Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
Politics 101: Political Parties and Government
In Singapore, I think that a significant number of people are confused between the two terms political parties and government, even among the well-educated.
It’s not surprising, given that Singapore’s government has been dominated by one political party since independence. With more than forty years of dominance, it may just seem natural that the PAP equates to Government of Singapore.
The political science student (as well as most social science students) would know that government and political parties are two different entities. I am no expert in political science, but I think I at least know the difference between the two.
The government is just a huge organisation that is responsible for the smooth running of the daily affairs of a country. It employs large numbers of civil servants for this purpose. The soldier, the policeman, the diplomat, the teacher and the town council clerk are examples of civil servants. In their individual capacities, they ensure that some part of our society functions properly.
Political parties contest for contorl of the government. By having the majority in Parliament, a party has is able to appoint people to become ministers. These ministers have the power to set the policy direction. Since resources are finite, someone has to make a decision on what purpose should the allocated budget be used for.
Having said all these, it should not be difficult to see that a change of the political party that controls of the government will not be all gloom and doom. While the politician that becomes the minister has broad powers, my opinion is that civil servants have equal powers by virtue of the fact that civil servants are the ones who truly know how to run things. Such knowledge is exceedingly powerful because the civil servant can leverage on the information to either make life easy for the politician that becomes the minister, or to frustrate the daylights out of the politician.
In Singapore’s context, even if another party replaces the PAP in future, there is no cause for alarm because the government and its body of civil servants will always remain. A new but smart politician will depend on these civil servants to help him do a good job. A dumb politician will purge the house and bring in new people who may not know how the system is run. Then, at the next election, the dumb politician will find himself out of a job.
Fundamentally, a democratic system is designed to be self-correcting if there is any aberration. Any political party that wins an election will want to win future elections. It doesn’t mean that the end of Singapore is coming if the PAP loses its majority (which is unlikely for now). By having elections every X number of years, it ensures that incompetent parties are replaced before the damage done is too big.
With these information in mind, it would help a person make a more informed decision when it comes to voting. Giving parties other than the PAP a chance to be the ruling party isn’t exactly a bad idea after all. If we don’t like the new party that we have voted in, we will just boot them out at the next election. And, in terms of governance, past performance is no indicator of future performance. When the PAP came into power more than 40 years ago, the leaders didn’t have substansial experience in governance. Yet, they went on to make an economic miracle out of Singapore.
Therefore, seriously consider alternative parties at the next election. While we should not vote for crackpots, we should consider giving credible candidates a chance, no matter which party they come from.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Aaron Ng on 05/11/2006 at 1:07 pm, and is filed under Perspective. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 3 years ago
“In Singapore, I think that a significant number of people are confused between the two terms political parties and government, even among the well-educated.”
Okay… and why is that so? I don’t think that even the well-educated fail to grasp of English vocabulary.
about 3 years ago
Hi wj,
It’s not a matter of vocabulary. I think that PAP dominance has led to most Singaporeans thinking that the PAP equals to the government. And, PAP leaders constantly refer to themselves as the government. It is not wrong to do that, since they are in control. However, with such long dominance, it’s easy for people to think that the PAP and the government is one and the same, when in actual, they are not. It takes one who is schooled in political science, or at least one who is interested enough to read up to know the difference.
about 3 years ago
Interesting that you finally touched on the issue of the blurring of the line dividing the ruling party and the government. It seems to get worse as the GE draws near if my memory serves me right. Somehow supporting the oppposition (note not capitalized) means the electorate is anti-Government. But seen more benignly it is hard to fault the people and the ruling party. Being the only party to form the government for so long, any distinction just melts away.
Keep up the good writing
Here are two blogs with something quite relevant while you are on the topic but read them critically:
Parlerment of John Soong looked at how Singaporean MSM held the PAP government in such high esteem that it capitalizes the word.
