Does Singapore’s Next Election Matter?

Election season is creeping up on Singapore. Although the current term doesn’t run out until April 2021, Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is widely expected to call an early general election sometime this year.

When, exactly, the starter gun will fire isn’t known, and with only nine days of campaigning, Singapore’s elections are blink-and-you’ll-miss-it quick. But the overall result of the election isn’t in much doubt. The ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) hasn’t lost an election in over 60 years, and the entire Singapore system — from the dominance over data and information, to the exercise of restrictive legislation, and the electoral process itself — is set up in a way that gives the party the upper hand. On top of that, the party also enjoys genuine support among a broad base of voters, guaranteeing it not just a win, but a supermajority in Parliament, every election cycle.

What’s of more interest to observers is the margin of the PAP’s victory, and the performance of various opposition parties, particularly the Workers’ Party (currently the only opposition party to have a presence in Parliament), the Singapore Democratic Party, and the new Progress Singapore Party, founded by a former PAP veteran. None of these opposition parties are aiming to form government at present — in fact, making such a claim could actually scare away potential voters. Instead, the dream is simply to break the PAP’s two-thirds parliamentary majority, which would restrain the incumbent’s ability to amend the constitution and increase the amount of debate in the House.

Despite its advantageous position, the PAP has its own reasons to be anxious about its performance in the next election. Prime Minister Lee has indicated that, while he’ll still lead the party into this upcoming contest, the PAP’s “fourth generation”— or “4G” — leadership will be steering the ship. According to Lee, he’ll be stepping back some time after the election to make way for the 4G cohort, presumably led by the current deputy prime minister and the PAP’s first assistant secretary-general, Heng Swee Keat.

The PAP will thus want to demonstrate that the next generation enjoys as much popular support as previous ones. But what’s less clear is whether this transition will really be anything new.

So far, the 4G seem to be happy following the current path, favoring small tweaks over bold reforms. Heng himself has mostly kept to platitudes, promising an “unwavering commitment” to building a “future of progress” — pleasant-sounding quotes that, upon closer examination, don’t really mean very much.

To complicate things for the 4G, the political mood isn’t exactly sweet. The “economic miracle” that earlier PAP leaders delivered — thus garnering massive amounts of political legitimacy and loyalty from the electorate — isn’t quite so miraculous anymore. While generations of Singaporeans in the 1960s, ‘70s and ‘80s saw their quality of life improve in tangible ways, Singaporeans today are struggling with worries over employment and rising costs of living. These anxieties have, in turn, fuelled anger and xenophobia, with immigrants becoming easy scapegoats for Singaporean fears, while the government is criticized for bringing them in in the first place.

Heng himself has also triggered doubts over his strength as a leader, particularly when he crossed swords with Workers’ Party members of Parliament. While trying to defend a motion targeting the conduct of opposition MPs in managing a town council’s financial affairs, Heng fumbled his delivery and eventually had to ask the speaker for an adjournment, after which another PAP minister took on the task of responding to questions.

Heng has promised to shift the PAP government from one that “focuses primarily on working for you, to a government that works with you,” echoing the party’s election slogan in 2015. One manifestation of this promise is the “Singapore Together” movement, meant to be a hallmark of this “new” style of consultative governance.

But this isn’t actually new. Singapore has had multiple national consultations, such as “Remaking Singapore” in 2002 or “Our Singapore Conversation” in 2012. While some feedback gets taken into account, these engagements are always framed and carried out on the PAP’s terms, focusing on “pragmatic” solutions and adjustments rather than more fundamental questions of democracy and political contestation.

This is especially apparent given that this new “Singapore Together” consultation is occurring at a time when civil society space is shrinking once again. It’d be generous to say that there’s been little progress on the civil liberties front — activism, especially on more “political” or “sensitive” issues, continues to be heavily restricted.

Public protests are still generally outlawed — unless one manages the magic trick of receiving police approval — even for one person. An individual was recently issued a police warning for “taking part in a public assembly without a permit” simply for having worn a T-shirt with an anti-capital punishment message to a marathon. Since the last election in 2015, other activists and critics of the ruling party have been on the receiving end of illegal assembly charges, contempt of court charges, criminal defamation charges, and civil defamation suits.

