By John O’Callaghan
SINGAPORE, April 22 (Reuters) – They crammed into an art
cafe in Singapore and pulled no punches, deriding authoritarian
officials who ruled with an “iron fist” and complaining that
government ministers with million-dollar salaries were out of
touch.
One woman, a middle-aged professional, got nods of agreement
when she said modern Singapore’s founding father, Lee Kuan Yew,
had done great things but that new ways were needed from current
leaders still practising a “do-as-I-say style of parenting”.
Singapore remains regimented but the unusually frank
criticism at the recent gathering, part of a government-run
national “conversation” about the city state’s future, reflects
the reality that this is no longer the era of Lee Kuan Yew.
LKY, as he is widely known, built the tiny Southeast Asian
island into one of the world’s wealthiest nations with a strong,
pervasive role by the state and no patience for dissent.
Now 89 and in declining health, LKY has receded from the
public and political scene, leaving the government of Prime
Minister Lee Hsien Loong, his elder son, to deal with economic
and social challenges roiling the country of 5.3 million people.
“The time has come for a younger generation to carry
Singapore forward in a more difficult and complex situation,”
LKY said in 2011 as he resigned from the cabinet after the
ruling party suffered its worst election result in history.
Saying they feel inundated by foreign workers and priced out
of their own homeland, Singaporeans are angry. And with the
hugely respected figure of LKY retired from the political stage,
they are no longer hesitant to show it.
In online chatrooms, letters to state-linked newspapers and
at the “Our Singapore Conversation” sessions, they are pressing
for answers from the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) which is
doing more to listen but struggling with how to change after
five decades in power.
Despite the new climate of open criticism, there is still
some trepidation about speaking out in front of journalists. At
the recent “conversation” session, the organisers asked Reuters
not to identify the participants so they could talk freely
without being intimidated by the presence of a foreign reporter.
LKY’s long-standing openness to foreign workers clashes with
the current mood and detractors decry his paternalistic and
stern ways, including defamation lawsuits against critics.
But his legacy as Singapore’s first prime minister for 31
years and then advisor emeritus is not in doubt.
Last August, rumours spread that LKY was gravely ill or had
died. When he disproved the chatter by appearing at the National
Day parade, the flag-waving crowd erupted into cheers.
In February, he was hospitalised when an irregular heartbeat
interrupted the flow of blood to his brain. But he turned up at
a forum a month later and took the stage with Paul Volcker, the
former chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve.
Replying to questions about U.S.-China relations, Europe’s
woes and Asia’s future, LKY showed his intellect remains intact
and powerful. But his speech was slow and sometimes difficult to
understand. Many of his answers were short and trailed off.
Volcker prompted nervous laughter from the crowd when he
said: “Singapore is going to have to adjust to Lee Kuan Yew at
some point not being the guide.”
“VESTED IN THE SYSTEM”
That adjustment is already happening, senior officials say,
with LKY leaving the current leaders to set policies without him
pulling the strings. The pace of change is the big question.
Hit by voter discontent in 2011 and again in a by-election
in January, the PAP must walk a fine line in pacifying the
public’s concerns without abandoning policies that have created
a financial powerhouse where stability and an ease of doing
business are magnets for investors and multinational companies.
“We have to work in a more open way. We have to accept more
of the untidiness and the to-ing and fro-ing, which is part of
normal politics,” Prime Minister Lee told the Washington Post.
“It is a major change, of course, which we hope we will be
able to navigate safely over a period of time and not suddenly.”
While the PAP’s majority in parliament has shrunk to 80 of
87 elected seats, few expect the opposition to prevail in the
next election in 2016. But as the PAP charts the way ahead,
there are internal differences over what approach to take,
senior officials say.
Some of those divisions were on display in parliament in
February over a government document that envisioned the
population swelling by as much as 30 percent by 2030, largely
due to more foreigners, to maintain economic growth.
“I have very serious reservations about the white paper,”
PAP member Tin Pei Ling said during the five-day debate.
Inderjit Singh, also from the PAP, said: “Our past decade of
rapid population growth has already created too many problems
which need to be solved first before we take the next step.”
During LKY’s time, it was very rare for PAP politicians and
civil servants to publicly voice any difference of opinion. But
the new scope for dissent extends only so far.
In the end, no PAP member voted against the white paper and
it passed by a 77-13 margin. Singh was not present for the vote.
Despite the unusually heated debate, the outcome illustrates
why speculation may be overblown about a split in the ruling
party or major shifts in policy when LKY is no longer around.
“They still have this pretty much authoritarian kind of
mindset,” said Kumaran Pillai, a businessman and former chief
editor of The Online Citizen, a popular public affairs website.
“I don’t think the split would happen so soon. The main
reason is a lot of PAP cadre members, grassroots members and the
elite are vested in the system and they aren’t going to let it
fall apart just because Lee Kuan Yew has passed away.”
“MORE OPPOSITION VOICES”
The government has taken steps to restrict immigration, cool
the property market, build up infrastructure and broaden social
safety nets. But it did itself no favours with the population
white paper which sent public anger into overdrive and, for
many, reaffirmed the PAP’s reputation for prescriptive policies.
“I just want more opposition voices,” said Brendan Mok, a
university student with a dragon tattoo on his arm. “At the same
time, I don’t feel the opposition is solid enough for anything
that could deliver positive change. But we do want more debate.”
Mok and his friend Ron Ho, who both voted for the opposition
in 2011, said the priority was to narrow income inequalities and
address concerns about housing, good jobs and living costs.
“A lot of Singaporeans aren’t happy and one of the reasons
is because there’s a lot of status anxiety here,” said Ho.
With the PAP under pressure to listen, the year-old “Our
Singapore Conversation” is assuming greater resonance.
In a Singaporean twist, the dialogue about the role of the
state is organised by the government at venues such as The
Connoisseur Concerto, a boutique cafe where about 50 people from
diverse backgrounds recently gathered.
Crowded around low tables, they tucked into a buffet dinner
and then engaged in a feisty chat about the PAP listening but
not really changing and about well-paid officials being out of
touch with anxiety over public transport and home prices.
“They don’t take the train, they don’t take taxis, they
don’t live in HDBs,” said one woman, referring to the
state-built Housing & Development Board apartments where most
Singaporeans live. “So how do they know?”
Lee Kuan Yew, who continues to espouse the need for
immigrants and scolds Singaporeans for not having enough babies,
is also seen as out of touch as citizens challenge the
government’s top-down approach and demand their voices be heard.
With characteristic bluntness, he summed up his own legacy
in the book “Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going” published in
2011, just before the election that led to his retirement.
“It’s irrelevant to me what young Singaporeans think of me,”
he said. “I’ve lived long enough to know that you may be
idealised in life and reviled after you’re dead.”
(Editing by Mark Bendeich)
