China released Singapore’s military hardware in late January, but then sent a new message of displeasure — Singapore was not welcome at Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Forum in May 2017. While Lee did not attend the Forum, he later led high-level delegations to both Beijing and Washington, successfully recovering much lost ground.
Singapore’s ongoing balancing act between China and the US will continue in 2018 with a new factor in play — it is Singapore’s turn as Chair of ASEAN. This position puts Lee on the front line of regional attention. Awkwardly for this balancing act, Lee’s first statement as incoming Chair was a declaration of hope that the United States would continue its engagement with ASEAN and the region.
Recovering lost ground in foreign policy might be a modest achievement. But domestically, the government is in a state of perpetual crisis management interspersed with misguided political judgements.
The first domestic crisis of 2017 erupted in June when Lee’s brother and sister, Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Wei Ling, turned to foreign media and social media to reveal ongoing legal disputes over their father’s will. The dispute was not over money but rather over control of the family home. Prime Minister Lee wants to turn it into a national monument to his father, but his siblings want to follow their father’s wishes by bulldozing it.
This family argument over inheritance became a national issue when the siblings accused Lee Hsien Loong of abusing his power as prime minister to build a family cult around his father’s name — all to bolster his own standing and to smooth the eventual rise to the prime ministership of his son, Li Hongyi. This unresolved dispute has damaged both the Lee brand and Li Hongyi’s prospects of entering politics.
A second major crisis erupted in October when the regular pattern of train breakdowns on the Mass Rapid Transport system escalated into a major episode — a pumping station in a tunnel failed during an ordinary storm causing an entire train line to be closed by flooding for 20 hours. The cause of the problem proved to be mundane — maintenance work had been neglected and work sheets falsified.
The Minister for Transport Khaw Boon Wan magnified the damage by unilaterally exonerating both the government and the senior management of Singapore Mass Rapid Transit Corporation. He was particularly singled out for exonerating its CEO Desmond Kuek, whom he thanked as a ‘volunteer’ — a role for which he is paid S$1.87 million (US$1.39 million) per year. Khaw went on to praise him for having his ‘heart in the right place’.
This episode of ordinary mismanagement was politically significant because it highlights an established pattern of widespread administrative failures and deteriorating government services under Lee’s watch. It also confirmed the perception that highly paid ‘establishment’ figures are protected from the consequences of their actions. Back in 2008 Lee offered similar protection to former deputy prime minister and minister for home affairs Wong Kan Seng when he let an alleged terrorist escape police custody. Wong retained his positions in Cabinet for another three years because Lee stated he had only made ‘an honest mistake’.
The government has also made several political missteps in 2017. Such missteps included Lee’s odd selection of topics for his National Day Rally Speech in August — a speech equivalent to the US State of the Union address. With Singapore facing challenges on many fronts — managing Xi Jinping and Donald Trump, the South China Sea, rising protectionism, trains, the economy and challenges to Singapore’s role as an air hub — he lectured the population on the dangers of diabetes, which seems to have left most people nonplussed.
Singaporeans had also been anxiously awaiting new developments on Lee’s successor since he announced in 2016 that he intended to step down as prime minister in 2020. In a country where both the populace and the markets expect long lead times for prime ministerial succession planning — generally a warning of five years or more is given — concern is starting to grow that no clear successor has either been named or emerged.
Perhaps Lee’s greatest misstep was his handling of the presidential election. The government’s preferred candidate for president was almost defeated in the 2011 elections by popular Chinese rival Tan Cheng Bock. Tan was planning to run again and so the government excluded him by restricting eligibility for election to ethnic Malays under the rather thin cover of enhancing multiracialism.
This was effective in removing any challenge from Tan, but left just one candidate in the race after two of the three Malay candidates were excluded on other grounds. The episode left a widespread impression that the constitution and the electoral rules are just the plaything of the government, and has done significant damage to both the standing of the presidential office and the government.
While Singapore’s government has made some positive steps in terms of foreign policy in 2017, its handling of domestic issues has been sub-par. It was a particularly messy year for a government that claims to be preparing for a generational handover in 2020, and it does not bode well for the longevity of the Lee Kuan Yew model of governance.
Michael D Barr is an Associate Professor of International Relations in the College of Business, Government and Law, Flinders University.
This article is part of an EAF special feature series on 2017 in review and the year ahead.
Thanks for some details of the dynamics of the domestic politics which were not familiar to me. The author does not quite say it but he implies that the Lee family has been in power so long that they have become more invested in ensuring their dynasty than in pursuing the best interests of the people. Does the Constitution really allow for free and open elections of leaders outside of the inner circle that the Lee’s have built? Or is that too radical a notion for this city state?
