Blurring state and party lines
-
Blurring state and party lines
INSIGHT: DOWN SOUTH
By SEAH CHIANG NEE
If China and Singapore can become twinned on the world state, they can promote a new global order that would blend authoritarianism and capitalism.
Some of the brightest Chinese officials have been coming to study how the ruling party has achieved prosperity and won elections while retaining its one-party predominance.
Such study trips – which cover the economic, social and political areas – have been reported occasionally.
Some observers believe that Singapore’s politics, with its top-down system, may be of special interest to China’s Communist Party as it ponders over reform options.
The latest comment came from Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, who said that many groups, representing different levels of the Chinese government, had been coming in recent years to attend study courses.
On one visit – according to Lee – they showed interest in how his People’s Action Party (PAP), with a small suburban office, could reach out to its crowded heartland electorate.
The answer they got would have given them a lesson on how the PPP can benefit from its incumbent power by blurring the line separating state from party.
In his outspoken way, Lee admitted that all grassroots organisations (with nearly 30,000 community workers) which interact and organise activities in the estates were actually part of his party.
It is used by the PAP to foster bonds with Singaporeans.
Since they are publicly-funded and overseen by the People’s Association, a government statutory board under the Ministry of Community Development, the community workers are supposed to be non-partisans.
“... Everywhere they (the Chinese) go, they see the PAP – in the RCs (residents’ committees), CCCs (citizens’ consultative committees), and the CCs (community clubs),” Lee beamed.
The confirmation that these are part of the PAP could become an embarrassment to his younger ministers as the message sinks in.
It may also come as a surprise to some of the grassroots volunteers who thought they were non-partisans working for their community.
(Already the party recently announced it had difficulty recruiting enough volunteers, and grassroots bodies were some 35% understrength.)
The critics don’t faze the architect of the scheme. Lee once said: “I make no apologies that the PAP is the (Singapore) government and the government is the PAP.”
His remarks moved an online analyst to comment: “No wonder the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is so interested to learn from Singapore.”
The furore shows how much Singaporeans have changed over a generation.
In the 60s, when Lee was using these tax-funded grassroots organisations to combat pro-communists and racial extremists, it seemed natural and few people complained.
But with many of today’s better-educated youths, the idea of the PAP using tax money against the opposition in a democracy has become unacceptable.
If the Chinese visitors had probed further, they would have found that control of grassroots is merely one of an arsenal of weapons the PAP has to hold on to power.
“If they did, the Chinese might be surprised by the reach of some of the PAP’s tentacles in the city,” a small businessman said.
Over 50 years, it has built a whole network of top-level people to run the civil service, trade unions, the press, police, armed forces and state-linked corporations that control much of Singapore’s economy.
The sheer number of people working for them – or associated with them – is large enough to make the party hard to defeat in an election.
Even if an opposition party – or coalition – were to win enough seats to form the government, it may find itself shackled on the implementation level with such extensive PAP influence in state and community machinery.
Keeping all these personnel could reduce the chances of smooth government functioning, at least for awhile, and quickly replacing a large number of them would be impossible.
The city is too small to allow for such a massive replacement of experienced people. All these do not make the PAP undefeatable and irreplaceable, but they render the task extremely difficult.
These “controlling” factors have led political analysts to regard Singapore as a role model for China to emulate, should it decide one day to introduce some form of democracy, without losing power.
“Singapore has shown that its system, although criticised by the West, can preserve harmony and economic growth while giving people the vote,” said a PAP supporter.
The relevance of Singapore’s political system to China still crops up occasionally.
Most commentators say it is impractical given the vast disparity in size.
One Chinese blogger wrote: “With all due respect to Singapore, I just don’t want to compare China and Singapore. You can compare Singapore (population: 5 million) and Shanghai (16 million), or Hong Kong (7 million).”
Wang Jian Shuo added: “Politi-cally, to rule a city of several million is, of course, very different (from) ruling a bigger country (which) actually needs more wisdom in the political system.
“For example, I don’t want someone in Beijing to make decisions for me about what my children should believe. So, there is a huge difference here between Singapore and China.”
Singapore’s top writer, Catherine Lim, however, looks at the equation from another angle.
At a university forum, she spoke of the emergence of a new breed of young, sophisticated Singaporeans wanting political freedom and forcing the PAP leaders to deal with their demands.
“Not if China comes to their rescue,” Lim said.
