In July 2020, Singapore held its 13th General
Election — the purpose of which is to elect the country’s parliament. At stake, however, was not really the ruling
party, its policies, or even the general direction of the nation. Those were already known to anyone with half
a brain: The People’s Action Party would retain power, as it has for nearly six consecutive
decades. Also nearly certain was that it would win
somewhere between 60 and 70% of the vote — a range it has deviated from only once in the
previous 36 years. You might assume, given its predictability,
that the election was somehow fraudulent. But, you’d be wrong. Unlike its Southeast Asian neighbors Laos
and Vietnam, elections in Singapore are free from intimidation or tampering. Knowing this, you might instead conclude that
the election simply didn’t matter. Again, you’d be wrong. If 70% voted for the People’s Action Party,
the exercise would be deemed a great success, cementing the party’s medium-term future. Win 60%, instead, its worst showing in the
country’s history, and it would be a humiliating failure, giving rise to speculation about
its future. In either case, it would win by a margin unheard
of in most free democracies. The true number was 61.24%, a moderate disappointment
for the ruling party, and one that will have some tangible impact on the next five years. And yet, no one seriously contemplated any
other outcome. Even opposition parties don’t profess the
ability to dethrone the PAP — a claim that would be so far-fetched as to destroy all
credibility. Such is the strange state of politics on the
very strange island known as Singapore. Its very existence continues to baffle outsiders,
who struggle to place it on any spectrum. Because while most countries belong somewhere
in the grey area between “Democratic” and “Authoritarian”, Singapore is an exceptionally
rare blend — one described both as “a technocratic dream state”, and a “thinly
veiled dictatorship” simultaneously by those more or less sympathetic. So, what is it? The answer reveals just as much about this
tiny red dot off the Malay Peninsula as it does about your true feelings towards democracy
and the very purpose of government. Sponsored by Skillshare. Get a one-month free trial and start learning
everything from photography to graphic design from yours truly. As colonies around the world gained their
independence in the mid 20th century, many reacted by aggressively rejecting Western
investment, seeing it as a continuation of imperial exploitation. In 1959, for example, Indonesia went so far
as to legally bar foreigners from doing business in the countryside, forcing them to transfer
ownership to an Indonesian national. Singapore, on the other hand, was in a strange
position: It had no natural resources. With no diamonds, oil, or timber to exploit,
Singapore had no invader to fight. The British were no saints, that’s for sure,
but they did not leave Singapore with the same bad taste in its mouth as other colonies. Un-toppled statues and English street names
still litter the island. Foreign investment was, in fact, its only
option. And so it set out to design the country Philips,
Shell, and Canon had previously only dreamed of. There would be no taxes, no protests, no corruption,
and no change of leadership. A country run like a corporation, for corporations. After the People’s Action Party was democratically
elected, it wasted no time obliterating any and all forms of “instability” — whether
they be socialist rivals, labor unions, or student activists. The party unapologetically arrested or disappeared
them all. But in its desire to please multinational
mega-corporations, Singapore also implemented what are known today as some of the best things
about the country. Its world-class public education system was
designed to churn out highly educated, obedient workers by “streaming” children into accelerated,
vocational, or “normal” tracks, with no pretense of equality. Its unrivaled healthcare system ensured citizens
and wealthy expat bankers alike stayed happy and healthy — thus, productive. Its enviable public housing helped integrate
its three main ethnic groups — Chinese, Malay, and Indians — by making them neighbors. Race riots are, after all, bad for business. The secret to Singapore’s clean streets,
timely public transit, and well-respected institutions is simple: When you have 6 decades
of uninterrupted power, zero accountability, and no opposition to slow things down, you
truly can just get things done. Singapore’s anti-democratic tendencies are
neither unusual in the world, nor especially egregious in comparison. Their purpose, however, was to support rapid
economic growth. Whether economic growth was ultimately in
service of raising the standard of living or retaining the party’s grip on power is
disputed. What cannot be disputed is that it has now
achieved that all-important economic growth. With the same GDP per capita as the U.S.,
Denmark, and Qatar, Singapore is now one of the richest, most prosperous, and comfortable
places to live on planet Earth. And yet the PAP has resisted democracy. Singapore has been called a “thin”, “procedural”,
“hollow”, “proxy”, or “bureaucratic” democracy, as well as a “competitive authoritarian
state” because its elections are completely free, but not the least bit fair. In addition to normal incumbent advantages
— passing popular policies immediately before an election and being able to call one at
the most convenient time — it also employs a wide range of tools to disadvantage the
opposition. For starters, preparation can begin only after
an election is called. Even then, politicians can’t actually campaign. Since 1968, the legal “campaign period”
has lasted no more than 11 days — giving the opposition less than two weeks to present
their case to voters. In other words, Singaporeans have only been
exposed to the alternative 109 days in the past half-century. It gets far worse. The Prime FMinister has the unchecked right
to draw the electoral boundaries — leading to intense gerrymandering. In 2020, some districts had just 19,000 voters