Yawningbread wrote on the misue of the word “state”.
about 3 years ago
Dear YCK,
I’m glad you like reading my blog. There are many things to deal with actually, and I write them as the inspiration flows in.
Reading John’s piece, he has a couple of valid points but his entire argument about capitalisation is quite funny to me, primarily because I have training in journalism. Whether its government or Government, it’s all a matter of the style that newspaper decides to adopt. Different news outlets have different styles. Neither is right or wrong.
As for Yawning Bread, he’s got a good point too. However, I think the more urgent issue is the conflation between the government of Singapore and the PAP. When people start talking about the Singapore government or “cheng hoo”, the first thing that comes to mind is Lee Hsien Loong, Goh Chok Tong, Lee Kuan Yew or PAP. The impression that the PAP is the government is certainly not the case, and should be clarified. I don’t expect the PAP to clarify this because it is dumb to shoot themselves in the foot. However, I think people who understand should try and make other people understand the difference so that all of us can, as I like to say, make an informed choice.
about 3 years ago
You may be oversimplifying. The top civil servants tend to be ideologically if not personally identified with the PAP. So keeping these civil servants is tantamount to keeping your foes’ allies within your team. This will no doubt be a source of information leaks to the PAP in opposition, and possibly even outright policy sabotage.
about 3 years ago
Hi Aaron,
I found John Soong’s rant quite amusing too. But it points to a salient phenomenon of capitalization of the word in local papers. Of course you are probably right that it is a matter of style. In this case the style is quite consistent. Maybe it is just a shorthand for referring to the Singapore government.
It is also not the business of the party to highlight the distinction. This is because doing so may suggest that the interest of the party and state or government do not necessary coincide. If they sincerely believe they are one maybe they will not have a conflict?
It is the electorate’s job to tacitly acknowledge the fact. Thanks for bringing it up to our attention.
Dear george,
Yours is a very interesting point. A relevant book I have read recently is Singapore politics under the People’s Action Party by Diane K. Mauzy and R.S. Milne (2002). It suggests that a mutualistic relationship has arose between the civil service and the governing party as some MPs are drawn from the top of this group. But interestingly it also mentioned a strict master-servant relationship. (Well we often about policy U-turns don’t we.) The latter may make the separation of these entities easier but the former harder.But still I think Aaron is correct that conceptually there is a clear bright line and it may be of more than pedantic interest.
about 3 years ago
Sorry for the accidental italicization and a few typos. I trust I could be understood. :b
about 3 years ago
Hi George,
Certainly, that may happen. This is why in the United States, when a new president is elected, he brings an entire change in their equivalent of the civil service.
Ultimately, you cannot stop civil servants from choosing what political affiliations they want to identify with. That is normal. While civil servants have the ability to frustrate politicians, they too are aware of the fact that the politicians control their career. It will be a matter of walking the tightrope for both sides.
The main point I was driving at is that doomsday predictions of squandering of reserves or collapse of the economy if the PAP loses power is not true. There may or may not be a few steps back with another party that has no experience in governance, but overall, the country will continue to function.
about 3 years ago
Hi YCK,
I’ve helped to make the few corrections I can spot. No worries.
There’s on so much one can do. It takes alot more than me writing on my blog to enlighten everyone. I hope that whoever reads it will share it with other people and have a healthy debate over it. Development of human resource is not just about getting diplomas or degrees. Active discussion of important matters at the individual level helps too.
about 3 years ago
Thanks for fixing it
about 3 years ago
Hi Aaron, great post you have here! In response to your post, I have posted about this topic using a political science framework. Hopefully it helps…. =)
about 3 years ago
Ooppss…. forgot to place the link
http://charissaishere.blogspot.com/2006/11/what-is-in-government.html
about 3 years ago
It’s a nice complement to what I have written. In fact, I did an introductory political science course before. You are accurate in what you wrote. The reason why I didn’t want to write all those is because I don’t want to confuse people who don’t have background knowledge. Now that you have written a good complementary piece, I think that people, after reading my piece, should logically go and read yours! Thanks for the effort!
