Singapore
A challenge for the future
A Catherine Lim viewpoint about the future that no Singaporean should miss.
Mar 27, 2008

Democratising the Lee Kuan Yew model of governance
Recorded speech by author Catherine Lim at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy on Feb 22. (This was offered to, but turned down, by the Straits Times).

==
Summary: In the next decade or so, the PAP leaders are likely to continue to do what they have been doing for so long, that is, assiduously safeguard the existing hard-nosed model of governance laid down by Lee Kuan Yew because, despite its authoritarianism, it has been spectacularly successful, making Singapore one of the world?s most successful economies.
Its controversial policy of suppressing political liberties will continue to be seen as a necessary condition for the economic success. But into the third decade, things may change with the emergence of a new breed of young, sophisticated, more demanding Singaporeans.
Will the PAP leaders then be forced to deal with the long-standing issue of political freedom, and democratise at last? Not if China comes to their rescue.
Here's a possible 2030 scenario: China rises to superpower status as USA declines, and is in a position to offer an alternative to the discredited Western model of liberal democracy.
In its skilful blend of authoritarianism and capitalism, the model is not unlike Singapore's. If Singapore and China become thus twinned on the world stage, the Lee Kuan Yew model of governance will have achieved an international acceptance that the PAP could never have dreamt of.
==

What would a future Singapore look like, say, fifteen or twenty years from now? I would like to claim the creative licence of a writer to come up with some tantalising future scenarios!

An intriguing starting point would be what I have described elsewhere as the special and unique Lee Kuan Yew model of governance for Singapore. It is so successful that today it can be said to be a major Singapore export. For notice how eagerly countries as diverse as China, India, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam, seek Mr Lee’s advice on their various economic projects.

A brief description of the model could be something like this: Its goal—total economic success. The kind of leadership needed — a completely efficient, hard-working, disciplined and above all, incorruptible government. The means by which such a government can achieve the goal — any means, even measures unpopular with the people or denounced by the outside world as undemocratic, as long as they get rid of the obstacles in the way. The most detested obstacle — political opponents who dare challenge the government openly and stridently. The most effective strategy against them — the use of fear to break them completely. And the most fearful tool of all — the defamation lawsuit reducing the opponent to permanent financial ruin. Mr Lee has rather proudly described what he calls his ‘knuckleduster’ approach, and has famously declared that he would rather be feared than liked.

This model of governance, useful for the rough early years when Mr Lee had to come down hard on Communist sympathizers, unruly trade unionists, racist newspaper editors and triads, must today seem like a relic of a bygone age. In its utter disregard of human feeling, it must be repulsive to the modern sensibility.

Yet it will be around so long as Mr Lee is.

One reason is the enormous respect his colleagues have for him, reinforced by Singapore’s still prevailing Confucianist culture of deference to authority. But the primary reason must be this: a 100 per cent proof of the model’s effectiveness, seen in the unfailing, resounding re-election of the PAP over 4 decades. Nobody can argue with that kind of success. No wonder then that the model has become deeply embedded in the collective PAP psyche, to be faithfully transmitted down the line of succession, the political equivalent of DNA.

In the post-Lee Kuan Yew years, therefore, there will be no possibility of a democratisation of the model. Rather, the quandary facing his successors will be this: how to keep the model intact but change its appearance to fit in with the temper of the times, in other words, how to update, repackage and give Lee Kuan Yew a makeover.

Actually, this has already been done, through an overall softening and humanising of the PAP image. Mr Goh Chok Tong, the first successor, had chosen as his slogan a ‘kinder, gentler’ society and Mr Lee Hsien Loong ‘an inclusive society’ where no one will be left out. There have been numerous public campaigns to emphasise ’solidarity’, ‘bonding’, ‘identity’, words non-existent in the Lee Kuan Yew vocabulary.

While a softening of style is not difficult, a softening of stance towards political opponents is a different matter. Clearly the younger leaders want to continue to use the knuckleduster, but with the caution and subtlety necessitated by the times, and not the brute forcefulness unacceptable to a new generation of voters. This difference in approaches has led to conflicts within the party, as was evident in the James Gomez incident in the last General Elections. Mr Lee, suspecting Mr Gomez, a member of an opposition party member, of trying to pull off a nasty, malicious trick on the PAP, had wanted immediate exposure and punishment, whereas his colleagues, aware of public sympathy for the opposition, had clearly disagreed. Post-Lee Kuan Yew, free of such conflicts, exactly how cautiously and subtly will the leaders use the knuckleduster?

