Democracy in Singapore Essay Example

myriad of unsavory tactics to ensure they maintain power. Ultimately, one must ask how effective such strategies are- does employing such hard-line scare tactics really cause the increasing politically mature, practical-minded Singaporeans to give up their pretensions of idealism which might sway them to vote opposition, and is it worthwhile in the long run considering the recrimination it causes. The political structure of Singapore is a unique by-product tailored to its local context, which evolved from the Westminster structure. Over the course of history, the PAP government introduced political reforms and policies such as the NMPs, NCMPs and GRCs schemes to adapt to the changing political climate in Singapore.

These policies have been introduced under the context of providing the opposition a place in the parliament to be heard, and to raise the quality of debate.However, the GRC system has been repeatedly criticized by the opposition as being a disservice to the citizens because of the introduction of members who have not been directly voted by the people. The implementation of these new policies appear to be for the purpose of increasing democracy in Singapore, but as one delve deeper into these changes, they seem to suggest actions taken by the PAP to further its political agenda.As mentioned, by definition, Singapore appears to be a democratic society, with fair elections in the sense that it allows equal opportunities for both the PAP and its oppositions to engage the general public with their policies. Yet there are several tactics employed by the PAP that seem to marginalize its oppositions.From instances of gerrymandering; where sudden redrawing of electoral boundaries, often within a month or two of elections, in

order to impede the opposition preparation, to instances of threats to the public such as those over the upgrading of flats, and finally the cases of legal action and other harassment brought to bear against opposition members, for instance, defamation suits against Dr.

Chee Soon Juan for accusing the PAP of controlling the constitution; there are significant doubts as to how fair the PAP have and are willing to play.Although adjusting policies at the very last minute before an election affects all the parties, including itself, PAP has the competitive advantage of a strong track record and overwhelming parliamentary majority. Further, the time period between each General Election in Singapore is also relatively longer than the other democratic states, such as the United States, where elections are held consistently every four years. The announcement of the election dates is also only released just before the election itself.

This inflexibility in the political system is detrimental to the opposition parties and also place severe restrictions on the citizens in terms of their rights to decide when to have an election. Chief reasons for the PAPs continued dominance The PAP s ability to maintain its hegemony to date can be attributed to two main reasons, firstly, the PAP has been introducing schemes in the electorate system to suppress the opposition, and secondly, the PAPs control over the grassroots organizations have established the required link between itself and the citizens. Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) As mentioned earlier, the NMP scheme has been employed by the PAP to function as an institution to prevent potential opposition by taking the talented and qualified individual inside their ranks, thus greatly limiting the

pool of talent for the opposition right from the onset. Quoting Bilver Singh, by bringing these talents into the political system in a safe and non-threatening manner, the PAP is effectively denying the oppositional forces the possibility of recruiting these talents into their ranks.

Although this scheme was introduced to increase the quality of parliamentary debates, through the act of including these qualified individuals into parliament, it is not sufficient to serve as a check and balance to the ruling party. Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) The NMCP scheme was first introduced in 1984 to increase the quality of parliamentary debates with the presence of oppositional voices. Through this scheme, even if the opposition fail to win any seat in the general election, the top opposition candidate that scored the highest would sit in the parliament as NCMPs.Bilveer Singh notes given that PAP controls nearly all seats in parliament and that the NCMPs have only limited voting rights, the NCMP's role is limited to merely being a voice in parliament debate.

??? Thus, even though an oppositional voice in parliament has been secured by the NMCP scheme, they actually do not have enough political clout in the policy formulating process due to their limited voting right. This seems to be PAP???s tongue-in-cheek way of appeasing those who just want an oppositional voice in parliament.In 2010, the maximum number of six NCMPS was increase to nine, with the intent to significantly change the dynamics of the parliamentary debates. However, NCMP Sylvia Lim, on the basis of her experience in parliament, criticized this new effort made by the PAP to even out the playing field; in her opinion, the

PAP should instead try to solve the problem at its roots- the GRC system and gerrymandering.

