Singapore’s ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) has built its reputation on honesty and integrity, while delivering superior economic progress to its citizens. Those credentials are at stake as the party grapples with the latest scandal in its ranks: the case of former minister for transport S. Iswaran.
On Tuesday, Iswaran pleaded guilty to five charges, four for obtaining valuable items as a public servant and one for obstructing the course of justice. Newly appointed Singaporean Prime Minister Lawrence Wong (黃循財) has a chance to renew trust with voters, and refresh the social contract between the government and the people.
Iswaran was meant to face a lengthy trial, but his last-minute about-face has dominated conversations in coffee shops and social media forums across the city-state. He was charged in January for allegedly taking expensive gifts from two businessmen — property tycoon Ong Beng Seng (王明星), who owns the rights to the Singapore Grand Prix and played a key role in bringing the Formula One race to the city-state, and construction boss Lum Kok Seng (林國城).
When the charges were first filed, Iswaran insisted he was innocent and vowed to contest them. On Tuesday, the prosecution amended the accusations and dropped the corruption crimes. Iswaran subsequently pled guilty to a smaller set of five indictments. He is on bail and due to be sentenced on Thursday next week. Such is the public interest in the case that people were lining up for tickets to watch the proceedings.
This is almost certainly the end of Iswaran’s political career, and the latest stain on the PAP’s once spotless record.
In June last year, two senior cadres were cleared of wrongdoing by the anti-corruption bureau for their rental of colonial-era houses in an upscale neighborhood, after the opposition alleged they paid below-market rates. A month later, two parliamentarians who had an extramarital affair resigned, after then-Singaporean prime minister Lee Hsien Loong (李顯龍) intervened to break them up — twice.
The government could do without the distraction. Elections must be held before November next year, and the focus is on reminding Singaporeans about the challenges ahead, and which party is best placed to guide the nation through them.
Earlier this week, a headline in the Straits Times read: “More Singaporean deaths than births possible by first half of 2030s,” warning that the population would shrink without immigration. Then the government released figures that showed the population is now above 6 million people — a record — with the biggest growth among non-residents.
Immigration and the cost of living are key concerns for voters. The PAP had one of its worst-ever showings in 2020 — despite winning 61 percent of the popular vote — due in part to concerns about the economy.
It is a tricky balancing act for Wong, who just this week has been warning of the “dark clouds over the horizon” regarding the US-China contest for dominance in the Asia-Pacific region. He is leading a team of ministers who are vastly different from the ones who built the nation, bringing it, in the words of the late founding father, Lee Kuan Yew (李光耀), from Third World to First. The current crop, or the 4G, as they are known, are viewed by a segment of Singaporeans as arrogant and out of touch. The fact that they earn million-dollar salaries, more than 10 times the average Singaporean’s wages, is also a sore point.
The government implemented private-sector standard salaries in 1994 to attract the best talent and prevent a culture of graft. However, times have changed, said Chong Ja Ian (莊嘉穎), an associate professor of political science at the National University of Singapore.
“These rules were established at a time when the PAP could legitimately say if we pay our ministers the highest salaries, they will be corruption-free. With the wealth that is available in Singapore today, is this approach still feasible? Whether the PAP can come up with some alternative mechanisms remains untested,” Chong said.
As the new leader, Wong has already clocked that there is an image problem, saying when Iswaran was first charged in January that maintaining clean government is non-negotiable.
“This is part of our DNA,” he added. “There can be no compromise, no relaxation, no fudging of this, no matter the political price.”
There are things Wong can do to remind voters of the party’s principled history, and hark back to the can-do philosophy that helped build Singapore’s success. He has an opportunity for radical transparency and could impose sweeping changes. One option is to mandate that parliamentarians, elected officials and their families publicly disclose their assets. Currently, Singaporean political office holders only have to declare their income and assets to the prime minister. Wong could also argue that a parliamentarian or civil servant should not hold another job or directorship in the private sector, as some currently do.
The prime minister addressed this in a dialogue with students in July, saying the government recognized some lawmakers have “other private-sector commitments” and that they were allowed to have full-time jobs, but that they were also fully expected to discharge their parliamentarian duties.
Divorcing public service from private-sector pay could go a long way toward weeding out those not fully committed to their electorates. In the past, it was thought that if you want to attract the best talent to the ranks of Singapore’s elite, you need to pay them handsomely. However, perhaps the new philosophy should be: If you do not want to make some sacrifices to serve the people, then perhaps you are not cut out for politics.
After all, it is not a management or executive job — it is a calling. Singaporeans deserve that much.
Karishma Vaswani is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Asia politics with a special focus on China. Previously, she was the BBC’s lead Asia presenter, and worked for the BBC across Asia and South Asia for two decades. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS