Beyond Politics of Labels

AWOL?

Recent happenings in the political arena is rather interesting.

First, it was "Wayang Party" posters pasted around the venue of WP 50th Anniversary Dinner. The PM Lee's comment of "AWOL" which is directed not only on Workers' Party but also me. Then the ultimate one is, in th name of "rejuvenate" Hougang, they are going to tear down 9 blocks of flats which is a stronghold of support for WP's MP Mr. Low Thia Khiang. Prior to this, due to the "bad connotation" of "compulsory annuity", they just change the label to "longevity insurance" to make it sound "nicer and acceptable"!

All these labels are of course, politically motivated. The label "Wayang Party" first appeared in internet forums and subsequently used by PAP Dr. Ng Eng Hen during one of his GE 2006 rally speech. And now, it is used in an organized smearing campaign about WP. No matter who is the master mind behind this smearing campaign, it just demonstrates that they are either envious of WP's success and progress or that there is certain anxiety behind the rising of WP in the political field.

This anxiety of WP's rise is also felt in the recent PAP members meeting whereby PAP's grassroot members have fired off various questions on the WP's close fight in Aljunied GRC in GE 2006. If WP is such a "Wayang Party" as PAP minister has once pronounced, why would PAP grassroot members show such anxiety? I think the heat is great on the PAP side, so much so that PM Lee has to use another label "AWOL TEAM" to describe WP's Aljunied Team in GE 2006 in order to defuse the anxiety of his party comrades in this ward.

When reporter Peh called me with regard to PM Lee's latest label, I could only laugh at it. AWOL means "Absent Without Official Leave". It means that you must be "Officially" elected as MP first before you could talk about "Official Leave". Thus, if anyone who is elected as MP but does not attend parliament sittings or just sleeping during parliament sittings, or he or she does not perform the duty of MP by scrutinizing the policies brought up by the government, or he or she does not conduct regular meet-the-people sessions, or he or she does not attend all those necessary meetings which are related to the running of the town councils, then we could conclude that this person has gone "AWOL": meaning that he or she is not performing the duties expected as a MP. Are the WP candidates (including me) in Aljunied GRC elected as MP but did not perform our duties as expected of us? Obviously not.

From another angle, the perspective behind this comment is rather narrow. Maybe it is due to the fact that this comment is a direct response to "localized" politics in Aljunied GRC, that is why the context is much narrower. On a broader perspective, I think many of us in non-PAP politics have only one aim, that is to push for political democratic development for Singapore. As far as I am concerned, I am still working towards my political beliefs. Did I "AWOL" or give up on my political beliefs? I have to disappoint many people to say that I have NOT given up the fight yet! ;)

The anxiety of PAP grassroot members in Aljunied GRC was heightened after Mr. Low Thia Khiang has spoken about winning one GRC in the next election. They must have sensed the possibility of Mr. Low walking out of the Hougang in the bid to fulfill that promise of winning that one GRC. It is only natural.

But the later development really intrigues me. HDB has just announced the plan of demolishing 9 blocks of flats along with the market and industrial buildings which are located in Hougang ward. This time, they use the label "rejuvenate". But it was not so long ago, during the GE 2006 hustling that PAP has come up with upgrading plans for the estates, especially the market, as an "election carrot" (alas, that's pork barrel politics!). The same label "rejuvenate" was used too. But this time, the idea of "rejuvenating" the place is to tear down everything? Is this a PAP's "retaliation" for losing more votes in Hougang? A "retaliation" for the rejection of PAP's offer of upgrading for the market? Since you do not want upgrading, I will tear it down kind of mentality? Or is this a direct response to Mr. Low's vow of winning at least one GRC in the next elections?

There are two dimensions of the impacts of such moves by PAP government. Politically, it is not the first time that PAP has tried to cut off the support level of opposition parties in "danger zones" by administrative means . The market place at Hougang is a very important battleground for both PAP and WP as it is the focal point of everyday lives of those living in the town. Both PAP as well as WP members have been very active at the market place during as well as off election period. Since PAP has not been able to win the battle on the front, it would be tactically advantage to remove the battle front altogether. Needless to say, the nine blocks of flats are the stronghold of WP.

