[Tell you first har... The pics are just meant to ease your boredom... Don't think too far!]
Just a stony head
Introduction
In this paper I shall first explore the various views of democracy, namely pluralism, elitism and corporatism. This is followed by an examination of the political system of Singapore, both in theory and in practice, as well as to look for justifiable reasons for such arrangements or configurations. The findings are then discussed by asking three questions of “Who are the people?”, “In what sense should the people rule?” and “How far should the popular rule extend?”, which would then lead to a conclusion.
Various Views of Democracy
They are all claiming that the people rules. Got hao siao or not le?
According to Encarta, democracy is “political system in which the people of a country rule through any form of government they choose to establish.” The definition is too vague and general; indeed, Singapore would be classified as a democracy without needing further thoughts if the classification is to follow such a definition. A better alternative would be to examine the various views of democracy, as suggested by Heywood (2002). These views include pluralism, the existence of diversity within a political system; elitism, rule by an elite or a minority; and corporatism, the incorporation of organized interests into the processes of government.
Political System of Singapore – In Theory and In Practice
Ah kong of the lion city
Singapore, formally a sovereign republic, adopts the Westminster parliamentary system, of which the President is the Head of State and is nominally vested the executive authority. The executive authority is exercised by the Prime Minister, which is a Member of Parliament. The legislature is unicameral, and the judiciary is independent of both the President and the Executive.
Singapore political system has somewhat departed from the original Westminster parliamentary system. Chan Heng Chee (1975) proposed that meaningful politics has shifted to the bureaucracy. This has several implications. Firstly, the level of political activity means that politics is no longer highly accessible by the general public if measured by liberal terms. One needs to enter the bureaucracy, or to lobby the member of cabinets within a tolerable level, in order to influence decision-making.
The shift of the center of political activity to the bureaucracy can be perceived as a measure to promote long-term stability and efficiency. Lee Kuan Yew has voiced his skepticism on the model of Western liberalism, stating that sacrificing certain individual freedoms is necessary to preserve political stability and to ensure the good of the whole; however, he also believed that constitutionalism is favorable over arbitrary personal rule. It implies adherence to the laws as specified black-and-white, and impartiality.
Apart from political stability, efficiency has been placed considerable weight. It is believed that swift implementation of policies is more important than arguments and excessive lobbying. The latter is seen as wasting time and reduces efficiency. In view of these considerations, opposition is unavoidably seen as disruptive and destructive.
The tolerance of the existence of opposition, however, is guaranteed by constitutionalism. Pertaining to this matter, Lee Kuan Yew (2006) has said that it is a nature of a political party to seek continuity in power. He does not oppose to the existence of opposition parties, citing the fact that People’s Action Party (PAP) was once an opposition. However the challenge of the hegemony of PAP is to be validated only by genuine capability in running the state and “equal to the task”. In the same occasion as the above, Lee Kuan Yew said that if the opposition won a Group Representation Constituency (GRC), they need to run the Town Councils, and they would have five years to prove themselves in the parliament. These arguments are rational and pragmatic in nature, and suggested that the “power struggle” is to be played in terms of capability and performance, rather than through speeches and subversions.
The shift of center of political activity to the bureaucracy has led to the term “administrative state” as quoted by Chan Heng Chee. The term has several implications: Firstly, it portrays an image of a clean and efficient government, guided by results and outcomes rather than ideologies and beliefs. Secondly, the political system seeks long-term results and is not to be distracted by short-term considerations. Thirdly, the consultation and feedback is to be done through existing governmental units. These implications are clearly designed to deliver material benefits and long-term stability to the citizens, at the expense of the opposition.
It could be hypothesized that politics of Singapore has moved from party politics to that of ‘decentralized politics.’ This can be seen at the creation of Community Development Councils (CDCs), Residents’ Committees (RCs) and Town Councils (TCs). These bodies are meant for greater citizen participation in the running of the country. It is also clear that, through the establishment of Feedback Unit and Institute of Policy Studies, that the population can participate more fully in the process of policy making without having to resort to the Opposition. Although the term “decentralized” is used the situation is still far from direct democracy, such as that of Switzerland. The situation in Singapore is such that citizens are encouraged to participate in policy-making in a constructive manner, and that the distinction between the government and the party is blurred.
Speaking of the participation of the citizens in policy-making, the assumption that the “average public” does not possess adequate “political skill” has marginalized the possibility of the opinions of the public being given priority in the policy-making process. In fact, Ho Khai Leong has provided evidences that Singaporean leaders are determined to “do it alone.” Nevertheless, the basic assumption that the citizens value stability and economic benefit is valid. As the citizens become more educated and exposed to the various cultures more channels of participating in policy-making is to be carved. The above-mentioned Institute of Policy Studies could be very well regarded as such an example.
