The PAP in crisis (Part 4): Likely post-LKY scenario and implications for Singapore
By Eugene Yeo, Consultant Editor
[In this classic five-part series, Eugene Yeo will examine the inherent weaknesses of the ruling PAP, its implications for Singapore and possible scenarios in the post-LKY era.]
One or two party system?
Singapore has enjoyed 50 years of stability, growth and prosperity under a virtual one-party dominated by the PAP. Is this the way to go for the future? Is it prudent for Singaporeans to put all their eggs into one basket? What if the PAP were to become corrupted one day, who is able to remove it from power legally?
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had already made his preference clear: Singapore needs a “strong” government because we have too few talents. A two or multi-party system will create political chaos undermining economic growth.
His father, MM Lee himself never believed in democracy and he was not shy to admit it. In a speech given at the Asahai Shimbun symposium in 1991, he expressed his doubts about democracy:
“Now if democracy will not work for the Russians, a white Christian people, can we assume that it will naturally work with Asians?”
He criticized democracy again in a speech a year later in Tokyo:
“With few exceptions, democracy has not brought good government to new developing countries…..As an Asian of Chinese cultural background, my values are for a government which is honest, effective and efficient.”
The whole system was put in place to ensure, maintain and perpetuate the political hegemony of the PAP with all the major institutions of the state being brought under its direct or indirect control.
Under such a system tipped heavily in favor to the ruling party, it is almost impossible for another political party to win at the polls.
The Lees’ views were not shared by many academics including the former top civil servant Mr Ngiam Tong Dow, who said in a recent interview with the Straits Times that Singapore would survive Lee provided he left the right legacy, which was to “open up politically and allow talent to be spread throughout our society so that an alternative leadership can emerge”.
Gilian Koh envisaged the political ideal as one which would ensure the survival of a country irrespective of which party was in power by citing the example of Taiwan which had experienced two changes in government over the last decade with no impact whatsoever on its economic growth.
Larry Diamonds, a leading American scholar in democracy studies argued that no matter how great the intellectual and administrative ability of a ruling elite, he said, rot and complacency would set in eventually without the discipline of competition.
It is highly unlikely that Singapore will open up politically as long as PM Lee remains in power even after MM Lee has passed on. With the present status quo, what is the most likely scenario in the post-LKY era?
Likely scenario in the post-LKY era
Some political analysts have predicted that without the elder Lee to hold the fort, factions will eventually emerge in the PAP leading to a repeat of 1962 when 13 PAP MPs broke away to form Barisan Sosialist.
This scenario is unlikely to happen because unlike the PAP old guards who are politically charged and motivated, the current batch of leaders in the PAP are mostly technocrats who have to be persuaded to join the PAP in the first place. They have little political ambitions or experience.
As I have explained in the previous series, the PAP is a largely monolithic party with power heavily centralized in the hands of a few elders who make sure that only those who are unlikely to challenge them are appointed to positions of power.
Though some have suggested that there is a faction in support of Senior Minister Goh in the cabinet, its influence had decreased after he handed over his position to the younger Lee in 2003 and replacement of his supporters like Yeo Ning Hong with a fresh slate of leaders who owe their allegiance to the Prime Minister.
Given his advanced age and the senior position he held in the cabinet now, it is almost impossible that Goh will leave the party or launch a coup from within. He is a 100% establishment figure aligned to the Lees.
The present cabinet ministers have little ambition to challenge or replace Lee and are likely to toe the line. When Health Minister Khaw Boon Wah was asked by a resident during a dialogue session at Kovan Community Center whether he had any ambitions to become the Prime Minister, he blurted out immediately: “What? You want me to get into trouble?”
The PAP is not a political party. The ministers do not have a power base of their own. They are simply “mandarins” appointed by the “Emperor” to take charge of certain departments in his “empire”. The media, police, treasury, grassroots organizations and whatever else is left are all firmly controlled by the “Emperor”. No matter how talented a “mandarin” is, he has to kowtow to the “Emperor” whenever he is in his presence.
Now that we have dismissed the probability of an internal split with the PAP, it leaves us with only one likely scenario: continuation of the status quo.
In a post-LKY era, Singapore will still be closed politically under the conservative PM Lee. With the population thoroughly depoliticized, the opposition weak and divided, and the electoral system being manipulated to guarantee a PAP victory, the PAP can be expected to breeze through the next 2 elections. The opposition will not make any headway other than perhaps winning a few token more seats which is already “reserved” for them anyway by the “reforms” initiated by Lee which guarantees 18 non-PAP voices in Parliament.