Here are two predictions. Firstly, the infamous defamation suit will be quietly dropped. So too the blunt, bellicose language, as when Mr Lee severely told Singapore women that but for the PAP, they would be foreign maids today. In a politically correct age, his successors would have to mind their language. In the last election, when the Prime Minister in an unguarded moment, talked about ‘fixing’ the opposition, the word provoked an uproar and he had to hastily retract it.

Secondly, the leaders would have to mind the outside world as well. In his time, Mr Lee was not bothered, and was openly critical of the democratic system. Indeed he would have had no qualms about doing away with it altogether if was in Singapore’s interests to do so. In fact, in 1984 when the PAP suffered unexpected losses in the elections, he appeared on TV livid with rage and said something about abolishing the one-man-one-vote system.

But his successors can’t afford to antagonise the free world because of Singapore’s increasingly closer ties with it, in virtually every area, from trade to education to environmental issues. As long as the western model of democracy keeps its shine, and it is still doing so pretty well — witness that even the odious regime in Myanmar claims it has ‘a roadmap to democracy’ — Singapore leaders have no choice but to keep out of sight the authoritarian component of the model, sometimes even appearing defensive about it. This happens whenever they are asked to comment on those international surveys which, while regularly putting Singapore among the top three for economic success or business friendliness, invariably place her only a little above North Korea and Iran when it comes to press freedom.

But no matter how skillfully the leaders disguise the knuckleduster, they will retain, even enhance its extremely valuable function of creating fear. How will they do this?

Actually, a strategy of stunning ingenuity is already in place. What it does is simply to alter the fear to fit in with the times. Thus the raw fear of the old knuckleduster that had affected only a small group of political dissidents, has now become a larger, more generalized and more subtle fear, that affects the entire population — the fear of losing the good life.

In a culture so deeply attached to material wealth, the fear of losing even a little of it through behaviour displeasing to the government, is enough to keep a whole society on its toes. Countless are the anecdotes of Singaporeans not voting for the opposition, for fear of losing that coveted government-subsidised flat, of academics not speaking up for fear of losing that coveted promotion. If it is true that fear carries its own momentum and generates its own self-correcting mechanisms, there must by now be a great deal of self-censorship in the media, the educational institutions, the arts.

It is surely a most pleasing thing to the PAP leaders that political control can turn out to be such a neat and handy by-product of economic success. By this time they must have totally convinced the people that a political opening up leading to chaos leading in turn to the flight of investors leading finally to economic ruin, is not an option for a small city state with no natural resources. By thus casting opposition politics in the role of the ultimate and supreme national enemy, the government is rewarded with two outcomes: firstly, opposition representation in parliament will remain at its present abysmally small number, and secondly, political dissent will be stifled at source.

Furthermore, because this fear of losing the good things of life is essentially a middle class fear only, far removed from the stark terror in police states, there is a third welcome outcome: the PAP leaders can turn to their foreign critics and say, ‘Fear? What fear? Do you see anyone in jail?’ For a while, they were politely inviting the critics to come visit Singapore and see for themselves.

There is no doubt that the future will see further finessing of the knuckleduster to adapt even more precisely to the society’s changing ethos. Barring any unexpected external catastrophe, the future of Singapore in the next 10, 15 or 20 years, can be reliably extrapolated from this present stable state — the government’s dominance on one side and the people’s compliance on the other, each feeding off and reinforcing the other.

But can it last? Suppose, say by 2030, there has emerged a new breed of Singaporeans, young, bold, fearless. Suppose they form a new opposition party that is refreshingly different from the PAP in being more charismatic, adventurous, idealistic. Suppose that after half a century of PAP leadership, fatigue sets in and Singaporeans yearn for that magical thing called change. Among the restive young, the prospect of liberties never experienced before must be exhilarating. Such is the seductive power of change that even the older generation might be tempted to vote in a charismatic opposition party despite perceiving it to have just 60% or 50% of the famed PAP efficiency.

What will happen then? Will the PAP leaders be put in a corner? Will they feel compelled, in order to save Singapore, to bring out the knuckleduster and start a new cycle of Lee Kuan Yew-style political suppression?

