This has been the hallmark of Singapore’s style of governance and performance since the city-state’s Independence in 1965. However, support for the PAP fell by six percentage points from the last general election in 2006, alerting the PAP to be more attentive to sentiments on the ground. In the words of Mr Yeo, ‘from time to time, it’s important to shake the box. Because whatever system you set up, after a while, it becomes so predictable that it doesn’t capture all the feedback that it needs to have. So a certain shaking of the box is required from time to time, and this is such a time.’ That said, the 60.1 per cent is still a healthy figure, certainly by international standards.
The opposition, too, did well. The Workers’ Party (WP) emerged as the strongest opposition party by displacing the PAP in a five-member Group Representation Constituency — where contestants run as a team — which was helmed by Mr Yeo, and retaining a Single Member Constituency. Combined with three Non-Constituency Members of Parliament — the opposition’s three ‘best losers’ — and another nine Nominated MPs, the opposition and other non-PAP voices will feature prominently in the legislature. The WP’s Low Thia Kiang, who led the opposition charge, is a veteran parliamentarian who can be expected to convey voters’ dissatisfaction over policies and engage the Government in robust debate.
Finally, Singaporeans were the greatest winners in the polls, which lived up to expectations of being a watershed election. The image of Singaporeans being politically apathetic and content with making a living has been dashed forever. Instead, the campaign period witnessed genuine, informed debate over policies, particularly immigration and the high cost of living, including health-care costs and the access of first-time buyers to public housing. The opposition came up with a slew of alternative policies, the PAP questioned their viability, and both sides had their say as the populace listened intently. The campaign period provided a degree of public education. This election was important also because the climate of fear that was said to pervade Singapore politics was shed, for all to see. Voters made their views and feelings known in both the traditional and the new social media with an intensity that could not have existed in a climate of fear.
Before, during and now, after the elections, the debate focused on a core issue that will shape Singapore’s governance and its society well into the future. This issue is the nature of success. Instead of the traditional reliance on GDP growth rates as a fundamental and largely conclusive index of Singapore’s success, this General Election suggested that many Singaporeans prefer a more inclusive set of indices that reflect the redistribution of wealth in society.
Singapore just had an Orchid Revolution. As is to be expected in the Garden City, that revolution was entirely peaceful.
Ambassador K. Kesavapany is director of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. He is also Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Jordan.
The suggestion that Singapore has experienced a “revolution” is not only laughable but, worse, it is an insult to the genuine struggles for democratic change underway across the Middle East.
The fact of the matter is that the electoral process in Singapore is neither free not fair and heavily favors the perpetuation of PAP incumbency. The poor and the non-Chinese continue to be the losers in the garden city.
Revolution – far from it.
All the voters did was to give the ruling party a slap on the wrist for their policies and a slap on the face for the MM for his outdated politic. They still give them the 60% to form the government.
The real revolution will come on GE 2016 if they don’t take heed.
Like SingaporeWatcher, I question the appropriateness of including a puff-piece from a Singaporean government representative in this Forum. Any country that discriminates against opposition movements to the extent that Singapore does (mostly via defamation action against even minor critics of the government) can not be considered a democracy. Singapore (along with Malaysia) has been specifically excluded from the UN’s Community of Democracies for that reason. Disingenuou coverage of the recent election does nothing to change this reality.
I understand that Hosni Mubarak used to win elections in Egypt with more than 90 per cent margin. Wonder what happened to Hosni?
Mr Reilly speaks of puff. He seems to be quite full of it, inappropriately tackling the author because of where he comes from rather than the point that he makes quite persuasively. The shift in the Singapore polls, which Dr Kesavapany correctly anticipated in an earlier piece, changes the fundaments of Singapore politics though another 10 percentage point shift will be required to change the government. And Mr Kesavapany would appear to be on the mark when he says that the political calculus of economic success will work easily no more.
I have difficulties in understanding the Singaporean election system: \The People’s Action Party (PAP) was returned to power with a credible 60.1 per cent of the vote in a promise of economic growth and political stability in the next five years. With 81 out of the 87 seats in Parliament, the Government will enjoy a strong electoral mandate on which to plan and pursue policies decisively for the long term.\
How do 60.1% of the vote translate to 81 out of the 87 seats in Parliament?
81 of out of 87 means more than 90%, doesn’t it?
The system must have some rather interesting features of some sort of biases to produce these results. Or the election was distributed in a way that channelled the results to favouring the PAP.
Lincoln: One reason the PAP wins 90+% of seats with 60 % of the vote is that most seats in Singapore’s Parliament are in winner-take-all multi-member electorates of up to 5 members each. If Singapore had 87 single-member electorates, along Australian lines, geographic diversity might well have given the opposition more seats. If it had proportional representation, it certainly would have given the opposition more seats. A second factor however is that Singapore appears not to be divided geographically by income in the way that Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide are. There are certainly central areas where the rich live, but to a casual observer, the rest of it doesn’t provide striking contrasts betweeen wealth and poverty. It is that class division in suburban Australia that gave Labor 19 of the 93 seats in the NSW election with just 36% of the two-party vote.
Lincoln,
Gerrymandering, voter intimidation and candidate intimidation are standard strategies for the PAP.
5 of the 6 seats that went against the government were from the same voting district (they were an electoral package so to speak). You can be sure that the government redraws the boundaries of that district before the next election to make sure there aren’t so many opposition voters in the same electorate next time.
Singaporean friends of mine have claimed that they daren’t vote against the government because government services aren’t provided to areas with high opposition votes. People on national service (compulsory for young men) think they’re required to vote for the PAP as part of their national service. Most Singaporeans believe that they don’t have secret ballot and that if they vote against PAP they will face scurrilous litigation (eg trumped up sodomy charges) or their employer will be put under pressure to fire them. The opposition spent a lot of their time convincing the electorate that the ballot was in fact secret. But the media in Singapore doesn’t really cover opposition rallies and speeches.
This election was the first time that there were actually opposition candidates in most electorates. Still no one dared oppose Lee Kwan Yew for fear of their freedom (putting yourself forward as a candidate in opposition to him is widely regarded as something you don’t do if you value your family or your freedom).
So, you’re right to be confused by Mr Kesavapany’s article: its quite misleading. The suggestion that 60 per cent of the vote gives the government an electoral mandate is outrageous. 60 per cent of the vote is a very healthy figure by international standards. But Singapore doesn’t have an international standard democracy. 40per cent opposed is a huge rejection of the government.
It will be worth watching over the next few years to see how marginalised the 6 opposition members of parliament become. If they do exceptionally well, next election Singapore may actually begin to smell like a democracy.
I wish I could put my actual name to this, but I don’t want to have future visa applications denied.