It is impossible to record everything that was said over 4 hours in just one article; I can only mention the highlights, and even then, I cannot vouch that what I have selected as highlights represent the most important points that the speakers intended.

Koh reported on the results of a survey of Singapore citizens conducted from 8 – 20 May 2006. They reached 985 respondents aged 21 and above for a phone interview. Interlocking quotas were set to ensure representativeness. No distinction was made between those who actually voted and those who didn't.

Of the issues presented to the survey respondents for their views, the most important to them was the "Need for efficient government". 93% rated this as "important" or "very important"

The next three issues with nearly identical high scores were "Fairness of government policy", "Need for different views in Parliament" and "Need checks and balances in Parliament". All three were considered "important" or "very important" by 82 – 83% of respondents.

The least important issue was that of "Upgrading". Only 30% felt this was "important" or "very important", while 56% felt this was "not so important" or "not important at all".

Issues that obtained medium scores for importance included "Cost of living including healthcare" and "Work of former MP".

As for communication channels, "Newspaper" was rated the most important. 75% said the dailies were "important" or "very important". Television was next in importance. 69% said it was "important" or "very important".

Word of mouth was the least important channel. 52% said this was "not so important" or "not important at all".

The second least significant channel was the internet. 49% said this was "not so important" or "not important at all". Koh however, pointed out that the better educated and those aged 21 – 29 tended to rate the internet as more important that the average for the whole.

Another set of questions related to the election system. 61% agreed or strongly agreed that there was "No need to change the election system", but 27% disagreed or strongly disagreed. The better educated tended to disagree.

Was the "votes for upgrading policy fair"? 36% said yes, or strongly yes, while 51% said no or strongly no.

As for the statement "Important to have elected opposition... in Parliament", 83% agreed or strongly agreed. Only 8% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

There was some analysis to discern the profile of the "conservative", "pluralist" and "swing" voter. While these attitudes were found in all socio-economic and age bands, Koh found more pluralists among those in the higher socio-economic classes and those between 40 –54 years of age. Not the young, she said. Almost half of the post-1965 generation were in the swing category, indicating that they haven't yet formed their political opinions.

Support for the pro-government status quo was most marked in those aged 65 and above.

40 years ago, Singapore was more democratic than South Korea and Taiwan, countries that would later become the Asian Tigers. Today, it is generally accepted that they are more democratic than us. Why?

Janadas attributes this stagnation to the fact that the "Singapore government has been too damned good". It has delivered very well on its socio-economic promises, with the result that there is "no deeply felt deficit in pragmatic socio-economic terms." It was usually this deficit in other two countries that led to unhappiness, thus forcing change.

Consider the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Singapore rode out the storm, but Indonesia and South Korea faced a severe political crisis as a result of the economic turmoil. However, the result today is that they are more democratic than us.

Singapore has a deficit in political terms, but issues of political rights seldom generate enough pressure from the ground.

Nonetheless, "political values will mould the landscape over time, if not transform it altogether", Janadas said. Take for example, the gradually opening education system. How can we expect people to think out of the box in all matters except the political? How can we "maintain a cordon sanitaire around politics alone"?

He was cautiously optimistic that Newsweek columnist Fareed Zakaria's prediction that Singapore would become a liberal democracy within a generation would come to pass. The changing values would first transform media, universities and civil society before they affect the electorate, he predicted.

All good runners require someone to pace them. The People's Action Party has long suffered from not having an effective opposition which might have performed that role of pacing them, Sadasivan said.

He laid out a number of areas that needed reform. Among them were a need for an independent electoral commission, more transparent rules about constituency boundaries, and adequate time and scope for campaigning.

There was also a need for adequate and fair information in the media. He disagreed that political films should remained banned.

Something too must be done about pork barrel politics, for "it does not contribute to the maturing of society", and the widespread perception that the vote is not secret.

A "fair and established legal framework" is also needed "in the realm of defamation action". It is important "to be seen to be fair" and we "should stat in tune with people/'s sense of what's right and fair."

In addition, we shouldn't "appear slow or reluctant to follow developments internationally" in this area of justice.

Kwek first tried to divine "what the ruling party wants". Bringing various arguments together, he felt that the People's Action Party wanted the electorate to accept that certain democratic practices should be traded off for good policy-making.

This would then make Singapore a "pseudo-democracy" in which "electoral institutions exist but yield no meaningful contestation for power."

As for what the voters wanted, much may depend on the question whether they -– especially younger voters -– "want a more open political culture and a more equitable electoral system?"

"Will Singaporeans continue to be content with tokenism"?

Kwek drew on a paper presented 2 weeks earlier at the NUSS forum by Ho Khai Leong. Ho had proposed 4 sets of reforms for a more democratic political system: 

• Reform the PAP, including its leadership, its "vanguard structure" and its mindset; 
• Reform the electoral system; 
• Reform the news media 
• Reform civil society, so that the public have a greater say in lobbying for political change.

Kwek noted that these were difficult to achieve, especially as the first reform was critical to the rest.

As a result, Kwek expressed pessimism. "Singapore will not see a one-and-a-half party state in the next two, even three or four elections" unless the PAP is willing to change.

© Yawning Bread