東南亞研究中心 Southeast Asia Research Centre Jason LIM Senior Lecturer in Asian History School of Humanities & Social Inquiry Faculty of Law, Humanities & the Arts University of Wollongong The political opposition in Singapore: Challenges in its work towards a two-party system Working Paper Series No. 158 September 2014 The Southeast Asia Research Centre (SEARC) of the City University of Hong Kong publishes SEARC Working Papers Series electronically © Copyright is held by the author or authors of the Working Paper. SEARC Working Papers cannot be republished, reprinted, or reproduced in any format without the permission of the author or authors. Note: The views expressed in each paper are those of the author or authors of the paper. They do not represent the views of the Southeast Asia Research Centre, its Management Committee, or the City University of Hong Kong. Southeast Asia Research Centre Management Committee Professor Mark R Thompson, Director Professor William Case Dr Bill Taylor Dr Nankyung Choi Dr Thomas Patton Editor of the SEARC Working Paper Series Professor Mark R Thompson Southeast Asia Research Centre The City University of Hong Kong 83 Tat Chee Avenue Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong SAR Tel: (852 3442 6330 Fax: (852) 3442 0103 http://www.cityu.edu.hk/searc The political opposition in Singapore: Challenges in its work towards a two-party system Jason Lim University of Wollongong Introduction In a celebratory statement issued in 1983, the Central Executive Committee of the PAP declared that ‘if there were no PAP there would be no Singapore as we know it today’1. The historiography of Singapore remains overwhelmingly about the social, economic and political achievements of the PAP. Little is known about the opposition parties in Singapore over the last 50 years. Officially, there are 29 registered political parties in Singapore with the PAP at the apex of the country’s political system.2 In a political system with the PAP as the dominant party, the opposition has accused the PAP of constantly changing the rules through detention without trial under the Internal Security Act (ISA), gerrymandering, creation of Group Representation Constituencies (GRC), control of the print and broadcast media, and filing of lawsuits against opposition party members. The opposition has demanded greater transparency in government decisions, greater respect for human rights and the need to care for less well-off Singaporeans. There are calls for a more democratic political system with some parties advocating a two-party system. Singaporeans have consistently returned the ruling party to power in every General Election (GE) since 1959. The opposition parties were largely ineffective. However, fifty years after independence, the opposition parties have made themselves an indispensible part of the Singapore political scene. Is Singapore a democracy? 1 Raj Vasil, Governing Singapore: Interview with the New Leaders, revised edition (Singapore: Times Books International, 1988), p. 27. 2 ‘Political Parties in Singapore’, in http://www.singapore-elections.com/political-parties.html, accessed on 23 June 2014. The list includes 11 active parties (including Singaporeans First, the latest party registered in May 2014), 10 parties that have never participated in any election campaign and eight defunct parties. Southeast Asia Research Centre Working Paper Series, No. 158, 2014 1 In the relentless pursuit of economic development and social cohesion, ‘democracy was the first casualty of the PAP’s successes’3. The PAP explains it as the basis of a social contract with Singaporeans where the party fulfils its obligations and responsibilities in return for overwhelming majorities. Government publications celebrate the achievements of the PAP as if Singapore was a one-party state. C M Turnbull argues that ‘Singaporeans fell into the habit of following directions’ from the PAP, while the ruling party became intolerant of dissent as it worked towards nation-building.4 In an overview of Singapore’s modern history by Edwin Lee, the opposition is missing because ‘the PAP is at the heart of the nation’.5 Due to the dominance of the PAP, Singapore has been labelled a dictatorship6, a ‘non-liberal communitarian democracy’7 and an ‘illiberal democracy’8. It has ‘one-party dominance’9 or a ‘competitive authoritarian’10 political system. From the opposition’s perspective, Singapore is not a democracy. The Workers’ Party (WP) calls the system ‘an elective dictatorship’ where the only semblance of parliamentary democracy is a GE held every five years.11 On the other hand, the PAP considers Singapore a democracy, but the label ‘Western’ or ‘liberal’ is deliberately dropped. The contradiction is that while democracy is seen as the casting of votes to elect political leaders, the PAP believes that ‘democracy does not depend on the existence of an opposition’12. Lee Kuan Yew, Prime Minister from 1959 to 1990, argued that since Singapore had a competitive political system that ensured peaceful change through the emergence of new leaders, ‘multi-party is not a must for democracy’13. Goh Chok Tong, 3 C M Turnbull, A History of Modern Singapore 1819-2005 (Singapore: NUS Press, 2009), p. 326. 