Cheers!
about 3 years ago
Heyhey…. No probz. I am actually doing the PS intro mod now. It’s a great mod… I love it!
about 3 years ago
Actually there is a difference between “government” and “Government”. The former, as you correctly described, refers to the civil service. The latter, however, refers to the political party that has won the election, and in particular that party’s leadership (i.e., the PM and the Cabinet). So when the PAP wins over 50% of the seats in Parliament, under Singapore law it forms the “Government”. So they are not wrong when they refer to themselves as “the Government”.
about 3 years ago
Yes Politicial party does not equate to the Government.
I agree with the fact that the civil service can make life difficult of the politician. The fact that there would be a smooth transition between the control and ruling of the government is not always true.
In 2000, the Kuo Ming Dang of Taiwan lost the election to the People’s progressive party of the current president of Taiwan.
Within the first term of his office, those civil servants who are still loyal to the Kuo Ming Dang party made life difficult for his party and there was many problems throughout his reign.
In addition, there are problems which still exists such as the poor quality of their train system, their public works and education system.
Hence if the opposition party were take power, those civil servants which are loyal to the former party in power will make life difficult for the incoming party.
Just my 2 cents worth
about 3 years ago
Hi Rowen,
Indeed, politics is never a one way street. Even if another party is voted into power, there is no gurantee that the new party in power can push its agenda because of the civil servants. If the civil servants put up obstacles, policy implementation will slow, and who gets the blame? The political party, of course, since they are the ones who are the most visible.
Of course, the more important matter at hand here is the conflation between government and political parties. It would be good for everyone to know the difference. Knowing the difference may disadvantage a party that has a firm control for many years, like the KMT in Taiwan, where they got booted out of power in 2000.
However, the knowledge that a political party is not the government came back to be the ally. The KMT can potentially take back control of the government now because people know that they have a choice on which party they want to run the government. It’s something that cuts both ways.
about 3 years ago
Hi Gerald,
I’m afraid that’s probably the PAP’s definition. What I understand from journalism is that such are matters of convention. I follow the Associated Press style in writing and according to the the AP stylebook, one does not capitalise the word government under any use. This is the AP style, and I think ST has its own style that it deems to be better in the Singapore context.
What you are talking about regarding the PM and the Cabinet would more be appropriately referred to as the administration, which deals with executive matters. When ST talks about Government, I don’t think they refer to just the executive arm, but the entire system of governance.
about 3 years ago
Hi Gerald and Aaron,
while you are on the definitions, I would like to weigh in with this one for theOxford English Dictionary:
7. The governing power in a state; the body of persons charged with the duty of governing. This may be viewed in two aspects, giving rise to two distinct senses of the word, which however often coincide in use.
a. As a permanent entity (cf. ‘the Crown’, ‘Parliament’, etc.), irrespective of the changes in the persons who hold office. Hence often practically equivalent to STATE, esp. when used attrib.
b. As constituted afresh by the appointment of a number of persons to certain official positions; in England, synonymous with ministry or administration. Often used without article. to form a government: said of the action of the prime minister in filling up those offices, the holders of which are jointly with himself responsible for the administration of the country.
BTW Gerald, is your sense of “Government” found defined in our Constitution? I have always thought Legalese a facinating way of muddying otherwise simpler matters.
about 3 years ago
Hi, I just came across this from
http://udhr19.blogspot.com/2006/11/police-sergeant-says-theres-no.html
It’s related to the topic at hand now as apparently, Sergeant Kenny Quek told the Judge that there was no difference between the PAP and the Government in today’s Chee trial.
-_-
about 3 years ago
Thank you for bringing this up. It’s just uncanny how I just discussed it and something happens to prove my point. -_-”
about 3 years ago
Yar lor…. it’s pretty freaky man. -_-”