Singapore Perspectives 2013: Governance

Governance

Gillian Koh

• Publisher: WSPC
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9789814520768

This volume is conceptualised around the notion by Raymond Williams, a cultural theorist, that any cultural system comprises fragments of the past and the emergent alongside the dominant. The book focuses on ‘governance’ or how a society governs itself across the state, business and civic sectors in Singapore and how it might evolve over the next decade. Its first section looks at how Singapore's political history has shaped today's political institutions and culture and why these might change. Three scenarios of Singapore's political future are proffered. The authors argue how there are and must be nevertheless some fundamental values that underpin Singapore's governance system that are unchanging.

In the second section, the authors discuss how the relationship among the key elements of the governance equation have changed to adapt to current conditions, and must continue to change to respond to internal demands and external conditions. The first paper describes how the relationship between government and business, or state and market have adapted to achieve strategic national imperatives but also to ensure that citizens benefit from the most efficient and effective ways of providing important public goods. The second paper argues for institutionalised dissent and policy experimentation as disciplines needed in the public sector to make it innovative and resilient.

The third section offers views on emerging trends in political culture and the relationship between the government and civil society, business and other political parties. These are based on findings of an IPS survey, and opinions of civic leaders and a leader of the political opposition in Singapore.

The final section comprises an edited transcript of a dialogue session with the Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr Lee Hsien Loong on the same theme of ‘governance’.

The authors are thought-leaders and political leaders in Singapore. This book serves as a pathfinder to emerging political trends in the country.

Contents:

• Preface (Janadas Devan)
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction (Gillian Koh)
• The Residual:
  • Governance in Singapore: History and Legacy (Chan Heng Chee)
  • Three Scenarios for Singapore's Political Future (Kishore Mahbubani)
• The Dominant:
  • Governing in the Future — Together (Lawrence Wong)
  • Sustaining Good Governance in an Era of Rapid and Disruptive Change (Donald Low)
• The Emergent:
  • The Emergent in Governance in Singapore (Gillian Koh)
  • Civil Society in Singapore: Revisiting the Banyan Tree (Nizam Ismail)
  • The Role of Political Competition in Promoting Well-being (Sylvia Lim)
  • Emergent Issues and Questions (Lee Tzu Yang)
• Dialogue Session with the Prime Minister

Readership: Students, academics, policy makers and civil society activists, and general public interested in Singapore.

S E C T I O N

1

The Residual

C H A P T E R 1

Governance in
Singapore: History and
Legacy

CHAN HENG CHEE

INTRODUCTION

History to a large extent explains why countries have particular political traditions, why they hold certain values dear and why they develop characteristic responses and reflexes. Over time, countries and people develop habits of the heart and of the mind.

There is the American political model with identifiable American values and reflexes, and even though administrations change and different parties take over, the American political model remains and the political reflexes are quite predictable. The Second Amendment to the American Constitution introduced in 1791 spells out the right to bear arms. Today, after so many cases of shootings in schools and a groundswell of anti-gun feelings, it is still difficult to take away that right. The gun lobby is strong and the current American President, Barack Obama and all those who want to do something about the senseless killings can only talk about outlawing specific types of guns and introducing more stringent checks, and even that is pushed back. Now President Obama is talking about using a presidential decree to push through a new law.

There is the Chinese Communist model. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) underwent change with Deng Xiaoping’s “Four Modernisations” — ideology weakened, some would say evaporated, but the Party remains strong. Many of the reflexes and traditions remain.

But change does occur and must occur as a country develops, and this is sometimes a rapid fundamental change. America had its counterculture revolution triggered by the Vietnam War. There were some major social value changes, especially with the women’s movement and Black Power, where existing authority structures were profoundly challenged and questioned. There was significant social change, and even though there was change in the political culture too, the political and governing model remained more or less the same. The first African–American president was only elected in 2008. Change in political model seems to lag behind change in political culture.