Here’s a bold surmise. Picture this scenario: help comes from an unexpected quarter — China. For years, China has been in the ascendant — economically, politically, militarily, culturally. It has opened up to the world in the fullest possible embrace of capitalism. It has spent much time and money courting smaller nations, particularly those in Africa. It is well on the way to taking over the superpower status of the United States now in decline. It is ready to offer the world an alternative to the western model of liberal democracy, now discredited. Its model is distinguished by its non-ideological, pragmatic and very benign nature, for the goal is no more than creating wealth for the people through competent leadership. Political scientists scramble to find a new name for this exciting innovation,coming up with not-so-elegantisms like ‘managerialism’ or ‘communitarianism’. But China decides to call it ‘The New Democracy’, in a shrewd demonstration of continuity with the past, and readiness to lead for the future.

Where decades ago, the Soviet Union had disastrously tried to open up before the proper structures were in place, making the mistake of allowing glastnost to come before perestroika, China astutely makes sure it’s got the order right. Part of its perestroika is retaining the old mechanisms of control. Its model is thus a skilful blend of two historically opposed systems — autocracy and democracy, and hence is not unlike the existing Singapore model. Indeed, China graciously acknowledges that the inspiration had come from the tiny city state. For back in the 70s Deng Xiaoping paid a visit to Singapore, was shown around by Lee Kuan Yew, and must have been so impressed that he took back ideas which resulted in the eventual remaking of China.

While little Singapore had been in no position to tell the world that the so-called autocratic Lee Kuan Yew model was really the most democratic in creating wealth and a middle class, China, the new behemoth, makes this claim with every confidence and flair. It attracts a large following. It proudly ushers in a new era in history. When China and Singapore thus stand side by side on the world stage, the Lee Kuan Yew legacy will be celebrated in a way that he could never have dreamt of.

I did warn about a writer’s imaginative excesses! We can also be hopelessly, incurably idealistic and romantic, continuing to believe in those intangibles and abstractions called freedom, human rights, the human spirit, etc. which have no place in the realpolitik of the China-Singapore model but which thankfully are provided for in the still existing system of liberal democracy.

This system is by no means perfect but it is history’s best shot at achieving justice in an imperfect world. For even if the real-life practice of democracy is dismayingly far from the ideal, as is indeed evident everywhere, the very presence of the ideal means that there can be international disapproval and redress. But remove it, declare its demise, and there will be a rapid backward slide to the old abuses that it had tried to correct in the first place.

The futuristic China-Singapore model of governance, despite its glow, lacks this sacrosanct quality of the democratic model. For instead of the premise that since leaders are likely to abuse their power, the necessary checks and balances must be given to the people, the China-Singapore model has it the other way round: the leaders themselves are good enough to be entrusted with the checks and balances. Clearly, the model will only work in the hands of righteous, impeccable leaders such as Plato’s philosopher-kings or Confucius’ rulers carrying the mandate of Heaven. But as we all know, in the real world there is a depressing lack of such. A Deng Xiaoping or a Lee Kuan Yew may never come our way again. After them, such a model could be disastrous.

If man does not live by bread alone, a nation does not survive in the long term by material prosperity alone.

I’m going to risk being churlish and say that as long as Singapore’s leaders do not pay heed to the fundamental needs of the human spirit, they can never be called wise, only clever, and as long as the nation they lead is admired only for its material achievements, it can never be called great, only successful.

Comments (excerpted)

Jocelyn Chia
Catherine,
I have always been a fan of your fiction writing, and am mightily pleased to see that your astute perceptions and inimitable flair are being used to shed some light and debate on our political sphere.
I am very intrigued with the notion of a younger more charismatic opposition party rising up to charm a nation of jaded voters down the road - it seems to me that such a scenario is already being lived out in the United States, where the young and charismatic Barack Obama, in his campaign for change, has taken a nation of voters, disillusioned with the system currently entrenched, by storm.
Although Hillary Clinton might arguably be the more efficient and experienced politician, as the PAP would most certainly be in your scenario, perhaps voters would rather sacrifice some efficiency for a breath of fresh air. And while one might argue that the middle-class Singaporeans, content in their material comfort and well-being, would be apathetic towards such change given the good life they currently enjoy, the fact that Obama’s voters have cut across both racial and economic divide is a compelling indication that even when people are materially comfortable, the promise of change from a government that has stopped heeding their voices is a promise people are willing to take a risk for.

