Singapore too had its political spring

September 15, 2011

By David Pilling (09-14-11)

By the standard of uprisings in the Arab world, the political changes unfolding in Singapore are hardly earth-shattering. The wealthy, orderly city state is better known for its cocktails than for its revolutions. But Singapore, too, has had its spring.

It started in May when the ever-ruling People’s Action party was treated to its worst election result since independence in 1965. True, it won 60 per cent of the vote. Barack Obama would settle for that. But Singapore’s political system has hitherto not afforded the opposition even the slimmest foot in the door.

If there was doubt about the meaning of the result, Lee Kuan Yew, the “minister mentor” who steered Singapore to first-world status, underlined it by resigning. Last month, the normally placid election for president was closely fought, evidence of the newly competitive landscape. “Singapore has entered a new political era in the last three months,” says Kishore Mahbubani, dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.

The inroads made by the opposition are small. It won six seats in the 87-seat parliament. But that is three times more than it held previously. Opposition parties face substantial constraints. Although they can campaign freely at election time, fiercer critics of the PAP leadership have sometimes faced court actions for defamation. Outside election periods, public speeches are not allowed without a permit.

The gains are more remarkable still given the economic background. Even the government’s sternest critics concede the country has been well run. Singapore’s standard of living caught up with the west a decade ago. With a gross domestic product per capita of more than $43,000, according to World Bank data, Singaporeans are better off than people in Britain or France.

After being jolted by the financial crisis the country has bounced back. Last year, the economy grew 14.5 per cent. There is little social tension, a low crime rate and full employment. It has beautifully manicured streets. Even its low-income housing is mostly cheerful.

If Singapore is such a paradise, why should there be any discontent at all? One answer comes from Goh Chok Tong, the prime minister from 1990-2004, who also quit politics in May. “The electorate has changed, it has matured,” he told a small conference last week. People, he said, were better educated with more aspirations than before. They could not so easily be satisfied with basic housing or decent jobs. Rather endearingly, Mr Goh admitted he did not quite know what people wanted. That is why he and Mr Lee, who turns 88 this week, had stepped aside, he said – so that a new generation could work it out.

Another explanation is immigration policy, a hot-button issue in May’s election. According to Sylvia Lim, chairman of the opposition Workers’ party, the population has swelled from 4m to 5m in the past decade, with roughly 3.2m citizens, 1.2m foreign workers and half a million permanent residents. Ms Lim says Singaporeans recognise the value of openness. But the process has gone too fast. “We feel like we are strangers in our own place,” she says. Middle class Singaporeans cannot compete for jobs with foreign workers willing to work 14-hour shifts for lower wages.

Cherian George, a political commentator, says the younger generation no longer supports the frantic dash for progress. “For many Singaporeans, we thought we’d kind of arrived 10 years ago. We think: ‘Why can’t we enjoy it instead of continuing to be on this growth treadmill’,” he says. Indeed, the government appears to have changed tack: it is making plans to cut immigration quotas even at the cost of lower growth, now expected to slow to an annual 3-5 per cent.

The ruling PAP has responded to the desire for a more open society in other ways. Singapore was once criticised for being boring. Now it has swanky night clubs, Formula One motor racing, two brand-new casinos and the Singapore Flyer, a full 30 metres taller than the London Eye. This too has backfired. According to Prof George, local residents do not see this new, slick Singapore as being aimed at them. Rather it is seen as a lure for rich bankers and tourists.

The Singapore spring, then, is partly a conservative backlash against a government seen as putting too much faith in free-market liberalism. The change of tone has been aided by an upheaval in the once tightly controlled media. Now newspapers, such as The Straits Times, have to be more even-handed – dare I say interesting – if they are to compete with the online world of blogs and instant news.

Still, the opposition has modest goals. Ms Lim says she hopes that at the next general election in 2016, her party will be able to field quality candidates in half the constituencies. She cannot yet imagine a Singapore that is not run by the PAP. In the meantime, the ruling party – for decades unchallenged and unquestioned – is going through a period of introspection. Even some of its lifetime supporters acknowledge that is no bad thing.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011.