An unexpected benefit for the Workers’ Party?

By Seah Chiang Nee

Among veteran journalists here, a subject long talked about has been: "If Singapore's ruling party were beaten in an election, could the government takeover be smooth?"

The discussions date back to a generation ago when the population was about 2.5 million — or half what it is now. University degrees were then fewer, and the foreign influx had not yet taken place.

With the limited human resource concentrated on one party, reporters often asked a generation ago whether a non-People's Action Party (PAP) government could govern effectively.

Of course, the PAP was adding fuel to the uncertainties.

PAP filled top-level posts

In the 1970s and 1980s, many scholars gravitated towards serving the PAP or the civil service.

They filled top-level posts in the bureaucracy, the armed forces, the police and government-linked corporations.

That being the case, would these elites, who had been beholden to the PAP for so long, switch their loyalty to the new authority and implement its policies faithfully?

And if replacements were needed, would there be enough capable people — virtually in the thousands — who could quickly take over the complex tasks of running the whole country?

Only in few other countries had the governing party controlled so many human resources as Singapore did.

On loyalty, Singapore generally followed the Westminster's system of government in which the civil service was subservient to the political leadership.

But in practice, a change-over will be something new here which may need some getting used to.

Singapore never had the experience of another ruling party other than the PAP.

These posers — which separate politics from the civil service and distinguish duties from party loyalties — took on new significance last week.

Controversial moves of statutory boards

Two non-political statutory boards funded by taxpayers took unusual measures that were viewed — justifiably or not — as joining the political arena in favour of the PAP.

The controversy erupted three months after the opposition Workers Party (WP) won the Aljunied group constituency.

It suddenly found itself faced with a new regulatory obstacle of having to find premises for its public functions in its own grounds.

The Housing Development Board (HDB) inexplicably transferred 26 sites in the constituency to the People's Association (PA), which then tried to stop the WP MP from attending a public religious function at one place.

(During the May campaigning, former Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew warned that if the opposition won, the Aljunied voters would have the next five years to repent their decision.)

The PA runs 28 community centres with over 1,800 grassroots organisations and has more than 25,000 volunteer grassroots leaders spread all over the island.

Ironically, both HDB, which builds public housing, and the PA, which controls community centres and 25,000 grassroots leaders, are non-political statutory boards.

The PA disallowed the organiser of a seventh month religious festival the use of the land, if WP Member of Parliament Chen Sow Mao was invited.

It attributed the rejection to the "no politics allowed" clause in the land use. The PAP MP had been attending such functions without trouble for years.

When the opposition MP was "uninvited," public anger grew, with people charging the government with using the public service to bully its elected rival.

The Workers Party accused the Housing Board of abusing its power as land owner.

"Public servants should stay out of politics," was a common cry. The decision was rescinded.

Speculation on when the PAP may lose an election

Was it poor political judgment? Many seem to think so. A few, however, believe it was done deliberately to show the public the sort of ultra-constitutional powers the PAP has.

For some time, there had been speculation that the PAP might lose an election possibly in the next five to 10 years unless it could regain support.

The episode has shown how much the political landscape has changed.

If this were to have happened a generation ago, it would have hardly caused a stir.

Firstly, people were then more compliant. At any rate without the Internet, most would not have even heard of the row.

In the PAP's defence, a party official said that the People's Association was created mainly for a political purpose, so why all the excitement?

Since the seventh month fiasco, the PA has apparently gone further in promoting the cause of the ruling party.

According to online newspaper Temasek Review, a government critic, the PA has continued to regard the defeated PAP MPs as guests-of-honour in public functions in Aljunied — instead of the WP MPs.

"It is as though the election never took place," said a cynical resident.

Another felt that resorting to using the civil service to battle the opposition showed weakness, not strength.

Control over three levers

Years ago, a top party leader named three institutions as the PAP's top levers of power — the vast reserves (worth hundreds of billions of dollars), security forces (army and police) and the mainstream media.

"As long as the party controls these levers, it will stay in power in Singapore," he said. Since then, some things have changed.

The reserves have taken a knocking as a result of poor investment timing and global turmoil.

The influence of pro-government media here has been eroded by the New Media.

On security, the size of the citizens' army (due to declining birthrate) is a growing concern, while the police force is hard pressed to cope with an over-populated beat.

Analysts are baffled over the involvement of the People's Association in the current political arena at a time when people are already clamouring for a more level political field.

I have talked to many people and have yet to come across anyone who believes it is an advantage for the PAP to resort to such a move. "It can only benefit the opposition party which will come across as the underdog," said a PAP grassroots leader

A former Reuters correspondent and newspaper editor, the writer is now a freelance columnist writing on general trends in Singapore. This post, which he slightly later revised, first appeared on his blog www.littlespeck.com on 29 August 2011.