Wednesday, October 24, 2007

集权制度--政治的定时炸弹

集权制度--政治的定时炸弹


我要先感谢贵报拔出宝贵的大篇幅刊登我之前的“民主制度的意义”。我希望通过贵报以理性的态度来探讨我国目前所面对的政治问题,甚至是政治的计时炸弹。


我 必须对林金穆先生表明我并非“否定民主运作”,而只是指出有选举并不一定是体现民主全部的标准。就连独裁的共产国家都有选举,难道我们就此认定它们是民主 制吗?选举应是民权和民意的体现。如果有一半的选民没法行使他们的投票权,那这选举制度怎么可能真正体现民权呢?如果有四成的选民的政治意愿无法在这选举 制度中得到应有的代表,这又怎么可能完整的体现民意的动向呢?


讲 得具体一点,民主应是个协商过程, 而这协商过程必须容纳更多不同的声音和民意。北欧的比例制民主议会应该是我们作为参考的楷模。如果要举亚洲比例制的成功例子,那我会推荐香港,虽然它只是 中国的高度自治特区而又还没实现特首普选,但它的五权分立的概念非常清晰。虽然没有特定的弹劾院,但众所周知,它们的法院、廉署、媒体都非常独立,加上它 的公务员都必须通过考试才会被考虑录取,这体现了司法权、弹劾权和考试权的独立行使。它的执行权在特首,立法权在立法院,加上它还有地方区议会。它的立法 院一半是由比例制普选出来的,另一半是由功能组别选出来的。 民意和民权可以充分体现在整个制度里。


台 湾虽是五权宪法的制度,但由于过往实行的戒严期,这制度并没有真正体现五权分立的理念,也缺乏实践的空间。这也是为什么我在前文强调民主理念必须在宪法和 执行彻底贯彻的原因。台湾现在的政治乱象其实是由一个集权极端反弹过到另一个极端所造成的。这好比法国的革命一样,搞了百年才稳定下来。我绝对不愿看到这 种政治极端反射发生在新加坡,所以才希望我们能逐渐走向成熟的民主制度。


其实执政的行动党不是不知道现有的制度存在着一颗巨大的定时炸弹,只是诚如林君所说的,行动党为了现时的自身利益,要它修宪来分权真的比登天还难!这巨大的定时炸弹就是, 现有的集权制度如果落入意图不良的人手里(这些人有可能来自任何政党,包括行动党本身!),那新加坡必定面对前所未有的大灾难!


比 例制也不是完全对行动党无利。我大胆的讲一句,现时的行动党面对的是议员都缺乏真正选举战火的洗礼。尤其是它新一代的候选人,在上一次的大选中,口误频 频,就连一些所谓的资深候选人也如此。这是一种潜在危机的体现。在一个多数没有竞争环境里培养的政治人物,必定逃不过进化论的原理,只有退化和倒退。就算 目前的优势能让他们当选,但面对复杂的国际政治时,他们是否能应对自如呢?如果实行比例制而使更多代议士和部长都能在战火里磨炼,这不只对国家会更有益 处,对行动党也有好处。养兵不练兵,必败无疑。


更进一步来说,如果林君的意愿真的实现了,行动党失去两个集选区,那么这也意味着它也很可能失去两个或更多的部长级人物,这对行动党将是一个沉重的打击。如果是比例制,这样的结果就可以避免了。


游 戏规则是人定的,最重要是由谁来定夺。如果是由一党独大的执政党来制定,那很难避免它会利用它的执政优势来巩固自身的地位。这将是个恶性循环。如果我们能 以一个比较理智、真正为国家社稷和未来政治稳定的度量来看待这游戏规则的话,通过协商的民主过程来达至一个共识,重新为我们的“游戏规则”制定新方向,拆 除这巨大的政治定时炸弹,那么我们就可确保国家长期生存和稳定。


很遗憾的是,我想在现阶段,要叫行动党为国修宪,只有使它在以后的大选中失去多个集选区,让它尝到失去部长级人物的痛苦后,才能实现。


吴明盛

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Translated: The Spirit of Democratic System

The following is the translation of my Chinese article published in ZaoBao, as requested by some readers:

The spirit of Democratic System

It is interesting to read about the discussion of “Democracy”in your paper's forum around 10 October, the celebration of the first success of Asian Democratic Revolution in China led by Dr. Sun Yat Sen. Since its during this period of celebration, I will start with Dr. Sun's theory of Democracy, i.e. The three principles of the people and the separation of Five Powers.