Implications for Singapore
What then are the implications for Singapore in the post-LKY era? Without any political challenge, the PAP is likely to continue ruling the country with a blank cheque like before. There will be few changes in the key economic policies and strategies.
In the aftermath of the global recession, Singapore is likely to bounce back quickly. Our GDP growth may return to the highs of previous years between 6 to 8 per cent, but it may subsequently drop to below 5% as the gap between us and other developing countries like China and India narrows.
Singapore’s economy is popped up largely by depressing the wages of the labor force rather than increasing productivity. The relentless influx of cheap, foreign labor may help to mask the underlying problem for a while, but after sometime, it will inevitably lead to diminishing returns eventually as companies relocate to other destinations like Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia.
Singapore’s economy is now in a transition phase. We are moving away from labor-intensive industries like manufacturing and electronics to new sectors of growth in the future like Life Sciences, IT, casinos and nanotechnology. Whether these industries will turn out to be winners remain to be seen.
The government is expanding across Asia either by collaborating in long-term projects like the Tianjin Eco-city with China or buying stakes in major companies through its two sovereign wealth funds – GIC and Temasek. Its coffers are likely to grow assuming it doesn’t squander them away in risky ill-timed investments.
Ordinary Singaporeans may have to face a more challenging and uncertain future ahead as cost of living, especially that of housing, has far outstripped their wages and competing with foreigners for everything from jobs, houses to primary one registration places. Life is likely to become more and more stressful as one struggles to keep oneself solvent while saving enough for retirement.
The top 5% of the earners will see their wealth grow with the booming economy. The middle class will stagnate and even struggle while the bottom 20% of the income group may have to depend on state handouts either completely or partially to feed themselves.
As life become tougher, couples are less inclined to start a family thereby exacerbating the low fertility rate. The government will have no choice but to continue to import large number of foreigners to keep the economy competitive to avoid following the footsteps of Japan which is plagued by an aging population and low GDP growth.
The number of foreigners, PRs and new citizens may one day exceed that of native Singaporeans who will feel increasingly alienated and marginalized in their own lands of birth. Dissatisfaction, disgruntlement and resentment against the PAP will rise to new heights, but will remain suppressed at the subterranean level because of draconian laws put in place to stifle political dissent.
The PAP will have no problems maintaining their political dominance much to the chagrin of the population, especially the restive young who wants to have more say in the running of the country. This disconcordant state where the state is unable to meet the aspirations of the people who are unable to remove an unpopular government legally will lead to a general sclerosis of society creating a disconnected class of citizens whose only aim in life is to earn enough money to leave the country for they have completely lost interest and love for their motherland.
Singapore will become a half-country, half-corporate without a soul or identity just like its tourist icon - the “Merlion” which is neither fish or lion. It will be a playground for the ruling elite and wealthy foreigners and a living hell for those who are left behind. To quote an infamous remark of Wee Shu Min: “If you are not good enough, life will kick you in the balls. That’s how just things go (in Singapore).”
We are already seeing signs of this dreadful scenario right now in the present. Most Singaporeans are politically apathetic – they simply do not care what happen to their nation. The young has no sense of belonging – one third of them want to emigrate to greener pastures elsewhere. The ruling elite is out of touch with the people and they don’t realize it because the state media keep spinning only the untruths which they want to hear and not the bitter reality on the ground. Singapore will still top the international charts for the best institutions, infrastructure, education and economic stability, but deep down inside, the fabric which binds the nation together is crumbling apart for without the people, our most important asset, Singapore will never go far.
The key for Singapore’s future really lies on the shoulders of one man – the 4th Prime Minister of Singapore. Will he be Singapore’s Chiang Ching Kuo or Kim Jong IL?
In part 5 of my article, I shall elucidate the necessary political reforms that Singapore’s next leader must undertake at both the party and state level to reverse the process of national ossification which has already set in.
Other articles in the series:
>> Part 1: An ossified internal structure
>> Part 2: A disjointed party support base
>> Part 3: Lack of leaders in a team of technocrats
Other articles by Eugene Yeo:
>> An analysis of the UBS study (Part3): Paupers in a first world economy
>> Singapore’s limits: An unthinking and unquestioning citizenry
21 Responses to “The PAP in crisis (Part 4): Likely post-LKY scenario and implications for Singapore”
Alex Tan Allan Ooi AWARE Chee Soon Juan Chiam See Tong Claire Lee David Widjaja DBS Dr Allan Ooi Dr Silviu Ionescu Dr Vivian Balakrishnan Foyce Le Xuan highnote5 Hong Lim Park Jack Lin Xinli Jack Neo Jack Neo affair Jack Neo scandal Josie Lau Josie Lau Meng Lee Lee Kuan Yew Lehman brothers Lighthouse Evangelism MAS minibonds Miss Singapore World NTU stabbing PAP Pastor Rony Tan Ris Low Romanian diplomat in hit-and-run Rony Tan S-League silviu ionescu Singapore Singapore 2010 Youth Olympic Games Tan Kin Lian Thio Su Mien Tiger Woods affair Tong Kok Wai Top 8 Vivian Balakrishnan Wendy Chong Y O G Youth Olympic Games
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.