But why is PAP doing this? The reason is obvious. They do not want Mr. Low to walk out of Hougang to contest in a GRC by reducing the potential support, thus the buffer of winning percentage for WP in Hougang. They hope that by making the battleground in Hougang more tight, WP will think twice about taking the risk of letting Mr. Low to lead a team in other GRC while leaving this Hougang ward to another candidate. Will their wish come true? We will wait and see. ;)

On the other dimension, such moves will affect many people. First, the livelihood of those who depend on the market will be adversely affected. Secondly, those living in the town as well as those across the street at Aljunied GRC will be affected too. One of my friend called me up the other day to lament about this latest announcement. He lives in Aljunied GRC just across the street opposite the Hougang ward. The demolition of the market will grossly affect his family.

From the social perspective, many elderly folks who are used to the living in the neighbourhood will be greatly affected. Elderly folks who live in that neighbourhood are normally lonely folks who depends on the dynamism of the social psychological support of the neighbourhood to keep their lives active. Friends made in the neighbourhood are part of their social psychological support for their daily lives. To ask them to shift and to adapt to new environment will create emotional problems for these elderly folks. Nothing, in terms of infrastructure, could better the "kampong spirit" built up in Hougang now. Has HDB taken this important factor into considerations before they make their decisions? It just shows that HDB lacks the empathy to understand the social needs of these elderly people.

I hope that the self-proclaimed "First World Government" would see beyond the politics of labels and put more substance of the heart in their policy making process. No matter what is the motivation of all these labeling, the ultimate aim of a government is to make policies that take good care of the people. Politicking with labels without taking the people's needs (social, culture and economic needs) into serious consideration is definitely not something that a "First World Government" government would do.

Goh Meng Seng

后权威时代的中国需民主政治

This is a very good Chinese article published on ZaoBao about the need of democratic politics when strongman politics faded away. Although this article address the needs of China's need of political transformation, but in view of the inevitable dawn of post-LKY era, this view is also very relevant to Singapore's context.

张雪忠（上海）

据新华社报道，在中共十七大会议期间，中共中央委员会委员、候补委员和中央纪律检查委员会委员选举差额比例都在8％ 以上，是中共十四大以来比例最高的一次。另据透露，习近平、李克强两位“政治新秀”能够进入常委，并非是由谁“钦定”的结果。在十七大召开几个月之前，中 共中央曾在省部级干部中进行的一次接班人预选，他们两人都获得高票，后来在十七大预选中又再次领先。

　　五年之后，中国共产党第四代领导集体便要向第五代进行权力交替。新一代领导集体已不能再像前几代领导人那样，利用独特的革命、战争或任职经历来获得众望所归的权威。通过适度的党内民主机制，让新一代领导集体获得足够的治理国家的政治权威，已经成为一种必不可少的选择。

权威主义的缺陷

　 　通过改革开放政策，邓小平历史性地将中国从极权主义社会转变为权威主义社会。在权威主义政治中，政治权力主要由少数领袖或领导集团所掌握，但却在较为有 限的范围和程度上受到制约。权威主义政府一般不试图控制民众活动的每个方面，国家和社会存在一定程度的分离。社会中存在一些政治权力无意或无力干预的领 域，许多经济、文化、宗教和家族事务都取决于个人。

　　但权威主义政权并不提倡个人自由。权威主义把社会视为一个等级森严的组织，其中存在 一个单一统治者或单一统治集团领导的政治支配链。支配、服从和秩序的价值，始终高于自由、同意和参与的价值。权威主义社会即使存在一些民主的因素，其作用 也微乎其微。国家立法机关往往只是个“橡皮图章”，其主要作用是批准统治集团的各种提议。权威政权的主要统治手段在很大程度上仍是命令和强制。

