Posted by The Online Citizen on May 17, 2012 (
source)
by Catherine Lim ~
One year after the watershed
General Election of May 2011 (GE 2011), political observers, reading the signs
being sent out by the government, must be wondering about when – or if – the
changes that had then seemed an inevitable consequence of the election, would
actually take place. For currently, the signs are mixed and ambiguous, leading
to an anxious, cautious ‘wait-and-see’ attitude on the part of the
people.
Back then, there was no
ambiguity at all about the reactions of the three major players on the political
stage. The PAP government, the Singaporean electorate and the opposition
parties- had clearly emerged from the amazing election with their old selves
so transformed (by pain or victory, as the case might be) that they all conveyed
the same message: things would never again be the same. Some line had been
crossed, some psychological barrier breached.
The government had conceded,
even if only implicitly, that it would have to give up the old PAP authoritarian
stance that had been its hallmark for half a century; the people, in a new mood
of confidence, had signaled that they would never again be apathetic, timid and
silent about issues that affected their lives; the opposition parties,
encouraged by the new interest in them, had jubilantly cast off their old image
as weak, disorganized groups not worth taking seriously.
In the heady days immediately
following the election, a newly humbled PAP government made an all-out effort to
placate voters. It quickly did away with the two policies that had most angered
the voters, namely, those related to the ministerial salaries and foreign
workers. It went further to promise no less than a ‘re-invention’ of leadership
style, in order to meet the expectations of the electorate. On the part of the
people, there was a mood of euphoric expectation that a ‘re-invented’ PAP would
surely usher in , at long last, a truly open, engaged, accountable and
mature society.
So is this good outcome taking
place? It depends on who you’re asking the question, and what is meant by a good
outcome.
No, say the political observers.
There can be no real opening up if the old instruments of control are still
being strenuously kept in place. True, the ISA (Internal Security Act) is not
likely to be used as in the past when political detainees were either
incarcerated without trial or forced to flee into permanent exile; nevertheless
the government has made clear that it has no intention of doing away with this
powerful instrument. True, the fearsome defamation suit by which political
critics could be ruined financially is unlikely to be wielded with the same
frequency and vigour as in the old days; nevertheless, the government has
warned online blogs not to get out of line, to remove certain offensive
postings, or else -. Most recently, the government refused to give permission
to a prominent political activist to go abroad to take part in a convention. All
these signs carry an unmistakable message: GE 2011, or no GE 2011, our position
with regard to political dissent remains the same.
In general, it is a reflection
of dampened hopes that one year after a so-called transforming election, not a
single Singaporean believes that open debate, public assemblies and street
demonstrations which are taken for granted in neighbouring countries, will take
place in Singapore, as long as the PAP is in power.
So how can one talk of a good
outcome from GE 2011?
Wait, says the government. Get
your perspective right. We are keeping our promise, and good things are
happening. Just look around you and see what is being done to improve the lives
of the people, especially the lower income group. Never have we made a more
sincere and sustained effort to translate policies into quick action, to benefit
all sectors of the population, whether through new, affordable housing, better
medical care, an improved transportation system, the provision of more lifts in
old housing estates for the elderly and infirm, improvements in the education
system to take care of those with special needs, new parks and recreational
spots, to improve the quality of everyone’s lives, etc. Where policies cannot
be changed to match the expectations of the people, our ministers take great
pains to explain why, asking for the people’s patience, constantly reaching out
to them, including through social media, ever ready to listen and make
compromises, if possible. What more can you ask, for goodness’
sake.
Indeed, the government’s new
approach is distinguished by a social reach never seen before, and an emphasis
on the soft touch and the light footprint, completely at odds with the old,
no-nonsense, peremptory style.
So what is really happening?
What can one make of all these mixed signals in the political
scene?
Since the government’s new
approach has become national policy, the result of an obviously well thought out
response to the special challenges of GE 2011, it is worthwhile to examine it
carefully and understand its implications. Putting it under the microscope of
close, detailed scrutiny and analysis will enable one to answer the following
pertinent questions: is the policy congruent with the oft affirmed goal of
putting the people first? Will it prove wrong all those skeptical political
observers out there? Can it predict the future Singapore political
landscape?