Could a third scenerio emerge?
Perhaps like rome in ancient history, there will be a political internal strife once the dictator has been disposed of.
There are a lot of people in various positions of power in the same party. It may emerge that there will be motions of power and lobbying for positions?
This may result in the scenerio whereby like Rome, the strong will be brought down not by exterior forces but by the poison within.
There is a chinese saying. a family founded business normally will not survive more than 3 generations.
Perhaps with this downfall, new changes will be made or perhaps singapore will fade like Rome into history. Like dominos falling…..
Remember our greatest strength is because of a 1 party government. It may be also our greatest weakness.
“Gilian Koh envisaged the political ideal as one which would ensure the survival of a country irrespective of which party was in power by citing the example of Taiwan which had experienced two changes in government over the last decade with no impact whatsoever on its economic growth.”
This is far from the truth. As a long time observer of Taiwan strait affairs the situation in Taiwan is not rosy.
Since the emergence of China as a economy power, Taiwan’s economy has been slipping in terms of competitiveness and overall ability. Li Deng Hui’s policy of regulating investments in Mainland China has caused most Taiwanese corporations to lose their competitive edge over the course of the last decade. Chen’s policies made things worse as foreign investment declined in the the face of political instability and the volatile nature of his domestic policies.
In order to survive the companies started shifting their base of operations to Hong Kong, got listed there and expanded their operations into Mainland China. Even during Li’s time there was plenty of investments from Taiwan in China. Sadly though the lack of proper trade links cause them to suffer greatly.
During Chen’s time, due to the political needs of the DPP the administration could not establish proper trade links with many in the region. ASEAN then went and started talks with Korea, Australia and China for the ASEAN+3 agreements. Taiwan wanting proper recognition as a sovereign nation gets left out due to ASEAN member states adopting one-China policy. Taiwan once explored the idea of signing a FTA with Singapore which we were agreeable to as long as the wordings on the agreement is not sensitive.
Ma is currently pursuing a ECFA agreement which should be concluded under the WTO charter. There are kinks to be ironed out still though.
The overall ranking for Taiwan’s economy has slipped over the period of 12 years (last four years of Li then the 8 under Chen) from Top of 4 dragons to bottom. Their closest competitor Korea has progressed in leaps and bounds while they have lagged behind due to their inflexible economic policy which are solely based on political need and ideology.
While I cannot point this solely at the 2 party system or change of government since Li started the whole deal before Chen but changing government without impact on economy is not a fact for Taiwan.
I await the numbers refuting this.
A two or multi-party system will create political chaos undermining economic growth??? What??? Are we NOT already in dire straits.
Our economy needs urgent restructuring now freely admitted by Government. If one party works and prosper the economy, why we need changes now?
Why are we silently flooded with influx of immigrants? is public housing not an issue – runaway uplifted by silently instigated immigration demand and the government in denial of affordability while the economy needs to be taken care of in the Intensive Care Unit by $20 billion of Resilience package and job credit to artificially makes it looks good – all that with our hard earne and hard-saved reserves as election bargaining chips?
To make the place looks booming, relax immigration rules so that it is flooded with prostitutes to create impression of a crowded street and vibrant economy while lots of Singaporeans struggle to put food on the table?
If one party works wonders, why create a sham of 18 non-PAP representative to give it an appearance, not substance, of dissenting views. And when challenged in Parliament, oh..it is only as aspirants.
Democracy in this country is a BIG JOKE AND A FAKE SHOW
And they don’t want an alternative voice and change. Singaporeans better wake up now.
will u guys be doing a review of the Men in White book?
Just a point to note, in my humble opinion I seriously think the ruling party has done a good job up till this very moment.
However, serious thoughts and actions have to be put in by the PAP should Singapore wants to continue challenging the other developing nations.
The methodology used to get Singapore to where she is today is sort of ‘outdated’, secure, stable, sure-win no doubt but it sure is not the right way forward.