　　权威主义政治一般不推行和兜售顽固的意识形态。由于缺乏意识形态指导，政治当局并不热衷于勾画国家和社会的远景式蓝图，其政策具有极强的实用主义色彩，眼前的政治稳定具有压倒一切的重要性。

　　值得一提的是，权威主义政治提供的社会稳定，结合一定程度的个人自由（特别是经济生活中的自由），往往会使经济得以快速增长。经济的增长反过来又为权威主义政治提供一些新的合法性。但是，权威主义政治在统治结果和权威供应两方面存在的致命缺陷，却是其本身无法克服的。

　　作为一种统治结果，权威主义政治可能会带来令人瞩目的经济增长。但由于政府对言论的控制，反对意见得不到充分的表达，为经济增长所付出的各种代价难以得到合理的估算。因此，经济增长往往伴随触目惊心的资源浪费和环境恶化，经济发展的可持续性将越来越成问题。

　　在权威主义统治下，包括财产权在内的个人权利无法得到有效的保护，以经济发展的名义侵害民众权益的现象时有发生。政治权力对市场的任意干涉常常使社会财富的分配，无法达到一个政权存续所必需的公平水准。

　　尽管权威主义政权总是期望通过经济的发展来解决各种社会问题，但实际情况却是，经济发展引发的问题似乎远多于其所能解决的问题。各种社会问题的不断积累，最终将超出权威主义政治所能承受的限度，并导致社会政治秩序的崩溃。

必须有成功的转型

　 　政治学上的研究表明，权威主义统治带来的经济增长会使人们产生一种不断上升的更高期望，人们改善现状的期望总是超过经济增长所能提供的速度。这种“期望 —收益差距”感以及与收入差距有关的“相对剥夺”感，会在民众之中酝酿一种不断增加的“革命”情绪，并使国家进入一个政治上极度脆弱的时期。

　　另外，在权威主义政治中，政府权威主要源于政治强人的权威，政治强人的权威则源于其极为独特的经历。这种独特经历主要是政治强人对政权产生所做的贡献，如率领国民获得民族独立、赢得国内战争，或者成功地发动一场军事政变，等等。

　　政治强人权威的最大缺陷是，它既不可复制，也不可传承。权威递减规律使新的政治继承人不断面临权威供应不足的问题。没有持续的权威供应，权威主义政治当然就难以为继。权威主义政治的失败，将使国家进入下一轮“社会政治动荡—新权威确立”的周期性循环。

　 　避免权威主义政治失败的唯一手段，便是及时将权威主义政治转变为民主主义政治。民主政治带来的普遍政治参与，既可以使经济和社会的发展更为均衡，并有效 疏导弥漫于全社会的不安情绪；也可以通过制度运作，不断复制和供应国家治理所必须的政治权威，从而使社会的长治久安成为可能。

　　尽快向民 主政治转变，对权威主义社会而言，不仅仅是一种价值上的偏好，更是一种现实上的必需。应当承认，从权威主义政治向民主主义政治的转变，并不必然会取得成 功。失败的政治转型导致的社会后果，与权威主义政治失败的后果并无太大区别。但是，为了避免权威主义政治的必然失败，而面对民主政治的可能失败（也可能成 功），却是中国政治领袖必须承担的历史责任。

·作者任教于中国华东政法大学

五权分立多党比例制 - 长期政治稳定的保证

Sent to Zaobao on 29 October 2007

五权分立多党比例制 - 长期政治稳定的保证

刘学敏在 "比例代表制行不通"（《联合早报》，10月26日）一文中指出新加坡所已承袭的英国其实具备了“民选的独裁政体”的特质一点也没说错。就是因为这样，孙中山一早就否定了以英国的模式而制定中国民主方向的参考。孙中山是以美国三权分立的基础加以考量，设计出五权分立的亚洲民主概念。

目前，我国的体系除了执行权和立法权无法分隔以外，选举局、有监察权的贪污调查局与内部安全调查局和高级公务员与大法官的委任权都集中在执政党手里（总理公署）。这是非常集权的体制。我们也许认为目前没问题，但谁能担保几十年或百年以后不会出乱子呢？我认为除了实行比例代表制以外，这一些权力的分立也是非常有必要的。