while others had nearly twice that number. One neighborhood has suspiciously been moved
between four different districts from 1988 to 2011. And in 2020, the PAP dissolved three districts
from the 2015 election — see if you can find what they had in common. That’s not all! The Prime Minister can redraw boundaries whenever
he or she wishes — meaning the opposition may not even know which constituency they’re
contesting until the last minute. In 2001, districts were announced one day
before the election was called, which took place 16 days later. When all those things aren’t enough, the
“men in white” resort to good ‘ole fashioned lawsuits. A long list of opposition politicians, writers,
and activists have been sued for defamation. One blogger was ordered to pay the Prime Minister
$100,000 US dollars in damages for sharing a link to an article on Facebook without comment. No one is above the law. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg,
and The Economist have all been targeted — which helps explain why you might know the country
as an efficiently-run resort rather than an authoritarian regime. Finally, it grants token positions to opposition
parties, requires some districts to be elected in groups, which favors large parties, and
has in the past used its broadly-defined Sedition Act to arrest dissidents. To summarize: the ruling party decides when,
where, and how elections take place. It can arrest or bankrupt anyone it wishes. To be clear, the party is not free from consequences. A very prominent Minister of Foreign Affairs
lost his race in 2011, for instance. But it works very hard to ensure that never
happens. You may wonder why Singaporeans accept its
lack of democratic accountability. But a better question might be: Can they consent
to the PAP’s rule while being so insulated from the alternatives? Protests are illegal unless pre-approved by
the government, and its colonial-era laws have been used to silence critics. In 2017, a silent protest was held on public
transit. The activists were charged with vandalism
— a crime punishable with up to three years in prison and 8 strokes of the cane — for,
get this, taping a piece of paper to the wall. More recently, a man was charged for participating
in an “illegal assembly” for holding a piece of cardboard with a smiley face in public. He was alone. Censorship extends to the media, as well. The government has the power to install any
director or editor of its choice to any newspaper. It can also simply revoke the media license
of anyone not sufficiently cooperative. All traditional outlets, including The Straits
Times, are therefore government mouthpieces. And while the internet initially gave the
opposition a new avenue to reach voters, the PAP recently began taking on Facebook, too. The “Protection from Online Falsehoods and
Manipulation” — aka “Fake news” — Bill, gives the same ministers up for election the
ability to force their opponents to “correct” or remove their statements online or risk
jail. In essence, the PAP granted itself the right
to silence the opposition. And because they’re silenced, the opposition
will never have the opportunity to challenge... that very law. The PAP’s 60% share of votes seems much
less decisive when you realize the extreme lengths it goes to disadvantage its opponents. If 2/5ths of the country still voted for another
party after all that, perhaps it doesn’t have such strong consent. Then again, perhaps it does. Another theory says that Singaporeans are
making an informed decision — that they know exactly the trade-off they’re making. In one survey, 64% of respondents said they
considered economic development more important than democracy. If Singapore truly is a corporation, as Lee
Kuan Yew intended, it must pay its workers — (citizens) — a competitive wage or risk
losing them to a competitor. The relationship appears transactional. Citizens want things to improve: schools to
get better, healthcare to get cheaper, and so on. The party, meanwhile, seeks legitimacy. Decisive electoral victories signal its “right”
to rule. And if the purpose of an election is merely
to measure support, having an opposition doesn’t much matter. In the eyes of the party, only one number
is relevant: the share of votes it receives. The current Prime Minister revealed his true
views on democracy when he criticized voters who supported the opposition as “free-riders”. In his view, not voting for the PAP is akin
to not showing up for work while expecting a paycheck. This was made explicit in 2015, when the government
announced it would give priority to PAP voters when doing public housing maintenance. Frustrated by opposition voters, the party
finally gave up the veneer of fairness. Perhaps because it thought voters were too
stupid to pick up on its hints, it finally spelled out the trade in plain English: Vote
for us and we’ll fix your elevators and pipes sooner. 82% of Singaporeans in one survey said they’re
“satisfied with the way democracy works” in the country, yet 61% voted for the PAP
last year. One way to interpret these numbers is that
voters are, by and large, content with the deal they have with the PAP, but wish to send
a message. They don’t want a change of leadership,
but they also don’t want to write a blank check. Realizing that the outcome of the election
is virtually guaranteed — they can instead treat their vote as a form of polite protest. The PAP, somewhat hilariously, calls this
“irrational voter behavior”, but in truth, they have no one to blame but themselves. By turning elections into nothing more than
an opinion poll, they’ve allowed Singaporeans the ability to remind the government of their
leverage without facing consequences. They can vote based not on who they want in
power, but what message they wish to send. With its share of votes trending downwards
over time, the People’s Action Party faces a dilemma:
As the odds of what it calls a “freak election” appear less and less farfetched, it has two
