“The underlying problem is that we aren’t arguing policies; we’re arguing about identities, and therefore compromise is never considered a principled realisation that they might have some legitimate concerns. It is, at best, a Machiavellian strategy forced on us by the bad group.”
― Patricia Roberts-Miller, Demagoguery and Democracy
Singapore Politics
As I look back at a 2020 spent in Singapore, the first thing that comes to mind is our General Election. Filled with unusually harsh rhetoric and a plethora of iconic statements (“blank cheque”) mixed together with false claims (the 10 million), it was an election to remember, especially when one recalls how the Workers’ Party managed to win a second GRC for the opposition. Regardless of the jokes made about party members on social media, the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) has fared exceptionally well as always – with 61.24% of the vote, they continue to enjoy the strongest mandate of any functioning democracy in the world. Despite such a strong showing, this isn’t considered particularly impressive when one takes a look at their track record; 2020 reflected one of lowest levels of support for the party, down from 69.86% in 2015. As aptly summarised by Prime Minister Lee, the PAP’s share of the popular vote certainly is “respectable” and reflects “broad-based support for the PAP”, but “was not as strong a mandate as [he] had hoped for”.
As Singapore matures and creeps toward its 60th birthday, critics cynically point out how we remain a muted semi-democracy and not a full-fledged, rambunctious democracy filled with political parties of all stripes jostling for influence. One also has to consider how our island was never really a beacon of democracy; from the very beginning, since 1959, we have been ruled by strongman Lee Kuan Yew and his Cabinet, who secured his grip on power by ousting his popular socialist rivals from the party.
Now, this cannot be taken to mean that the PAP ruthlessly crushes any adversaries; the leaders of today are definitely aware of and seek to address public bitterness towards them for ‘suppressing’ political rivals. No matter how much some of us may enjoy lambasting the PAP for its occasional policy slip-ups, every Singaporean has to admit that a key reason for the party’s longevity is its adaptability. Throughout history, we have seen reforms to introduce alternative voices into the debate – starting from Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong’s brand of consultative politics through the 1990’s to the increase in the number of NCMPs this year, the PAP has recognised its own dominance and consistently attempted to broaden political discourse and address voters’ concerns.
The main concern that I have with regard to our nation’s politics today is the risk of increasing political polarisation. Its long-lasting repercussions will hurt Singapore for generations to come, and now it is the time for us to address this very real problem.
Political Tribalism
This year has been a troubling year for democracy. From our tropical island, we have sighed at the propagation of fake news dubbed ‘alternative facts’ during the American elections, and at the same time mourned for Svetlana Tikhanovskaya and the Belusarians’ struggle for fair elections. We pat ourselves on the back for achieving a stable middle ground; while we are not at risk of suffering from a major political party actively endorsing ‘alternative facts’, our government remains in power because it is competent without the use of force.
Although our political climate has, by-and-large, remained stable for the past 60-odd years, we are acutely vulnerable to the changing political winds which have been shaping discourse and dividing societies across the globe. Like the refusal of the Republican party to acknowledge President-elect Biden’s victory and Hillary Clinton’s description of Trump supporters as a ‘basket of deplorables’, we see how those with divergent political opinions view one another as monsters. The key question that we need to ask ourselves is, “will Singaporeans with differing viewpoints be able to engage in political discourse civilly and respectfully?”
The Deep Divide
Gone are the days when both conservatives and liberals could be good friends who could discuss policy issues without raising their voices. We see a shift to decided non-compromise; in differentiating themselves, American political parties have been found to adopt ideologically extreme positions, even as the electorate’s opinions mostly remain constant. However, over time, political parties also shape voters’ perspectives, culminating in a deepening of the political rift. Closer to home, GE2020 Reform Party candidate Charles Yeo has consistently criticised, and his social media page still mocks, the PAP for almost all its policy views, using extreme language to label the PAP as ‘authoritarian’ and ‘no-good’. When Alfian Sa’at and Raeesah Khan were accused by the government for disrupting social harmony or undermining Singapore’s reputation, the populace instantly responded with ugly bickering, much of which took place on social media with one camp demonising the other.
Such extremism and ‘other’ing of those with differing perspectives can be attributed, by some degree, to external pressures and influences. Today the political landscape has evolved. No, it is not just politics.
At least within the Singapore context, political rhetoric has always been suffused with moving, albeit exaggerated language about progress and prosperity. Look no further than our current context, where we don masks and scan temperatures wherever we go. Strategically dubbed ‘the crisis of a generation’, the covid-19 crisis has acted as a perfect conduit through which leading politicians appeal to voters to entrust their lives into the hands of a capable, benevolent PAP. This appeal didn’t work particularly well, but we’ll get to that another time.