First of all, why would we want to talk about “Asian Democracy”? The ruling party PAP has always argued that we cannot just apply Western Democratic system on Asian societies because it is not compatible to Asian values. However, during the late 19th century and early 20th century, Dr. Sun Yat Sen has already provided an intellectual discourse on how to apply Democratic system that is suitable to one of largest Asian country, China. Although I do not agree with some of Dr. Sun's views, but I think Asian countries, including Singapore, could take Dr. Sun's discourse into serious consideration when implementing Democracy.

Although the process of democratic development is important, but we must ensure that the spirit of Democracy must be thoroughly enforce or implemented accordingly in the Constitutions as well as the execution process. Dr. Sun has been right on the spot in saying that Democracy is the balance between extremes, the total freedom Anarchist vs totalitarian rule. In any advanced society, total freedom values, Anarchist, cannot work. However, while we recognize the need of having a governing body in a society, modern Democratic society also recognize the potential ills that could be derived from a concentration of powers. This actually means that Democracy is built upon the “distrust” of human beings. This is because power could corrupt (human minds), absolute power corrupt absolutely but at the other extreme, total freedom would result in the demonstration of worse side of human beings.

This is also basically why Dr. Sun's revolution is unlike Western revolutions, never about “freedom” but about toppling the corrupt feudal system and build a system that is based no Democratic values and the separation of 5 powers. The importance of the separation (or rather, independence) of the 5 powers lies in the mechanism of REAL checks and balances. It prevents any individuals or ruling organization to monopolies power but at the same time, prevent any others to make use of the system's impeachment or legislative powers to prevent the normal functionality of the government. Throughout the whole revolution, it is all about the checks and balances of the powers. I will not comment on the success or failures of Dr. Sun's revolution but concentrate on on his Asian perspective of Democratic reforms.

The concept of Dr. Sun's 5 powers includes: Executive Power, Legislative Power, Judiciary Power, Power of Impeachment, Power of Examination. In fact, in Chinese ancient history, the concept of 5 powers has already existed. However, these 5 powers were concentrated under the courts of the Emperors. In comparison to the Western concept of 3 powers, the Chinese political administration is actually more advanced. This is because, other than the 3 powers, the Chinese have included another two important aspects of governance, the Imperial system of impeachment which acted as an internal checking mechanism, as well as the Examination system that aimed at selecting best talents to become court officials. These systems were set up to help the Emperor to implement a ruling system that would provide checks and balances within as well as selecting the best talents to help him rule the empire. Unfortunately, due to the nature of concentration of power, it normally led to problems of corruptions.

The fundamental problem lies with the rule of law/system vs human. If it is an totalitarian system, it will inevitably end up with the corruption under human rule. But it is not possible for the whole political system to base on books or rules only basically because it will inevitably involves human elements. Thus, the whole political views is focused on how to build a balanced system that would minimize corruption and at the same time, a selection process that would get the best people to join the government.

However, I cannot agree with Dr. Sun's concept of “Examination Power”. In his theory, all candidates for legislative representatives must go through a system of examination. This would mean that technically, the people do not have direct universal suffrage right on their political representatives. (Most likely it will end up with a total elitist system.) Dr. Sun might have advocated this rule basically because political awakening or awareness among the Chinese population may be lacking and this would prevent unscrupulous politicians from cheating votes. I do agree that all civil servants must go through a system of examination as a selection process to get good people to work in the government. But for representatives of people, I would prefer a more diverse representation from diverse background (instead of an elitist one).

I would say that this “Examination Power” should be a concept of “selection process” which would include “Power of Election”in the context of modern Democratic system. This would mean that the “Power of Election” must be separated and independently administered. i.e. The Election Department must be Independent.

Democracy is not what Mr. Lim's (a writer to ZaoBao on 11 October) deems to be, “majority rule”. Democracy emphasizes on people's power being adequately represented, powers of the system must be checked and the system must be balanced. If a ruling party systematically and relentlessly uses its monopoly of the parliament to amend the Constitution in a bid to ensure its entrenchment and continuous monopoly of power, then this isn't a compliant to Democratic principles.

In modern Singapore, we do not have any independent organization that is entrusted with the power of impeachment. Due to various reasons (not merely opposition parties do not have enough candidates) Parliament is monopolized by PAP and lost its function as a check on the government. On the other hand, the media could not perform effective checks on the government as well. Under all such circumstances, it is really undesirable for our long term development as a Nation.

