Inherent structural weaknesses in the PAP system of governance is sowing the seeds of Singapore’s failure

Inherent structural weaknesses in the PAP system of governance is sowing the seeds of Singapore’s failure

In an article published on the Straits Times Review on 25 March 2009 titled “Can Singapore fail?”, Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy Mr Kishore Mabhubani extolled Singapore’s “good governance” as one of its “big strengths.” (read original article here)

Wrote Mr Kishore:

“Singapore is unique; good governance is not the historical norm. Every society in the world, without exception, has experienced bad governance. Inevitably, Singapore will experience it some day. Can Singaporean society cope with bad governance?”

Mr Kishore is only half right. Compared to neighboring countries, Singapore did indeed enjoy relatively good governance for the last 50 years. I used the word “relative” deliberately to highlight the fact that while the PAP government has performed credibly well in governing the nation on the whole, there is still room for improvement.

One aspect of governance which the PAP has managed remarkably well lies in the defusing of racial tensions and fostering harmony in a multi-racial society like ours, a feat which is not seen anywhere else.

Singapore had the traumatic experience of a communal riot in 1964 during its brief stint as a member state of the Malaysian Federation when riots broke out between Malays and Chinese in Geylang leading to 4 people being killed and 178 injured. (read more here)

After Singapore achieved independence in 1965, the government took several measures to curb racial extremism and to promote peace and harmony amongst the different races in Singapore.

The English-educated Old Guards are largely blind to ethnic differences. They promoted the identity of being a Singaporean instead of fighting for the rights of each individual community.

Though 74% of the population are ethnic Chinese, the government ensured that the welfare of the Malay and Indian minorities are not ignored. They were allowed to practice their religions freely and generous grants were given out for them to build their mosques and temples.

When I brought a Sri Lankan friend to Chinatown recently, he was surprised to see an Indian temple and a mosque situated side by side to each other in a “China” town!

As we know, Sri Lanka is still fighting a bloody civil war against the separatist Tamil Tigers which erupted in 1982. The cost of loss in precious human capital and damage to infrastructure had set the once promising island for decades.

Across the causeway, the Malaysian political elite is still deeply divided along racial lines. The incoming Prime Minister Datuk Najib Razak is hugely unpopular amongst the ethnic minorities. Instead of campaigning for a “Bangsa Malaysia”, the country continues to be haunted by the spectre of a “Ketuanan Melayu” (Malay Supremacy).

We have a “Bangsa Singapura” (Singapore nation) today because the PAP is a strong government which is able to keep the vested interests of different races and groups in check. Unfortunately, a strong government also has inherent weaknesses which will lead to our nation’s eventual failure if they are not addressed promptly.

The PAP system is able to maintain its cohesiveness and strength over the years because it is heavily dependent on one strong leader in MM Lee Kuan Yew whose presence helps to curb factionalism within the party and prevent it from raising its ugly head.

A united, stable and strong leadership ensures continuity of government policies and minimizes disruption to governance by political upheavals and infighting.

However, such a system go against the grain of human nature because there will be politics as long there are human beings. Nobody can see perfectly eye to eye with one another all the time. There are bound to be disagreements, quarrels and even fights.

When MM Lee is around, he can keep the personal ambitions of the younger leaders in check because every one defers to him by virtue of his stature and reputation as the founding father of modern Singapore.

What if he is gone? Will Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong be able to control his party members? Will political differences previously swept under the carpet now erupt and split the party?

The biggest weakness in the PAP lies in the lack of a proper system of succession put in place to replace aging leaders. Neither does the PAP has any experience in electing its leaders for the top posts though it does allow a limited sort of election for its CEC.

I must admit I have no idea of how the PAP retires and promotes its leaders. It appears it all boils down to the personal wishes and will of one man.

The founding fathers of Singapore and fellow comrades of MM Lee Kuan Yew - Goh Keng Swee, Toh Chin Chye and Rajaratnam were “persuaded” by him in the 1980s to step down to make way for younger leaders.

There are no direct elections for the positions of Secretary-General, Chairman and their deputies within the PAP itself. Ordinary PAP cadres have a limited say in choosing their leaders. “Outsiders” like Dr Vivian Balakrishnan and Dr Ng Eng Hen were parachuted into important positions while others who are more senior than them are left on the fringes.

This is not how a political party selects and renews its leadership. The truth is, the PAP has long ceased to be a proper functioning political entity which views itself as just one of many registered political parties playing according to the rules set under the Constitution.

It has become a sort of “mandarinate” of one man who continues to call all the shots. The lack of democracy within the PAP itself partly explains why its leaders are so intolerant of political dissent and opposition to its rule.

The rule of man can only go as far as the man is around. In his absence, new players will emerge to take over him. The question is: will this new leader be as capable and honest as the founder himself? What if he turns out to be a Chen Shui Bian? There will be no way the PAP can remove him from power. We will become like another Zimbabwe where the tenacles of the ruling party extend through all facets of society that it is choking the country out of existence.

In Singapore where the line between the state and the party have been blurred beyond recognition, failure of the PAP itself will inevitably lead to Singapore’s demise.

There is still time for the PAP to reform itself. MM Lee should consider putting a system in place to ensure that future leaders are voted by members themselves to lead the party.

In the ongoing UMNO general assembly in Malaysia, there is competition for all the top posts in the party saved for the Presidency which is uncontested.

The UMNO system is grossly flawed and imperfect. Only a handful of 2,500 delegates are allowed to vote which fosters money politics and corruption. However, in spite of its inadequacies, there is some resemblance of democracy and ownership within the party.

MM Lee can no longer consider the PAP as his personal fiefdom. He should retire gracefully now and allow the party to evolve on its own terms. In a democratic institution, capable and charistmatic leaders will eventually be brought to the forefront by a natural process of Darwininan selection and elimination.

There is no lack of talent within the PAP. A real leader is not afraid of going through the baptism of fire. If one is unable to obtain even the support of his party members, how can one continue to rule the country with impunity?

Unless the PAP starts to implement much needed changes to its internal modus operandi and organizational structure, it may find itself either completely lost or bitterly split in the post-LKY era.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=sunkopitiam&msg=25180.1