On top of this, the PAP has expanded its power over public discourse online, bringing in the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (more commonly known as Pofma) in 2019. Pitched as legislation to curb the scourge of misinformation and disinformation on the internet, Pofma grants the government extensive powers to take action against supposed “fake news” while not being accessible to anyone else. Its earliest targets were opposition politicians and parties. With this law also going to be in play during the elections — government ministers are allowed to appoint civil servants as “alternate authorities” before wading into political contest — already beleaguered opposition parties will have one more worry dangling over their heads during the hustings.

The 4G leadership has also adopted a posture that suggests they aren’t particularly welcoming of dissenting voices. In defending the cancellation of a week-long program on dialogue and dissent at the liberal arts college Yale-NUS, Minister for Education Ong Ye Kung mounted an attack against Alfian Sa’at, a playwright known for his politically themed work, who had been engaged by the university to curate and run the program.

Quoting selectively from a poem Alfian had written in 1998, Ong portrayed the writer as unpatriotic, and concluded his comments with the declaration that academic institutions “should not work with speakers and instructors who have been convicted of public order-related offenses [referring to activists who have been convicted for protesting without permits], or who are working with political advocacy groups funded by foreigners, or who openly show disloyalty to Singapore.”

This targeting of an artist by a Cabinet minister was so alarming that it drew a public rebuke from Tommy Koh, a prominent former diplomat and founding chairman of the National Arts Council. But if Ong’s comments are anything to go by, it’s unlikely that this new generation of the PAP leadership will be all that open to truly working with dissenting opinions.

What, then, can Singaporeans hope for from the country’s other parties? With the election date still elusive, opposition parties have to grapple with questions of strategy. Get too much of a head start in campaigning, and you risk burning out your limited amount of resources — from money to manpower — before the race truly begins. Start too late, though, and you’ll be left scrambling to reach out to voters and portray yourself as a credible choice. And this is even before taking into consideration the fact that the new electoral boundaries have yet to be revealed.

Talks of forming an opposition coalition to challenge the PAP behemoth have yet to bear any serious fruit. While four parties have indicated that they’ll contest the next election under a single alliance banner, they’re the smaller players on the scene, and there hasn’t been any movement by more serious contenders to join them so far.

But even if the stars were to shine brightly upon the opposition this election, it’s unlikely that governance and politics in Singapore will be much transformed. As mentioned, the opposition’s “best case scenario” is merely to increase their presence in Parliament, so as to hold the ruling party’s feet closer to the fire. And while some opposition parties, like the Singapore Democratic Party, state firmer positions on issues of political rights and civil liberties, others have taken a much more conservative stance.

Take the Progress Singapore Party, for example. The new party generated quite a buzz when it first launched last year; its leader, Tan Cheng Bock, had previously served as a long-time PAP MP, and narrowly lost the presidential election in 2011. In a context where many Singaporeans might still be wary of opposition politics, Tan’s former ruling party credentials could be seen as a reassuring mark of credibility. Knowing this, he’s leaned into it, stating that his wading into the political fray is a result of the PAP “losing its way.” The logical follow-up to that narrative, of course, is that Tan and his party are seeking to nudge the ruling party back on to the right path. “Evolution, not revolution,” Tan emphasized at his party’s launch.

This is a disappointing and underwhelming message for those who aren’t nostalgic for the “old PAP” — after all, Tan’s time as a PAP parliamentarian coincided with the period when activists and volunteers were being rounded up and detained without trial. But it’s an appealing proposal to Singaporeans who might be irked with certain aspects of PAP governance, while generally still comfortable with the sociopolitical status quo.

An election can bring some excitement to Singapore’s generally staid political scene, yet it’s highly unlikely that the next one will bring much change, leadership transition or no. There simply isn’t enough momentum for it, whether from the PAP, the opposition, or even from Singaporeans themselves. While there might be unhappiness over bread-and-butter issues that the PAP could possibly be pressured into addressing, the government continues to demonstrate operational competency and efficiency — currently being demonstrated by their response to the COVID-19 outbreak — and the public are by-and-large accepting of the current political rules of the game.