By Devadas Krishnadas

Following the Prime Minister’s announcement that we would have a “national conversation”, an “Our Singapore Committee” to “spearhead” this effort has been formed.

Two features of this committee immediately sparked comment. First, that a large chunk of the panel was formed by members of the ruling party. Second, not a single member of the opposition was included. Both of these observations have generated much heat but very little light. To get more illumination into what is going on, let us step back and ask what committees of this nature should be like.

Governance and Government

A committee with the mandate to determine what kind of Singapore we hope to see  should be consistent with the prevailing political model of governance, which in our case is a parliamentary democracy. In a parliamentary democracy, a distinction can be drawn between the notion of governance and the concept of government. Governance is about the idea of the nation and the fundamental principles which define it. Government is a mutable concept which takes cue from changes in leadership as determined by electoral results. They are not the same thing. A model of governance is both premise and context for government and not the converse.

In our form of democracy, elected members form the parliament. Parliament, not the incumbent government, is the instrument of governance. The executive puts forward legislation for consideration but parliament approves it. Given its declared agenda the business of determining “Our Singapore” must be first and foremost about the future of governance and only then about government. In other words, it is about the type of political future we desire – its’ organising philosophy, underpinning principles and policy ideas.

Representation, Transparency and Accountability

Given such a fundamental level of discourse, it should follow that a deliberate and structured process of determining “Our Singapore” should be aligned to the parliamentary process and not simply an administrative exercise by the executive. As with parliament the committee should meet the tests of representation, transparency and accountability.

Hitherto, the discussion on whether or not opposition party members of parliament should be in the committee has been made on the different perspectives of what constitute inclusiveness. Some have taken the view that because the government members of parliament are included, so for reasons of equity should members of the opposition. Others have argued that the large size of the panel and different backgrounds of the committee members suffices as inclusiveness.

I would suggest that a more suitable rationalisation is on the basis of representation. In parliament no one party, even with a majority, has a monopoly on debate. If we see the committee’s purpose as one which seeks to deliberate on the future of Singapore, then it is not a bilateral dialogue between one party and the people but between the elected parliament and the people. It is the elected parliament that collectively speaks for the electorate and not only the members of the government of the day. Therefore, it would have been not only appropriate, but necessary, for the committee to include members of all parties represented in parliament as elected members. It would then meet the test of being politically representative.

The composition of the non-parliamentary committee members should have been transparent and declared. Nominees should have been subject to parliamentary and hence public scrutiny, to determine their suitability and their membership subject to parliamentary confirmation.

The work of the committee should be made visible to parliamentary oversight and its findings made to the government through parliament. This puts in place a process of accountability.

Policies and Principles

Both the Prime Minister and Minister Heng have signalled that “culling sacred cows” was not the objective of the committee. But the Prime Minister has since clarified that “…we leave no stone unturned. But some stones, after we look at them, the original place was quite nice, we put it back. There has to be a balance.”

Clearly in considering the future of the country we cannot be ex-ante in drawing lines of exclusion on what will and what will not be discussed. Thus some clarity on this important matter would be welcome. On balance, the Prime Minister’s meaning seems eminently reasonable if we take him to mean that we will look at issues but not change simply for the sake of changing. What is important is not to pre-emptively exclude issues from the conversation.   After all in a democratic system, politicians are obliged to engage on issues which the people think are important and not the people engage on just what the politicians would prefer them to.

At this juncture, it is appropriate to make clear just what constitute these famous cows. For many, scared cow is a euphemism for a policy position which the government has previously indicated its inflexibility upon. However, more pertinently sacred cows are not policies but principles. Principles underscore the policies of a government and provide for political coherency both at the philosophical and operational levels.  But it does mean that it is impossible to get anything but incremental change unless first principles are revisited rather than just individual policies.

The tricky thing about the principles of our government is that it is very difficult to dispute that on the face of it that they are desirable. But this masks the important nuance that the value of debating them is not necessarily to find a substitute but to reaffirm their validity and just as importantly, to re-interpret principles in the changed context that is the future.

Let us take just three examples.

First, fiscal prudence. No one would deny the importance of fiscal prudence. However, the operational details of fiscal prudence can be the subject of debate. For instance, it need not automatically mean that raising social expenditures implies raising taxation as has been commonly suggested. We could change through legislation, as was last done in 2008, the formula for the National Investment Returns Contribution or NIRC. Doing so does not imply running down the reserves. Instead it should trigger a discussion about the optimal sizing of those reserves. Such a discussion would help inform a rethinking of our social expenditure at a systemic level rather than in a piecemeal fashion.

Second, family as the first line of support. Another wholly admirable principle.  Our demographic facts and the costs of living picture are changing. Without abandoning the principle, we could have a debate on where the line of collective and individual responsibility for meeting a family’s needs lie. Such a discussion would be constructive in a range of policy debates from how to promote fertility to how to provide peace of mind over healthcare for our elders.

Third, nation before self. This high minded notion has an important purpose in calling on all Singaporeans to band together through thick and thin and in this respect it is an ideal we should each cherish.

Unless we make the mistake of equating the government with the nation, it should be clear that ‘self’ in question is both the government and the people and not the people alone. The nation is an idea supreme. For instance, while respecting the principle we could still have a valuable discussion about what are the limits of government authority, which are the inalienable rights of the individual and about how the fundamental idea of the nation must have some assurance that the former are not exceeded and that the latter are respected.

Mind and Matter

Ultimately the national conversation will not be judged a success on how it ends or the specific details which emerge as committee recommendations. Instead, I suspect that the judgement will turn instead on the question of moral, as opposed to merely legal, legitimacy – legitimacy of purpose, legitimacy of process and legitimacy of issues. Shortcomings on output may be forgiven if the process is judged legitimate but no great font of output will really be satisfactory if the people do not feel that the source and process are merited.

To be legitimate, it must be a conversation which is both, in mind and in matter, about Nation and not one where the matter is nation but the mind is party.  One gives meaning, the other acts upon it. One inspires, the other aspires. One is permanent and the other not. Let us all be clear which is which.

——————-

Devadas Krishnadas is the Director of Future-Moves, a consultancy which uses foresight methodology to support decision makers.

For reposting or use of any part of this article and images, please contact the editor (editor@ipscommons.sg) for permissions.