Serville Zervant
On 6th April 1955, Singapore saw its first chief minister equivalent to its prime minister today being elected into parliament (then known as legislative assembly). He was not from the Chinese community who form the majority of the local population. Nor was he a Malay, the largest minority group and indigenous community of Singapore. Nor was he an Indian which is one of the two official minority groups in Singapore. Instead he was from a more pronounced minority group who numbered around 500 then. The people of Singapore then elected a Jew to lead their country.
This political party that this Jewish chief minister was affiliated to was the then Labour Front. It did not have a history of parliamentary victories to propel him to his seat. The election of David Marshall, a Jew, was rather not a freak result of the election but the choice of the people. In his short-lived two year government he did not lose favor with his people either. Instead he only resigned due to his failure to win independence for Singapore.
1955 was a time Singapore population lacked the present day affluence. Though literacy was not as high as now, people were well informed as they had a huge variety of print newspapers. The country was still recovering from the post second world war instabilities and uncertainties. The world was changing itself like never before. The empire on which the sun never used to set started falling apart. Even in such a confused and apprehensive environment, the Singapore population was sure about choosing a minority as its leader. On a global scale this was indeed a remarkable achievement since even many civilized western countries had not seen a minority individual being elected as head of state by the electorate then. Only fifty years later are they able to achieve what Singapore achieved in 1955. Even India, the largest democracy, only was able to provide sufficient votes for a non-Indian to be the leader of the government a few years ago.
However fifty three years later, we hear our Singapore prime minister saying a minority PM is not possible today. He is probably right. But then that brings about the question why is Singapore not able to repeat this achievement today. Why is it that in this area where other countries are making giant leaps upwards, we have fallen to where they were fifty years ago?
One might argue the population then had little wealth and so they were gambling their votes away. Realities cannot be that simple. There were certain proportions of the population who were at poverty line and they were desperate to get out of it. The working class Singaporeans saw the active reconstruction of the post war economies in Europe and Asia and they were keen to see that happen in Singapore. If this is not true, we will never have seen the enthusiasm and high productivity in the then labour force.
Given the large variety of information across a huge number of print media, the population was definitely more informed than the current population. Choice was something they could make confidently. Old photos clearly show large turnouts at any political event of any party which only show the population had great interest for politics also.
Contrasting that to Singapore in 2008, we see today a population that has only one news company to serve their whole domestic information needs. Their interest in politics is pathetic. It is at the most discussed in taxi journeys and coffeeshops. Discussions by some really tiny groups like TOC is a far cry from how it used to be in 1955. Even when a PAP MP speaks at dinners, half the times the crowds are totally not interested at all.
I have noticed that the average Singaporeans gets depressed when politcal issues are discussed. They are more interested in entertainment, recreation, making more money and buying more products. Even the ruling PAP is having problems finding good candidates. There is probably a slight improvement today from a few years ago but overall the situation dismally is a huge step backwards from 1955. It is about time Singaporeans sit back and reflect what has caused all this deterioration in the last 53 years and seek to rectify the situation. No economic achievement can sustain itself without parallel political achievements.
———-
The writer wishes to remain anonymous for personal reasons.
———-
The Hock Lee bus riots and other unrest happened during his short watch, and I think this does burn off some credibility in the eyes of the people. – Jackson Tan (#7)
Actually, the riots did not burn the government’s credibility. Instead, it reflected the limited scope of power granted by the British to the autonomous government of Singapore.
Hi Mr Ho,
I am very thankful for your bite-size ‘lessons’ on democracy and its various possible permutations. Indeed, we do share the common desire of seeing Singapore the way you’ve described it:
to see a harmonious multi-racial Singapore where all citizens regardless of race,language or religion may particpate in and speak their minds without fear or favour about the affairs of the Nation.
I also noticed that you have given some very extreme examples of how democracy can go wrong and I cannot help but wonder if these examples would act more as a hindrance rather than a help in our pursuit of democracy, our own unique style or model of democracy (very much unlike what it is at the present moment, I must add).
Could this be scaring our present govt from even considering it?
We do know about American style democracy and the Hollywoodness of it. However, I feel we also need to look at the positive side to it, minus the Hollywooding, the shenanigans, as you have described.
One of the most telling positive of Western style democracy is freedom.
Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to choose etc. It gives the power to the people to decide how they want to live their lives. Nothing much like our beloved Singapore…sigh :(
Also, about your illustration on our growing children, I have a worry I need to highlight. You use the pronoun WE. Now I take this to mean the government of the day, although in your context, it probably means the parent or parents. It’s like a parent giving medicine to his child.
Won’t there be a problem if the parent/s have too much control on deciding how much of the dosage to measure out? Too much is no good, it might do more harm than good, and; too little is also no good, it might not be effective. So, the difficulty becomes a problem. How does the parent measure out the correct amount? It has to be almost perfect, won’t it. Quite impossible also.
Other than this, I am very glad that we do see the need to change some of the ways our beloved Singapore is presently being run.
And there may be a need to create a democracy of our own, different from the others, where every citizen has a part to play in.
Thank you for taking time to share these wonderful lessons with me.
Gemami P.
FACT: Two terms of the elected presidency in Singapore during the last decade were won uncontested by a former civil servant of a minority race that makes up less than 8% of the voting population.
CONSEQUENCE: Is the Prime Minister suggesting that two miracles had happened in those two consecutive elections? Has the country suffered as a result of that choice? Did we pay a great social cost having a person of a racial minority elected to the most highly-paid public office in our system? Did a field survey – that the Prime Minister has done and yet to share with us – showed that our racial-minority President has not been popularly accepted? What makes him say such things?
Does Singapore not deserve the best leaders available, regardless of gender, race and religion? Isn’t that the main reason we are paying the highest salary packages in the world per capita to our Ministers? To get only the best and not just the next best? Can some skin colours possibly be less “best” in the Prime Minister’s eyes? We are not seeing the logic here, but some true colours seems to be showing.
HISTORY: Ready or not ready, Singapore had accepted the President’s dedicated service to watch over the country’s reserve and perform distinguished ceremonial duties for more than 10 years. We haven’t seen violent objections. “Not any time soon” has been happening sooner than you think or remember.
One can never be ready for history. But some will continue to live in denial of history.
This country really has a warped and twisted sense of history and time…progress in this country happens in the most bizarre and topsy-turvy sequence – we can be so blind to what has already happened, and then when it is almost gone and happily over, realise we were never ready for it in the first place!!!