I honestly feels it is not the political system that makes the difference but the people who are in it that makes the difference. We can have a two party system, but if they are filled with incapable leaders it still does not solve anything.
Don’t get me wrong, the current set of leaders am sure are doing what they have to in order to maintain the nation as it is…but somehow that just seems to be not good enough to move us forward.
That duty falls on the shoulders of all Singaporeans instead of just the handful of elders in the Parliament.
How can the ordinary Singaporeans expect better living environments and standards when firstly, cheap foreign labors are encouraged to come and it does not help that most Singaporeans by nature are not really as competitive and chose the easy way out of either migrating or remaining at where they are. Compared to their fore-fathers, the Singaporeans to day are just lacking that little bit of passion which I am sure is hidden rather than lost.
Secondly, the ruling party has to – one day be less conservative and be more forth coming and daring in accepting challenges from opposition parties (not those that holds silly demonstrations with the help of foreigners outside Istana).
As a Singaporean, it hurts me to see the ‘bo-chapness’ of fellow citizens yet these are the one who keeps complaining about the system. Lets bear in mind that ‘If it is meant to be, it’s up to me’. Only by taking ownership of the nation’s issues will we one day see a better Singapore.
“But we either believe in democracy or we not. If we do, then, we must say categorically, without qualification, that no restraint from the any democratic processes, other than by the ordinary law of the land, should be allowed… If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally. If you believe that men should be free, then, they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication. Then, no law should permit those democratic processes to be set at nought, and no excuse, whether of security, should allow a government to be deterred from doing what it knows to be right, and what it must know to be right… ” – Lee Kuan Yew, Legislative Assembly Debates, April 27, 1955
Mr. Lee once believed in democracy. It’s the due to circumstances and his wisdom and his observations that have caused him to open up his eyes and his mind to re-examine democracy, at the same time explore other options to rule Singapore and bring it to success to where it is today.
@Citizen Soldier on Wed, 16th Sep 2009 11:46 am
“How can the ordinary Singaporeans expect better living environments and standards when firstly, cheap foreign labors are encouraged to come and it does not help that most Singaporeans by nature are not really as competitive and chose the easy way out of either migrating or remaining at where they are. Compared to their fore-fathers, the Singaporeans to day are just lacking that little bit of passion which I am sure is hidden rather than lost.”
Singaporeans, who are competitive, would migrate to another nation to compete over there instead of here. An act which is the main reason why fore-fathers migrate to singapore in the first place.
Singaporean are not really not competitive. it is perhaps that our education 1960-2000 system does not encourage creativeness and more of blind obedience. Hence a lot of our businessmen failed in overseas ventures.
A long way from Singapore for Singaporeans? perhaps our rumbling here are the 1st steps to a 1000 step journey?
Dear Fairplayplease,
I am not advocating that we should not even consider a biparty political landscape. Change is a force of nature, it will come whether or not the election is skewed in favour of the incumbent. What I want to remind readers here is that a claim from people who say that Taiwan has witnessed political change with no ill effect is telling a half-truth or a lie.
A government should not rule a country solely based on political need and ideology. The pragmatic needs and the core values should be the driving force while ideology will guide the nation on a path of sociological balance and economical balance.
In Taiwan, I have seen how the DPP government embrace their ideological side totally forgetting to implement helpful policies for the people. The result? High unemployment, a fragmented society and economic turmoil that has yet to leave Taiwan.
Here, we see first hand how basing everything on growth and profit has made the people of this country feel squeezed in their own country. I can call it xenophobic but I am not that noble to the point whereby I can accept all the xenos around me with no qualms. The two extremes should show that the system does not change things its the way the system is run that does.
A stronger representation of the opposition will remove the need of NMPs who rarely deliver.
Lets look at the policies and examine them without getting into rhetorical studies of how the one-party system is doing this this this and that that that. At the end of the day as long as PAP does not disregard the election rules and laws, the opposition is more than welcomed to take more seats. Given the online furore over the government, if they show up at more places they should be able to do it right?
The article seemed to omit a 3rd scenario. The galvanisation and rise of opposition parties.
In fact, if PAP had not been using dirty tricks, by dismantling Eunos and Cheng San GRCs, the WP would have gained one GRC by now. That’s 7 WP MPs plus one SDA MP, total of 8 opposition MP. This initial win will cause a snow ball of support as people start to sit up and take notice, no longer dismissing the opposition as “weak”. Once the snowball effect takes place, capable and talented people who did not wish to join PAP, but was afraid to join the opposition or did not think the opposition was credible will start to join them and thus increasing their credibility and profile.
