๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐ฌ ๐ ๐๐๐๐ซ๐ ๐๐๐ฆ๐๐๐ซ, ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ก๐ฒ ๐๐ฆ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐๐ฎ๐ฆ๐๐๐ซ๐ฌ ๐๐๐ฌ๐๐ซ๐ฏ๐ ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐๐ซ ๐๐๐ซ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ฒ
The recent Workers' Party confidence vote has introduced many Singaporeans to a political term they may never have encountered before: the cadre member.
๐๐ง๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ซ๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ฆ๐๐๐ซ๐ฌ ๐๐ญ๐ญ๐๐ง๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐๐. Around 79% voted to express confidence in the party's leadership.
The result itself is not the interesting part.
The number is.
Most people instinctively understand democracy as "one member, one vote."
A cadre system is different. Not every party member gets to decide who leads the party. Instead, only a selected group of trusted members has that privilege.
There is nothing inherently wrong with this.
In fact, many organisations work this way. Company boards elect CEOs. Clubs appoint committees. Professional bodies rely on councils rather than referendums. The argument is straightforward: experienced members are better placed to choose leaders than the general membership.
But every governance system involves trade-offs.
๐๐ก๐ ๐ฌ๐ฆ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐ซ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฏ๐จ๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐จ๐ฅ, ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ ๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐๐ซ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ข๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ฎ๐๐ง๐๐ ๐จ๐ ๐๐๐๐ก ๐ข๐ง๐๐ข๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ฎ๐๐ฅ ๐ฏ๐จ๐ญ๐.
A party with 20,000 voting members requires thousands of people to change its direction. A party with just over a hundred voting members requires only dozens.
This is not an accusation, it's just math.
Political scientists sometimes call this the "selectorate." The smaller the selectorate, the easier it becomes for organised factions, personal relationships and internal alliances to shape leadership outcomes.
๐๐ก๐จ ๐๐ก๐จ๐จ๐ฌ๐๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฉ๐๐จ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ ๐ฐ๐ก๐จ ๐ ๐๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ก๐จ๐จ๐ฌ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฅ๐๐๐๐๐ซ๐ฌ?
Cadre members are appointed based on clear criteria. The appointments are opaque, concentrated in the hands of a few individuals. It may even be to reward loyalty over independent judgement.
Another consideration is the treatment of disagreement.
Political parties naturally require discipline. No organisation can function if every disagreement spills into public view.
But there is a difference between discipline and conformity.
๐๐๐ฌ๐๐ซ๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฌ ๐ก๐๐ฏ๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ๐๐ซ ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ค๐๐ซ๐ฌ' ๐๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ฒ ๐๐ข๐ ๐ฎ๐ซ๐๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐๐ก ๐๐ฌ ๐๐๐ง๐ข๐๐ฅ ๐๐จ๐ก, ๐๐ฎ๐๐ก๐ข๐ฌ๐ก๐ญ๐ก๐ซ๐ ๐๐๐ญ๐ก๐๐ง ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐๐จ ๐๐๐ข ๐๐ข๐ง๐ , ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ๐๐ซ ๐ฅ๐จ๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ข๐ฆ๐ ๐๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ฆ๐๐๐ซ๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ก๐จ๐ฆ ๐ก๐๐ฏ๐ ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ข๐ ๐ง๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ฌ๐๐ก-๐๐ซ๐ข๐ญ๐๐ฆ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐๐ฅ๐๐ฆ.
These are patterns. Though these patterns do not amount to proof, deserve examination.
This is why scrutiny should never be viewed as hostility.
If anything, ๐จ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ ๐ฐ๐๐ฅ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฌ๐๐ฆ๐ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ง๐๐๐ซ๐๐ฌ ๐จ๐ ๐ ๐จ๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ง๐๐ง๐๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฒ ๐๐๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐จ๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ง๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ.
The Worker's Party is not small. Yet the Workers' Party does not publicly disclose its total general membership numbers.
If the future leadership of a major political party can effectively be decided by just over one hundred people, the public is entitled to ask questions.
How were those one hundred were selected? What safeguards exist against concentration of power, and whether the system remains fit for purpose.
If a party asks for fairness, accountability and transparency, then they should offer the same thing as well.