Singapore ruling party seeks more opposition

Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong poses with residents for a selfie after attending a rally for the ruling People’s Action Party in Singapore. — AP

In Singapore last fortnight to attend a planning consultation on South Asian affairs, I was struck by conversations among local academics and strategic analysts about the possible fallout of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s proposals to bring in changes to the island city-state’s political system. The People’s Action Party (PAP) has been in power in Singapore since 1959, and there has been hardly any opposition. But now, having won a landslide victory in the 2015 General Election, the ruling PAP and Prime Minister Lee appears confident enough to moot major electoral reforms in the multi-racial nation. What is interesting in Mr Lee’s January 27 address to Parliament is his proposal to increase the number of Opposition MPs in Parli-ament, grant voting powers to non-constituency MPs (who are among the best performing losers belonging to an Opposi-tion political party), and devising a mechanism that would enable candidates from minority groups to be elected as the country’s President.

Prime Minister Lee says the proposed reforms “aim to strengthen the political system to make it more open and contestable, to keep it accountable to the people, to go into the next 50 years with the best chance of making a success of Singapore”. It almost appears as if the ruling PAP is clamouring for more Opposition in the Singaporean Parliament to make the nation’s democracy more vibrant and real in the days ahead. That could be because the PAP or Prime Minister Lee could actually be looking at long-term political stability in the island nation and pre-empt any possible dissent. Of course, if the Opposition parties like the Workers’ Party (WP) or the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) has not been able to perform well at the national elections all these years, the PAP cannot be blamed.

The debate that is most interesting is the one on opening a window to enable representatives from minority groups to get elected as Singapore’s President. The President is elected directly by popular vote, but a candidate must fulfil stringent eligibility criteria and must obtain a certificate of eligibility from the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC). The President, in Prime Minister Lee’s words, is a “custodian and a goalkeeper”, he or she is “neither the government, nor the Opposition”. Eligibility is the key because apart from ceremonial duties, a President has powers that include authorising the use of the country’s reserves. Therefore, a candidate is required to hold key positions in the past so that he or she is familiar with such matters. The question being raised is whether there would be enough competent candidates belonging to the minority groups. That is why the idea of a mechanism to have presidents from such groups. As Mr Lee said: “In future, when presidential elections are more likely to be contested — even hotly contested — I believe it will become much harder for a minority President to get elected.”

The list of individuals occupying the post of president in Singapore so far looks interesting. The nation’s first head of state was Yusof Ishak, a Malay (1965 to 1970). He was succeeded by Dr Benjamin Sheares, a Eurasian (1971 to 1981). The next incumbent was an Indian, Devan Nair (1981 to 1985). The last appointed head of state was Wee Kim Wee, of Chinese descent, who served from 1985 to 1993. A Chinese, Ong Teng Cheong, was Singapore’s first elected President (1993 to 1999). From 1999 to 2011, an Indian, S.R. Nathan occupied the post, having elected unopposed twice.

The current President, Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam, was elected in 2011. All three of his opponents had been of Chinese descent.

Opinions vary on Prime Minister Lee’s proposals. While many feel there is merit in rotating the presidency among the city-state’s different ethnic groups, others say the idea of making a provision to elect a member from a minority community to the post would prevent Singaporeans from electing the best available candidate for the post of President. The argument against the Prime Minister’s proposal on the presidential candidate issue is that in a supposedly “colour-blind society” like Singapore, the idea of evolving a mechanism to enable candidates from minority groups to occupy the top post does not hold because it runs contrary to the spirit of racial equality. True, Singapore is a harmonious multi-racial society, but voting has been on racial lines in the sense that a community prefers to vote for a candidate who is one of their own.

The debate on the presidential candidate issue is viewed with interest because the next presidential election is due in August 2017. A decision on special provisions to ensure the election of a candidate from a minority group will be keenly awaited, but the question that is uppermost in the minds of many Singaporeans will be whether the idea would run counter to the President as the symbol of national unity. If the majority view the minority candidates as being unelectable, then it would be seen as a reflection of the actual state of nation-building in the island city-state.

Prime Minister Lee may be mooting these ideas now because he and his party, the PAP, are in a dominant position in Singapore’s lone House. Moreover, he may have a long-term plan for further consolidating democracy and democratic institutions in the nation. The proposal to increase the number of Opposition in the House or raise the power of the non-constituency MPs by granting them voting rights could also turn beneficial to the PAP because it would then be established as the party that championed these path-breaking electoral reforms. The question now is whether the Opposition could actually seize the opportunity and turn the tide in their favour in the subsequent general elections. The idea of having a president from a minority group, too, is aimed at sending out a message to the world about Singapore’s fine race relations at a time when ethnic strife threatens societies around the world.

The writer is the executive director, Centre for Development & Peace Studies, Guwahati, and a former member of the National Security Advisory Board, India