Checks & Balances

Checks & Balances

There are a whole string of events happening in recent months that I think could be summed up by this title. Starting from the NKF saga to Presidential Election to the most recent parliament question raised by our Workers’ Party MP Mr. Low on Tan Tock Seng Hospital saga, all these point to the important element of Checks and Balances.

The Presidential Election saga raises a few interesting points.

1) The President is supposed to be elected by over a million voters but ended up selected by three wise men when they disqualified all others except the incumbent.
2) The Elected President has practically become “Selected President”.
3) It would mean that the three wise men have MORE power than the million voters!
4) It is strange that when the intended role for the Elected President is to check on the government, the government itself has come out to “endorse” the one that is supposed to check on them.
5) The Straits Time actually reported that as long as PAP is the government, the elected President’s role would be largely “ceremonial”. If that is the case, why the fuss about the “high caliber and qualifications” set for the candidates?
6) The Elected President Act is to safeguard our reserves in the event when a “rogue government” comes into power. So by point 5, it means PAP is not a “rogue government” but wait, who has the right to determine which government is a “rogue government” or not? The President, the people, the reporters in Straits Time, the three wise men or the PAP? If the people voted in a party other than PAP, does it means the new government will become a “rogue government”? So the voters must be stupid not to choose PAP who will not be a “rogue government” but some other parties that would become a “rogue government”?
7) Since PAP is not going to be a “rogue government”, so no need for voters to exercise their power to elect a president to check on them? So what makes us think that these voters who are stupid enough to vote in a “rogue government” would vote in a good President that could put effective checks on their previous choice of rogue government?
8) The ultimate question here is, what kind of “checks and balances” we are talking about at the end of the day?

No where in the Democratic world do we have a system whereby a candidate of a Presidential race or any election of public office must be vetted by others before they could stand for election. The spirit of checks and balances is the fundamental principle in the Democratic world. The ultimate power comes from the people, not by anybody else. If the three wise men are not empowered by the people, on what logical basis are they to make judgement on who the voters could or could not vote as a candidate? Even the appointment of ministers are done by the political party that has the endorsement and mandate by the voters through the system of political competition.

NKF saga is self-explanatory. The “BIG AND GRAND” mentality is well alive, even in civil service and statutory boards. Look at the amount of money we spent in one National Day parade and you will understand what I mean. Over the mass media, we have been bombarded by the obvious message that we should “feel proud” of this big and grand celebration. PAP and RCs all over Singapore organized BIG & GRAND National Dinners, some even “proud” of having the “largest number of tables” in such celebrations. Our National achievements are all about “big and grand INFRASTRUCTURE” we have built over the years. These are shown on our National TV stations. Apparently they have not learnt from the IOC saga; it is not about what infrastructure we have that make us proud, it is the development of our people that makes us proud!

The Big & Grand mentality arises in entities like charities, public listed companies or the government simply because of the “principal-agent” problem. A simpler concept is “Moral Hazard” or in layman’s words, simply because it is (in Hokkien) “Ah Gong’s liu” (in English, it means “public money”). The only way of curbing such inherent problem is to provide a system of checks and balances. It is not merely about rules and regulations to govern the people utilizing the money, but to install PEOPLE that could effectively become whistle blowers on these organizations. In politics, this includes OPPOSING forces that could make those in power accountable.

A good example of how Opposing political force could bring the government accountable to the people is the Tan Tock Seng Hospital saga. This may not involve irrelevant spending but it exposes the opposite dimension of the problem, the lack of priority in government spending. For many years, we have heard people complaining about the lack of long wait at hospitals and even lack of beds in some instances. But those at the top only receive “statistical data” that show no long queue and such. These people at the top have not experienced first hand what exactly happen on the ground but chose to depend on their judgement based on “statistics”. It is only when our Workers’ Party MP Mr. Low gone through the “layman experience” that we finally realize the real situation on the ground. In order to avoid long queue on the ground, the hospital just turn away patients when the hospital is full! If it is not for Mr. Low’s experience, we will never know the TRUE reasons on the ground!

First, the million-dollar helicopter has crashed. As a governing ministry, there is no monitoring of the overwhelming demand on the inadequate supply that TTSH is providing. Furthermore, it doesn’t need a rocket scientist to figure out that with big housing development planned in Sembawang to Sengkang-Punggol SO MANY YEARS AGO, the demand of hospital care in the North will definitely increase. Why did they only plan to have the hospital in the North built in 2010?

Hospital care is a matter of life and death. They should stop all those BG spending on “HDB upgrading” that only makes superficial, cosmetic “improvement” (eg. Lift upgrading that only makes the lift lobby looks good but not providing the real need of lift landing on every floor.). They should put priority in spending on the urgent and important items like a regional hospital in the north.

The problem is that PAP tends to politicize the things they do for the people. HDB upgrading is one fine example. Swimming pool, opening of MRT station in Potong Pasir are the other examples. Even the North Hospital is one important example where A/P Ho Peng Kee made his election promise in last general election of having the hospital built in Yishun. It is not about “election promises” or political capital that one should consider when it comes to the REAL NEED of the people. When there is a REAL NEED, then regardless of who voted for PAP, the government should provide the services to ALL SINGAPOREANS that need such services.

When politicians try to politicize such national spending, priorities are being skewed. Instead of looking into the real needs of the people, they would channel funds to projects they have promised in order to preserve their own political power. This is really unhealthy when there are competing priorities but considerations are skewed towards political objectives.

Who will be in the position to make the government accountable to the people’s REAL NEED? PAP MPs? The TTSH saga has just proven that only alternative party’s MP like Mr. Low would press the button hard enough on PAP government to make them move. This is what checks and balances in politics all about.

Goh Meng Seng