In Western Democratic discourses, they have realized that there are weaknesses in “majority rule”. Such system of “majority rule” would end up with “tyranny of majority rule”. This is basically why in recent democratic development history in Western worlds, they have slowly shifted towards proportionate representation. Proportionate representation is relatively more rational. For example, if a GRC has 40% of voters that voted the opposition, the present system would not be able to give these voters an adequate voice or representation in parliament.

In Western Democratic discourses, they have realized that there are weaknesses in “majority rule”. Such system of “majority rule” would end up with “tyranny of majority rule”. This is basically why in recent democratic development history in Western worlds, they have slowly shifted towards proportionate representation. Proportionate representation is relatively more rational. For example, if a GRC has 40% of voters that voted the opposition, the present system would not be able to give these voters an adequate voice or representation in parliament.

In conclusion, I would illustrate the following criteria for a mature democratic system to evolve:

1) Separation of 5 powers which includes power of elections/examination and impeachment/ media/ freedom of expression.
2)A complete political participation of citizens and the exercise of their voting rights.
3)The checks on the powers
4)The balance maintained in the system
5)The diverse representation of people.


We must seriously examine the potential harm that a prolonged monopoly of power could bring to our nation. It is very unhealthy to have a system that lacks real checks and balance for a long period of time. I believe we should first understand Democracy and come to the simple conclusion that we have now is far from being democratic even though it has elections. The only way to prevent concentration of power of corrupting the human minds and leads to the corruption of the government is to set up a truly democratic system.

Most important of all, we must see clearly that there are no contradictions or incompatibility between Asian values and Democratic principles. This should not be the reason to reject the implementation of democratic system. From Chinese ancient history, we could observe clearly that for Asians, we also have a concept of checks and balances in maintaining our political system. We are at a cross road of political development in Singapore and it is an urgent matter for us to reform our political system now. This is because we cannot anticipate how the present political system will evolve in the post-LKY era. We must ensure that Singapore's political system must develop and extend in a stable manner. I personally feel that only via building a real mature democratic system would guarantee long term political stability for Singapore.

Goh Meng Seng

Sunday, October 14, 2007

民主制度的意义

民主制度的意义


在双十节前后拜读了贵报交流站关于“民主”的讨论,我觉得还蛮有意思的。既然是双十节,我就从孙中山先生的三民主义和五权分立谈“亚洲式的民主”吧!


首 先,为何谈“亚洲式民主”呢?执政的人民行动党经常说西方民主制度不能照搬,不适合亚洲民情。但事实上,早在十九世纪末,二十世纪初,孙中山先生就已经对 如何在亚洲大国之一的中国实施符合中国国情的亚洲民主制度作了具体的论述。虽然对孙先生的一些建议本人有一些保留,但大致上我还是认为亚洲国家,包括新加 坡,还是可以参考孙先生的论述。


虽 然说民主过程很重要,但民主的精神更必须在宪法、执行过程等彻底贯彻。孙中山先生在他的演讲中曾经说得很精确,民主是极端自由无政府主义和极端集权主义之 间的平衡。在任何进化先进的社会,极端自由无政府主义是行不通的。但是在认同有必要建立一个治理社会或国家的政府基础上,现代民主主义也意识到一个集权于 一身的政府或封建制度多数会产生许多弊端。这也意味着民主主义是建立在“不相信人性”的基础上,因为权力能使人腐败,极端集权更会使人彻底的腐败,而另一 个极端的自由也会使广大民众展现人性最丑恶的一面。


这 就是为什么孙中山先生的革命,并不象西方革命为“自由”而革命,而是为推翻腐败封制集权,建立另一个符合三民主义、五权分立的宪法政权。五权分立的重要性 在于它是一个互相制衡的制度。它防止任何一个人或集团垄断政权而变独裁,也防止任何人或集团借用弹劾权或立法权防止政府正常运作甚至瘫痪整个政府。在整个 政治改革运动中,讲求的是保持政权的互相制衡和有效运作。姑且不论孙先生的改革成败,我着重的是他本人以一个亚洲人对政治改革的期望与理念。


孙先生的五权观念是:执行权(Executive,总统和执行政府),立法权(Legislative,立法院), 司法权(Judiciary, 法院),弹劾权(Power of Impeachment, 监察院),考试权(Power of Examination, 考试院)。其实在中国的历史上,这五权概念早已经存在,只不过这五权都集中在于一体,帝皇制度。与西方的三权概念,中国的政治体系其实是更健全的,因为除了三权以外,中国很早就实行弹劾制度和考试(科举)制度。这些制度是为了使历代皇朝的皇帝拥有一个制衡文武百官、遴选贤才来治理国家。可惜的是,就因为权限集中,导致贪腐丛生。