The outspoken author was referring to a possible 2030 scenario when China’s power rises, while the United States declines and is unable to offer an ideological alternative.
Thus, she said, if China and Singapore could blend authoritarianism and capitalism and become twinned on the world stage, “the Lee Kuan Yew model of governance will have achieved an international acceptance that the PAP could never have dreamt of”. -
Singapore is overrun with foreigners. In no time we will lose our independence. Another merger soon?
-
Originally posted by 4sg:
In his outspoken way, Lee admitted that all grassroots organisations (with nearly 30,000 community workers) which interact and organise activities in the estates were actually part of his party.Regarding this, I understand that PRs are allowed to join grassroots organisations.
If that is the case, does it mean that PRs are allowed to join political parties since grassroots organisations are "part of his party" ?
-
Originally posted by charlize:
Regarding this, I understand that PRs are allowed to join grassroots organisations.
If that is the case, does it mean that PRs are allowed to join political parties since grassroots organisations are "part of his party" ?
It is an open secret that PRs are encouraged to turned citizens.
With citizenship, the gulf between PR and citizenship, which Singaporeans have been fighting so hard to maintain, is as good as non-existence.
Grassroots is small fly. Visit any PAP meet-the-people sessions and see for yourself the number of foreign assistants.
You will be amazed by their sheer numbers. This gives you a sense of things to come.
-
all this could mean that the same guys who really controls S'pore also controls China...........
-
If China take over Singapore in a merger, I wouldn't hesitate to leave cause it means the end of our identity as Singaporeans.
We are even looked upon as Chinese satellite in SEA/Colony of China by our neighbors, is our government trying so hard to prove that our neighbors are right? That we are nothing but spies for China?
-
Seah C N's article is not about China taking over Singapore.
The Malay in this part of the world will not sit idling by to allow such event from taking place.
This article is about China emulating Singapore on the politcal front. Although implementation-wise, I doubt it's feasibilíty. -
PAP can maintain its totalitarian family rule simply because it's much easier to subjugate and control a small population in a single concentrated population spot. Much like Cuba and as far as I know Cuba is still larger than Singapore.
-
one country, two symbolic govt ruling each, possible.
2030, let me see....oh, me about 41 yo, still young leh...wha lau,..better go pack my bags first.
Alway remember this is a malay state, you ignorant past and present immigrants!!!
-
China is like a rocket body with Hong Kong already joined as one of her turbo....taiwan is another pending....(but would take a long time to materialize given their political mess)
Once this is established, its power and impact as a superpower will see several economies being sucked into it to gain economic advantage...
With ethnic Chinese majority, Singapore should tap on it and sustain exceptional diplomatic ties with China..while maintaining our Sovereignty in the Malay Archipelago
This reminds me of Parameswara of Malacca (an Indian turned Muslim) who paid tributes to Ming China in exchange to be included as her Vassal Protection State against the Bugis and sea pirates haunting him in the 15th century...
With such ties, Singapore potential threats would be greatly reduced...but if we discriminate the Chinese foreigns...we are losing a vital piece of diplomatic protection..
-
i suggest a United Chinese Co-operation Sphere
-
Parameswara was born in Singapore before expelled to Malacca to form his own Sultanate
-
i would prefer Singapore to be protected by Chinese (given the ethnic majority) than to be overrun by the Malay states in a possible future scenario...they are all waiting for LKY to go and a internal fighting of power happens in Singapore....
i would quickly suggest to step up more strengthening diplomatic ties with China as a major military protection...we could also gain economic advantage from her super growth at the same time
-
one country, two symbolic govt ruling each, possible.
2030, let me see....oh, me about 41 yo, still young leh...wha lau,..better go pack my bags first.
Alway remember this is a malay state, you ignorant past and present immigrants!!!
2030, Angel 41 yrs old? you hor 14 years old, or 18 years old, 50 years old same same want lah
You brain got grow want meh?
-
Originally posted by Fcukpap:
i would prefer Singapore to be protected by Chinese (given the ethnic majority) than to be overrun by the Malay states in a possible future scenario...they are all waiting for LKY to go and a internal fighting of power happens in Singapore....
i would quickly suggest to step up more strengthening diplomatic ties with China as a major military protection...we could also gain economic advantage from her super growth at the same time
I rather not, ethnic majority is the lamest excuse to justify this.
If China protect us, it would only give our neighbours more reasons to wipe out off the map and we being a small dot is bad enough cause nobody will even notice that we're gone. There are people who still don't know Singapore is an independent country not a province of China or even where we are located.