She also question if any insurance or contingency is in place, if the PAP were to falter or succumb to corruption.Many others speculate that the NCMP scheme has been put in place to further marginalize the need for opposition, by portraying the false image that the opposition has been given a voice in parliament and also to serve as a check and balance on the ruling PAP. Further, the fact remains that NCMPs are limited by the lack of voting power on critical issues that ultimately make the difference, thus making them figureheads. This has left many Singaporeans, especially the well educated and politically conscious elites feeling cynical about ???democracy??? here and leaving them feeling alienated at what they perceive to be government dirty tactics.Group Representation Constituencies (GRC) The government introduced the GRC scheme in 1988 to ensure that ethnic minorities could participate in parliament.

This scheme did ensure that ethnic minorities could have a representative in parliament. However, it has also greatly marginalized the opposition, due to the limited pool of minority candidates, and this problem is magnified since the ability of this ethnic minority candidate is crucial in securing any GRC. As compared to the PAP, the opposition has a much limited pool of talents and funds, therefore creating yet again, new challenges on top of the already insurmountable ones.

Silver Singh summarizes the aforementioned trials that the oppositions face with the following statement: opposition parties, which at the onset are already challenged by their limited talents, manpower, and funds, find it difficult to set up a team to contest

for GRCs. Even when they do contest in one, the opposition is fearful of losing its electoral deposit, which in the 2006 general elections stood at S$13,000 per candidate. The GRC system has also been deemed to be highly detrimental to the democratic development of Singapore as it has been constantly introducing Singapore Parliament members who have not been directly voted in y the people.

As such, some of them have become out of touch, unsympathetic, or even condescending to the very people that they are supposed to serve. Grassroots Organizations In Singapore, grassroots organizations are closely linked to the PAP government and many of them are created to promote and spread the Pap's policies and values, and also act as a platform for the PAP to garner feedback from the citizens. Through this deep embedment in the grassroots, the PAP is able to address the consequences of various issues and policies quickly so as to pacify the concerns of the citizens and limit the damages to the very minimal.Although this strong link may be viewed as beneficial to the Singaporean citizens, it has, on the other hand, been criticized as a ploy taken to suppress the opposition. According to Kenneth Paul, broadly, the grassroots sector has helped the PAP to maintain its political dominance, contributing to and extending the party ideological hegemony that would simultaneously secure a national will to succeed, a lasting mandate to rule and, if these were ever eroded, an extensive set of instruments for surveillance and control. The PAP, being deeply rooted in the Grassroots, is a crucial factor for its continued dominance.

Overall, the PAP government will continue to maintain its

dominance due to the ease at which it can introduce electoral reforms, despite any resistance from the oppositions, as well as its strong association with the grassroots organizations. The electoral reforms as such the NMP, NCMP, as well as the GRC system has also been successful in impeding the opposition in gaining political influence. This suggests that as long as the PAP to bring economic success to the country, the political landscape will remain as it is for a long time to come. Most of the literature describing Singapore as a dictatorship is often originated from the western countries. For the ruling People???s Action Party that has 82 out of 84 seats, and has been in power throughout the country's entire history, it does seem convenient to label the Singapore government as such. The problem, many argue, including Bryan Caplan and the Minister Mentor himself is that Singapore's political climate should be compared to democratic cities and not countries.

The crux of the matter is; small polities measured in terms of population and land area are less diverse. To put things in perspective, 3 million people squeezed into a few square miles, have a higher probability to converge in world view, as compared to, if they were to span a continent. Caplan even went on to argue based on how the size matters on the demand and supply side of politics. On the demand side, smaller polities have less voter disagreement about the kind of politicians they want; on the supply side, smaller polities have less diverse candidates to offer This is in line with the view of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew: the reason why

there is no place for the opposition in Singapore is that if they were to consider the problems that Singapore is facing, and come up with solutions, they would arrive at the same conclusions that we have (Hard Truths). The PAP government's position has long been that the Western liberalist argument that a minimalist state that promotes a liberal democratic culture is a prerequisite for a prosperous state, is not supported by facts-and even if so, is not suitable for Asian societies. Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong asserts that Singapore's economic prowess is evidence that the Singaporean system is working and effective.