I go into some length about the United States (US) because it is a country I have come to know, and I find it helpful to reflect on other countries when thinking about history and political change in Singapore.

Then, there are revolutions like the Arab Spring that can disrupt a model and overthrow institutions. Revolutions are often followed by a period of adjustment that is often long and difficult, but even then, some core values and reflexes can resurface.

“SINGAPORE EXCEPTIONALISM”

Every country claims exceptionalism. President Obama reminded Americans that when they think of themselves as an exceptional country and talk of “American exceptionalism” they should remember the French too claim exceptionalism, and there is “German exceptionalism”, “South African exceptionalism”, and so on.

I would like to speak of “Singapore exceptionalism”, for in many ways we are an exceptional country. I say this not to be proud or arrogant, but to recognise that we are sui generis — unique, of its own kind. We are an unlikely nation, the only city-state that is also nation-state in the world. We are a micro-state and one that has developed to its furthest, the strategy of small state survival. We did not have to develop this way: a successful country with a record of enviable growth for more than four decades. It could have gone the other way. Americans tell me all the time that we are a small country that gets things done. When we say we will do something, we do it — for instance, how many times have we reformed the education system hoping each time to make it better? Foreign diplomats in Singapore marvel at the way Singapore and Singaporeans have a “can do” mentality. Some frankly say that in their countries they spend so much time arguing about things that nothing or very little gets implemented in the end.

(An aside: I just read in an Economist Intelligence Unit or EIU global survey in which people were asked which country they would want to be born in, Singapore ranked number six. All the Nordic countries ranked near the top. EIU concluded that people wanted to be born in a country that is small, peaceful and homogeneous and a liberal democracy, but Singapore surprised them completely.¹)

Why is Singapore the way it is? What is the political model we have developed? What are our governing reflexes and national shared values? In Singapore, and after the 2011 General Election, there is a great deal of talk about the change needed. There are those who focus on the policy changes they would like to see. But there is a segment that wants to see change in the political model — into a Western-style democracy with a two-party system.

This chapter reflects on the Singapore situation: what we are, why we are what we are and where we will be heading.

SINGAPORE’S HISTORY AND LEGACY

I began by setting out how historical circumstances shape values, tradition and governing models. Let me quickly go through some historical facts to make a few points. In 1965, Singapore achieved independence unexpectedly. Survival was the issue, front and centre. Singaporeans could feel it. What would our future be? What next? We had no natural resources except for our people and our location. No oil, no minerals, no forests, no water and not much airspace. We had just lost our hinterland. We were not a normal country. Moreover, the immediate regional context was a hostile one. Separation from Malaysia was accompanied by explosive racial rhetoric and sentiments. Indonesia under Sukarno was pursuing Konfrontasi against Singapore and Malaysia, complete with commando landings. We were at our most vulnerable.

The Singapore government defined its first task as ensuring the territorial and economic survival of the country. The defence and foreign policy emphasised Singapore as a non-aligned country but accommodated the British bases because of the security context, and within a matter of two years, together with Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines, we formed the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). So right from the start, we established Singapore as an independent, non-aligned country that is more pro-West and that believes in multilateralism and regional groupings as the way forward.

To build the economy, Prime Minister (PM) Lee Kuan Yew, cabinet ministers and civil servants went around the world securing foreign investments. They learned that political stability was the first condition foreign investors requested. In the 1950s and 1960s, Singapore went through a period of contentious politics of student riots, strikes and racial riots. Political debate was heated and passionate in the battle for merger, followed by volatile racial politics during this period. For our leaders of that generation, Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee, S. Rajaratnam and Toh Chin Chye, of the People’s Action Party (PAP), establishing political stability was the first order of the day. I recall PM Lee’s words to the trade unions at that time, “don’t kill the goose that lays the golden egg”. Pragmatism was a lesson we learnt out of necessity. There was a sense of grave urgency, almost an emergency, to get the economy going.

