Singapore’s People’s Action Party (PAP) was returned to power on Friday last week in the 13th general election since independence. The PAP has ruled the city-state with a pragmatic hand since 1959 and brought it forward into modernity.
Singapore has become a model for many developing countries, and a display that political control and liberal economic policies can go hand in hand. However, this model has its limitations.
While winning with 61.24 percent of the votes is indeed a comfortable victory, elections in Singapore must be analyzed within the context of its political system.
The PAP, being the only party to ever rule an independent Singapore, has deeply ingrained itself in the system. Thus, general elections, while inevitably bringing the PAP back into power, are referendums on how Singaporeans view the current state of affairs.
To put the results into perspective, the PAP in 2011 scored its lowest ever result, 60.1 percent. The party’s leadership under Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (李顯龍) apologized for its mistakes and promised to do better.
The 2015 general election saw an upward swing to 69.9 percent, attributed to two major factors: the “feel good” factor of the 50th anniversary of independence and the passing of former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew (李光耀).
It was an emotional year for Singaporeans. Who would not support the party that led the nation through the difficult years of the 20th century?
This year, the PAP called for general elections amid the global COVID-19 pandemic, hoping that the public would be motivated by a “flight to safety,” choosing what is familiar over something new.
The party leadership thought that in times of crisis Singaporeans would not want to rock the boat. Their goal was to achieve a “strong mandate” to bring Singapore out of the COVID-19 crisis.
The results show otherwise. The major opposition parties made significant gains, although only one such party managed to secure seats in parliament.
The Workers’ Party (WP) won 10 of the 93 seats in the legislature, while the newly formed Progress Singapore Party came in third at 10.18 percent, but without any seats.
Unfortunately, polling and surveys, especially of a political nature, are difficult to conduct in Singapore, but it is likely that the electorate swung against the PAP due to dissatisfaction with the national situation.
Prior to COVID-19, issues like income inequality, rising costs of living, and the increase of the Goods and Services Tax were contentious. Many of these issues, exacerbated by COVID-19, remain unresolved.
However, Singapore is no stranger to opposition politics, the “first wave” of oppositional figures emerged in 1984 when J.B. Jeyaretnam of the WP and Chiam See Tong (詹時中) of the Singapore Democratic Party gained seats in parliament.
The “second wave” came in 2011 when five WP candidates were elected.
This year saw the “third wave,” with the highest-ever number of seats awarded to the WP, in a country where opposition parties are heavily controlled.
What the elections have shown is that the people’s will can prevail. Singapore must continue to build a democratic society, not according to the standards of the West, but by its own standards.
This is neither in support of a “democracy” syncretized with so-called “Asian values,” nor is this in support of a controlled democracy. It means that Singapore must establish a democratic culture worthy of being called so — a Singaporean democracy that does not compromise or bastardize the democratic spirit.
The past few years have been tough for democracy in Asia.
Malaysia, having experienced a moment of euphoria after unseating its long- standing ruling party, saw the very coalition that brought down the National Front coalition government fall apart.
Hong Kong, while being familiar with the demise of democracy, is revered by the world and history for the fortitude of its people.
The Philippines last month saw the passage of anti-terror legislation that has raised concerns about curtailing human rights.
Taiwan’s democratic bastion continues to be threatened by China, and yet the people of Taiwan resolutely stand together.
Building democracy requires momentum, trust and fortitude. If the litmus test of a democratic society is how well alternative voices and oppositional parties make their mark, then the opposition in Singapore has succeeded.
It has for decades demonstrated its fortitude and fostered the trust people have invested in them.
The next great task is to maintain momentum. The opposition cannot afford another setback.
Singapore’s democracy, and the democracies of Asia, depends on the survival of alternatives.
Nigel Li is a Singaporean citizen and a student at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations.
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
When a recall campaign targeting the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators was launched, something rather disturbing happened. According to reports, Hualien County Government officials visited several people to verify their signatures. Local authorities allegedly used routine or harmless reasons as an excuse to enter people’s house for investigation. The KMT launched its own recall campaigns, targeting Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers, and began to collect signatures. It has been found that some of the KMT-headed counties and cities have allegedly been mobilizing municipal machinery. In Keelung, the director of the Department of Civil Affairs used the household registration system
RSS