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.
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