Blurring state and
party lines
INSIGHT: DOWN SOUTH
By SEAH CHIANG NEE
If China and Singapore can become twinned on the world state, they
can promote a new global order that would blend authoritarianism
and capitalism.
Some of the brightest Chinese officials have been coming to study
how the ruling party has achieved prosperity and won elections
while retaining its one-party predominance.
Such study trips – which cover the economic, social and political
areas – have been reported occasionally.
Some observers believe that
Singapore’s politics, with its top-down system, may be of special
interest to China’s Communist Party as it ponders over reform
options.
The latest comment came from Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, who said
that many groups, representing different levels of the Chinese
government, had been coming in recent years to attend study
courses.
On one visit – according to Lee – they showed interest in how his
People’s Action Party (PAP), with a small suburban office, could
reach out to its crowded heartland electorate.
The answer they got would have given them a lesson on how the PPP
can benefit from its incumbent power by blurring the line
separating state from party.
In his outspoken way, Lee admitted that all
grassroots organisations (with nearly 30,000 community workers)
which interact and organise activities in the estates were actually
part of his party.
It is used by the PAP to foster bonds with Singaporeans.
Since they are publicly-funded and overseen by the People’s
Association, a government statutory board under the Ministry of
Community Development, the community workers are supposed to be
non-partisans.
“... Everywhere they (the Chinese) go, they
see the PAP – in the RCs (residents’ committees), CCCs (citizens’
consultative committees), and the CCs (community clubs),” Lee
beamed.
The confirmation that these are part of the PAP could become an
embarrassment to his younger ministers as the message sinks
in.
It may also come as a surprise to some of the grassroots volunteers
who thought they were non-partisans working for their
community.
(Already the party recently announced it had difficulty recruiting
enough volunteers, and grassroots bodies were some 35%
understrength.)
The critics don’t faze the architect of the scheme. Lee once
said: “I make no apologies that the PAP is the (Singapore)
government and the government is the
PAP.”
His remarks moved
an online analyst to comment: “No wonder the Chinese Communist
Party (CCP) is so interested to learn from
Singapore.”
The furore shows how much Singaporeans have changed over a
generation.
In the 60s, when Lee was using these tax-funded grassroots
organisations to combat pro-communists and racial extremists, it
seemed natural and few people complained.
But with many of today’s better-educated
youths, the idea of the PAP using tax money against the opposition
in a democracy has become unacceptable.
If the Chinese visitors had probed further, they would have found
that control of grassroots is merely one of an arsenal of weapons
the PAP has to hold on to power.
“If they did, the Chinese might be surprised by the reach of some
of the PAP’s tentacles in the city,” a small businessman
said.
Over 50 years, it has built a whole network
of top-level people to run the civil service, trade unions, the
press, police, armed forces and state-linked corporations that
control much of Singapore’s economy.
The sheer number of people working for them – or associated with
them – is large enough to make the party hard to defeat in an
election.
Even if an opposition party – or coalition – were to win enough
seats to form the government, it may find itself shackled on the
implementation level with such extensive PAP influence in state and
community machinery.
Keeping all these personnel could reduce the chances of smooth
government functioning, at least for awhile, and quickly replacing
a large number of them would be impossible.
The city is too small to allow for such a massive replacement of
experienced people. All these do not make the PAP undefeatable and
irreplaceable, but they render the task extremely difficult.
These “controlling” factors have led
political analysts to regard Singapore as a role model for China to
emulate, should it decide one day to introduce some form of
democracy, without losing power.
“Singapore has shown that its system, although criticised by the
West, can preserve harmony and economic growth while giving people
the vote,” said a PAP supporter.
The relevance of Singapore’s political system to China still crops
up occasionally.
Most commentators say it is impractical given the vast disparity in
size.
One Chinese blogger wrote: “With all due respect to Singapore, I
just don’t want to compare China and Singapore. You can compare
Singapore (population: 5 million) and Shanghai (16 million), or
Hong Kong (7 million).”
Wang Jian Shuo added: “Politi-cally, to rule a city of several
million is, of course, very different (from) ruling a bigger
country (which) actually needs more wisdom in the political
system.
“For example, I don’t want someone in Beijing to make decisions for
me about what my children should believe. So, there is a huge
difference here between Singapore and China.”
Singapore’s top writer, Catherine Lim, however, looks at the
equation from another angle.
At a university forum, she spoke of the emergence of a new breed of
young, sophisticated Singaporeans wanting political freedom and
forcing the PAP leaders to deal with their demands.
“Not if China comes to their rescue,” Lim said.
The outspoken author was referring to a possible 2030 scenario when
China’s power rises, while the United States declines and is unable
to offer an ideological alternative.
Thus, she said, if China and Singapore could blend
authoritarianism and capitalism and become twinned on the world
stage, “the Lee Kuan Yew model of governance will have achieved an
international acceptance that the PAP could never have dreamt
of”.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp...2058&sec=focus