我所提出的比例代表制是建立在五权分立的基础上。只有真正的权力分立的制度才能起着真正的权力制衡的体系。刘学敏提到我国有民选总统为一个制衡点，但事实上，这么多年的实践中，我们所目睹的是在一党独大的国会体制里，民选总统的权限是会被这执政党以修宪来加以削弱的。从这点看来，权力分立本身必须在立法权不被垄断的情况之下才能运行得好。而目前唯一能确保立法权不被垄断的机制便是比例代表制。

其实刘学敏所提出的少数政党在比例代表制里所起的作用是双面的。一方面，它能防止少数人或甚至民族被边缘化，另一方面它也能起着平衡关键的力量。至于所谓的“极端政见”变成国家方针，那倒也未必如此。在政治现实中，任何政党如果要保持多数民众支持，无可避免的，它们必须倾向于中间倾左或倾右。如果一个执政联盟里的第一大党没法在联盟里把握那微妙的政党政治平衡，被小政党牵着鼻子走的话，那无可避免的，它也必须面对下台的结果。许多人会认为那是政治不稳定，但事实上这是民主过程中必须经历的政党轮替的过程。

追根究底，任何一个民主体制要运作无碍，很多时候是要靠国民共同创造出来的核心价值观。这也必须依靠国民对民主认知和政治意识的提高才能做得到的。比如，之前我所提到的北欧的协商民主比例代表制尽管它充满了许多小政党，为什么会实施得如此成功呢？它们并不见得就会被“极端政见”的小政党左右朝纲。多党协商也不见得会造成政治不稳定。这其实与它们的人民教育水平和素质有莫大的关系。庞大的中产阶级左右了各个小政党的政策方向。与其说它们在各个领域的优势是因为有超能的政治领袖来治理国家，我倒是觉得是因为优秀的人民通过那协商民主比例制造就了一个能干而不被集权主义冲昏头脑的政府，而使他们的国家稳定、富强、经济竞争力领先诸国。

如果一个国家的贫富太悬殊，那很难免的，那一些所谓的拥有“极端政见”的政党必会有“市场”！在任何一个社会里，人民必定会进化而进步。而这动力其实很多时候是从政治斗争中所产生的。譬如，为了巩固政治实力而断绝人们对共产主义产生任何向往，除了以非常手段对付共产党员或甚至左派人物以外，其实最有效的是使多数人富裕起来，减少贫穷，这便会减少（暗地里）支持共产主义的人民。这是以往行动党所采取的策略。虽然左派只在国会里呆了短暂的时间，但他们对行动党也起了一定政治互动甚至斗争的推动力，而伸展到社会建设上。

所以我认为，在任何一段民主发展期间，就算有少数“极端”小政党有办法从比例制挤进国会，那只能说明它正体现了这社会在那个时代，真正存在着某种不平衡或分化的因素。执政的最大党或各个走中间路线的大党也因此须正视这群人的存在和他们的诉求，尽量把他们拉近中间多数主流的民众中。久而久之，这些“极端”小党便会失去群众支持而不得不改变路线。简单的说，如果有哪一些“极端”政党能生存在比例制的国会中，那么这也就是体现了这社会因某种原因发生了社会局部极端的分化。这反而是对社会潜伏的危机起了警号作用。

我并不认为一个体制如果有少数“极端”政党就必定会造成政治混乱。其实，在许多民主国家里，它们还是包容信奉共产主义的政党的存在。美国和欧盟各国都有合法的共产党。但它们并不是政治不稳定的因素。通常政治不稳定是由被忽略的社会分化所造成的。以色列为例，它政权动摇是由长期主战主流意识逐渐转变为主和意识所造成的，并非单纯的由多党执政联盟分裂所造成的。

我相信如果我们能认清这五权分立、协商比例代表制的运作而取得社会对民主的共识，我们就能建立一个比较完善、以人为本、更稳定的体系。

吴明盛