A good starting point for the
analysis of this new approach is the term that the government itself has
consistently used for it – ‘inclusiveness’. Again and again, the ministers
remind the people that ours is an inclusive society. Actually, the term was used
for the slogan chosen by Mr Lee Hsien Loong more than ten years ago when he
became Prime Minister (in keeping with the traditional practice of prime
ministers to choose a short, pithy phrase as a kind of rallying cry at the start
of the premiership, as witness Mr Goh Chok Tong’s choice of ‘A Gracious
Society’, and before him, Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s call of ‘A Rugged
Society’)
In its present revived form,
the slogan of ‘An Inclusive Society’ has been greatly enlarged and elevated
into a major policy, with new strength, scope and purposefulness. In its strong
commitment to ensuring that no one is left out in the overall goal of material
prosperity and well-being, it surely stands out as a laudable policy that is,
alas, rarely seen in most societies in the world.
But the forensic analysis soon
reveals that mixed up with this admirable goal is one that is decidedly less so.
It is the goal of self survival and power maintenance that is part and parcel of
the realities of the political world. In the aftermath of a bruising GE 2011
which for the first time in Singapore’s electoral history made people think of
the hitherto unthinkable possibility of the PAP government losing dominance a
few more general elections down the road, it is to be expected that any
post-election policy of the PAP would have to aim at preventing this
catastrophe.
Indeed, so great was the
humiliation suffered, such as the shocking but necessary resignation of the
Party’s most respected member and founding father, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, that one
can easily imagine the PAP government grimly vowing to do whatever it takes to
make sure it will never have to endure such a punishing experience
again.
Hence the policy of
inclusiveness may be seen to have two quite different goals intertwined with
each other – the first, publicly affirmed one of service to the people, and the
second, privately espoused one of making sure that the shock of GE 2011 would
not be repeated at the next general election, indeed, ever again. How can such
contradictory aims be reconciled? How will they play out in public view, in the
months to come? Will Singaporeans suffer a Quo Vadis where-do-we-go-from-here
anxiety?
Here are some thoughts, some
only tentative and conjectural, on this very complex and intriguing
subject:
i) The PAP leaders have at least
four years to see through their policy of inclusiveness, a period of time that
will presumably be adequate for the construction of new housing developments,
roads, trains, hospitals, parks, etc. The results of the policy will hence take
the form of highly visible evidence of a promise sincerely made and efficiently
executed, completely reversing the GE 2011 negative image of a government grown
complacent and incompetent, allowing huge influxes of foreigners to compete with
its own citizens for basic amenities.
ii) The government, having
learnt the hard way in GE 2011 about the power of emotional appeal, will
increasingly make strategic use of it. The Prime Minister himself will set the
trend, for instance, by joining Facebook to interact with Singaporeans in
friendly sharing of personal preferences about food, recreation, etc. At every
opportunity, such as the celebration of May Day, he will drive home the message:
‘Singaporeans, you come first.’ The younger ministers, free from the old austere
image of the PAP, will be in a better position to interact with the younger
Internet generation. There are frequent pictures in the mainstream newspapers of
these young ministers jollying around in schools, the sports field, hawker
centres. Overall, the PAP government will no longer be seen as a distant, aloof
leadership, but as ‘one of us’.
iii) The inclusive approach will
put a human face on the PAP government and thus rob the opposition parties of
their trump card of representing it as callous and uncaring. Indeed, it will
effectively cut the ground from under the feet of the opposition, particularly
the popular Workers’ Party. With the majority of the people contented with what
is being done for them, the opposition may have no choice but to concentrate on
the one remaining substantial issue – the government’s suppression of political
liberties. But when buses are not overcrowded, trains work, roads are clean,
jobs are available, the increased cost of living is offset by government
subsidies or pay-outs, and, best of all, when the government is seen as living
up to its noble post-GE 2011 promise to be ‘servant leaders’, ideology is no
longer important or even relevant.