The point is that politicians have naturally resorted to morality-laden phrases to compel the electorate to support them. Voting for the other candidate will be ‘unpatriotic’. It will ‘suppress the rights’ of a particular group. What I can do is continue the tradition of ‘Singaporean exceptionalism’.
While such obvious appeals were less meaningful in the past, especially with your average Joe only caring about his next meal, today they enjoy newfound significance. With the rise of literacy and heightened access to education, the more affluent middle class naturally grows more interested in politics – the average voter no longer simply regards bread-and-butter issues as king, but also takes into account other policy proposals: is the environment important to the candidate? What does the candidate feel about race and religion? As one is gradually exposed to main societal issues, one slowly develops a certain opinion about what politicians are doing. Even if this policy benefits my family, is it equitable? Do I endorse the values of this particular person?
As a result, when someone disagrees with you, you automatically brand them as an enemy. They don’t even support the upholding of basic rights. They don’t value human life. Or even better, they are out to damage this country. We begin to distrust those with different value systems. Consequently, we begin to consider those in the other camp as fundamentally bad people who have no right to share their ‘bigoted’, ‘destructive’ opinions. They are the only ones standing in the way of equal rights, economic progress, fairness, equality, etc.
You see where this is heading?
Besides heightened political consciousness (which is always better to have than not), I’d like to point out two aggravating domestic factors which have contributed to the rise of political toxicity. There is no singular dominant factor, but like building blocks, they collectively contribute to antagonism in our political climate.
The PAP’s Historical Reluctance
A major factor would be our government’s historical unwillingness to introduce alternative voices into our political scene. The PAP, although adaptable and sensitive to a degree, has consistently blocked the entry of opposition voices into Parliament. Under the leadership of the PAP since 1959, Singapore first saw an opposition MP in 1981, almost 2 decades after independence (a feat, despite J. B. Jeyaretnam only serving for one term); thereafter, Chiam See Tong (1984) and Low Thia Kiang (1991) followed. The Workers’ Party successfully wrested away the first GRC in 2011 and has managed to retain it for the past two election cycles – acting as ‘electoral citadels’, we see that once breached, they are not easy to recover.
With such a clear history of a weak opposition presence, it is no wonder that PAP dissidents grow increasingly frustrated with the government. Only in recent years has the party shown greater willingness to embrace alternative voices; before GE2020, the Prime Minister announced that the number of NCMP seats would be increased from 9 to 12 in the event of an ‘opposition wipeout’.
However, I’d like to argue that these efforts, while laudable, are far from sufficient. They come too late. Such mechanisms only come into play once voters express their dissatisfaction with tactics – they are ‘knee-jerk’ reactions instead of genuine political reform. For example, after facing a backlash from Singaporeans in the form of a historically-low popular vote, the party tweaked several policies, including immigration quotas as well as housing and transport provisions. Although these changes address voters’ bread-and-butter needs to some extent, the way the party conducts politics has not changed.
Rather ironically, the PAP that had once started off as a left-leaning opposition party has now transformed into a centre-right government which refuses to let go of its grip on power. In the 21st century, party members still hold the fundamental belief that they know the best for the country, and disputing their way of thinking as an ordinary citizen challenges their legitimacy.
Consider how I use the term ‘ordinary citizen’. The PAP certainly remains open to critique and challenges, but only when backed by empirical evidence and sufficient backing; i.e. if you claim that the Progressive Wage Model (our alternative to the minimum wage) is not working as it should, you need to have hard facts and the support of several distinguished academics. And of course it is important for your criticism to be backed up by evidence for it to be valid. But the problem is, many of these resources cannot be easily accessed by ordinary citizens like you and me. Interestingly, Singapore is one of the few countries in the world which doesn’t release statistics on poverty and homelessness, amongst other social indicators. Subsequently, it’s very difficult to point out flaws in policymaking unless you’re the one making these rules.
Here’s some circular logic: to be a loving critic, you need to access resources to reinforce your claims. To access resources, you need to have shown your capacity to be a loving critic.
That means that you need to demonstrate support for the party’s rule, join their ranks and then start trying to fix things – some of our best academics and politicians, including Tommy Koh, Tharman Shanmugaratnam and Vivian Balakrishnan were co-opted by the PAP for them to improve the establishment from within. However, once you’re in the establishment and among the higher-ups, it’s much more difficult for you to call for change – it not only looks bad on the party, it’ll probably also hinder your career progression. You have to toe the party line.
The main problem here is the party distrust of outsiders’ wisdom. Our Education Minister Ong Ye Kung mentioned a few years ago that there was no need for multi-party politics in Singapore because its capacity for self-regulation stabilises our political system – such is a prominent example of how reluctant the PAP is for change. Their wisdom needs to remain unquestioned; they tell sufficiently-distinguished critics, if need be, join our ranks to make change instead of lambasting us from the outside.