The Barisan Sosialis, the largest opposition party, took the decision to boycott the first Parliamentary Elections of 1968 because they declared Singapore’s independence was a “phony independence”. It turned out to be a historical mistake. Once out, it was hard for the opposition to come back in. It was not till 1981 that J.B. Jeyaratnam won back a seat for the opposition in the Anson by-election. So without even working for it, the PAP got its first one-party parliament. They found it was quicker to implement policies and get necessary things done to respond quickly to emerging challenges to Singapore. And there were many. British withdrawal came earlier than expected, in 1971 rather than mid-1970s. This affected defence and jobs. There was a sense in the first-generation leaders that “life is tough, we are vulnerable, we don’t have many options.” The governing party played hard to maintain their one-party dominance, but they delivered on their performance. High growth was maintained, jobs were created, National Service was introduced, education expanded, and Singapore’s home ownership policy was launched. Singaporeans gave the PAP government their support election after election.

The political model fostered was one that facilitated quick policymaking and implementation. It rested on a dominant one-party system, promoting consensus and an overall depoliticisation of issues. In my earlier writings, I described ours as an administrative state, an authoritarian government. But it was “soft authoritarianism” — soft compared to the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, which were hard military regimes. There was clear leadership from PM Lee Kuan Yew, aided by a strong bureaucracy with technocratic emphasis. Institutions were built to invite grassroots participation — Citizens’ Consultative Committees, Town Councils, feedback sessions, etc. And there was criticism that the feedback flowed up but the policies did not change. Singapore’s democracy is based on the Westminster model but is not an exact copy. Fareed Zakaria described Singapore as an “illiberal democracy”. We have regular and free elections but not the freedoms he expects of a liberal democracy.² I have described Singapore as a “tight democracy”. After the 2011 General Election and the by-elections, it is getting less tight and is moving towards a normal democracy.

From the beginning, PAP leaders enumerated specific values that were considered fundamental if we were to survive as a nation. These were, and still remain, respect for multi-racialism, multi-lingualism and multireligions, which implies that seditious attacks on any race, language or religion will not be tolerated; maintenance of law and order; meritocracy; and non-corruption. Belief in meritocracy and respect for multi-racialism, multi-lingualism and multi-religions had a critical meaning in 1965. It differentiated us from Malaysia, from which we separated. They were two visions of a nation and Separation was about the contest of the two visions: equality of the races or preferential treatment for one ethnic group. Singaporeans have embraced these values, though now and again, there is criticism that the implementation falls short of the ideal. Singaporeans expect the government to deliver on these values. These have become our national values. For sure, Singaporeans would not tolerate living in a disorderly and chaotic country where law and order is weak. There is a debate going on right now about meritocracy and its unintended consequences. Yet, I do not think you will get Singaporeans to agree on dropping that principle because any alternative would be worse. We debate to make implementation better. On the economic front, given our constraints in size and the small population base, Singapore had to be an open economy, linked to the world. We have no hinterland, and in 1972 S. Rajaratnam in a flash of brilliance said, “the world will be our hinterland”. So we grasped the idea of being a global city in the 1970s before globalisation became a buzzword.

Over the years, the PAP leaders have modified their political style, but not the political model. It was a paradigm that worked. PM Goh Chok Tong’s leadership style was more approachable and different from PM Lee Kuan Yew. PM Lee Hsien Loong has evolved his own style — part compassion, part firm leadership. With both leaders after Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s political space opened up gradually. The success of the governing model and its policies is reflected in the positive changes in our population. So the ground has changed and expectations have changed.

The census data between 1970 and 2010 show Singapore’s demographics have been reshaped. Singap...

Table of contents

• Coverpage
• Half Title
• Title
• Publisher
• Content
• Preface
• Acknowledgenent
• Introduction
• Section 1: The Residual
• Section 2: The Dominant
• Section 3: The Emergent
• Section 4: Dialogue Session with the Prime Minister
• About the Contributors