key Stakeholders in a GE?
The key stakeholders are: The Nation at large and the Political Parties, Incumbents and Opposition challengers alike. I would contend that all would benefit.
As for the Opposition, I would say the alternative New Model allows for them to Focus on diligently building their teams, to strive to lead within their specific chosen Chambers of Governance. To take a hypothetical example, a candidate such as NUS Prof. Paul Tambyah, (who recently ran unsuccessfully under the SDP’s Opposition flag), might well have stood a pretty strong chance of winning the seat(s) within the Healthcare Chamber, within the New Model envisaged, whilst the PAP might also have, in all likelihood, gone on to win the Economic Development Chamber’s seats. Thus Opposition candidates might fare better in future GE’s if they were able to contest for specific Chambers in which they might possibly be able to serve the Nation better than the PAP. And perhaps not have to even pretend to be ‘in opposition’ to the PAP’s tremendously admirable strengths in the Economic Development Chamber. The net result is that the Opposition, in focusing its core competencies and strengths within specific Chambers, would then have a fairer chance at getting to enter the House to help develop supplementary / aspirational policies in the other Chambers of Governance, for the betterment of the Nation.
As for the PAP, I would submit it would have absolutely nothing to lose within this fairer, New Model: If the PAP believes it has all of the competencies needed to run all of the Chambers of Governance, it should simply field its candidates accordingly, across all Chambers. And let the voters decide. The PAP would then be forced to beef up not just its competencies in the realm of economic development, but also to build stronger competencies across all of the other Chambers of Governance as well.
As for the Nation, I would contend that ours is a maturing electorate that has growing aspirations: not just for the base economic development governance needs to be met, but also for other specific, supplemental / aspirational areas of governance, which no one political party might realistically be expected to hold the very best competencies needed to lead the Nation.
The net effects
The New Model would thus effectively help ensure that all parties work harder to strive to build strengths in the areas of competencies they might each choose to focus upon.
The New Model would now level the playing field for alternative parties to also step forth, without necessarily having to replace the PAP in its economic development role, bringing into the House other supplemental / aspirational governance strengths.
Thus, diversity would be granted a fairer chance at co-governance expression in the House, alongside the PAP’s dominant economic development competencies.
And the Nation as a whole would emerge with a stronger collective team of legislative leaders of varying competencies, from across a multiplicity of co-governing, (as distinguished from adversarially opposing), parties.
Parting thoughts
I do recognize that contemplating the re-modeling of the Electoral System is an idealistic goal. One that would involve considerable careful discussion and fine-tuning in the details of its mechanisms.
Yet I believe that the electoral model we have inherited from the West so long ago, should still be seen as capable of evolving. And on our own terms as a young nation, to best serve our own true foundational needs AND aspirational desires.
The envisaged New Model is effectively a call for us to step out of the box, and for us all to imagine and to explore a smarter, fairer, less adversarial, new paradigm in democratic parliamentary representation …
One that moves away from simplistic adversarial party vs party winner take all systems, (wherein the strengths of the losing parties are lamentably lost to the Nation altogether), and into a higher-functioning House filled with the most competent of patriots from across a multiplicity of parties, getting the very best leadership assets from across the land into our House for the betterment of our Nation. In a spirit of national synergistic co-governance, rather than all-out adversarial ‘opposition’ to one another.
I am reminded, too, of our late Founding Father, Lee Kuan Yew, who back in the year 2006, spoke of his vision of having a robust multi-party parliament for Singapore in the future, when he said that “a First World Parliament not only needs a First World government, but also a First World Opposition”.
I believe we can get to such a First World Parliament envisaged by Mr Lee, more swiftly and effectively, in our own way, through a fundamental re-thinking of our inherited, archaic, prevailing Westminster-based Electoral Model.
The Pragmatic Idealist 