Most political parties around the world would be thrilled to win 89 percent of seats in an election. Not in Singapore.
The worst showing for the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) since independence in 1965 prompted analysts to declare a “vote for change” that would trigger “soul searching” among the nation’s leaders.
Supporters of the main opposition Workers’ Party — which took 10 of 93 seats up for grabs — waved flags, blew whistles and beat drums like they were about to take office.
Much of that reaction reflects just how tightly the PAP has clenched the levers of power over the decades.
It is a very high bar for it to continue winning so many seats in every election even with an electoral system that has built-in advantages for the ruling party, and this vote was held when a global pandemic is leading to the city-state’s worst-ever economic slump.
However, potentially more concerning for Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (李顯龍) was that the result upended the conventional wisdom that traditionally risk-averse Singaporeans would strongly back the PAP in an emergency.
That alone could have a big impact on policy, raising questions about how leaders positioned to succeed Lee handled COVID-19 and why more young voters are said to have embraced opposition calls for both a stronger social safety net and a more open democracy.
“Look at this population — the youngsters — they are prepared to vote against the government in times of a crisis, which is very unprecedented,” said Bilveer Singh, an associate professor at the National University of Singapore’s political science department. “It has never happened.”
In the early hours of Saturday, Lee said that the PAP had won a “clear mandate,” even though its 61.2 percent share of the popular vote — slightly more than its all-time low in 2011 — was less than he had hoped.
He vowed to take Singapore “safely through the crisis and beyond” before handing over power to the so-called fourth generation of leaders.
“The results show also a clear desire for a diversity of voices in parliament,” Lee said, while adding that the outcome reflected the “pain and uncertainty” caused by a loss of income, anxiety over jobs and virus-related disruptions.
Lee hinted at some changes ahead, saying government policies must reflect the younger generation’s “significantly different life aspirations and priorities” compared with older Singaporeans.
Still, he implored the youth to heed lessons “hard won by their parents and grandparents so that they don’t have to learn them all over again and pay a high price.”
Post the 2011 elections, Singapore tightened curbs on foreign workers after a backlash over the cost of living led to then-record opposition gains.
Lee had pledged to be more responsive to criticism of government policies and unveiled measures to widen the social safety net for elderly and lower-income Singaporeans.
The PAP also carried out a post-mortem to identify where it had fallen short, and set out on what Lee described as a “fresh course” after an introspection.
The “PAP was always expected to win — international investors always knew that to be the case,” said Justin Tang, head of Asian research at United First Partners. “It would, however, need to rethink its longer-term strategy playbook not just politically, but also economically.”
As one of the most trade-reliant economies in the world, Singapore has taken a severe knock during the pandemic.
Officials are predicting that GDP would contract as much as 7 percent this year.
Data due out yesterday was expected to show the economy already entered a recession in the second quarter [Editor’s note: Agence Presse-France yesterday reported the economy shrank more than 40 percent, plunging Singapore into recession for the first time in more than a decade.].
“There may be a greater need to think out of the box for economic strategies in a post-COVID world,” said Selena Ling (林秀心), head of treasury research and strategy at Singapore-based Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp, citing debates over fiscal sustainability and accountability, minimum wages, foreign worker policy and reliance on multinational corporations.
The Workers’ Party had campaigned on a slew of policies aimed at helping lower-income Singaporeans, including unemployment insurance, a minimum wage and incentives to hire locals over foreigners.
Workers’ Party Secretary-General Pritam Singh, who is to become Singapore’s first official opposition leader, said he was humbled by the gains even though “it’s still not exactly a quantum leap.”
At a press conference on Sunday, Singh said his party’s focus is on “good outcomes for Singapore and Singaporeans” as the country navigates through the impact of COVID-19.
“The situation is not positive in certain industries and we have people that are starting to get retrenched in certain jobs and they need help and assistance,” he said. “We should be very focused on what is at stake here rather than think about the political position that the party should take” on certain issues.
The election results are likely to spur the government to enact measures to strengthen the social safety net and recalibrate its foreign worker policy, even while it stresses to the business community that it is not turning insular, said Leonard Lim, Singapore country director for the regional consultancy firm Vriens & Partners.
The government had already tightened restrictions on foreign labor in industries such as retail while allowing imported talent for higher-skilled roles.
