View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ScholarBank@NUS DEALING WITH DISSENT: ELEMENTS OF STATE POWER AND RESISTANCE IN CONTEMPORARY SINGAPORE HUANG JING YUN (Bachelor of Social Science (Hons.), NUS A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SOCIAL SCIENCES DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE 2010 Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to say, “Jesus, thank you. In the day when I cried, You answered me, and strengthened me with strength in my soul.” I would like to acknowledge and extend my heartfelt gratitude to the following people who have made the completion of this thesis possible: Our Head, Professor Terry Nardin, for his vital encouragement and support in recommending my supervisor. My supervisor, _Associate Professor Hussin Mutalib, for his advice, wisdom, open- mindedness and encouragement. My former supervisor and mentor, _Professor Jon S. T. Quah, for his insights, wisdom, guidance, and mentoring. Dr Khoo How San, for his teachings and sound advice, during my undergraduate years. Dr Wang Cheng-Lung, for his guidance and deep understanding in political methodology and statistics, Dr Kilkon Ko for his clear ideas, inspiration, and advice he extended. All NUS Political Science Department faculty members and Staff. Miss Tan Lay Choo, former principal of Bukit Panjang Secondary School, for her inspirational guidance and advice prior to my entry into university. The interviewees, for conveying their thoughts and opinions and thus assisting in the interviews. Most especially to my family, my beloved mother, Mah Yoke Kew, for her endless love and patience, my dad, Ng Teo Seong, for his kindness, and understanding, my brother, Huang Ming Wei, for his support, and to my friends, Sharon Toh, Xie Meiling, Jason Leow, Poo Yipling, Ngyan Junting, Melissa, Xiao Mei, and Jodell, and to my department friends, Ang Ming Chee, Han Lulu, Weng Cuifen, Ahmed Badawi, Paul Tan, and Pan Zhengqi, who have all played a significant role in my walk with God or life, one way or the other. I like to extend my apologies for my iniquities and heartfelt thanks to all of them for their understanding, and patience. Even though I have made mistakes in my life, I am glad I have gained knowledge and experience of god‟s love and gained enduring relationships. To my church friends, thank you for the wisdom, kindness, love, and support you have shown me. I have spent many of my years pursuing worldly wisdom, only to realize that true happiness comes from following godly ways. And again to God, whom I love so much, and who made all things possible. Contents Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………1 Chapter 2: Methodology……………………………………………….13 Chapter 3: Forms of Political Resistance in Urban Singapore……….27 Chapter 4: Dealing with Dissent in Singapore………………………..73 Chapter 5: Conclusion…………………………………………………105 Bibliography…………………………………....................................111 Appendices……………………………………………………….....125 Abstract Given that Singapore is considered as a semi-authoritarian country, it is chosen as a case study to identify the pattern of the state‟s dealings with resistance and to seek answers to questions such as, “In what ways are resistance classified or recognized by the state?” “What are the recurring patterns of dealing with resistance?” “What is the discernible logic of domination behind and nuances amongst repressive methods?” This thesis argues that in dealing with dissent, the state uses a combination of symbolic measures and punitive methods which include “systemic regulations,” “making a case out of selected examples,” “influencing the public‟s opinion,” “safety valve,” and “exalting change.” Through the exposition of such methods, the author seeks to explore the patterns of dealing with dissent and the logic of the state‟s ways in countering and co-opting resistance. Chapter One: Introduction Much ink has been spilled on the analysis of power within the context of Singapore politics. In doing so, many of these scholars have made the understanding of the political power centre - the ruling People‟s Action Party (PAP), its governing institutions, ideology, and agencies - their fundamental research quest. These seminal works include Chan Heng Chee‟s The Dynamics of One Party Dominance: The PAP at the Grassroots, Chua Beng Huat‟s Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapore, Ross Worthington‟s Governance in Singapore, and Hussin Mutalib‟s Parties and Politics: A Study of Opposition Parties and the PAP in Singapore. These analyses have significantly contributed to the building up of our knowledge of Singapore politics – identifying the locations of preponderant power, and the ramifications, expressions, or manifestations of power. Not all of the titles of these works are couched in synonyms of power or the language of power- whether it is “authority,” “domination,” “influence,” “hegemony,” “power elite,” or “political clout.” Nor did the authors, in any way, manifestly express that their research topics are related to power. However, a close reading of these works disclose that their theses revolve around answering or explaining key questions – How does the PAP acquire and maintain the ability to become a central political institution in Singapore? How does government work? How does the government shape the requisite cultural values and attitudes of the population to bring them in line with the norms of industrialization? Why does the political opposition still perform a miniscule role in Singapore despite their abilities to garner significant electoral support since the 1980s – which could not be satisfyingly explained without a detailed or systematic investigation into the workings or dynamics of power. 1 Chan‟s research, The Dynamics of One Party Dominance, attempts to comprehend the structure and dynamics of the Party‟s dominance and the means through which it maintains and institutionalizes political power.1 Instead of looking into macro-level politics - the roles of central elites or governing institutions at the national level – for an answer to the Party‟s continual political hold, she forays into micro-level politics - the workings of the party and Government at the grassroots. Amongst her findings was the observation that the Party has with the passage of time established “an extensive organizational network at the grass-roots level to enable it to mobilize and control the population.”2 Significantly, this power network has been established through leveraging on governmental grass-roots institutions (community centres, Management Committees, Citizens‟ Consultative Committees) instead of party organizations. Chan observes that this stratagem has enabled the Party to become synonymous with the state, allowing the former to derive political advantages from the association and to further entrench its dominant position.3 Worthington‟s work, Governance in Singapore, focuses on explicating the dynamics of power amongst the government and executive agencies in Singapore and how these institutions, which the author believes lie at the centre of the Singapore story, work. The public sector, according to the author, has been instrumental in laying the cornerstones of economic and social success in Singapore.4 Worthington uses an institutional analysis to focus on key questions such as: “Who is at the centre of government and policy making?” “What are the roles of institutions?”5 The main aim of his research was to examine the power bases of Singapore politics. In his 1 Chan Heng Chee, The Dynamics of One-Party Dominance: The PAP at the Grass-roots (Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1976), 185. 2 Ibid, 225. 3 Ibid, 226 4 Ross Worthington, Governance in Singapore (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003), 3 5Ibid, 4. 2 conclusion, he writes that “The realpolitik of Singaporean institutional arrangements is this: the cabinet controls the government, the legislature, the party and approximately 60 per cent of the nation‟s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) through the Government Linked Companies (GLCs). There are no alternative sources of power; civil society remains shallow, the media and telecommunications systems are government controlled, almost all political discourses are mediated through government controlled or linked mechanisms…”6 His observation implies that the significant scene of political life rests in the institutions of government, in particular the cabinet. Mutalib‟s work, Parties and Politics: A Study of Opposition Parties and the PAP in Singapore, seeks to examine the anomaly of why the Opposition parties in Singapore were unable to exert to a greater political influence in society despite the substantial electoral support.7 To account for this peculiarity, Mutalib adopts a systemic and structural approach to identifying the contributing factors. Apart from the internal weaknesses of the Opposition, such as intra-party bickering and strife, inter-party disunity, the lack of quality candidates and policy alternatives, the author looks at how Singapore‟s unitary state structure, simple plurality system, and the regulation of key institutions and the changes in constitutional and electoral laws by the incumbent have stifled the Opposition.8 The simple plurality or first-past-the-post system, for example, enables the candidate who wins “the plurality (i.e. the most votes), not a majority”9 to be declared a winner. In this system, the proportion of votes won does not matter. As a result, despite the Opposition‟s ability to garner 39 per cent