We wouldn't get this from 140th & co:
WSJ
Singapore's Levers of Power
By GARRY RODAN
February 10, 2006
Elections in Singapore never pose any threat to the ruling People's
Action Party (PAP), which currently holds 82 of the 84 elected
seats in the city state's parliament. With a wide array of
institutional mechanisms at its disposal to see off any prospect of
real political competition, the results are clear long before
voters go to the polls.
But that doesn't mean there aren't issues which can be expected to
come to the fore as Lee Hsien Loong leads his first election
campaign since becoming premier in 2004, with polls possibly due as
early as March. Or that the PAP isn't feeling a little more nervous
than Singapore's recent strong economic performance might
suggest.
Take, in particular, the Jan. 12 announcement of a S$1 billion
(US$613 million) plan to assist Singapore's lowest-paid workers.
This suggests that, in contrast to previous elections, the coming
campaign is likely to see the PAP focus less on its economic
credentials and more on the social issues that it expects to
resonate with Singapore's working class, who are often called the
"HDB heartlanders." This is a reference to the
government-subsidized apartments, built by the Housing Development
Board, which provides homes for 84% of the population.
Despite a booming economy, which saw 108,000 jobs created in 2005,
competition from China, India and Vietnam has hit Singapore's older
unskilled workers hard. For instance, only 30,000 of those new jobs
went to locals. And the 500,000 Singaporean workers with
educational qualifications below secondary school level are having
particular difficulty finding new employment as the economy
restructures toward more skilled jobs.
Hence, the PAP's championing of welfarism, albeit under a different
name. Its proposed Workfare scheme would provide one-off wage
bonuses to workers aged 40 years or older on monthly incomes of
S$1,200 or less. They can also apply for further assistance to
cover housing, skills training and childcare services.
Announcing the scheme, Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen insisted it
wasn't a form of welfarism, since the aim is to reward
participation in the workforce and shore up the work ethic. In
truth, the PAP's only objection to welfarism is its ideological
connotations. It wants to preserve a paternalistic political
relationship in which Singaporeans are rewarded by a benevolent
government.
Increasingly, the PAP is drawing on the country's healthy fiscal
surpluses to roll out welfare initiatives in the run up to
elections. Three months before the 2001 polls it announced the New
Singapore Shares scheme. Under this, Singaporeans were given
between S$200 and S$1,700 worth of shares linked to accumulated
government surpluses, with the option of exchanging some of these
benefits for cash.
That the plight of low-paid workers will feature in the election
campaigns is assured. On Jan. 14, the Workers' Party, which
currently holds one of the two opposition seats, unveiled a
manifesto proposing a minimum wage -- a clear policy alternative to
the PAP's Workfare initiative.
Nor are those at the bottom of the wages rung the only employees
feeling the winds of change in recent years. Government moves to
link wages and salaries more directly to market forces and
productivity have proved contentious. For example, in 2003, members
of the Airline Pilots' Association of Singapore voted out of office
the entire 20-person union executive after dissatisfaction with new
conditions agreed with management. The government promptly amended
the Trades Unions Act to remove the right of union members to
ratify any collective agreement signed by their elected
representatives.
Acknowledging the political challenge posed by economic
restructuring, Lim Boon Heng, the secretary general of the
PAP-affiliated National Trades Union Congress, called in recent
years for a new "social compact" to smooth the process. Under this,
employers should raise skills in return for employee cooperation on
wage flexibility and productivity measures.
Not coincidentally, the Workers' Party manifesto also calls for
barring government ministers from holding office in trade unions.
For instance, Mr. Lim is also a PAP member of parliament, while all
but five of the 68 registered unions in Singapore are affiliates of
the NTUC that he heads. But state labor cooptation is central to
the PAP strategy of industrial and political control. Reforms
towards its dilution will not be countenanced.
Another issue that may provide ground for the opposition to exploit
is the PAP's 2005 policy about face in introducing casinos to
Singapore. This has generated a lot of debate, with the government
permitting uncharacteristic political space for critical comment
through the local media and the activities of non-governmental
organizations. Although not a cause celebre of the PAP's liberal
critics, casinos are a sensitive issue among traditional, socially
conservative supporters of the PAP -- the HDB heartlanders also
feeling the pinch of economic restructuring. The government has
been especially keen to avoid alienating Singapore's ethnic Malays,
who make up 14% of the population, many of whom oppose the casinos
on Islamic religious grounds. However, whether the consultative
process adopted has substantially appeased dissenting views remains
to be seen.
Ultimately, though, the capacity of the political opposition to
capitalize on any of these issues is constrained. Despite charges
of gerrymandering from critics, the government continues to resist
calls for an independent electoral commission. New boundaries are
also usually announced just weeks before elections. In 2001, for
example, voters went to the elections just 17 days after new
electoral boundaries were released. This makes it more difficult
for the opposition to plan and conduct grassroots campaigns.
Candidate deposits of S$13,000 also stretch opposition parties'
resources -- especially in the multi-member constituencies that are
progressively replacing Singapore's single member constituencies.
In the current parliament, there are now only nine elected MPs
representing single-member seats. The rest belong to group
representation constituencies comprising between four and six
members.
Controls on the use of the Internet for electioneering purposes,
including bans on campaigning from non-party political Web sites,
combine with the monopoly of government-controlled domestic media
to limit the opposition's ability to project its policies to the
electorate and to hold debates with the PAP. Crippling defamation
laws have been directed at some of the opposition's most effective
communicators and act as a threat against other would-be
adversaries. Furthermore, the Societies Act bars political
engagement by any groups not registered for such purposes, so
undermining civil society and opposition parties' links to it, a
problem that erodes the political process long before
elections.
Finally, there is a political economy dimension to electoral
intimidation. In the last two elections, for example, Singaporeans
have been warned that electorates returning opposition candidates
face discrimination in the upgrading of Housing Development Board
flats. This dependence on the state renders Singaporeans vulnerable
to political threats. Then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong warned
before the 1997 poll that constituencies electing opposition
candidates would be the last in line for such upgrading. "Then in
20, 30 years' time, the whole of Singapore will be bustling away
and your estate, through your own choice, will be left behind. They
become slums. That's my message," Mr. Goh was quoted as saying
during the campaign. In 2001, Mr. Goh supplemented this by
promising the upgrading of flats in those individual precincts
within the opposition constituency of Potong Pasir where more than
half of the voters supported the PAP.
All of this means that, while there are many issues on which the
PAP may be vulnerable to criticism in the upcoming polls, no one
should expect the new parliament to look very different from the
last.