4 Turnbull, Modern Singapore, p. 322. 5 Edwin Lee, Singapore: An Unexpected Nation (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008), p. 453. 6 Dan Slater, ‘Strong-State Democratization in Malaysia and Singapore’, in Larry Diamond, Marc F Plattner and Yun-han Chu (eds), Democracy in East Asia: A New Century (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013), p. 183. 7 Beng-Huat Chua, Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapore (London and New York: Routledge, 1995), pp. 184-202. 8 Hussin Mutalib, ‘Illiberal Democracy and the Future of Opposition in Singapore’, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2000, pp. 313-342. 9 Chan Heng Chee, The Dynamics of One-Party Dominance: The PAP at the Grass-roots (Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1976). 10 Larry Diamond, ‘Introduction’, in Diamond, Plattner and Chu (eds), Democracy in East Asia, p. xiv; and Stephan Ortmann, ‘Singapore: Authoritarian but Newly Competitive’, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 22, No. 4, October 2011, pp. 153-164. 11 Workers’ Party, Towards a Caring Society: Programme of the Workers’ Party 1994 (Singapore: The Workers’ Party, 1994), p. 15. 12 NAA: A1838, 3024-2-2, Pakir Singh, ‘Just No Time for Tomfoolery in the Political Arena’, New Nation, 21 March 1973, article attached to letter from the First Secretary at the Australian High Commission in Singapore to the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, 30 March 1973. 13 Peh Shing Huei, ‘Multi-party “Not a Must for Democracy”’, The Straits Times, 19 May 2006, p. 10. Southeast Asia Research Centre Working Paper Series, No. 158, 2014 2 Prime Minister of Singapore from 1990 to 2004, called Singapore an ‘adapted democracy’14 or a ‘pragmatic democracy’15 which worked well. Political parties in a democracy exist for two reasons: to win public office and to implement policies favoured by the parties.16 Political parties are expected to be organised around a dominant ideology and formulate its policies and programmes based on it. A two-party system assumes that the main opposition party is merely a government-in-waiting until the ruling party gets popularly voted out of office. With an authoritarian regime in Singapore, the opposition calls for a two-party system to keep the government in check is not mere rhetoric. Its call for a two-party system is not new. In October 1967, the Alliance Party Singapura (APS) said it was time for Singapore to have it in place.17 During the 1972 GE, the People’s Front (PF) declared it wanted a two-party system.18 Until the 1980s, however, Singaporeans could not accept the viability of this system due to the amateurish campaigns by the opposition and the continued acceptance of the dominance of the PAP. The British High Commission noted that ‘some Singaporeans are critical of the Party [PAP] and its autocratic methods but few see any credible alternative to it’.19 In the 1988 GE, the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) argued that a significant number of opposition Members of Parliament (MPs) will ‘institutionalise the concept of a two-party system where opposing and dissenting views can be ventilated without fear of persecution’.20 In 1997, Chiam See Tong from the Singapore People’s Party (SPP) suggested that the opposition parties should merge to be an effective alternative to the PAP, a view not shared by fellow opposition MP Low Thia Khiang from the WP.21 Obstacles to a two-party system 14 Chee Soon Juan, Democratically Speaking (Singapore: Chee Soon Juan, 2012), p. 125. 15 Cherian George, Freedom from the Press: Journalism and State Power in Singapore (Singapore: NUS Press, 2012), p. 77. 16 Jon R Bond and Kevin B Smith, Analyzing American Democracy: Politics and Political Science (New York: Routledge, 2013), p. 224. 17 TNAUK: FCO 24/289, extract from Singapore Fortnightly Summary No. 22, 25 October 1967. 18 NAA: A13883, 1203 PART 1, ‘PF: We are a Leftist Pro-China Party’, The Straits Times, 31 August 1972. 19 TNAUK: FO 15/1904, draft background note, ‘Singapore Internal Situation, Foreign Policy and Anglo- Singapore Relations’, attached to letter from South East Asia Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the British High Commission, 26 June 1974. 20 LCKRL, accession number RCLOS EPHE O127 V1.11, open letter from Chiam See Tong of the SDP to the voters of Potong Pasir, 1988 General Elections, p. 1. 21 ‘S’pore Should Have a Two-Party System: Chiam’, The Straits Times, 30 January 1997, p. X. Southeast Asia Research Centre Working Paper Series, No. 158, 2014 3 Many countries in Southeast and East Asia embarked on a road of liberalisation and democratisation from the late 1980s. This road had been difficult for some countries but it became clear that a democratic system of government was favoured by people in response to authoritarian regimes and dictatorships in the region.