Christmas is over...
But Santa comes a-calling
A generous pre-election gift for the poor or a sweetener to seduce voters? By Seah Chiang Nee.
Jan 15, 2006

Government's reaction follows.

WITH general elections just around the corner, Singapore’s latest package of giveaways has just been announced, a one-time S$1bil bonus for Singapore’s disenchanted poorer class.

The government has taken pains to avoid connecting the two, explaining it is surplus budget being returned to the people, but it is only one of a series of “goodies” announcements in recent months.

The authorities say times are better and the money is being passed back to citizens who need it most, the older, lower-income class. Unsurprisingly, they are also among the state’s unhappiest voters for the coming election.

The beneficiaries are some 300,000 citizens, who make up the nation’s poorest 20% with income of less than S$1,200 a month.

Those who earn S$900 or less a month will get a bonus capped at one month’s salary, while those earning S$900 to S$1,200 would get a payment capped at half a month’s salary.

In addition, they will get higher childcare subsidies, new training grants, better paying jobs, and other longer-term measures to help them raise their family incomes.

The state may also provide grants to help these families to buy their first government-built homes.

(Updating: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong later said these were long-term
measures to help the needy, not a polls ploy.)

The government had earlier revealed a S$2bil five-year plan to upgrade public housing and major projects in five constituencies, including “sensitive” ones targeted for challenge by the opposition.

These wards, it is understood, will enjoy the fruits only if the ruling party candidates are returned.

Next month’s budget will also likely include more benefits for the elderly and soldiers.

The coming polls will likely be fought over bread-and-butter issues above other concerns, especially the widening gap between Singapore’s rich and poor. The ruling party obviously wants to defuse them.

The preparations have shown that politics in Singapore is showing that it, too, is capable of being transformed from its past.

Under Lee Kuan Yew’s authoritarian rule, the words “populist democracy” – pandering to voters in an election – were frowned upon simply because he was too popular to need it. For years, he had been winning all or most of the seats.

He had repeatedly said he would not adopt populist policies, unlike India, just to win votes.

Recently his son and current prime minister Lee Hsien Loong criticised Japan’s “pork-barrel” politics that had bedevilled its political system. (It refers to government spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their votes.)

Lee told the Foreign Correspondents Association: “They landed into problems because of corruption, money politics, pork barrelling ... How do we maintain our system and not end up like that?”

What his own People’s Action Party is increasingly doing these days indicates that 21st century Singapore may not be entirely immune to it, although in a paler comparison to Japan.

Politics is part about public perception. Singaporeans are viewing the giveaways as an effort to sweeten the ground for the election. Immediate comments ranged from “election is coming” to “pork barrel politics at its very, very best”.

The government, of course, sees it differently; returning excess budget is not vote-buying. It says the poor has suffered the brunt of the long economic downturn.

Public “goodies” that precede an election have slowly become a new tradition since Lee Kuan Yew’s departure for two reasons.

Firstly, the new generation of voters do not see themselves beholden to the People’s Action Party for Singapore’s progress. Neither do they bond with the new political leadership the way their parents did with Lee Kuan Yew.

They are quick to take umbrage at mistakes but take its achievements for granted.

Secondly, the PAP has been governing Singapore for 40 years since independence. In no country, other than Malaysia, has a non-communist political party been in power for a longer period.

And the longer it stays in power, the tougher the going will become, however efficient it may be.

So the perks have become a crucial factor to win hearts and minds. They appear to be taken as a barometer by materialistic Singaporeans to indicate how caring the PAP is to their welfare.

For the man-in-the-street, high GDP economic growth or fast-rising reserves mean little; they care for jobs and personal benefits. Singaporeans are often heard to complain, “the government is rich, but the people are poor”.

So, ironically, as people become more outspoken and the authorities less authoritarian, Singapore’s PAP faces a greater need to do what it has condemned others, like Japan and India, of doing – albeit on a lesser scale.

This is particularly true since Singapore provides little by way of a safety net for the sick, the aged and unemployed, with minimal subsidies in public services.

Ironically, the perks have come with the ruling party in almost total control of Parliament with 82 of 84 seats.

In the last election, only 29 of these seats were contested and the PAP cornered 75% of the popular votes.

There is no indication that Lee Hsien Loong, facing his first election test as prime minister, will suffer a major setback.

The pre-election goodies, however, indicate that the ruling party is keen to prevent the weak opposition’s “toenail” presence becoming a permanently strong one. It appears determined to fight for every single seat and vote.

While the handouts may have some impact on the outcome, they may pose some longer-term damage to the society.

Singaporeans are already materialistic, and if people are seen as “easily bought over” by a well-run government, they can also – if the price is right – be similarly bribed by an outside predator.
(This article was published in The Sunday Star on Jan 15, 2005)

The following reaction of Singapore High Commissioner to Malaysia published in The Sunday Star on Jan 29, 2006.

PAP govt promotes self-reliance

IN “Christmas is over but Santa comes a-calling” (The Star, Jan 15), writer Seah Chiang Nee accused the People's Action Party (PAP) of turning to “pork-barrel politics” to compensate for a lack of social welfare in Singapore.

The writer has confused the issue.

Like all other governments, the PAP government provides for the needs of the people, and implements schemes to achieve social objectives, such as helping lower-income groups to upgrade themselves and share in the fruits of the nation's progress.

There is no basis to equate such schemes with pork-barrel spending, which channels public funds to uneconomic public works or expensive subsidies to benefit select groups of well-connected supporters at the expense of the general population.

Seah wrote that there are “minimal subsidies (in Singapore)”. He is right that Singapore does not have Western-style state welfare. But Singaporeans do enjoy heavy subsidies for education, public housing and basic healthcare.

Our social safety net is designed to promote self-reliance and strengthen the work ethic. Instead of handouts that encourage a dependency mentality, the government extends a hand up by helping the lower income take charge of their lives and move ahead through their own efforts.

Seah criticises these schemes as a way of securing political support for the PAP. But that is the nature of democratic politics – political parties win support by implementing policies that benefit the people. What they must guard against are populist measures, expedient in the short term but harmful in the long run.

The PAP government has always resisted populism to avoid storing up future problems for itself. This is how Singapore achieved the progress it did in the past four decades.
ASHOK KUMAR MIRPURI,
High Commissioner of Singapore