options to remain in power. The first is that it could continue weakening
the opposition. Increasingly, this has meant blurring the
line between the party and the country itself. The Lee family dynasty — father and son
— has ruled Singapore for 48 of 62 years, or 77% of its existence. The number of buildings, awards, and schools
named in their honor would make Kim Il-Sung jealous. It also manufactures crises, perpetuating
the “survivalist” mentality — that Singapore is a “new” or “fragile” nation and
therefore needs strong, experienced leaders at the helm. Somehow every one of the last 60 years has
been so tumultuous as to require “just another few years” of repression. The second way the PAP could stay in power
is, ironically, to do the opposite: democratize. Counterintuitive as it may sound, it's clear
that most voters like the PAP and have doubts about the alternatives. But because the opposition is so heavily disadvantaged,
voters may “grade them on a curve”, giving them more credit than perhaps they deserve. If elections were fair, citizens would likely
vote fairly as well. Introducing some democratic reforms may also
win respect. “Delivering economic growth” is a fairly
weak source of legitimacy. With an economy closely connected to the world’s,
it could easily fail to deliver through no fault of its own. If it were to do the “right” thing instead
and impose limits on itself, its support would be much more durable. By treating them more generously, Singapore
Incorporated might have more loyal workers. What does it really matter, you may ask. If the PAP democratizes but stays in power,
the end result is the same. But such an argument neglects one of the biggest
benefits of democracy… When people hear about Singapore, they often
experience the same pattern of grief. Unable or unwilling to believe housing, healthcare,
or education are simple, “solvable” problems, they find reasons why Singapore is different. “That’s great”, they say, “but it
only works because it’s — fill in the blank — small, cosmopolitan, Confucian,
etc.” When they learn the only thing stopping these
policies from being exported elsewhere is politics, they move on, looking for other
reasons to dismiss it. Usually, this means pointing out that Singapore
still practices caning — true — or bans chewing gum — true, but don’t forget New
York banned soda. By focusing on the comical and outlandish
— the chewing gum ban, or astronomical fines for littering — they miss the real problem
with Singapore. Lack of accountability allowed the People’s
Action Party to implement effective, efficient, enviable policies. But it also came at an invisible cost. By taking the authoritarian shortcut, Singapore
took a massive gamble. One that happened to pay off — but one that
could also crumble at any moment. If a less benevolent party or politician were
to win power, there’s no telling what kind of permanent, lethal damage it could do to
the country. And thanks to the PAP, there would be no easy
way to vote it out of power. History has taught us to expect the People’s
Action Party will take the former path — devolving into nationalism and crushing the opposition
until nothing is left. But Singapore is no ordinary country. We should all hope it’s not ordinary in
this respect, either. The PAP may not learn this lesson, but you
can learn thousands of great lessons on Skillshare — the online learning community which democratizes
creativity by bringing you fun, fascinating lessons from experts in their field. In this class, MKBHD teaches you how to script,
shoot, and edit your own YouTube video. In this one, I walk you through the graphic
design of how I created many of the thumbnails you see on this channel. And this one by Thomas Frank, which teaches
you how to turn your hobby into a business, got me to re-think how I manage my to-do list. There are no ads, classes have projects so
you can follow along and get feedback, and many skills can be picked up in less than
an hour. The first 1,000 people to join with the link
in the description now through this summer will get a free one-month trial, as opposed
to the usual 14 days. Thanks to Skillshare for sponsoring this video.
Winnie the Pooh be like : Hello......... We exist!!
Great video, this channel honestly does as good a job as a foreigner can do about Singapore. I think the only part that isn't covered is the level of political apathy, mandatory voting and how these 2 factors blend together to ensure a safe base of voters for the PAP
It's a pretty nice watch actually, and worth watching to the end for one of the greatest segways into a sponsorship plug I have ever seen.
14:16 wonder which genius named the "Lee Kuan Yew Conference Room"
Ok honestly, apart from pronouncing the PAP as the "pap" in pap smear, this video is pretty good.
I feel that it basically summarises what this subreddit feels about Singaporean politics and it is really really detailed for a YouTube video. (It even makes references to political events that I didn't even know happened).
So please don't downvote this post (it was around 25% upvoted when I first commented this), the guy behind the video knows Singapore pretty well and the video is pretty insightful.
Polymatter's a great channel. Recommend his recent series on China's challenges.
Serious question to fellow Singaporeans and residents, do you really feel we live in a "dictatorship"? I cannot say I do but at the same time I can't argue with the cases Evan listed out in the video..
You can only be a successful dictator if you are not seen as one
I found his ‘prosperity against authoritarianism’ graph fascinating, and I really like it. We kinda took a risk on authoritarianism and successfully rode it to being a first world country (unlike so many other countries that suffered under authoritarian regimes). But accordingly, once you get to that more materially comfortable point, it’s valid to ask if people are still willing to bank on high-risk, high-reward authoritarianism, when they can “settle” for less threatening, low-risk democracy.