Singapore’s democracy is maturing. About 2.8 million voters are to elect their next government tomorrow. Political discourse during the nine-day campaign has been notably robust, a positive sign for a nation that has been governed by a single party since its independence from Malaysia in 1965. At rallies, coffeeshops and online, discussions about policies and their impact are becoming commonplace.
This is a welcome evolution of an environment where political pluralism has been constrained by limits on freedoms of expression, assembly and association. Human Rights Watch said the country’s “political environment remains overwhelmingly repressive.”
Competition among candidates can help surface good ideas and offer a broader range of solutions at a time when the nation is under pressure from the US’ trade war. The export-dependent economy has long benefited from the ruling People’s Action Party’s (PAP) leadership and political stability. The PAP enjoys genuine popular legitimacy, winning 13 consecutive elections — although in 2020, the party’s share of the popular vote slipped by almost 9 percentage points to 61.2 percent, as economic woes weighed on public sentiment.
The city-state is among the richest countries globally, transformed into a global financial hub under the stewardship of its first prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew (李光耀), and subsequent generations. Singaporean Prime Minister Lawrence Wong (黃循財) is betting on that legacy to secure a strong mandate.
Wong needs to navigate a global trade war that could pose great risks to future growth and inflation, according to the central bank. The initial round of tariffs is set to hit 60 percent of exports to the US. Wong has big shoes to fill, having taken over from Lee Hsien Loong (李顯龍), Lee Kuan Yew’s son, who ran the country for two decades. He has also appealed to the electorate to return a strong government, implying that voting in more opposition members would be a distraction.
Wong said that a vote for the opposition is a vote to weaken the government, at a time when Singapore is facing serious challenges. That argument is overstated. This year marks the first time since 2011 that not all constituencies are being contested by other parties, they are vying for 92 out of a total of 97 seats. In contrast, the PAP is fielding the largest number of new candidates in recent years.
The Workers’ Party, the nation’s main opposition party, is fielding 26 candidates. Leader Pritam Singh has said that there is no way he could form the next government, in an attempt to assuage voters who worry electing opposition members could see key ruling party ministers thrown out of office. Instead, Singh said he and his teammates want to provide checks and balances.
Any further gains by the opposition this year would be “part of the nation’s evolution, not revolution,” Singapore Management University associate professor of law Eugene Tan (陳慶文) said.
“This is the 66th year of one-party dominance,” he said. “The whole system has been designed and built with the PAP DNA in mind. Any sudden disequilibrium can be potentially very damaging, for the nation and foreign investors alike.”
The city-state’s appeal to investors has always been stability. It stands out as oasis of political and financial calm in an often unpredictable region. More diversity of thought in government has had real-life repercussions. In 2011, the PAP had a setback, after it received 60.1 percent of the vote, the smallest margin of popular votes since independence. Subsequently, it recalibrated immigration policies and the inflow of foreign workers. It also became more selective in granting permanent residency, and drew sharper lines between benefits for citizens and migrants.
Today, concerns over the high cost of living, especially among younger voters, are pressing priorities. Many voters worry that their children would not have the same opportunities they had enjoyed and would struggle to find work or own a home. The nation boasts a highly educated population. Fresh ideas should be welcomed, not dismissed. It should not be surprising that citizens expect meaningful debate on major policy issues.
Any political evolution is likely to be gradual, and for most citizens, that is the preferred path. There are similar sentiments from supporters on both sides. Voters do not want to throw the PAP out, but they do want different voices in parliament to provide accountability.
A healthy democracy can benefit from diversity of thought. A senior party cadre has said voting in more opposition in parliament and a weaker government go hand in hand. Instead, the PAP could embrace other parties as partners offering different perspectives. The government has made some space for opposition voices through the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament scheme, but they lack full voting rights on issues such as amendments to the constitution, a motion of no confidence in the government or the removal of the president from office. It was the PAP that pioneered the idea of having alternative voices in parliament. It can continue to lead this evolution, not resist it.
Singapore has survived because of a culture of constant reinvention. The system is resilient enough to handle feedback. Constructive criticism can only make it stronger.
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 reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS