Singapore's Levers of Power
-
What do you all think of this article from WSJ?
Singapore's Levers of Power
By GARRY RODAN
February 10, 2006
Elections in Singapore never pose any threat to the ruling People's Action Party (PAP), which currently holds 82 of the 84 elected seats in the city state's parliament. With a wide array of institutional mechanisms at its disposal to see off any prospect of real political competition, the results are clear long before voters go to the polls.
But that doesn't mean there aren't issues which can be expected to come to the fore as Lee Hsien Loong leads his first election campaign since becoming premier in 2004, with polls possibly due as early as March. Or that the PAP isn't feeling a little more nervous than Singapore's recent strong economic performance might suggest.
Take, in particular, the Jan. 12 announcement of a S$1 billion (US$613 million) plan to assist Singapore's lowest-paid workers. This suggests that, in contrast to previous elections, the coming campaign is likely to see the PAP focus less on its economic credentials and more on the social issues that it expects to resonate with Singapore's working class, who are often called the "HDB heartlanders." This is a reference to the government-subsidized apartments, built by the Housing Development Board, which provides homes for 84% of the population.
Despite a booming economy, which saw 108,000 jobs created in 2005, competition from China, India and Vietnam has hit Singapore's older unskilled workers hard. For instance, only 30,000 of those new jobs went to locals. And the 500,000 Singaporean workers with educational qualifications below secondary school level are having particular difficulty finding new employment as the economy restructures toward more skilled jobs.
Hence, the PAP's championing of welfarism, albeit under a different name. Its proposed Workfare scheme would provide one-off wage bonuses to workers aged 40 years or older on monthly incomes of S$1,200 or less. They can also apply for further assistance to cover housing, skills training and childcare services.
Announcing the scheme, Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen insisted it wasn't a form of welfarism, since the aim is to reward participation in the workforce and shore up the work ethic. In truth, the PAP's only objection to welfarism is its ideological connotations. It wants to preserve a paternalistic political relationship in which Singaporeans are rewarded by a benevolent government.
Increasingly, the PAP is drawing on the country's healthy fiscal surpluses to roll out welfare initiatives in the run up to elections. Three months before the 2001 polls it announced the New Singapore Shares scheme. Under this, Singaporeans were given between S$200 and S$1,700 worth of shares linked to accumulated government surpluses, with the option of exchanging some of these benefits for cash.
That the plight of low-paid workers will feature in the election campaigns is assured. On Jan. 14, the Workers' Party, which currently holds one of the two opposition seats, unveiled a manifesto proposing a minimum wage -- a clear policy alternative to the PAP's Workfare initiative.
Nor are those at the bottom of the wages rung the only employees feeling the winds of change in recent years. Government moves to link wages and salaries more directly to market forces and productivity have proved contentious. For example, in 2003, members of the Airline Pilots' Association of Singapore voted out of office the entire 20-person union executive after dissatisfaction with new conditions agreed with management. The government promptly amended the Trades Unions Act to remove the right of union members to ratify any collective agreement signed by their elected representatives.
Acknowledging the political challenge posed by economic restructuring, Lim Boon Heng, the secretary general of the PAP-affiliated National Trades Union Congress, called in recent years for a new "social compact" to smooth the process. Under this, employers should raise skills in return for employee cooperation on wage flexibility and productivity measures.
Not coincidentally, the Workers' Party manifesto also calls for barring government ministers from holding office in trade unions. For instance, Mr. Lim is also a PAP member of parliament, while all but five of the 68 registered unions in Singapore are affiliates of the NTUC that he heads. But state labor cooptation is central to the PAP strategy of industrial and political control. Reforms towards its dilution will not be countenanced.
Another issue that may provide ground for the opposition to exploit is the PAP's 2005 policy about face in introducing casinos to Singapore. This has generated a lot of debate, with the government permitting uncharacteristic political space for critical comment through the local media and the activities of non-governmental organizations. Although not a cause celebre of the PAP's liberal critics, casinos are a sensitive issue among traditional, socially conservative supporters of the PAP -- the HDB heartlanders also feeling the pinch of economic restructuring. The government has been especially keen to avoid alienating Singapore's ethnic Malays, who make up 14% of the population, many of whom oppose the casinos on Islamic religious grounds. However, whether the consultative process adopted has substantially appeased dissenting views remains to be seen.