The handphone market was dominated by the likes of Nokia and Sony Erickson until Apple came in with their surprise hit iPhone and now everyone tries to copy them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_mentality
Herd mentality will ensure that once a critical number is reached, more people will vote for opposition parties.
Your article needs to recognise this as a possibility.
True Singaporeans who love our country and follow our political development would have noticed that many supposedly PAP critics, after joining the party for a while, usually ended up becoming either lame-ducks or YES-MEN…
Under the umbrella of a huge tree, even weeds fail to thrive, only when the tree rots from within, then sunshine will break through and lead to growth of new species.
This article seems to repeat what already happening and not really predict and analyze all the possible scenarios after MM Lee. The article is superficial and without depth of analysis. The author needs more research and thinking.
Anyway, MIW fails to build the nation if the politics is not mature after 40 years. Total failure!
What about the fourth scenario, The People’s Uprising?
@Citizen Soldier
I don’t think Singaporeans are not competitive. We work hard and we work smart. But it sucks when you compete with one hand tied behind your back i.e. NS obligations, annual ICT, recall manning that makes you less attractive to the employer versus a PR who doesn’t have to serve NS.
I for one think it’s a myth that all SIngaporeans are not hungry enough. There will be some who are content with status quo, but many strive to better themselves to compete against this flood of foreigners coming to compete for us on unequal footing.
Majullah SIngapura
[...] is taken from http://temasekreview.com/?p=13598 done by a Eugene Yeo. This entry was written by Elfred and posted on September 11, 2009 at [...]
“With few exceptions, democracy has not brought good government to new developing countries…..As an Asian of Chinese cultural background, my values are for a government which is honest, effective and efficient.”
If that is the case, then the old man should call for the dismissal of all the top scholars who are responsible for such idiotic actions such as squandering $400,000/- to determine that the best name for Marina Bay is Marina Bay, paying out $20,000/- cash money to a kid that suggested naming the budget terminal Budget Terminal etc.
@Panzer
“I don’t think Singaporeans are not competitive. We work hard and we work smart. But it sucks when you compete with one hand tied behind your back i.e. NS obligations, annual ICT, recall manning that makes you less attractive to the employer versus a PR who doesn’t have to serve NS.”
I do not think serving NS is considered a handicap.
For one I am very pro for our boys to serve NS, in fact I am saddened to see that the NS of today has not being churning out tougher men like they used to if you get what I meant.
Coming back to the matter – if we do not defend Singapore, who will?
Like you I too wish to see Singaporeans be more pro-active in national issues – Yang Pertama Dan Utama – Mahjullah Singapura!
@Citizen Soldier
“if we do not defend Singapore, who will?”
Professional Army + Volunteer soldiers. Give good incentives for volunteering (much like what NS is now)
One professionally trained soldier willing to fight and die for his country is better than 10 conscriptees worrying about his job and not willing to fight.
The movers and shakers will never join YPAP.
One reason, just look at how they run P-65 blog. They all run away and leave it to a bunch of confused people who know nuts abt reaching out. When it goes wrong, they have a first class fire wall. Neither way, the house wins and there is no accountability. Damn irresponsible!
Most smart people know they only have one life and they dont want to waste it on following a phoney, that means they will always insist on dealing with real people who are serious about the whole deal of moving ahead in life
In that respect, the brotherhood fulfills the demand of that niche market. They go where they like. They have their own mind and they really know how to hit the home runs. Personally I really cant stand that guy Duckness but as it is, its almost impossible to deny in any intelligent discussion. A very hard act to follow.
LKY’s comment was that government should be, inter alia, “honest”. It’s the lack of honesty that will ultimately spell the end of the PAP in Singapore.
While much has been said about the recent losses announced by Temasek, those of us who have followed the activities of Temasek and GIC through non-Singaporean sources of information are aware that the losses are substantially more than what has been announced and that the bulk of the losses occurred -before- the GFC.
Singaporeans are apathetic in so many ways, but when you take their rice bowl from them I am sure we will actually see change.
The Lee Family is afraid of opposition not because of the fear of losing power, per se, but because of the fear that LKY, in particular, will be exposed for his manifold failures in losing the wealth of Singaporeans through the vehicles he controls and then covering up and lying about those same losses. That’s why he clings to life and power: he wants to be remembered as the one who led Singapore from third world to first, not the one whose gross errors in judgement resulted in Singapore going backwards.
I think the post above made some interesting points, on a related side note I found a used version of Society, State and Market: A Guide to Competing Theories of Development which is directly related to this topic for less than the bookstores at http://www.belabooks.com/books/9781856494427.htm