From a Swiss national....
At a time when the entire nation is frenetically preparing for its 40th birthday, most young people seem to ignore the difficulties and uncertainties encountered in making Singapore such a great and increasingly vibrant metropolis.
It is nowadays common and trendy to hear people air a litany of complaints, ranging from the high cost of living to the big brother state, or the city’s dullness. Our current environment is so comfortable and worriless that we often overlook 40 years of continuous efforts to make Singapore such a clean, safe, convenient, peaceful, beautiful, corrupt-free, world-class and increasingly happening hub (and the list of adjectives could go on).Whilst elder people worried about mere subsistence in the 1950s, we are now concerned about futilities. It is indeed a great sign that Singapore has come a long way.
The main drawback of this rapid and astonishing transformation has been its high degree of interventionism and its relative lack of democracy. Many people do not see any cause of concern there, as the PAP has consistently shown excellent results since its rise to power in the 1950s.
I find it hard to disagree with this. Trading off democracy for prosperity has been a fair, almost necessary deal to rapidly change Singapore and drastically improve living standards. But is this trade off viable over the longer term? Can Singapore survive without political openness? Is a one-party, interventionist state desirable or even feasible to ensure Singapore’s future prosperity?
Since independence in 1965, numerous events necessitating rapid and bold interventions have demonstrated the advantages of Singapore’s capable and determined one-party government: The British pullback in the 1970s, the recession in the 1980s, the Asian crisis in the 1990s, and the SARS epidemic in 2003.
The political apathy of most Singaporeans is disturbing and alarming, yet understandable. Why participate in public debate when everything runs smoothly and repercussions can be incommensurable?
In this context, merely suggesting the implementation of a Western-style democracy in Singapore would be far too simplistic and surely counter-productive. Many of the supposedly democratic countries are indeed less stable and less prosperous than Singapore. Moreover, two-party systems often lead to a strong and destructive polarisation of the political landscape.
How should Singapore change then?
For all the reasons outlined earlier, Singapore is often called the Switzerland of Asia. This is true in many respects, but not in politics. I would like to believe that Switzerland’s political system based on people’s participation in public policy could prove interesting, if not useful to Singapore.
Switzerland has many similarities with Singapore: It is a small, wealthy, multilingual and stable country surrounded by large neighbours. It is admittedly situated in a more settled region and less multiethnic. It has however managed to not only survive, but to thrive across decades by involving its citizens in the political and economic development process. Swiss people vote on more than a dozen issues every year, ensuring vigorous public debates before reaching a national consensus. Not every citizen is politically astute, but most are at least aware and conscious of the major issues. Policies are often adapted and improved, but very rarely reversed, leading Switzerland to progress slowly, but on a firm and consensual ground.
The aim here is not to suggest that Singapore adopt a particular political structure. The brief description of the Swiss system serves to highlight the importance of public participation in the development of a nation. Regardless of the government’s effectiveness, people might progressively feel resentful if they feel excluded from the political process. Switzerland has successfully developed a distinctive system adapted to its national specificities. Singapore’s current political system is also unique in its own right.
Both have demonstrated their effectiveness. But is the latter sustainable?
I fear that, despite its effectiveness and proven track record, the upsides of Government ubiquity in Singapore have reached their limit. New ideas, concepts, programmes or policies should no longer stem from the Cabinet only or be copied from other countries. Singapore’s destiny should lie in every citizen’s hands, not just the Government’s. Admittedly, the decision-making process will be slower and new challenges will likely surface, but I view this as a necessary step to ensure consensus around Singapore’s future, and to avoid potentially damaging political crises.
Sustaining excellence is far more challenging than reaching it. The Singaporean political system will undoubtedly have to adapt to survive 40 more years. But who will have the willingness or courage to trigger this change? Singapore’s future is indeed ours to make, not the Government’s.
Olivier Muhlstein
Olivier is a Swiss national and a Singapore PR. He decided to settle down in Singapore after completing his MBA at NTU in 2004. He never ceases to be fascinated by the uniqueness of Singapore, its incredibly fast development and its aspiration to continuously progress