Ultimately, though, the capacity of the political opposition to capitalize on any of these issues is constrained. Despite charges of gerrymandering from critics, the government continues to resist calls for an independent electoral commission. New boundaries are also usually announced just weeks before elections. In 2001, for example, voters went to the elections just 17 days after new electoral boundaries were released. This makes it more difficult for the opposition to plan and conduct grassroots campaigns. Candidate deposits of S$13,000 also stretch opposition parties' resources -- especially in the multi-member constituencies that are progressively replacing Singapore's single member constituencies. In the current parliament, there are now only nine elected MPs representing single-member seats. The rest belong to group representation constituencies comprising between four and six members.
Controls on the use of the Internet for electioneering purposes, including bans on campaigning from non-party political Web sites, combine with the monopoly of government-controlled domestic media to limit the opposition's ability to project its policies to the electorate and to hold debates with the PAP. Crippling defamation laws have been directed at some of the opposition's most effective communicators and act as a threat against other would-be adversaries. Furthermore, the Societies Act bars political engagement by any groups not registered for such purposes, so undermining civil society and opposition parties' links to it, a problem that erodes the political process long before elections.
Finally, there is a political economy dimension to electoral intimidation. In the last two elections, for example, Singaporeans have been warned that electorates returning opposition candidates face discrimination in the upgrading of Housing Development Board flats. This dependence on the state renders Singaporeans vulnerable to political threats. Then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong warned before the 1997 poll that constituencies electing opposition candidates would be the last in line for such upgrading. "Then in 20, 30 years' time, the whole of Singapore will be bustling away and your estate, through your own choice, will be left behind. They become slums. That's my message," Mr. Goh was quoted as saying during the campaign. In 2001, Mr. Goh supplemented this by promising the upgrading of flats in those individual precincts within the opposition constituency of Potong Pasir where more than half of the voters supported the PAP.
All of this means that, while there are many issues on which the PAP may be vulnerable to criticism in the upcoming polls, no one should expect the new parliament to look very different from the last. -
So if more opposition party members get voted into Parliament, their constituencies will become "slums".
Isn't that contrary to the constant PAP assurance that no Singaporean will be left behind?
-
Originally posted by charlize:So if more opposition party members get voted into Parliament, their constituencies will become "slums".
Isn't that contrary to the constant PAP assurance that no Singaporean will be left behind?
PAP pap pap -
WSJ backside itchy.... Economist just paid $250,000, Since they know so much about Singapore dont they know foreign papers can be sued?
-
Ya WSJ should know that singapore is ranked 140/167 in press freedom just 2 places behind russiaOriginally posted by Calvin86:WSJ backside itchy.... Economist just paid $250,000, Since they know so much about Singapore dont they know foreign papers can be sued? -
Let me try a salman one linerOriginally posted by Libertarian:Ya WSJ should know that singapore is ranked 140/167 in press freedom just 2 places behind russia
"Singaporeans are not matured enough for it" -
Was The Economist fined by the Singapore government?Originally posted by Calvin86:WSJ backside itchy.... Economist just paid $250,000, Since they know so much about Singapore dont they know foreign papers can be sued? -
i think soOriginally posted by geodome:Was The Economist fined by the Singapore government?In September, the Economist magazine announced that it had agreed to pay damages to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in connection with an article published in its August 14 issue. The article was taken to imply that nepotism had played a part in the appointment of Ho Ching, the Prime Minister's wife, to head Temasek Holdings, the country's key state investment entity. Newspaper accounts reported that the amount paid was $229,000 (S$380,000) plus legal costs. -Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
-
the article's fine. not overly inciting nor insinuating, just straightforward portrayal of the political culture (or lack of it) here.
-
That sounds so much like the lame refrain sounded by Bush's "No Child Left Behind" program..Originally posted by charlize:So if more opposition party members get voted into Parliament, their constituencies will become "slums".
Isn't that contrary to the constant PAP assurance that no Singaporean will be left behind?
Seriously, what worked for Singapore in the 70s and 80s, does not necessarily work in 2006.If WSJ gets sued, it only means the ones up there are afraid of seeing the truth in print.
-
But this article insinuates that our elections are not free and fair and the incumbent party has created a host of stragies to prevent opposition from winning seats.