Another issue that caused intense debate is that of the freedom of speech in Singapore. While the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore has guaranteed freedom of speech, it could be argued that, in particular, the Internal Security Act (ISA) has created the climate of fear as it allows detention without trial for two years and is renewable. The government has been delivering strong replies for “those who try to undermine the authority of the government”. Matters pertaining to defamation lawsuit has been suggested as punishments to those who pose a threat to PAP. However, Lee Kuan Yew has stated that lawsuits would not be instituted as far as there are no breach in laws, and that defamations left ignored would undermine his integrity. Furthermore, the maintenance of constitutionalism, as discussed above, means that there should be a sufficient evidence of misdemeanor in order for the lawsuit to be won. Therefore, as long as the opposition operates in the “civilized” manner, and geared towards the common good of the country, it should not find itself in great trouble.
Discussion
An excellent viewpoint is suggested by Heywood (2002) that democracy can be understood by first examining three questions:
- Who are the people?
- In what sense should the people rule? and
- How far should the popular rule extend?
Who are the people? In the context of Singapore, the “people” is nominally, all its citizens. However, as suggested above, the “average citizens” have been stripped of many of the requirements deemed as competent in the field of politics. The process of policy-making has been confined to the various institutions and bodies, which citizens are encouraged to participate based on several factors, such as economic and educational qualifications. Nevertheless, all the eligible citizens are given suffrage.
In what sense should the people rule? PAP has made it clear that the matters of running the state should be left to the government in order to preserve stability and to deliver maximum economic outcome. Lee Kuan Yew has stated that politics is about life, “How is my life affected by the government” and without the economic necessities, as in the 1950s, “Singapore was [in] a state of agitation everyday.” In the shift of the political activity to the bureaucracy and the strengthening of the PAP hegemony, the only viable option for the opposition is to become highly competent and capable, so as to displace the existing ruling party in a constitutional manner. The need for the opposition to strengthen themselves to challenge the ruling party also created a heightened sense of self-criticism, whereby PAP recruits the ablest of all candidates in order to remain in power. The working of this system is a fairly sensible check-and-balance that sustains the high level of competence and incorruptibility of the government.
This has brought the third question: How far should the popular rule extend? The basic principle that the right of a person should not be impinged upon the others is valid, as witnessed by the speech of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. The discussions above that politics is about life suggests that politics has influenced every aspect of Singaporeans, whether explicit or otherwise. The marginalization of opposition parties, on the other hand, may be seen as the rational action of a ruling party to seek continuance of power; and that oppositions would survive, or even thrive, if they are equal to the task, if not more capable than, the existing ruling party. The availability of certain channels (CDCs, TCs and RCs) may encourage the population to participate in the policy-making process and grassroots activities, but serious deliberations of policies is left much to be desired at the level. However, the existence of the Institute of Policy Studies suggested that the population may be able to participate more fully in the running of the government and policy-making processes as the educational level and social exposure is improved.
Conclusion
From the three questions it could be seen that Singapore is indeed a democracy, albeit an elitist one. The government has strived to deliver economic benefits to the citizens and thus far has been highly successful in doing so. This is done at the expense of the so-called “political diversity”, which pressures could be felt upon opposition parties and various aspects of liberties. In the course of economical development a generation of educated and more sophisticated citizenry emerges. It is a challenge to the government to oversee the transformation of the current political culture well into the future to ensure that the balance of economical and social achievement is well addressed.
Footnote Pious, Richard M. 2001. Democracy. Microsoft Encarta Reference Library 2002.
References
Microsoft Encarta Reference Library 2002.
Heywood, Andrew, 2002. Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore.
Chan Heng Chee, 1975 (1997). Politics in an Administrative State: Where has the Politics Gone? In Understanding Singapore Society, ed. Ong, Tong et. al. Singapore: Times Academic Press.
Mauzy, Diane K., and Milne, R.S., 2002. Singapore Politics Under the People’s Action Party, 6-7. London, New York: Rouledge.
N. Ganesan, Singapore: Entrenching a City-State’s Dominant Party System”, South East Asian Affairs 1998 (Singapore: ISEAS 1998).
Mutalib, H. Illiberal Democracy and the Future of the Opposition in Singapore, Third World Quarterly, 21, no. 2 (2000): pp. 321-322.
Ho Khai Leong, Citizen Participation and Policy Making in Singapore: Conditions and Predicaments, Asian Survey Vol. 40, No. 3 (May, 2000), p. 445.
Thank you for taking your time to read the post. I would be grateful if you could comment on the article. Thank you again! 
‘Brunei’ GDP per capita is the highest of major economies
‘Brunei’ real GDP per capita outgrew all other major economies since ‘1982′
Average years of education of working populations in ‘1998′