And here many detractors fail to break through and are systemically accused of scheming to tear apart Singapore’s social fabric. When this happens, the man on the street looks on and perceives this to be a failure of democracy, heightening his resentment against our establishment. Hence when met with vociferous defence of the PAP, there tends to be instantaneous outrage. Mistrust mixed with a lack of empathy are commonplace.
While problematic, together with a different kind of insularism, this becomes even more threatening.
The Average Singaporean Mindset
To the average non-PAP voter, fewer opposition members = less diverse representation = PAP domination = bad for Singapore.
Now I’m not talking about those few hardcore opposition voters (or God forbid, even opposition politicians) who decry the PAP as a bastion of nepotism and elitism. The insular mindset that any vote for the opposition counts has been insidiously instilled within the minds of most pro-opposition voters. Even if they do want the PAP to remain our government for the foreseeable future, many of those around me proudly proclaim that they will still support their constituency’s opposition members simply to express their dissatisfaction with the government.
In our arguably one-party state, every voter has the right to do so. But it is bad for politics – with this inherent assumption that the PAP will win, voters vote without considering the quality of our opposition. Let’s just put the dismal state of our alternative parties out in the open: besides the Workers’ Party and one or two notable members from the Singapore Democratic Party, the bulk of our non-PAP politicians are less than qualified to stand in Parliament and debate policy issues. Their arguments are incoherent at best, half-baked at worst. When questioned, much of their logic is exposed as flawed.
Voting for these politicians to represent you in Parliament makes sense, but when you see your bumbling political representative attacked and torn down for poor argumentation, you’ll probably feel like your voice has never been heard. Giving members of the opposition your vote without questioning some of their arguably xenophobic stances and lack of credibility, means that they have no incentive to improve themselves. With such lacklustre opponents, the PAP will never face the checks-and-balances that you truly desire. Moreover, they’ll have another reason in defence of their argument that Singapore doesn’t require other political parties.
Now I’d like to clarify that I have no desire to fearmonger and create the illusion that the PAP will suffer from a ‘wipeout’ in the future just because more voters express their dissatisfaction against them. There isn’t such a risk in the near future. But in the long-term, as we develop such bad habits, Singapore may be confronted by a mass influx of incapable opposition politicians who think they have the right to be there by virtue of their ‘anti-establishment’ status. What we need is credible, sharp opposition MPs who are able to shed greater light on the flaws of government policy and hold our Parliament to account.
Thus this entrenched mindset, of simply voting for that opposition member because he doesn’t wear all white, isn’t particularly good for our political climate.
Connections Cause Cracks
Our ruling party’s longstanding aversion to political challenges has in fact led to the development of voters’ insular mindsets.
The crux of the issue is that the PAP has not given our opposition the space and time to mature. With the odds stacked against them, most alternative political parties have resorted to campaign slogans with overtly nationalist undertones just to draw attention and possibly capture the votes of conservative Singaporeans. If one cannot see the possibility of a political party other than the PAP taking over, the average Singaporean concludes, then the solution must be to vote against the incumbents as much as possible. The system is rigged. Any voice of dissent is better than none, even if it belongs to a xenophobic and incoherent candidate. At least they can understand my opinions and rail against the government in my place.
This resentful relationship between our ruling party and these voters cultivates mistrust and entrenches the (unfair) perception that the opposition will permanently remain disadvantaged. Subsequently, we end up in a toxic cycle, where opposition politicians only see the light of one or two terms before being ousted for their lack of finesse, leaving an unchallenged and even more smug PAP in Parliament. Such a situation proves not only frustrating to PAP dissidents, but is detrimental to Singapore’s progress – without competition, the PAP cannot thrive and adapt to grow into its best form.
Conclusion
I’d like to once again quote PM Lee; in the aftermath of the General Election in July, he acknowledged the increased opposition presence within Parliament with a few wise words of caution. “At the most fundamental level, to make our politics work, both the Government and the opposition must share an overriding objective – to work for Singapore, and not just for our party or our supporters”.
Our government places much emphasis on how free market mechanisms, though having the potential to exacerbate inequality, increase Singapore’s competitiveness and benefit our population. They should take heed of such concepts when encountering rivals in the political arena as well. Any form of challenge to their policies (usually formulated by ‘groupthink’, for the better or worse) or way of thinking has to be embraced, for both the good of our nation as well as the longevity of the party.
As ordinary folk, there is a need to put aside political tribalism and soak in the fact that we are fundamentally alike – Singaporeans, all trying to do our best for our country.
References
https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/spore-must-avoid-going-down-path-of-polarised-politics-pm
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200826161336.htm
The View from Singapore 