iv) The inclusive approach will
go well beyond the provision of basic amenities of affordable housing, roads and
medical care, and conspicuously include a whole slew of measures to actively
promote those domains of finer pleasures and deeper self-fulfilment, such as the
arts, sports, recreation, self-development, lifestyle choices, community
projects, humanitarian and environmental causes. Such an enlightened and
sweeping liberalization by the PAP government, so different from the strictly
commercial ventures normally associated with it, is exactly what will appeal
to the young, the idealistic, the well-heeled, the very groups that probably
voted against the PAP in GE 2011.
v)The only domain that will not
benefit from this opening up will be the political one, mainly because of an
ingrained, intense dislike of political opposition per se, an attitude best
exemplified by Mr Lee Kuan Yew. This domain will be systematically isolated,
ending up forgotten in the overall excitement of a burgeoning, blossoming
society taking its place among the best in the world. If the idealists give up
the fight, withdraw into obscurity or simply shrug and move over to the other
side, it will be a welcome outcome for a government determined to erase them
quietly but permanently from the political landscape. By the next election it
may see fit to employ certain, very subtle measures of control to curb the
power of the Internet crowd that it had so badly underestimated in GE 2011,
but will shrewdly make it appear as a decision that comes from the people
themselves, for the sake of social orderliness and
stability.
vi) In order to soften its image
of harsh repression, it will allow, perhaps even encourage, political criticism
of the harmless kind, for instance, the raucous political satire of theatrical
productions which affect only a small group of theatre-goers. It may approve
of the occasional, hard-hitting political commentary in the mainstream
newspapers, that nevertheless knows how not to go beyond the famous
out-of-bounds markers. But it will make it difficult for political clubs to be
set up in schools, colleges and universities. At all times , it will avoid
giving the impression of harsh intolerance, aware of bad press, regionally and
internationally, especially if its ranking in global surveys of press and
political freedoms continues to be dismal. Securely plugged into the global
order because of its aggressive brand of capitalism, it will be increasingly
sensitive to world opinion, and will make sure, for instance, that the critics
of the proposed setting up of a Yale-NUS (National University of Singapore)
school of liberal arts will not have cause to say, ‘We were right! Another
example of the Singapore government’s suppression of academic and individual
freedom! Yale should have never tied up with NUS.’ At all times, it will
maintain a fine balancing act between keeping its benign public image and its
private distaste for political opposition; if there has to be any tilting, the
distaste will prevail.
vii) If by the next general
election, it regains electoral ground lost in GE 2011, which outcome is likely
if it continues to prosecute its policy of inclusiveness systematically and
opportunistically, this question may be asked with some anxiety: will it go back
to its old model of governance which it had always been more comfortable with?
After all, if the driving force for the re-invention and the people connection
had come, not from any genuine change of mind and heart, but mainly from
election pressures, could it as easily disappear once these
did?
The above is admittedly a
rather pessimistic reading of the signs and a dismal prognosis of the future of
the political scene in Singapore. (I confess that my exuberant optimism during
and immediately after GE 2011 has since subsided considerably) It is inevitable
that a close analysis of any complex situation soon uncovers elements that
otherwise go unnoticed, and it will always be the onerous task of political
observers to temper enthusiasm with doses of skepticism. It will also always be
the hope of the skeptical observer to be proved wrong.
Throughout this analysis, one
sobering observation is clear: that the government’s policy of inclusiveness
rather paradoxically excludes a certain sector of the population and citizenry –
the political dissidents. This group, usually characterized by a strident
individuality and combative style, may not be very likeable to the majority. But
no society is without its small core of activists who, at the very least, it has
to tolerate (unless of course they are a threat to society through their
espousal of violence) Since the activists have made it their lives’ work to
expose the ills and deficiencies in their society and agitate for change, they
could, under certain circumstances, be the very agents of change and renewal,
the very mutant genes, to use a common biological analogy, that can give new
resilience to a species and even save it from extinction.
With reference to the Singapore
situation, they have the right, like other Singaporeans, to benefit from the
benign reach of a new policy that likes to draw attention to its inclusiveness.
To consign them to the margins of society is, at the least, to define that term
inadequately, and at the worst, to make a mockery of it.
International human rights lawyer, Bob Amsterdam, was detained and turned back at Changi Airport when he visited Singapore on Sunday 20 May 2012. 
