In Singapore, there tends to be the prevailing idea that the People’s Action Party (PAP) is the Government and that the opposition politicians are either foolhardy or troublemakers. While this line of thinking is common in obviously authoritarian countries, Singapore’s political landscape is much more nuanced.
We have all the trappings of democracy – regular elections and multiple political parties. We are also a developed country where the average citizen enjoys a good standard of living by and large. Overall, PAP politicians are also generally interested in ensuring that the state runs efficiently and that services are provided to Singaporeans. Of course, I am not suggesting that the PAP is perfect; far from it. But we need to give credit where credit is due, and overall, the PAP has done a pretty good job over the last 50 years or so.
That said, Singapore is unique in that while it has all the trappings of a democracy, there are unspoken OB markers that most citizens would fear broaching. Most citizens know not to publicly criticise the majority PAP government and employ strict self-censorship.
Why? And, more importantly, does this inability and/or unwillingness to speak against or question the authorities serve the long-term good of the nation?
Of course, there is no point in criticising for the sake of criticising. But what about constructive feedback?
As election season looms, it might be worthwhile for Singaporeans to reflect deeply on these issues.
The Workers’ Party (WP) is post-independent Singapore’s most successful opposition party. The WP was the first to win a Group Representative Constituency (GRC) in the form of Aljunied in 2011 – a feat it has managed to win two more times and added to it in 2020 with the victory in Sengkang GRC. However, it is important to note that despite it being a major coup in Singapore, in any other democracy, this result would not be considered remarkable for a political party. But this is no criticism of the WP because it had to fight and win over the prevailing mindset of many Singaporeans (especially the older ones) that PAP equals safe and good while opposition equals dangerous.
Are Singaporeans trapped in stagnation because of our narrow mindsets?
WP MP Leon Perera made an impassioned speech in Parliament on Tuesday (Apr 18) as he defended the policies the WP has proposed as not merely “populist ideas” that cause trust in government to erode, as alleged by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, the day before.
“We should not strive for a political landscape where the public innately trusts the government but innately distrusts the Opposition or vice versa… We should strive for a politically educated, engaged populace that accords trust based on facts and evidence from independent institutions that function as intended.”
And, this wasn’t just baseless emotion. The Aljunied GRC MP backed up his speech with concrete plans for implementing this.
1. Delink the People’s Association from the ruling political party. The current system creates a sense that state resources are invested in promoting the government’s thinking and the ruling party’s politicians, which unlevel the playing field for politics and ideas.
2. Create an Ombudsman with the investigative capacity to strengthen confidence that the state and ruling party are accountable and cannot simply shut down a grievance that may be politically costly or for other reasons. At the very least, a second unbiased opinion would be of value.
3. Thirdly, ensure that funding for civil society, the arts, and so on is handled by independent committees that are not linked to the government of the day.
4. Fourthly, since we do not have a Freedom of Information Act, we should publish every single public opinion poll and data collection effort conducted with state funds, redacted only for anything that has clear and strong commercial or national security sensitivities, for better-informed debate amongst political parties, civil society groups and citizens.
5. Fifth, allow Opposition MPs to engage school students in their MP capacity alongside ruling party MPs and Ministers, a subject I have raised in this House before. Exposing them only to PAP politicians and barring non-PAP ones in most student engagement contexts does not achieve this.
There has long been criticism that the PA is too closely associated with the PAP, thereby blurring the lines between state and political party. Ultimately, the PA is there to serve all Singaporeans and not just the PAP and its supporters. While it was set up at a time when the PAP was the only viable choice, times have changed. The PA is funded by taxpayers and should be for the benefit of all Singaporeans, and not be confused as an executive arm of a political party.
Information, or lack thereof, has long been a bugbear for opposition politicians who sometimes struggle to get data. Interested Singaporeans are also, at times, frustrated by the difficulty in obtaining accurate data. A lack of reliable information leads to speculation and rumours, creating distrust and misinformation. This is not the recipe for a strong and stable state.
In this day and age of social media, where the lines between facts and baseless opinions are blurred, Singaporeans need access to a reliable source of information they can trust. If reliable data is difficult to access, this will create an environment where people don’t know who is telling the truth and could backfire on the Government if people start believing rumours.
While the Government has introduced legislation such as POFMA to ostensibly deal with fake news, does this work? There are legislation limits. Access to reliable data is the best way to build long-term trust. In other words, the Government should perhaps seek to share data openly instead of trying to control the narrative.
Mr Perera’s suggestion of student engagement is particularly constructive. After all, one of life’s key skills is to critically analyse any situation. If students are not exposed to the cut and thrust of debate and argument, how will they navigate the challenges of a global economy?
We are at a point where opposition MPs are not even invited to Edusave award ceremonies! Given that the Ministry of Education is supposed to be non-partisan, this is mind-boggling and unacceptable.
Our country is at a point of development where we should be able to make informed and mature decisions about who we wish to vote for. But yet, many of us still have an “us versus them” mentality when in reality, it should just be about what is best for Singapore.