S'pore's basic political system unchanged

S'pore's basic political system unchanged

Today is Singapore's national day. Political scientist Bilveer
Singh reflects on both the achievements and the shortcomings of
the tiny island republic which became an autonomous Commonwealth
state in 1959.

SINGAPORE (JP): Singapore's success in providing a material
base for society is unquestionable. It has succeeded in
transforming an underdeveloped island into a model state as far
as housing, transportation, economic development, medical care
and internal security is concerned.

Singapore is one of the few models of achievement where,
through its leadership's foresight and single-mindedness, a
resource barren state was able to mobilize its meager resources
and mix them with the right policies to achieve stability and
development, with all its citizens given a direct stake in the
maintenance of the system.

With much justice, the system has been described as a golden
goose which lays golden eggs.

While no one would challenge the republic on its economic
fundamentals, its political fundamentals is another question
altogether. As Singapore prepares to face the post-Cold War era
and the coming century, will the fundamentals pass the test of
changing times?

If there is any single hardcore political realist state in the
world, it must be Singapore. Political realism dominates the
world view of the republic affecting its state craft and soul
craft.

This political philosophy has driven Singapore to be primarily
concerned with security and the competition for power. Politics
is seen as nothing more than the struggle for power. Survival
oriented behavior is the bottom line and modus operandi of a
state pursuing this political philosophy.

Morality, legalism and ideologies are seen as luxuries that
can be pursued only if they do not endanger the viability and
vital interests of the state or the government that speaks for
the state.

Despite much progress since 1965, the political leadership
continues to be haunted by the problem of security and survival.
All other concerns and issues are subordinated to this single
overriding goal. In a system of this nature, the fundamentals
cannot change and are unlikely to change as long as political
realism remains the driving force.

While the realities of geography, demography, economy,
strategic environment and the leadership's experience have
conditioned a particular sense of vulnerability and an obsession
with survival, there appears to be no signs that they will relent
or that there will be any change in the state's goal as these
would be interpreted as distractions or, worse, as undermining
the basic goal of survival.

The twin goals that have guided Singapore have been the quest
for political stability and the strength to achieve internal and
external security as well as economic prosperity to provide for
the basic needs of society thereby strengthening its internal
resilience; which is also an important foundation for its
external security.

There is much ado about nothing when people argue that
Singapore has seen changes in its political goals. This has been
spurred by political reforms undertaken since 1984 when the
second generation of the People Action Party's leaders became
numerically dominant in cabinet.

This saw a number of seemingly liberal and people oriented
policies. Examples of these are the attempt to become more
consultative through the television broadcasts of parliamentary
proceedings, the National Agenda exercise, greater resort to
Select Committee Hearings, the establishment of the PAP Youth and
Women wings, the establishment of town councils, the
establishment of the Government Parliamentary Committees, the
inauguration of the Feedback Unit, the reversal of unpopular
policies as well as attempts to moderate the growth of a powerful
bureaucracy.

However, these measures were more apparent than real. This was
because the leadership has remained convinced that what it is
doing is right, as proven by its track record since 1959 as well
as the fact that it thought long term while most of the
populace's grievances tended to be immediate and short term in
nature.

Old and new PAP leaders continue to believe that the focus
should remains on building economic prosperity as only real
wealth can buy real strength. A country that is prosperous and
that uses its wealth prudently and wisely, unlike the Kuwaitis,
will be able to overcome the challenges to its survival.

Thus, the key driving force of the country's policies is
directed towards generating economic growth. Accumulating
financial surpluses is pursued with such a vengeance because the
political leadership is convinced that this is its only real
asset.

While traditionally it was believed that Singapore's
geographical location at an international crossroads, its
domestic stability and multiracial characteristic were
strengths, today it is argued that such features are not the
monopoly of Singapore because the Republic's neighbors also
possess such advantages.

Rather, the political leadership believes that with financial
surpluses and safety nets, the republic will be able to guarantee
its strength, security and survival. This will allow it to
weather any storms and to purchase whatever is needed to ensure
its survival.

Thus, the political system is structured to serve the vital
goal of wealth and surplus generation. The political structures
and values obtained in the republic at any one time must ensure
that a fertile political climate exists that guarantees wealth
creation.

All other concerns and policies are secondary and of lesser
consequence than the overriding goal of enriching the state's
coffers to strengthen the state politically and militarily.

If there are policies which appear to strengthen other
dimensions of society other than political, military and economic
strength, they are no more than efforts to contain growing
dissent and opposition to structures that were established in the
1950s and 1960s as Singapore has remained, without doubt, one of
the most tightly organized and controlled societies in the world.

There appears to be much resistance to open up the political
system to the masses with the leadership preferring to practice
centralism even though this is ostensibly undertaken in the name
of democracy. Hence, the tight control over the mass media,
political organizations as well as its viciousness towards any
form of political challenge from any sector of society.

However, economically it is more akin to the capitalist system
in terms of wealth creation even though the guiding hand of the
state is everywhere in the economic system.

In this context, even if there are policies exhibiting greater
liberalism and consultativeness, they always, without exception,
emanate from the top: otherwise they would not have been
implemented in the first place.

In Singapore, the political center controls everything. All
political reforms have come from the top. All these measures are
part of an exercise to serve the existing political system so as
to create a political environment for the generation of wealth
in a new setting.

If there are reforms and changes they must, as a rule, be
controlled by the center. This is a classic top-down system and
nothing much can be expected to change as long as this political
system remains as strong as it is.

Such a system is in place because Singapore has not been able
to overcome its insecurity dilemma. The vulnerability gap remains
as wide as ever and there seems to be no confidence that this
will ever be narrowed.

If anything, the situation appears to be getting worse as the
neighbors get their political, economic and military acts
together. In view of this realization, the pervading sense of
insecurity and vulnerability of a largely Chinese state in a
Malay Sea have dominated and driven all political decisions and
actions, and a system such as this is unlikely to opt for new
political goals when the basic issue of security has not been
overcome.

Thus, while wealth creation, on the one hand, and control, on
the other, are seen as the keys to internal and external
securities, the political goals of the republic do not appear to
have changed. Due to the security and survival problems, the
country is still running the same lap, and not much can be
expected as far as political development is concerned.

The unchanged political fundamentals will ensure that other
political goals will also remain unchanged.

The writer is a senior lecturer in political science at the
University of Singapore.

Window 1: The key driving force of Singapore's policies is directed
towards generating economic growth.

Window 2: Due to the security and survival problems, Singapore is still
running the same lap, and not much can be expected as far as
political development is concerned.