This article is contributed by a Singaporean residing and working in Finland. He had earlier contributed the article on the Finnish Education System on my blog.
—————————————————————————————-
Written by A Singaporean Observer in Finland
Mr Lee Kuan Yew hopes Singapore would just stop at having a competitive opposition in Parliament – and he hopes Singaporeans would not be swayed into wanting a two-party system, believing that it would be better.
“I do not think so,” he said. “Among other reasons, I do not think Singapore can produce two top class teams. We haven’t the talent to produce two top class teams.”
Mr Lee said it is popular democracy that has driven governments in the United States and Europe into its current debt crisis. – The Business Times, Thursday, Sep 15, 2011
There has been much debate on whether Singapore should and can have a two party system. Founding father Lee Kuan Yew made his points clearly during a dialogue at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and then again in an interview with China Central Television that aired on 6 July.
Since then, there have been much rebuttals and agreements in varying volumes. This title may seem rather more exacerbating and may generate even more debate. There can be no definitive answer to whether a two party system is feasible in Singapore since there is little evidence in Singapore’s context to support this claim and vice versa. We can only look at how other successful countries with a two party system (or more in this case) to see if we can draw some lessons from there.
The Finnish Government – Finished from the start?
Residing in Finland presented an opportunity to witness competitive elections in 2011. The elections concluded on 17th April 2011 but the government was only officially inaugurated on 22nd June 2011 after a lengthy coalition negotiating period.
Finland’s 72nd government, headed by Prime Minister Jyrki Katainen, is a majority coalition formed by the National Coalition Party, the Social Democratic Party, the Left Alliance, the Swedish People’s Party in Finland, the Green League and the Christian Democratic Party. The opposition is formed by the Centre Party and True Finns (recently renamed as The Finns). In case, you missed the count, it is 6 parties in government, 2 parties in opposition. If you look at the overall results, the total count is actually a staggering 18 political parties taking part in the elections. Here’s a snapshot:
General Elections 2011 in Finland – Result by party
Time |
20.4.2011, 19.14 |
Turnover 2011 |
70,5 % |
|||
Votes Counted |
100,0 % |
Turnover 2007 |
67,9 % |
|||
Counting Status |
completed |
Turnover 2008 |
61,3 % |
|||
|
Changes with General Election 2007 |
|||||
Party |
% Share of votes |
MPs elected |
Votes |
% share |
MPs |
Votes |
National Coalition Party |
20,4 |
44 |
599 138 |
-1,9 |
-6 |
-17 703 |
Social Democratic Party |
19,1 |
42 |
561 558 |
-2,3 |
-3 |
-32 636 |
True Finns |
19,1 |
39 |
560 075 |
+15,0 |
+34 |
+447 819 |
Centre Party ofFinland |
15,8 |
35 |
463 266 |
-7,4 |
-16 |
-177 162 |
Left WingAlliance |
8,1 |
14 |
239 039 |
-0,7 |
-3 |
-5 257 |
Green League |
7,3 |
10 |
213 172 |
-1,2 |
-5 |
-21 257 |
Swedish People’s Party |
4,3 |
9 |
125 785 |
-0,3 |
0 |
-735 |
Christian Democrats inFinland |
4,0 |
6 |
118 453 |
-0,8 |
-1 |
-16 337 |
Pirate Party ofFinland |
0,5 |
0 |
15 103 |
+0,5 |
0 |
+15 103 |
Independent Groups |
0,4 |
1 |
11 763 |
-0,1 |
0 |
-825 |
Finnish Communist Party |
0,3 |
0 |
9 232 |
-0,3 |
0 |
-9 045 |
Change 2011 |
0,3 |
0 |
7 504 |
+0,3 |
0 |
+7 504 |
Freedom Party |
0,1 |
0 |
4 285 |
+0,1 |
0 |
+4 285 |
IndependenceParty |
0,1 |
0 |
3 236 |
-0,1 |
0 |
-2 305 |
Senior Citizens Party |
0,1 |
0 |
3 195 |
-0,5 |
0 |
-13 520 |
The Finnish workers’ party |
0,1 |
0 |
1 857 |
0,0 |
0 |
+93 |
Communist Worker’s Party |
0,1 |
0 |
1 575 |
0,0 |
0 |
-432 |
For the Poor |
0,0 |
0 |
1 335 |
0,0 |
0 |
-1 186 |
Source: http://yle.fi/vaalit/tulospalvelu/2011/parties.html
If you look at the 6 parties forming the coalition government, they have similarities but their differences are equally stark when examined from the political spectrum. Similarly, on the Finnish opposition end, the 2 parties have major differences as well, one anti-EU, the other pro-EU. The question thus is whether such a government is in gridlock over policy making, or making simple decisions a major hurdle?
The truth is that Finland continued to function normally after the elections and inauguration of the government. Essentially, public services continued unabated.
The True Embrace of Diversity
What is the secret then? There is no secret.
