"The system must enable a high quality government that is accountable, honest, competent, and effective"
Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Hsien Loong
Today, our tour of the Parliament of Singapore illuminated numerous similarities between the Australian and Singaporean political systems. My focus today was on Singapore’s separation of powers, and the concepts of an accountable, majority government and an independent judiciary.
From Singaporean independence until 1981, the People’s Action Party (PAP) secured every seat in Parliament. The continuing success in elections reflects an abuse of their dominant position that allows the PAP to contain the development of opposition political forces such as the Workers’ Party. In this context, it was interesting to learn from Chairman of the Workers’ Party, Sylvia Lim, about reserved elections and the introduction of Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) and Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs). The law should not be used as a political tool to manage opposition in a representative democracy, but to strengthen accountability. I initially questioned the inclusion of unelected members in Parliament and reserving Presidential elections for certain ethnic groups. Elections in a democratic republic determine a government for the people, by the people, but the people can only choose certain people? However, as I have learnt about Singapore’s multicultural roots, I realise these amendments create a more vibrant and inclusive parliament, designed to uphold governmental accountability to all ethnic communities in Singapore.
Our visit to the Supreme Court left me feeling quite cynical about the Singapore model of democracy. In a modern democracy, the judiciary must act independently from government in order to effectively administer justice and punishment. However, the hyper-judicial character of the political system in Singapore suggests a connection between the executive and the judiciary that has the potential to influence judicial decisions. Our Supreme Court guide clearly tried to shock us with his detailed descriptions of corporal punishment. This just reinforced to me that it is crucial for Singaporeans to have faith in a system of rule of law that is responsible for administering punishments as severe as corporal or capital punishment. However, if the law is used as a political tool (rule by law rather than rule of law) , how can the public trust judicial decisions? And does this question the depth of Singapore’s democracy?
Comments