In fact, the economic success, under the PAP's ruling that can be seen in the transformation of Singapore over the last three decade from a rural society to an urban, cosmopolitan metropolis is indisputable, and is also the chief reason for the party???s political dominance. This continued dominance is despite the many attempts by the opposition to argue that this security that PAP provides is just an illusion, and any raising of living standards, as harped on by the PAP has not been significant. Thus, despite the fact that Singapore boasts of one of the most transparent voting processes in the world, the democracy index rates Singapore at 84 in the world in terms of political freedom and civil liberties, placing them among the ranks of Iraq and Kenya. The reality of the Singapore political arena is that the PAP has become synonymous with the government itself and the opposition exist only for the purpose as a form of check and balance for the PAP. Even if the opposition manages to beat the odds

and rise up as the next government, the same phenomenon of a one-party state will resurface.

This situation is different from any other democracy in the world, where parties have equal chances of winning an election. The PAP has been driving the Singaporean politics since its separation from Malaysia in 1965. This hegemony of more than four decades has allowed the PAP to handpick talents even before they enter the political scene, leaving the oppositions with the second rate candidates. This can be seen most starkly in the educational disparity between the PAP and the opposition leaders.The citizens may be given the freedom of choosing the people they want to be governed by, but a Hobson choice will still occur, where they will still pick the better alternative which is the PAP, with its solid track record and highly qualified leaders.

Hence, the view arises that this as an infringement of the whole fundamental idea of democracy as the government is not elected by choice; but rather due to the lack of one. This distortion has further been exacerbated by the PAP???s clout to use the mass media to their advantage.PAP has been regulating the mass media since it came to power; just like how the citizens have no choice but to choose the PAP, they have no alternative to the voice of Singapore Press Holdings (SPH), a monopoly. SPH has a 20% stake in Mediacorp TV Holdings, 40% stake in Mediacorp Press and 80% stake in SPH UnionWorks. MediaCorp is a group of commercial media companies specializing primarily in television and radio broadcasting, interactive media, newspaper publishing and to a lesser extent, film-making. It is also

a monopoly and free-to-air television, owned by Temasek Holdings - PAP's wholly-owned investment arm.

As much as the PAP tries to justify this lack of press freedom under the pretext of protecting the social structure from malicious intents, the policy has fundamentally made Singapore an authoritarian state as opposed to a democratic one. It is no wonder that Singapore media was ranked lowly, 136 of 177, in the Reporters Without Border, Freedom Press Index 2010. Further, the PAP has managed to instill a culture of fear into the psyche of its citizens, fostering an environment of self-censorship and to enforce the same to those around them for fear of the consequences as demonstrated by the plights of opposition leaders. This has led many people to be pragmatic, focused on the economic gains and stability provided by the PAP, perhaps even to the extent of political apathy. Coupled together with the restrictions placed on the media has resulted in a culture hegemony that no one can break out of.

Singaporeans have unknowingly or otherwise, traded their human rights for a higher standard of living and stability. The other school of thought is that, the Singaporean society operates on a meritocratic basis, where rewards are given based on ability, regardless of language, religion, race or social status. The law protects the rights of every individual, where no one is above the law and ensure that the free and fair election system mean that the votes of every individual are equal.The psyche of fear is also unfounded, since a trawl through cyberspace and blogospheres, will present you with hard evidence of how Singaporeans are unafraid to speak their minds against

the policies of the PAP. More pragmatically, Singapore boasts of being one of the safest and fairest countries to live in.

Conclusion To conclude, Singapore is still a long way from being truly a democratic state. Instead, the PAP government has adapted from the Westminster model from the British and taking it into the unique contexts of Singapore. While some of the political reforms rolled out by the PAP government may be coercively marginalizing the oppositions and curtailing the human rights of its citizens, it is unfair to say that the PAP is not upholding a democratic society. This can be seen by its fair and meritocratic method of handling major issues such as the elections, as such, it is only reasonable to define Singapore as an illiberal democratic state.

Finally, until Singaporeans attain political maturity as characterized by an upsurge of civil society participating actively and without fear in politics, democracy can wait.

Bibliography

1. http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/11/democracy_in_si.htmlhttp://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2005/11/01/1495616.htmhttps://rsf.org/en/news/asian-communist-regimes-still-hold-lowest-rankings