问题的根源是人治和法制的矛盾。如果是集权制度,无可避免的是它将沦为腐败的人治。但纯为法治是不可能的,因为这当中总会牵涉到人的因素。所以在整个政治观念中,是如何建立起一个经得起时间考验,防止权力腐蚀人性导致政权腐败,而在此同时又能选贤加入执政团体的制度。


我无法认同的是孙先生的“考试权”观念。在他的论述中提到任何后备立法委员必须拥有被鉴定的资格才可被选为立法委员。这也就是说民众并没有直接普选议员的权力。这也许跟他处于的那个时代有关。在一个(民主)民智和民识还未开发的时代里,也许为了防止民众的选举权被不良政客骗取,所以才会立此法。我是赞同公务员必须通过考试制度遴选,但对于在国会的政治代议士,我反而觉得它应该包容越多不同背景的人越能对社会不同阶层有代表性。


我反而认为这“考试权”在现代民主制度可以容入“选举权”。这也就是说“选举权”必须独立分立。 负责选举事务的“选举局”必须独立分立。这才符合“五权分立”,建立互相独立监督牵制的机制。


民主制度并非如林金穆(“民主的过程很重要”,10112007,早报交流站)所说的那么简单,“少数服从多数”。民主制度讲求的是民权的代表性,对权力的制衡性和制度的平衡性。如果一个执政党不时运用它对国会的优势而不断修改宪法而使它继续独揽政权,这是不符合民主的理念的。


在现代的新加坡里,我们并没有设立独立的弹劾院,国会也因为各种原因(不只是单纯的反对党不够人选的问题)而被行动党垄断而失去真正的制衡功能,而媒体又没法扮演有效的弹劾或监督政府的功能,这种情况对我国长远的发展来说是非常不利的。


在西方的民主论述中,他们意识到“少数服从多数”这理念有它的缺陷。这样的“少数服从多数”的体制会导致“多数对少数的专制”(tyranny of majority rule)。这也就是为何在许多的西方国家里,他们都逐渐的把选举制度改革为比例制。比例制是比较合理的。比方说,在一个集选区里有四成的选民投给了反对党,但是现有的制度却没法给这四成选民的意愿在国会里得到充足的代表。


如 果实行比例制的话,在一个有五个议席的集选区,这反对党便可得到两个议席而可以代表那四成的选民。这样的制度就可以防止“多数对少数的专制”,也可以防止 任何政党独揽政权而使整个民主制度失效。这也可以扩充民众的政治参与,因为在这种制度下,任何政党都无需添满所有集选区的议席(比如五席集选区可派三个候选人参选), 而能在更多的集选区竞选。反对党也无需为了防止三角战而让选民少了政治选择。目前,许多新加坡人都因集选区制度实行的关系,长久以来失去了投票的机会。这 对提高国民意识是非常不利的。这是因为失去了选举的机会会逐渐的使民众去政治化,逐渐导致民众对国家大事漠不关心。比例选举制就能纠正这弊端。


终结以上观点,我认为一个健全的民主政治体制必须拥有几个特质:


  1. 五权分立,这包括“选举/考试权”,“弹劾/媒体/自由言论权”的分立。

  2. 民众全面政治参与和投票权的行使

  3. 政权的制衡性

  4. 确保制度的平衡性

  5. 广大民众的多元代表性


我 们必须正视我国政治被长期垄断所可能带来的灾害。一个长期没有被充分制衡的制度是非常不健康的。我认为,我们必须先对民主有所认知,而真正了解现有的政治 体系,虽然有选举但实质上,是离真正的民主体制还很远。唯一能防止集权制度腐蚀人性而使政权腐化的途径是建立真正的民主制度。


最 为重要的是,我们必须认清,亚洲价值观并非与民主理念有所冲突而断然拒绝实行民主制度。从中国悠久的政治历史可看得出我们东方人也有政治制衡的观念。我们 正处在政治改革的尖端,势在必行,因为我们无法估计在后李光耀时代会出现什么样的政治变化。我们必须确保我国的政治发展能平稳延续下去。我本身认为只有设 立一个健全真正的民主制度才能确保我国的政治长久的稳定。


吴明盛