Politics
Singapore 2030
With 6-7m population, Singapore will rank as medium size world city; politics will be unrecognisably changed too. Seah Chiang Nee.
May 1, 2005

AS the reality of the two casino resorts sinks in, some people are wondering what sort of impact they will have on Singapore's politics.

Short term, it will be minimal. But in the longer term, politics will be transformed to fit into the new global 'fun' - and creative - city that will emerge in future.

The casino decision has run into unexpectedly strong public opposition at a time when the government is preparing for general elections.

Will the unhappiness translate into many lost votes for the ruling People's Action Party?

From the general quieting down of the debate, it looks unlikely to become a big election issue.

One reason is that the anti-gambling voice tends to come from older and conservative Singaporeans, including the staunchly religious, the pro-family traditionalists and, of course, housewives who fear their men folk may be led astray.

Generally, these had been the PAP's strongest supporters and remain so today. Although they hate gambling and fear its damaging impact, few are angry enough to want to vote against the party.

It will also not be a one-way street. While some supporters will switch away from the PAP, a number of antagonists will swing to its camp in support of the promising opportunities and jobs the resorts will create.

In the next four years, as S$5bil worth of investment works itself into the system, the benefits will be felt and confidence will grow.

For now the impact may be small, but it will be significant in the longer term when the "lively" global city takes root. Not only will Singapore change, but its politics as well.

The political leaders have repeatedly talked of turning Singapore into another New York, London or Tokyo, a creative, hub able to attract world-class talent.

The latest to do so is its founding father Lee Kuan Yew, 81, who said he was confident that Singapore could have a vibrant economy of six to seven million people by 2030.

I believe that will happen. But that's some 25 years - or five general elections away. A new generation will have grown up by then.

Singapore, however, cannot be a vibrant global city without a vibrant people free of today's controls. In other words, the politics will have to change - albeit gradually.

The present top-down governance and many of the political controls will have disappeared long before 2030, including a single dominant party and press controls.

These are things that don't jell with a lively, creative Singapore that can take on the best in the world.

Of late, Lee has thrown himself behind Singapore's economic restructuring, even dismantling some of his old policies. Lifting the ban on casinos is just one.

Keenly or reluctantly, he has agreed to a little social opening up by his conservative PAP, including less censorship on films, bars, the performing arts and nightlife in general.

The civil service and half the 2.2 million workers now work a five-day week; nightclubs close at 3am, some movies and restaurants open 24 hours, and gays are given jobs in the bureaucracy.

Talk has become freer and government more responsive. In the early 80s when I was a newspaper editor, advocating safe sex to prevent AIDS was forbidden; it was "encouraging" permissiveness. It should be 'no casual sex'.

How minds have moved! While it represents a milestone, the transformation is regarded by many liberal youths as too little too late.

Lee, known for "head cracking" enemies in his younger days, has himself changed.

A university student recently lashed out at the lack of political check and balance in Singapore and called Lee "a despot" to his face, without getting even a raised eyebrow from him.

But the authoritative, highly regulated system that he assembled is under increasing pressure. Younger Singaporeans want to see freer politics and a freer press, some bad enough to want to migrate elsewhere.

Some observers see the mega casino resorts as a catalyst for faster political change.

Their rationale is this: Lee's 'fun, creative' vision and a world class city cannot work, if Singapore is to be governed like it is now. The politics can't be too far behind the ambition. Vibrancy has to describe the people, too.

For Singapore to remain just another small modern city in Asia is one thing, but if it were to challenge the best of Western (or even emerging Asian ones), it would require a less restrictive environment.

Not everyone agrees with this.

Creative hub or not, global city or not, some critics do not see any lifting of the current state on politics or the media.

PAP leaders have always considered China's economics-before-politics strategy as superior to the former Soviet Union's chaotic push for democracy first before developing its economy.

Some cynics believe the political controls will remain despite the larger migration of Singaporeans abroad. "They'll just replace them with more foreigners and life goes on," said a lawyer.

I do not agree. Nothing remains the same for too long and Singapore is no exception. When people change, politics will follow.

Actually, top leaders have themselves spoken of evolutionary, not revolutionary, change over a measured pace as Singaporeans mature and a civil society emerges.

It has, however, fixed no programme or timetable for it. Lee had always feared that changing it too precipitately could result in society collapsing.

By then, it is argued, people will no longer need laws to behave. Western Europe is regarded as a general model.

For the conservatives, especially parents, too much personal liberty may spell trouble, so changes are not necessarily be for the good. The casino discussion has revealed how divided the society has become. It's only one example.

As the younger set gloats over the newfound social freedoms, many family members are growing anxious whenever they read news - as reported recently - about teenage students visiting brothels or couples organising group sex in Housing Board flats.

The new-generation Singapore that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said he's trying to build may have more resources and opportunities, but it is also more divided. There are forces pulling it in different directions, he said.

(Expanded version of an article that was published in The Sunday Star on May 1, 2005)