scb
..I do not foresee any Singaporean able to successfully bring about any political change. Let us say the iron hands of the Present Leaders will come down on any opposition and that is just the first premise. The next step that it will take to ensure that it remains in power as it had done in the past, is to make sure it cripple the Oppositions before any election takes place.
Any Singaporean, who believes that ‘our’ namesaked democracy could enable future oppositions to replace (oust) the Present Leadership, is but wishing against hope.
In a few years later, Singapore may have as much as half of its’ population comprises of foreign talents. On the other hand, many better educated and successful local born Singaporeans would have left for other shores. The average Singaporeans will be those left due to their inabilities to go elsewhere as well as those who simply choose to stay. I will say that there are many loyal Singaporeans and many who care not about politics.
Having said the above, I like to gamble to say that there is possibility that political changes in Singapore maybe be triggered by external factors. And another remote possibility will be that the Ruling Party changes its’ tack in dealing with the Citizenry.

Sanjuro
Bravo! This is an excellent commentary! The concluding paragraph really does sum up LKY’s bittersweet, somewhat pathetic legacy. In the end he will die a bitter, vengeful man, forever regretting that fate dealt him a rotten hand; the best he could do was to completely take over a small island and remake it completely in his image. He tried, of course, for bigger things - he tried to take over Malaysia. When rebuffed, he famously wept on TV. But he carries this grudge to the grave. For the next four decades Malaysia and Singapore relations have suffered.
LKY does not realise that what makes a great leader are character and compassion, ideals that are foreign to someone who recommended Machiavelli’s The Prince to his son as required reading for politics.
When future histories of the world are written, he may be no more than a footnote, while truly great leaders like Gandhi and Aung Sung Suu Kyi will continue to be remembered, admired, even loved, by future generations.

Elfred
I suppose I’d write something similar as well later in my new blog. Actually, PAP as any other parties in this known world would, needs to know how to gain worthy support.
MM’s leadership is derived from his fights with the communists, and starting with his righteous services to the people. PAP’s role to be able to take care of the population and rid evils (at least in appearance) was a sharp contrast to the pompous but useless British colonial masters.
The colonial masters themselves ain’t that gentlemanly as well. In a China saying: It’s only a matter of time.
When I was in China, I was told that China can’t follow Singapore’s style of governance in order to avoid a revolt. China people obviously understand the risks. In China, messes like the Tibetan situation now are highly possible, and many were covered but happening.

panter92
Interesting. Very conclusive. But the LKY style of governance have already started to change ever since GCT took over the reigns of governance. Many people describe GCT as a seat warmer, but he did start the process of liberalisation.

Bean
To democratise the LKY model of govt:
1) You have to pass the bill or amend the constitution to give room for a less-restrained mass-media to develop. The media must exist as a coexisting third party and a channel for democracy to flourish.
2) You need to have someone to remove the inertia to change. Normally the PM/Head of state will lay the path for change gradually just like Lee Teng Hui in Taiwan. It’s very unlikely to occur when the Lee family is still in control and power. That means during Lee Hsien Loong’s reign, don’t expect much to happen. If he wanted to liberalise the country, he could have done it while he was working his way up. The possible time-frame is therefore about 20-30 years later.
3) When Singapore realise that it can no longer only rely on stability for prosperity, it is time to push for changes. The LKY model is built to stabilise the country on the expenses of people. That was a good trade off because this allows us a huge competitive advantage in the turbulent SEA region.
If Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand can improve in all aspects and threaten to lure away the investors, Singapore will start to lose its attractiveness for the investors. When this happens, we need to change to adapt.
Ironically, it is the external environment that determines the fate of Singapore’s governance. No one can say for sure what’s going to happen but being the pragmatic lot, Singapore will only react if there is a real threat to our country’s prosperity.
Those pushing for changes without the backdrop of huge deterioration of the people’s livelihood, will only have their voices appear as background noises.

pseudo
If one has eaten m&m chocolates before, one would realise that all that talk about it not melting in your hands is utter nonsense. If your hands are wet, you will still get a mess, period.
What’s the connection to your commentary? PAP can paint any rosy picture it likes but there will come a day when the climate of change dictates that the rosy picture evaporates to reveal the true state of affairs in Singapore.
How? A pair of hands grappling with each other to handle the chocolates, turning wet with sweat. Now imagine a divided, post-Lee dynasty PAP.
Get the picture? Only PAP can destroy PAP, and we can already see the signs, albeit consumed with some bitter pills prescribed by Dr Lee. Chocolates anyone?

Read in full:
http://catherinelim.sg/2008/02/23/a-challenge-for-the-future-democratising-the-lee-kuan-yew-model-of-governance/#more-25