Hard Choices: Challenging the Singapore Consensus

14 The Future of Democracy in Singapore

14 14 THE FUTURE OF THE FUTURE OF DEMOCRACY IN DEMOCRACY IN SINGAPORE SINGAPORE Sudhir Thomas Vadaketh The essays in this book have offered several reasons why greater democratisation will benefit Singapore. First, more established channels of dialogue, including the media and civil society institutions, will allow the political elite to bridge what Singaporean author Catherine Lim called in the mid-1990s the “great affective divide” between ordinary Singaporeans and the PAP (People’s Action Party). This divide has arguably worsened over the past two decades, at least partly due to the greater income disparity between Singapore’s highest-paid politicians and the median worker. The second argument is economic. Singapore’s model of benevolent developmental authoritarianism may have been suited to the country’s early stages of development but is ill-equipped to serve as the basis of a knowledge economy, which requires the freedom of thought and expression only a democracy can guarantee. This partly relates to the greater need for free information flows given the increasing complexity of policymaking and economic development. In a modern, knowledge economy in an open, globalised world, information and knowledge exists in disparate pockets everywhere. More transparent informational flows, perhaps buttressed by a Freedom of Information Act, will, by allowing a diversity of ideas to emerge, lead to more optimal economic, political and social outcomes. Finally, there is the reasoning grounded in the resilience of ecological systems—outlined in the next essay—about the need for Singapore ’s political structure to become a more complex, adaptive system. While an authoritarian state may have been necessary for fast decision-making, resource mobilisation, and nation building in the 1960s to the 1980s, Singapore’s future success will depend on its ability to adapt and respond to a multitude of complex new challenges. This adaptability is best fostered by a properly functioning democracy that, by its very nature, promotes diversity and the competition of ideas. Even though a growing number of Singaporeans share this liberal view of democracy’s imperative, there are many others in the country who at best, are unconvinced, and at worst, believe democratic liberalisation will spell the end of the Singapore fairy tale. The contestation between these groups will determine the future of Singapore’s democracy . Democracy in Singapore Nominally, Singapore is a parliamentary democracy in the British Westminster tradition. It holds free and fair elections every five years. The majority party or coalition gets to choose the prime minister, who then selects his cabinet of ministers. The other executive leader is the president, who is elected separately for a six-year term. The role is largely ceremonial but has limited powers over, among other things, the use of Singapore’s reserves. The prime minister nominates judges to the Supreme Court, which leads the judiciary, an independent body in theory. In practice, however, Singapore has been governed as an authoritarian state. One party, the PAP, dominates parliament. Since indeHARD CHOICES 189 pendence it has controlled more than two-thirds of the legislature, allowing it to make constitutional amendments as it chooses. The PAP’s dominance is so complete that it has transcended mere legislative and political control, forging strong emotional and psychological bonds with the polity. Singaporeans have long equated the ruling party with the country. In other words, if you are loyal to the PAP, you are loyal to Singapore. On the other hand, if you are not loyal to the PAP, you are not loyal to Singapore. If you vote for the opposition, you are somehow being un-Singaporean. Many Singaporeans have this marriage between party and country firmly planted in their minds, hence the fear of voting for the opposition. Moreover, numerous hurdles—including a government-controlled media that is muzzled—have long crippled opposition parties’ ability to grow. Thus Singapore is, in practice, an imperfect or illiberal democracy. Some of Singapore’s establishment commentators justify Singapore’s approach to democracy as the best one by citing “Asian values”, or by contrasting it with the supposed chaos and paralysis one occasionally finds in Western liberal democracies. This essay will steer clear of arguments grounded in cultural relativism because many of the characteristics of a thriving democracy, such as freedom of expression and thought, are basic civil liberties that humans anywhere should enjoy. Some might say there is a normative democratic argument for, say, the need to control the press in order to protect society from potentially...