“Finnish society is based on hard work, respect for application and entrepreneurship, equality, solidarity and caring for one another. Respect for everyone and openness to diversity are Finnish virtues. Finland’s status as a bilingual country is a strength and resource. Various religions and communities are valuable to moral growth. In Finland, everyone is equal irrespective of their gender, age, ethnic origin, language, religion, convictions, opinions, health, disability, sexual orientation, or any other factor. The Government will systematically act against racism and discrimination.” – Programme of the Finnish Government, 22 June 2011
Incidentally, the Finnish Government Programme is an action plan agreed on by the parties represented in the Government, including the opposition. Not convinced? One opposition member chairs the parliamentary administration committee. The administration committee is tasked with immigration policy as well as with a range of other issues. To add further, this new chairman is an outspoken critic of Finland’s immigration policy. The entire government programme is a worthwhile read, only 90 pages; 100 pages if you include the appendices. All the Finnish government’s priorities and policies from climate to welfare are covered here in one document, which demonstrates clearly the government’s ability to work as a whole despite having 8 different political parties in parliament. The Finnish electorate can judge the government by this document when the next elections are called. I can’t seem to find the Singaporean equivalent… but please point it out to us if anyone finds it.
What qualifies as a minister in Finland? A very short answer is this: Ministers must be Finnish citizens, known for their integrity and ability to serve. In case, this doesn’t quite make an impact, perhaps this will. The Minister of Labour, Lauri Ihalainen is a carpenter but he has loads of experience with trade unions. You can view the membership of the Finnish government here and decide for yourself if the concept of diversity is truly embraced.
In case, you are interested in the ministerial pay package. It is as short as this:
“Monthly remuneration paid to cabinet ministers is equivalent to that of a deputy speaker of Parliament (9,729 € per month in May 2011). The prime minister’s pay is same as the speaker of Parliament (11,675 € per month in May 2011). Ministerial pay is subject to tax. Members of Parliament appointed as members of the Government forfeit half of the salary and expense allowance they receive from Parliament. A member of the Government is entitled to a 30-day paid leave corresponding to annual holiday.”
Source: Ministerial pay, Facts about the Government
(note: 1 € is equivalent to SGD 1.74 in today’s exchange rate)
A Finnish Heritage?
Finland has a history of having multiple parties forming a government and perhaps, this may be the reason why the Finns are comfortable with such diversity in their political arena. The past Finnish governments (especially those in power over 1300 days) have never been dominated by one single political party. Some readers may like to dig this a little deeper. You will find more information here. When looking at the numbers, do bear in mind the history of Finland at those times, particularly the shortest serving governments.
If there is anyone believing that the Finns are all cordial with each other in the political arena, you can’t be more wrong than that. Have a look at these two pieces of news: Finns party MPs handed “forbidden words” list and Kiviniemi: Hard to work with Finns Party. Openness is better than keeping it under the table, when it can boil over; but clearly they practice responsibility for what they say.
The Finnish electorate (President Halonen: Voters Expressed Dissatisfaction) themselves show clearly that they are a matured lot. I personally think this makes a difference. In all my conversations with my local contacts here, we can differ on opinions in politics, sociology, economics and even the way we speak English, but we remain friends and close ones. You can have a civilised debate here, and no matter how heated it gets, you can part ways not as enemies or opponents, but as more knowledgeable people at the end. Perhaps, the weather here helps keep heads cool. People respect each other’s vote, whether it is for the Pirate Party or Green League. Clearly, openness to diversity is already ingrained as part of the national identity. See my previous post on education for pointers why this is the case.
In Conclusion
I agree with Mr Lee that Singapore should not produce two top class teams. Why should there be two? It should just be ONE, but that team needs diversity from all possible quarters, even from the opposition. If this team cannot even deal with diversity between themselves, how can they possibly deal with the diversity within Singapore itself? The political divide will only become a national divide if the leaders do not first take the lead to close the divide.
Following the aftermath of GE and PE 2011, there have been divides between friends and families. The Singaporean electorate (regardless of which side you are on) needs time to mature to see that the person who votes differently is not an opponent, trouble maker, anti-establishment and whatever label we can think of. We are all equals, who are different, but still Singaporean. Surely, we can embrace and respect diversity as well as the Finns do; Singapore being more a more ethnically diverse society than Finland is.
Tn my perspective, the senior Mr Lee’s comment on that popular democracy is the main cause for the current debt crisis is a little harsh and overbearing . A debt crisis is not solely the fault of a government and perhaps, we differ in this opinion since Mr. Lee believes that strong governments can avert all crises. Lest we forget, that the word ‘crisis’ in Chinese (危机), actually has an opportunity component in it. It may serve us better to embrace crises to seek out better opportunities.
The author attended ACS & Nanyang Junior College in Singapore, graduated from the University of Manchester, served in the civil service for 15 years and is currently residing in Finland.