A foregone conclusion

I was in Singapore this past weekend when parliamentary elections were held in the city-state. It was the first general election for Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Lee Kuan Yew’s son and designated heir, since assuming the top position in August 2004. The polls were widely regarded as a test of public confidence in the PM’s leadership. In his campaign speeches, he asked for a "strong mandate" from the people.

All the newspapers were full of stories on the election. Judging from the extensive press coverage, one would think the whole place was agog with election fever. In fact, not too many seemed preoccupied with it. The popular perception, as one columnist put it, is that the historically dominant People’s Action Party "will always win."

And the PAP did win – 82 of 84 seats in Parliament, including 37 uncontested constituencies where the opposition parties – the Workers’ Party, the Singapore Democratic Alliance, and the Singapore Democratic Party – didn’t put up candidates.

The PAP thus kept its overwhelming majority in Parliament, and the status quo was preserved. The government got another whopping endorsement of its policies and programs. In Singapore, clearly, unlike Thailand and the Philippines, continuity will not be a problem. The policies which have made Singapore demonstrably Southeast Asia’s most progressive economy will, in the main, not be reversed.

During the campaign, PM Lee said that Singapore’s economy grew by "more than 10 percent" in the first three months of 2006, exceeding initial estimates of 9.1 percent. That’s way above regional estimates for the current year, certainly much higher than the 5 percent our government crows the Philippine economy will grow this year.

According to Singapore’s The Sunday Times, the opposition mounted its strongest challenge in 10 years. Yet, the paper noted, the "verdict of 1.15 million Singaporeans" was: "Two is enough." Those two oppositionists were veteran politicians who simply held on to their seats, one from the Workers’ Party for the fourth time, and the other, a grizzled 71-year old SDA warrior, for the sixth time. The two opposition constituencies, the paper reported, "rebuffed the PAP’s inducement of multi-million-dollar upgrading housing packages and Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong’s personal appeals."

You will be interested to note that former Prime Minister Goh ran, and won, in a "walkover" or uncontested election. His group – the legislature is divided into single constituencies and "group representation constituencies" (GRC) – won in an area called Marine Parade. More interestingly, the now 82-year old "Minister Mentor" Lee Kuan Yew also won his GRC in another walkover. Both remain members of Parliament.

The PAP got 66.6 percent of the total vote in the 47 contested constituencies. PM Lee himself won 66.1 percent in his GRC. The PAP margin can still be considered a landslide although it fell far short of the 75 to 80 percent target party leaders had set in defining what a "good mandate" would be.

This year’s performance of the PAP was substantially lower than 2001’s 75.3 percent but better than its share of 65 percent in 1997. The figures in 2001 are considered exceptional since the election then followed the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center in New York City. But the lower tally is also seen by others as an indication that Singaporeans also want to see new faces in government, an outcome which is not expected anytime soon in light of the PAP dominance in the polls.

Still, PM Lee is still seen as having done better than his predecessors in their own first elections as Prime Minister. His father, Lee Kuan Yew, won 37 out of 51 seats his first time out. PM Goh Chok Tong’s PAP lost four seats and garnered just 61 percent of the polls in 1991.

PM Lee gave himself 20 months on the job to show what he could do. PM Goh faced the electorate only 9 months after being given the top job by PAP bigwigs. Lee Kuan Yew faced an entirely different set of new and unfamiliar circumstances, shortly after the fledgling Republic’s separation from the Federation of Malaysia in 1965.

The campaign period spanned all of 9 days and, according to the Sunday Times "never caught fire" and was described by many as "relatively issueless." But there is much debate about whether the government will allow discussion of political issues.

While voters expressed concerns about upgrading public housing facilities and government’s handling of the displaced as a result of economic restructuring programs, PM Lee reportedly responded to those concerns by telling the voters the "good news" about his record in office. Controversies on the National Kidney Foundation and casino projects, the Sunday Times says, "received a thorough airing before polls were called."

By Philippine standards, the campaign largely featured boring self-puffery and numbing speeches on "policy." This was especially true because of Singapore’s defamation laws which are used by politicians, including PM Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, to allegedly scuttle any public discussion of charges of official corruption and cronyism.

The leader of one opposition party was disqualified from running for office since he was adjudged a bankrupt. He was bankrupt, simply because he couldn’t pay damages ordered by a court for defaming the Minister Mentor. Last Friday, The Straits Times carried two public notices in regard to charges of corruption leveled at the incumbent PM and his illustrious father.

Those notices, signed by several opposition figures, publicly apologized to the two ostensibly defamed personalities, withdrew all allegations and acknowledged that, as part of a "settlement" worked out with the complainants’ solicitors, the offending politicians had agreed to pay certain amounts by way of damages.

Still and all, Singapore has a new Parliament for the next five years. There will be no legislative gridlock. Economic progress will continue unimpeded, as it has for the last quarter century. Its people will probably become wealthier, and enjoy more of the public services and social amenities that have become the envy of the region, if not the world.

But their democracy will not be as "vibrant" as ours. Their elections will never be as exciting. Their press will not be quite as free. Which system works better? You tell me.