-
it is only a matter of time (after LKY) that our neighbours would eye on us...our hot and cold relationship across the causeway..and our success so far has been an old thorn in their flesh...be on guard...and when the day really comes....our small bespectacled army could not helm...
true that we are part of UN...thats important and we need to continue with the membership...diplomatic ties with as many countries are very important...and where the trend is going...China is the next Global powerhouse...like it or not...
establishing with them do not mean submitting ourselves to them...but in times of crisis if ever it happens with our neighbours...that would be vital....
we must understand the history of Singapore...since the days of near merger and eventual bloodshed separation...
-
Aside to historical disputes, below are the recent ones:-
Singapore has several long-standing disputes with Malaysia over a number of issues:
§ Water deliveries to Singapore
§ Mutual maritime boundaries
§ Air routes between Changi Airport and KL Airport
§ The int’l legal dispute over Pedra Branca in 2007
§ Relocating the Singapore railway station of Malaysia's Keretapi Tanah Melayu from Tanjong Pagar to Bukit Timah and moving Malaysia's immigration checkpoint from the railway station to the Causeway.
§ Not allowing laid-off workers employed in Singapore shipyards in 1998 to receive their CPF contributions, estimated at RM2.4 billion.
It is still important to maintain current diplomatic ties....but who knows what will happen after LKY?
-
besides Malaysia, Indonesia too....
We must really really be tactful and diplomatic with them...but at the meantime...we must also strengthen ties with China apart from Europe...this would be very useful to us....economically and militarily
-
there is also a reason why the top and most confidential SAF military operations are held by the ethnic majority..as well as those in Malaysia armed forces ....it is no pure coincidence..
-
as well as the desperation of the ruling party over lowest fertility rates of ethnic majority....there is really some long term strategic reasons....
-
why bother having the saf around when foreigners are already overwhelming us.
-
in short, SAF is really small...need strong diplomatic ties
-
SAF is important to deter and hold internally till the allied come to the rescue...do all possible to the last bastion...
i personally encourage its continuation....since passed down in the tradition of our honourable hero and martyr Lim Bo Seng
-
It is naive to think that communist PRC will be charitable to take care of its neighbour even when they becomes global leader one day. I work for 15 yrs in PRC and I understand the mentality of the government officials from my dealing with them.
Communist is still very much alive in China. One must not be obscured by the economy properity of this country to think that communist is dead. Ask any Taiwanese why they refuse to reunite and join PRC, the answer is for the fear of the communist.
I have the opportunity to work for many JVs in PRC where our Chinese partners are from the top 5 SOE (state own enterprise). These JVs still have a party directed planning system whereby the party chief has the final executive and administrative authority over the mgt committee, including the CEO and CFO.
Chinese are not charitable and like us, will only offer any assistant in return for financial favour or advancement of political/personal objectives. Many of their decisions or actions are sometime rather irrationale when transparency lack and top down directed. Many foreign companies failed to recognise this when they enter into joint ventures, later were decimated, losing money and patent.
PRC will replace US as the economy leader one day but Singapore will only able to benefit from the rise provided we have something to offer in return. The question is what? If PRC is making commercial aircrafts, silicon carbine down to shoe and tooth paste..whatelse can Singapore offer in exchange? unlike our neighbours that have gold and silvers, God give us only our minds. The misconception that having a large population and continue to expand sg population to saftguard our future is faulty. We have no natural resources like in US, that support the growth of the population and cosmopolitism of New York. Even Hong Kong will eventually integrated fully with PRC to be valid but will be very different in future.
Singapore can only stay relevance as trading hub and add value to the products, resources and services to our neighbours. The gene will continue to differiate our level of prosperity comparing that to our neighbours.
As for PRC, they will remain as communist at least for the next 10-20 yrs. The reason being that they already had identified their next leader after Hu. They will not give up party control in exchange for economic advancement. They have shown the world when they crashed the student uprise in 1989.
-
China old guards are around ... and the new ones will see a New China....the young are no longer indoctrinated with the Old Mao's Little Red Book....it will surely change but that would be the next 30 - 40 years from now....more elite researchers are flocking back to China...it would be a different China...and they will buy back their lost treasures and history....
Strategically, we need to maintain close economic and diplomatic ties...which would be very helpful when we are counter grave security threats from our neighbours...not only with China....no one will help us for free ... there is no free lunch ...