Perspectives: The State of Democracy in Singapore (Garry
Rodan)
SGR: Among other issues, your insights include
politics in Singapore. What do you think is the status of democracy
in Singapore now, compared to 10 years ago? Is the Singapore
experience unique?
Garry: Singapore does not have a democratic
political system. It has an authoritarian system that
systematically obstructs genuine political competition for the
exercise of state power. In the last 10 years, though, this has
been combined with various new opportunities for Singaporeans to
engage in PAP-controlled or sponsored forms of political
participation. In effect, authoritarian rule has become more
sophisticated but the scope for competing with the PAP hasn't
significantly changed.
SGR: The PAP has come back to power election after
election. The PAP argues that they won the elections fair and
square. But it might not be that simple. Despite the election, is
Singapore really democratic as the PAP claims?
Garry: The elections cannot be a meaningful
political contest while an independent civil society is
systematically blocked in Singapore. Without opportunities for
opposition parties to forge links with such organisations they are
unable to build effective social bases and embark on political
mobilisation. Meanwhile, the PAP has at its disposal an abundance
of state-controlled or affiliated organisations, including the
NTUC. The ready use of defamation suits by the PAP against
opponents and the fact that all domestic media are
government-controlled further limits the opportunity for a serious
contest of ideas and scrutiny of the ruling party.
SGR: Has the way the PAP curbed its political
opposition changed much? Is co-option still the preferred route in
eliminating challengers to the PAP? Will defamation law suits
remain the main form of intimidation?
Garry: Adminsitrative law has become an important
means for blunting political opponents. The licensing system for
public rallies is a prime example of this. What has happened over
time is that the PAP has relied more on legal and administrative
techniques to curtail serious political opponents, while adopting
various new forms of cooption (notable expanded avenues for
political consulation through the nmps scheme, feedback unit/reach,
committees of enquiry etc.) To try and pre-empt any swelling of
opposition ranks.
SGR: The Singapore Government prefers the term
"civic society" to "civil society". What are the implications on
political activism and the democratisation process in
Singapore?
Garry: The Government does not accept the idea of
genuinely independent extra-parliamentary groups that could became
a base for oppositional politics. Yet it is prepared to accept or
even promote social groups that are supportive of the PAP or not in
serious competition with its ideas. The implication is that instead
of the political space of civil society expanding, it is the
political space of the state that is likely to grow.
SGR: How can the "civil society" in Singapore grow
and grow to the point that it can make a real difference?
Garry: A genuine civil society, that is
independent, is arguably illegal under the Societies Act.
Therefore, either the repeal of that law or the defiance of it
would be necessary to achieve civil society in Singapore.
SGR: Despite the Government's attempts to control
the Internet, how optimistic are you about the role of the Internet
in bringing about political change in Singapore?
Garry: Unless the Internet is being harnessed by
or to the development of collective organisational activity it will
have a limited significance for political change. Individuals may
be able to criticise the Government or raise some good ideas. But
without a capacity to convert this into political mobilisation in
support of concrete reform programmes it will pose little threat to
the ruling party.
SGR: To what degree can Singaporeans grow
democracy in Singapore by themselves? What kind of outside help is
or not suitable given the PAP's authoritarian streak?
Garry: Democracy has to be internally generated.
It cannot rely on a white knight from outside -- especially as the
ruling party in Singapore delights in depicting liberal democracy
as an alien, 'western' phenomenon and exploits any hint of 'outside
political interference'. Nevertheless, struggles for democracy in
any country can be externally supported (not driven or initiated)
by sympathisers in other countries. In the Singapore case,
international legal bodies are among those that can play a role,
since many of the techniques that constrain political competition
are based in law. The PAP craves international recognition for the
integrity of its legal system.
SGR: To conclude, what advice do you have for
activists involved in the democratisation process for
Singapore?
Garry: None. As an academic, my role is not to
prescribe political strategies for singaprean activists but to
offer explanations for anyone who is interested of how political
dynamics there are developing and why.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garry is the author of
Transparency and Authoritarian Rule in Southeast Asia
(RoutledgeCurzon2004), The Political Economy of Singapores
Industrialization (MacMillan, 1989), the editor of Political
Oppositions in Industrializing Asia (Routledge 1996), Singapore
Changes Guard (Longman 1993) and Singapore (Ashgate 2001), and the
joint editor of The Political Economy of Southeast Asia (Oxford
University Press 1997, Revised editions 2001 and 2006) and
Southeast Asia in the 1990s: Authoritarianism, Capitalism and
Democracy (Allen & Unwin 1993). He has published dozens of book
chapters and journal articles, including-recent pieces on the
political economy of the international media in Asia in
Democratization, Internet and political control in Singapore in
Political Science Quarterly and on transparency reform in Singapore
and Malaysia in The Pacific Review and New Political
Economy.
http://www.sgreview.org/index.php?q=node/23