Tell WSJ there is no short cut for opposition lah. Last time MM Lee also fought against the communist with unfair odds. -
Strategies are definitely there.The hallmark of the MIW is that they will not admit the ad naseum existence of it.Originally posted by Calvin86:But this article insinuates that our elections are not free and fair and the incumbent party has created a host to stragies to prevent opposition from winning seats.
Tell WSJ there is no short cut for opposition lah. Last time MM Lee also fought against the communist with unfair odds. -
Originally posted by Calvin86:
"MM Lee also fought against the communist with unfair odds" ?
But this article insinuates that our elections are not free and fair and the incumbent party has created a host of stragies to prevent opposition from winning seats.
Tell WSJ there is no short cut for opposition lah. Last time MM Lee also fought against the communist with unfair odds.
Can you clarify - were the odds against the communists or MM Lee ?
To the best of my limited knowledge - with the ISA left behind by the British Colonial Rulers which LKY had earlier protested of its oppressive use by the Colonial Government towards Singaporeans - LKY locked up the communists before the elections under a string of accusations and charges.
The most famous detainee was Chia Thye Poh - who was locked up for THIRTY YEARS - on the personal accusation of LKY that Chia was a Communist attempting to create an armed revolution against an elected government.
For Thirty Years, Chia resisted all ISD attempt to get him to sign to such a confession and win his own release, as he demanded evidence of such a charge and be tried in a Court of Law.
Is it not surprising that with a Judiciary handpicked by LKY and his Government, Chia Thye Poh was never tried but quietly and unceremoniously released after Thirty Years of solitary confinement. -
Yes the British also created a laws to help to maintain the rule.Originally posted by Atobe:To the best of my limited knowledge - with the ISA left behind by the British Colonial Rulers which LKY had earlier protested of its oppressive use by the Colonial Government towards Singaporeans - LKY locked up the communists before the elections under a string of accusations and charges.
From my limited Knowledge, PAP was formerly a communist leaning party comprising with mainly Chinese-Ed. Goh Keng Swee, Lee Kuan Yew, Toh Chin Chye, and a few others joined PAP to try to get political Power. To even use ISA Laws they had to win political power.
If you move further back into the timeline, where they have to wrest power from a communist leaning PAP, the odds were truly against them.
Even if the goverment had ISA laws, the communist were good at stiring the students against the government. In China during the cultural revolution, the communist Red guards actually managed to overthrow the ruling government.
The Communist Chinese ruling Government infact were even more brutal, they usually send dissidents to meet their maker, but yet they were overthrown by the Red Guards. -
In the early Malayan-Singapore History, it is correct that prior to the birth of PAP, the communists were active in the Malayan and Singapore Politics, as they were involved and supported by the British Colonial Government in the war against the Japanese in WW-2.Originally posted by Calvin86:Yes the British also created a laws to help to maintain the rule.
From my limited Knowledge, PAP was formerly a communist leaning party comprising with mainly Chinese-Ed. Goh Keng Swee, Lee Kuan Yew, Toh Chin Chye, and a few others joined PAP to try to get political Power. To even use ISA Laws they had to win political power.
If you move further back into the timeline, where they have to wrest power from a communist leaning PAP, the odds were truly against them.
During the period of Internal Self-Rule, as an Opposition Leader - LKY even lost grip of his Secretary-General position in the PAP, and it was through the Chief Minister Lim Yew Hock's mass arrest of Communists agitators - with the tacit approval from the British Colonial Government - that LKY managed to regain his role in the PAP.
The British Colonial Government found LKY to be the lesser of two evils between his style and that of the Communists - (after David Marshall did not understand local politics and lost, and Lim Yew Hock was found wanting in his administrative ability) - and continued to support LKY and helped stop the manacing and growing influence of the Malayan Communist Party on the local population.
The original PAP was socialist in nature, mingled with democratic ideals - which led to their acceptance by the liberal political parties in the International Socialist-Democrats.
Unfortunately, democracy was not on the agenda of the Singapore Ruling Party then, and Singapore was thrown out of its luminary position in the association of International Socialist-Democrats. -
the elections are obviously not fair so there's nothing to insinuate. it is true also that the GRC effectively killed off the opposition.Originally posted by Calvin86:But this article insinuates that our elections are not free and fair and the incumbent party has created a host of stragies to prevent opposition from winning seats.