This whole article I am sorry to say is a joke . Falsifying a work sheet is a crisis in administration on the national level?
The first example of a “domestic crisis proved to be a massive mischaracterisation of the incident and any one that reads the SCMP will see that it was not as described in this article. The HK gov seized military vehicles ( NOT CHINA) and why?
Because they were brought in without a proper license. So what , big deal. That is what customs does. If I bring in beef jerky from the wrong country it will be seized . Should I go whine to the United Nations and overthrow my idiot President Trump?
Singaporeans whine about the silliest things . But I guess when you are in a country that is run as well as it is, every hair out of place in your left ear is a “domestic crisis”
No government is perfect but from the prespective of what the leading English speaking nations offer, Singapore surely looks good. It is hardly in government crisis because the prime minister disagrees with his sibling about whether or not to keep the family home as a museum. Nor do some inconvenient delays on the subway constitut a crisis. The Presidential question is a difficult constitutional debate on which I’m not qualified to offer an opinion. It’s misguided though to judge Singapore on these petty issues when it’s facing tremendous external challenges.
I’m not convinced by the incidents selected to demonstrate that 2017 was a horrible year for PM Lee. Some of the “incidents” are minor and merely evidence of arrogance or bureaucratic incompetence not international trade treaty failures.
On International trade, Trump killing the TPP so soon after Lee’s extravagently hyped visit with Obama, counts as horrible. This sent Lee scurrying to Trump to place a large order for Boeing jets. The incident showed that Lee had misjudged and put all his eggs in the basket that Obama was carrying.
Looking to the States again, the single greatest horrible event for Singapore and the Lee family personally, was the 13 page ruling released by the judge presiding over the Amos Yee asylum hearing. I know no other event where any non-political figure of similar standing and expertise has grasped the facts about the iron grip that the Lee family has on Singapore and that it uses to exert control and strangle dissent and then laid it out for the world to see. That the whole incident was a hysterical reaction to an obnoxious teenager’s unflattering reaction to Lee Kuan Yew’s death only heightened the embarrassment for the younger Lee. Why is this not mentioned?
Yes, the Lee family showed some of its true face to the world but Singaporeans have long known what they’re about. Presumably money changed hands as the Lee siblings went quiet very suddenly although a nephew is now being sued which bodes ill for 2018. However this was viewed as an internal family spat and the siblings put out statements that they have no love of, alignment with or support for the Opposition. Therefore the spat remained a personal family issue not likely to cause political instability.
Yes, Singaporeans get exercised when their transport system doesn’t run well but they’ve mostly been fortunate enough not to have to travel in anyone else’s. That Lee exonerated his Ministers shows how far from horrible he feels the incident to be.
In the arena of Human Rights Lee feels no need to soften his touch and continues to stand out in the region as a non-theocracy criminalising homosexuality as well as executing drug mules and harvesting their organs. This year he stepped up his persecution of artists and bloggers.
The PAP did indeed “fix” the Presidential election but the role became a toothless one some time ago and so long as the Opposition come nowhere near holding 1/3 of seats in Parliament it will continue to be a non-Issue. Singaporeans are inured to seats not being contested. In 2017 objections to the rigging of the system are gaining a bit more traction because the man who lost out, Dr Tan, who himself has benefitted every which way including financially from the rigged systems as a PAP power holder, is belatedly kicking up a stink. He significantly failed to object to walk- over elections and onerous criteria when he held power. Much in the same way that Tan Jee Say, a PAP man and former private sec to the PM, made some noise when he lost. Hell hath no fury like a PAP office holder scorned and denied a nice pot of gold for retirement.
PM Lee will not be disturbed by the reactions it is after all silly season in Singapore, mid-election, when political parties are formed with great promise and “Chinese” heroes emerge only to sink into oblivion or to fracture and re-align in the seat-fixing talks that the opposition hold just before every election.
With regards to Opposition, Lee has “fixed” the Worker’s Party and their leader Low by using their own avarice and cronyism against them. Not that Low was ever going to allow his party to fulfill the role of Opposition or contest enough seats to be able to defeat a government veto of a Presidential decision but now he has been hoisted on his own petard rather nicely.
Meanwhile hollow growth figures continue to rise and all sorts of people who should know better, scramble to recognise Singapore as a glowing example of a successful city State. Here in the U.K. it is often held aloft as an example of what Brexit could achieve.
I’ve no doubt Lee sees it as a very good year indeed.