The General Elections are on. Parliament has been dissolved and nominations have been made. The BIG day is 8 days away.

The incumbent PAP seems to be down in the doldrums based on what I observe on social media sites (Mark, that really only means Facebook these days). Yes, everybody knows what I feel about the PAP...and I really hope that everyone puts their vote where their mouth is (whichever party they support). Of coz, this is assuming that elections aren't going to be rigged -- not that I'm suggesting that it would, but I certainly can't rule out that possibility.

I can't help but feel that there are some inherent misconceptions that Singaporeans harbour with regard to Singapore's political system. Here, I hope that I can clarify that somewhat.

Firstly, our political system (if that is even a term) is based upon the Westminster system inherited from the UK (as a result of our colonial heritage). Amongst other things, the Westminster provides for a clear separation of powers. That is the Legislature (Parliament), the Government, and the Judiciary should be independent from each other. This serves as a check and balance on one another.

This is where the problem begins. Unlike the US, where there is a 'total' separation of powers with the President not being a member of Congress, the Westminster system provides (to cut the long story short), that our Cabinet Ministers (who form the Government) have to be part of the Parliament as well. Do you see where the problem lies? If the Cabinet is part of the Parliament, then where is the clear separation of powers? In any case, this system is also in place in Australia (another ex-British colony).

However, the REAL problem with Singapore is that (for now at least) the PAP has such a dominance in the Parliament -- over 90% majority -- that effectively, the PAP is equated with the Parliament. This is the reason why most Singaporeans do not really make the distinction between the Government (PAP) and the Parliament.

The PAP hierachy is also top-down. You and I know who is at the very top. Hence, it is probably true that if any PAP MP proposes a Bill, it has been cleared by the very top. And if that is the case, that PAP MP can certainly count on the support of all the other PAP MPs to vote for it -- remember that the PAP has over 90% majority in the Parliament.

The implications of this are:

1) The PAP as a whole can basically propose any Bill it wants, without fear of it being rejected.

2) It does not really need to justify the efficacy of that Bill to Parliament -- that would be like justifying to yourself that you want to eat, when you are already down at the hawker centre, ordered your food, and about to tuck in. With due respect, there are still the 2 opposition MPs in the Parliament -- that is another story altogether.

3) The PAP has indeed taken advantage of this for the past 50 odd years, ESPECIALY in the last 5 years. I don't want to comment any more on what they have done.

The above implications (or should I say consequences) are the reasons why there needs to be an alternative voice in Parliament. By that, I really mean, a stronger non-PAP contingent in the Parliament to ensure that all Bills are given sufficient justification in Parliamentary debates. This will ensure that it is no longer a one-way passage for the PAP MPs to gain Parliamentary approval.

I daresay that if such a situation comes to be (it may very well be come May 7 2011), the PAP will be severely restrained from making further policies that would continue to, economically and even socially, condemn you, me and the auntie downstairs. Godwilling, we may even see a reversal of some of the very detrimental policies that they have introduced in the last 5 years.

The Judiciary
The 3rd limb of the Westminster system is the Judiciary. While you may deny this, many commentators have observed the lack of independence of our judiciary -- need I mention Chee Soon Juan, Tang Liang Hong or JB Jeyaratnam? (In my opinion, they are all good people, but that's another story altogether). The judiciary has to be independent from the Parliament and the Government so as to serve as check on wanton abuse of legislative and executive powers. Yes, 'wanton' is the word now to describe the situation. The mark of a strong, independent judiciary is a sign of First World Nation status. How can Singapore claim to be First World when citizens are afraid to speak out against the authorities for fear of defamation suits that would probably bankrupt them? Worse, many have been arbitrarily detained under the formidable and feared Internal Security Act (ISA). I'm not saying that the authorities should condone any sort of unfounded allegations -- but ultimately, this is up to the judiciary to decide, whether it is unfounded or not.

My thoughts
It seems very strange that the very issues that I have been lamenting about the last 2 years have suddenly exploded among netizens, and probably amongst most Singaporeans. Was I the first few to have seen this? Or many have just kept quiet and endured in silence save the commentators in Temasek Review, The Online Citizen (amongst others).

Although I'm based overseas now, I still keep an active interest in Singapore affairs. It pains my heart to read about inept HDB policies, the burgeoning population, the depression of real wages, the degradation of social graces. Other than the 'astounding' economic growth (which probably only benefits the top echelon of Singaporeans), there really doesn't seem to be any good that has come out of Singapore in the last 5 years. Need I even talk about the evils that the two casinos have brought upon us?

It really pains my heart that our Ministers no longer have the ordinary Singaporeans at heart. Worse, with all the alleged  'under the table' dealings that Singapore has with drug-trafficking administrations (like Myanmar), the proliferation of scandals involving 'charitable organisations' (one of which is a subsidary of the PAP Government), the super-duper high salaries of our Ministers, I cannot help but wonder --- will we see a Suharto situation in Singapore?