Tell WSJ there is no short cut for opposition lah. Last time MM Lee also fought against the communist with unfair odds.
there should not be any short cut, just like there should not be any unecessary obstacles. actually not true, MM Lee made use of the communists, what he himself claimed to be "riding the tiger". he also used the british to "fight" (actually wipe out) the communists. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
The original PAP was socialist in nature, but at one point of time they were heavily infiltrated by communists. At that time it was quite easy to join PAP - Just pay $4 and fill a form. In the 1950s all but 4 branches were captured by the Left wings. The original PAP needed the communists as they had a large base of support and were riding the tiger
In the early [b]Malayan-Singapore History, it is correct that prior to the birth of PAP, the communists were active in the Malayan and Singapore Politics, as they were involved and supported by the British Colonial Government in the war against the Japanese in WW-2.
During the period of Internal Self-Rule, as an Opposition Leader - LKY even lost grip of his Secretary-General position in the PAP, and it was through the Chief Minister Lim Yew Hock's mass arrest of Communists agitators - with the tacit approval from the British Colonial Government - that LKY managed to regain his role in the PAP.
The British Colonial Government found LKY to be the lesser of two evils between his style and that of the Communists - (after David Marshall did not understand local politics and lost, and Lim Yew Hock was found wanting in his administrative ability) - and continued to support LKY and helped stop the manacing and growing influence of the Malayan Communist Party on the local population.
The original PAP was socialist in nature, mingled with democratic ideals - which led to their acceptance by the liberal political parties in the International Socialist-Democrats.
Unfortunately, democracy was not on the agenda of the Singapore Ruling Party then, and Singapore was thrown out of its luminary position in the association of International Socialist-Democrats.
[/b]
I dont think fighting the communist was as easy as making a call to the security agency. The communist would organise strikes and use arms if necessary. There were a lot of uncertainty that time so I dont think the odds were with LKY that time -
Originally posted by Atobe:
The original PAP was socialist in nature, but in the 50s they were heavily infiltrated by communists. At that time it was quite easy to join PAP - Just pay $4 and fill a form. In the 1950s all but 4 branches were captured by the Left wings. The original PAP also needed the communists as they had a large base of support and were riding the tiger
In the early [b]Malayan-Singapore History, it is correct that prior to the birth of PAP, the communists were active in the Malayan and Singapore Politics, as they were involved and supported by the British Colonial Government in the war against the Japanese in WW-2.
During the period of Internal Self-Rule, as an Opposition Leader - LKY even lost grip of his Secretary-General position in the PAP, and it was through the Chief Minister Lim Yew Hock's mass arrest of Communists agitators - with the tacit approval from the British Colonial Government - that LKY managed to regain his role in the PAP.
The British Colonial Government found LKY to be the lesser of two evils between his style and that of the Communists - (after David Marshall did not understand local politics and lost, and Lim Yew Hock was found wanting in his administrative ability) - and continued to support LKY and helped stop the manacing and growing influence of the Malayan Communist Party on the local population.
The original PAP was socialist in nature, mingled with democratic ideals - which led to their acceptance by the liberal political parties in the International Socialist-Democrats.
Unfortunately, democracy was not on the agenda of the Singapore Ruling Party then, and Singapore was thrown out of its luminary position in the association of International Socialist-Democrats.
[/b]
I dont think fighting the communist was as easy as making a call to the security agency. The communist would organise strikes and use arms if necessary. There were a lot of uncertainty that time so I dont think the odds were with LKY that time -
“We are all subjects of the Lee dynasty.” To what extent is this statement true? [25 marks]
This statement is true to a large extent. The Lee dynasty exists because of Lee Kuan YewÂ’s rule of Singapore, and subsequently his son, Lee Hsien Loong, maintained the Lee familyÂ’s power over Singapore. As citizens of this supposedly democratic nation, we are subject to the rule of the Lee Dynasty.
0 marks! Your answer is politically incorrect! -
Originally posted by Calvin86:
During the 1950s, $4 is not a small sum of money - when even 0NE CENT has sufficient value to purchase some consumer goods.
The original PAP was socialist in nature, but at one point of time they were heavily infiltrated by communists. At that time it was quite easy to join PAP - Just pay $4 and fill a form. At one point of time all but 4 branches were captured by the Left wings. The original PAP needed the communists as they had a large base of support.