“Plenty of opposition candidates have rammed home the point that the PAP’s long-standing openness to foreign labor means less good quality jobs for citizens,” Lim said.
“It’s low-hanging fruit and a very strategic tactic, especially when many citizens, especially middle-class white-collar workers, are losing sleep about job issues amid COVID-19,” he added.
On the campaign trail, Lee had emphasized the government’s moves to stabilize the economy and limit job losses through massive wage subsidies, pledges to create 100,000 fresh work and training opportunities, and re-skilling workers toward next-generation industries.
His government allocated S$93 billion (US$66.7 billion) in special budget support to cushion the economic blow, and dipped into its reserves for only the second time to finance the spending.
In addition, the government is investing for research and development in areas such as artificial intelligence and biomedical sciences, supplementing ongoing digitization efforts that include building Singapore into a fintech hub and getting the island’s food stalls and wet markets to adopt e-payments.
Still, Lee has repeatedly said Singapore needs to attract investments from multinationals to generate sustainable economic growth over the long haul.
He blasted opposition proposals for a minimum wage and universal basic income as “fashionable peacetime slogans, not serious wartime plans.”
For Lee, who has run Singapore since 2004, the election was personal.
He has signaled he intends to step down by the time he turns 70 in 2022, with Singaporean Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat (王瑞傑) set to take over.
Yet the election saw the prime minister being attacked by his own brother, Lee Hsien Yang (李顯揚), who criticized the government’s handling of the pandemic and the capabilities of the next generation of the PAP’s leaders.
Singapore has been one of the hardest hit places in Asia, with cases topping 46,280 — mostly migrant workers residing in dormitories — even though the fatality rate remains low.
Lee Hsien Yang also called for an overhaul of the political system, a view shared by the Workers’ Party.
It has sought a range of political reforms, such as abolishing the group-representative constituency system that it says has helped the PAP maintain its lock on parliament.
It advocates single-member constituencies, an independent Elections Department and court reviews of government directives under a so-called fake news law passed last year.
The extent to which the PAP will change hinges on internal discussions and some form of leadership transition that will happen before Singaporeans are scheduled to vote again in 2025, said Bridget Welsh, an honorary research associate at the Asia Research Institute of University of Nottingham Malaysia.
“If anything, the pandemic has taught Singapore that the PAP needs to listen to alternative voices,” she said.
With each passing day, the threat of a People’s Republic of China (PRC) assault on Taiwan grows. Whatever one’s view about the history, there is essentially no question that a PRC conquest of Taiwan would mark the end of the autonomy and freedom enjoyed by the island’s 23 million people. Simply put, the PRC threat to Taiwan is genuinely existential for a free, democratic and autonomous Taiwan. Yet one might not know it from looking at Taiwan. For an island facing a threat so acute, lethal and imminent, Taiwan is showing an alarming lack of urgency in dramatically strengthening its defenses.
As India’s six-week-long general election grinds past the halfway mark, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s messaging has shifted from confident to shrill. After the first couple of phases of polling showed a 3 percentage point drop in turnout, Modi and his party leaders have largely stopped promoting their accomplishments of the past 10 years — or, for that matter, the “Modi guarantees” offered in the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) manifesto for the next five. Instead, making the majority Hindu population fear and loathe Muslims seems to be the BJP’s preferred talking point. Modi went on the offensive in an April 21
The people of Taiwan recently received confirmation of the strength of American support for their security. Of four foreign aid bills that Congress passed and President Biden signed in April, the bill legislating additional support for Taiwan garnered the most votes. Three hundred eighty-five members of the House of Representatives voted to provide foreign military financing to Taiwan versus only 34 against. More members of Congress voted to support Taiwan than Ukraine, Israel, or banning TikTok. There was scant debate over whether the United States should provide greater support for Taiwan. It was understood and broadly accepted that doing so
I still remember the first time I heard about the possibility of an invasion by China. I was six years old. I thought war was coming and hid in my bed, scared. After 18 years, the invasion news tastes like a sandwich I eat every morning. As a Gen Z Taiwanese student who has witnessed China’s harassment for more than 20 years, I want to share my opinion on China. Every generation goes through different events. I have seen not only the norms of China’s constant presence, but also the Sunflower movement, wars and people fighting over peace or equality,