Democracy & Human Rights: The Singapore Model

The issue of democracy in Singapore has long been debated, given the political sphere being ruled by a single party,ie, the People’s Action Party (herein after referred to as PAP). In this post, I will attempt to discuss the effects of the seemingly “authoritarian” rule on the citizens and also the recent changes that was announced, which could be viewed as a response, on part of the State, to calls by Singaporeans for greater democracy in Singapore.

In its simplest form, democracy would be that of a state that is built for the people, by the people. The PAP has long been in power, even before Singapore’s independence in 1965. Since then, no other opposition party has come close to beating the PAP in the General Elections. Chua (1995) attributed this hegemony, and the continual legacy of the PAP, to the successful ideological trajectories put forth by the party. The PAP has no doubt created a miracle in building Singapore to what it is today. It is the ability to emulate the US, in less than half a century,is what that makes this party remarkable. Economically, the PAP has built a cosmopolitan city from Raffles’ child, surpassing its neighbours. In this respect, the success of the PAP in the development of Singapore’s economy has contributed to its continuing rule. However, the interventionist approach of this party has received criticisms, particularly from advocates of democracy from the West. A Singapore-born British writer, John Kampfner, recently wrote an article in The Guardian, a well-circulated British newspaper, labelling the Singapore’s model of authoritarian government as being an assault to modern democracy. The authoritarian government, he claims is providing a modicum of good life, and a quiet life, the ultimate anaesthethic for the brain. (Kampfner, John, “A Modern Authoritarianism”,The Guardian, quoted in Today, The Daily Newspaper, MediaCorp Press, Singapore, 07/07/2008).  In almost every aspect, from where its citizens live, to how they behave, the state has had a say. Even MM Lee does not deny this. He said,”I have often been accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yes, if i did not…we wouldn’t have been here today…And i say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn’t have been here today, we would have not made economic progress, if we(the state) had not intervened on very personal matters..”(then PM Lee Kuan Yew, The Straits Times, Singapore Press Holdings, 20/04/1987). How has this State interventionist approach affected the rapport with its citizens? And more importantly, is it true that it has been an “ultimate anaesthetic to the brain”?

A recent BBC survey on the US presidency election campaign showed remarkable results. 29% of the Singaporean respondents choose Barack Obama, and 7% chose John McCain. 64% of the respondents fell under the “Either, Neither, No difference, Other, Don’t know/NA” category. (The Straits Times, Singapore Press Holdings, 10/09/2008). Singapore respondents scored the highest in this category, as compared to respondents from countries like the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Indonesia and China, who were more decisive in their responses. Has Singaporeans become politically apathetic? To a certain extent, this view is tenable. Given its legacy, it has come to a point whereby the terms “PAP” and “the government (the State)” often refers to the same entity. The PAP has, hitherto, successfully improved the quality of lives of its citizens. So, based on logic (and more so, the tight legislation, and the seemingly invisible viable opposition), there wouldn’t be a need for a revamp in the political sphere. Even if there was, how sure are Singaporeans on the credibility of the opposition in delivering the same results that the PAP has? Also, Chua (1994) aptly describes the daily lives of Singaporeans as being directly or indirectly tied to the functions of some state agencies or apparatus. In other words, it would be a dangerous affair to voice out, much less meddle, in the political sphere, without substantial evidence being put forth to support an argument. The ramifications seems to outweigh the possible advantages. The solution: to remain apolitical.But has Singaporeans become so obedient and law-abiding (or apolitical) to the point of being anaesthetised? In other words, have we lost the ability to think, following blindly to the directions given by the State?

In claiming the Singapore’s model of authoritarianism as being an assault to democracy, and being “an ultimate anaesthetic for the brain”, Kampfner is directly insulting the intelligence of Singaporeans. To be apolitical does not mean that Singaporeans are incapable of voicing out their desires for a greater democracy. The establishment of a Feedback Unit demonstrates the desire of Singaporeans for a greater say in the decision-making process (Chua,1995). Also, the recent escape of ISA detainee, Mas Selamat Kastari, highlights this desire. The escape sparked massive calls from the public for a greater transparency from the state pertaining to the details of the escape. More evidently, the recent announcement made by PM Lee Hsien Loong, during the 2008 National Day Rally Speech, can be seen as a response to the call for greater democracy by Singaporeans. The State would allow peaceful demonstrations, and in a symbolic move, hand over the purview of Hong Lim Park (Singapore’s one and only Speech Corner) from the Police to the National Parks Board. The state would also allow the airing of podcasts and vodcasts containing political messages to be uploaded on the Internet during the election periods. However, these new changes are still subjected to certain Out-Of-Bound markers (OB markers as they are colloquially known). Regulations aside, the changes illustrate the more educated and affluent Singaporeans’ desire for greater democracy, and in so doing, it also demonstrates the effects of the “authoritarian” rule of the state.

In hindsight, the continuing legacy of the single ruling party has had its effects on its relationship with its citizens. On one hand, it creates political apathy, and on the other, it creates a desire for a greater democracy. The PAP has remained in power largely due to the its ideological efficacy (Chua,1995), and the remarkable results it has achieved. In other words, the PAP is there because people want it to be.In a strict sense, that is democracy, as the PAP is voted by the people, for the people. The lack(and quite possibly the total absence) of viable oppositions also limits the choices that Singaporeans have. Viable here refers to a party that is able to deliver the same results that the PAP has, if not better. Also, will the relaxation of rules see to a greater democracy? Only time will tell.

References:

1) Chua, Beng Huat(1994). “Arrested Development: Democratisation in Singapore”, in Third World Quarterly, Vol 15, No 4, (Dec 1994), Taylor & Francis Ltd, retrived from www.jstor.org.sg on 25/09/2008.

2) Chua, Beng Huat(1995). “Ideological Trajectory: From Authoritarianism to Communitarianism”, in Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapore. London: Routledge, pp 9-39

3) Kampfner, John. “A Modern Authoritarianism”, in The Guardian, quoted in Today, The Daily Newspaper, MediaCorp Press, Singapore, 07/07/2008

4) The Straits Times, Singapore Press Holdings, 20/04/1987 & 10/09/2008.