I dont think fighting the communist was as easy as making a call to the security agency. The communist would organise strikes and use arms if necessary. There were a lot of uncertainty that time so I dont think the odds were with LKY that time
You are partially correct in your post, and if you will consider the following that is an extract of Singapore organised by the US Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress :
The politics of the 1950s was a survival of the fittest, "big fish eat small fish, and small fish eat fry".
The CPM was legal in Singapore during the first two-and-one- half years of post-war British colonial rule.
The party's chance to take over Singapore from the British through legal means ended in 1948 when the communist leaders decided to adopt a strategy of insurrection and terrorism in Malaya and Singapore, which led to the period known as the Emergency.
The CPM was declared illegal and was subjected to countermeasures by the government; its membership in Singapore dropped precipitously, and all of the members of the Singapore Town Committee, which was the CPM's central committee for Singapore, were arrested in December 1950.
The communist effort was crippled until the mid-1950s, when a new strategy of collaboration with legal political organizations was adopted by the government. The communist movement survived in Singapore largely in the Chineselanguage middle schools, whose students were particularly susceptible to propaganda because their employment and political opportunities were much more limited than those of English-speaking Chinese. After 1949 the success of the communists in China also attracted students to the party.
In 1956 when it had become clear that the British were going to leave Singapore, the communists moved to obtain control of an independent government by legal means while continuing to foster disorders.
The concurrent effort by the communists to find a legal route to power focused on the party's alliance with the PAP.
Organizers of the PAP had deliberately collaborated with the communists in order to broaden the PAP's organizational base among the Chinese majority, and the communists saw in the leftist orientation of the PAP an ideologically acceptable basis for an alliance.
When the communists attempted to seize control of the PAP Central Executive Committee in 1957, however, they were defeated by supporters of Lee Kuan Yew.
Lee went on to lead the PAP to victory in the 1959 election. As prime minister, Lee gradually eliminated communists from influential positions within the party and government and later used provisions of the Internal Security Act to prevent alleged communists from participating in politics.
The 'english speaking' gentleman in LKY had not much support from the larger Chinese business community, and he had a hard time fitting into the local political scene; which leaves him with little choice but to swim with the big fishes.
He had to build his power base by representing the Trade Unions in their negotiations with the British Colonial Rulers - and LKY was an OUTSPOKEN OPPONENT to the powers of the INTERNAL SECURITY ACT !!!
However, with close-up familiarity to the powers of the ISA, when LKY came into premier political office, he did not hesistate to exercise the ISA powers afforded to him.
If it is not totalitarian to arrest a man and detain him when you cannot charge him with any offence against any written law - if that is not what we have always cried out against in fascist states - what is it?Â… If we are to survive as a free democracy, then we must be prepared, in principle, to concede to our enemies - even those who do not subscribe to our views - as much constitutional rights as you concede yourself.
I agreeÂ… that if any act is done to overthrow a government by force, that act must be suppressed. But if we say we believe in democracy, if we say that the fabric of democracy is one which allows the free play of ideas, which avoids revolution by violence because revolution by peaceful methods of persuasion is allowed, then, in the name of all the gods that we have in this country, give that free play a chance to work within the constitutional framework.
Contrary to your assumption, LKY did not hesistate to use the powers of the ISA, and it is almost exactly as you have put it - "fighting the communist was as easy as making a call to the security agency" .
LKY's earlier liberal views when fighting the Colonial Government use of the ISA had changed in his statement made later in his political career :
It must be realised that if you abolish the powers of arrest and detention and insist on trial in open court in accordance with the strict laws of evidence of a criminal trial, then law and order becomes without the slightest exaggeration utterly impossible, because whilst you may still nominally have law and order, the wherewithal to enforce it would have disappeared.
The choice in many of these cases is either to go through the motions of a trial and let a guilty man off to continue his damage to society or to keep him confined without trial -
the following that is an extract of Singapore organised by the US Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress : Organizers of the PAP had deliberately collaborated with the communists in order to broaden the PAP's organizational base among the Chinese majority, and the communists saw in the leftist orientation of the PAP an ideologically acceptable basis for an alliance.
PAP betrayed the communist. what is the point of supporting a political party whose roots are embedded in betraying political allies? Will it not surprise anyone if the ruling party betray their voters too? -
I really dun understand how sg is run?