Bryan Caplan >> Guest Author
The Online Citizen thanks Professor Bryan Caplan of George Mason University and the Civil Service College for permission to reproduce this essay. This essay was quoted by Law Minister K.Shanmugam at a recent dialogue with the New York State Bar Association. This essay was first published on ETHOS
Introduction: Singapore versus the Median Voter Model
Officially, Singapore is a democracy. When you compare it to almost any other democratic country, though, Singapore has two deeply puzzling features.
Puzzle #1: Singapore frequently adopts the kind of policies that economists would call “economically efficient, but politically unpopular.” For example, Singapore has (nearly) unilateral free trade, admits unusually large numbers of immigrants, supplies most medical care on a fee-for-service basis, means-tests most government assistance, imposes peak load pricing on roads, and fights recessions by cutting employers’ taxes.[i] In most democracies, advocating any of these policies could easily cost a politician his job. In Singapore, policies like this have stood the test of time.
Puzzle #2: Even though it follows the forms of British parliamentary democracy, Singapore is effectively a one-party state. The People’s Action Party (PAP) has held uninterrupted power since the country gained Home Rule in 1959, and has never received less than 60% of the popular vote. Even more strikingly, the PAP has a near-monopoly in Singapore’s Parliament. In many electoral cycles, this party literally won 100% of the seats; it currently holds 82 out of 84.
To put these puzzles in perspective, we need to review the Median Voter Model, the workhorse of modern political economy. In the Median Voter Model, two political parties compete for votes by advocating a “platform” – a bundle of policies. Citizens in turn vote for the party with the platform closest to their ideal policy bundle. Setting aside various complications, [iii] the Median Voter Model has two strong and intuitive implications:
First, competing parties offer policy platforms that maximally appeal to centrist voters. To be more precise, they offer the platform that the median voter regards as ideal. If one party deviates from the preferences of the median voter, its rival can win for sure by sticking with the platform most desired by the median voter.
Second, no single party can consistently win elections. A rival party can always match a dominant party’s electoral success – i.e., win with 50% probability – simply by mimicking the platform of the dominant party.
Although the Median Voter Model abstracts from a great deal of institutional detail, it usually fits the facts well. In democracies around the world, political parties strive to identify and support policies that are moderate relative to public opinion. As a result, parties rarely achieve lasting political dominance. If one party’s policies turn out to be more popular than its rivals, those rivals quickly adjust their platforms to regain the public’s favor.
Now it should be clear why Singaporean political economy is so puzzling. It persistently adopts policies that the democratic process would overturn almost anywhere else on earth, but the same party keeps winning election after election by a landslide. Why doesn’t a rival party promise to abolish the PAP’s unpopular policies and soar to power? How, in short, is Singapore’s political-economic equilibrium possible?
Explanation #1: Singapore is Not Really a Democracy
The most obvious solution to these puzzles, to be blunt, is that Singapore is a thinly-veiled dictatorship. Despite its Westminsterian pedigree, it must officially ban competing parties, informally terrorize political rivals, and/or rig its elections. Lack of electoral constraints in turn allow Singapore’s government to adopt unpopular policies. In most dictatorships, of course, the government opts for policies that are economically inefficient and politically unpopular. But the Singaporeans got lucky: Its despots have been benevolent, or at least have a long time horizon.
The “Singapore as a thinly-veiled dictatorship” theory coheres neatly with Western stereotypes about the city-state, and elegantly resolves my two puzzles. Unfortunately, the dictatorship thesis ignores three basic facts.
First, Singapore has several legal opposition parties, including the Workers’ Party of Singapore, the Singapore Democratic Alliance, and the Singapore Malays National Organization. [iv] The only illegal party is the Communist Party of Malaya. [v] As Mauzy and Milne observe: [vi]
The Singapore government has not committed any serious violations of civil rights. There have been no extrajudicial killings or political disappearances, and there are currently no political detainees.
The worst that Freedom House can say about Singapore’s democracy is that: “[T]he opposition is hamstrung by a ban on political films and television programs, the threat of libel suits, strict regulations on political associations, and the PAP’s influence on the media and the courts.” [vii] Activists in opposition parties face many minor indignities, but hardly live in mortal fear of the PAP. [viii]
At the margin, of course, PAP pressure deters some political talent from joining opposition parties. But this is a feeble explanation for the opposition’s near-total failure to gain political office. After all, there are many countries that have vigorous electoral competition even though their opposition candidates face great dangers. In Pakistan, for example, the reins of power have repeatedly changed hands via electoral channels even though opposition candidates have frequently faced arrest, execution, and assassination.
Second, while the PAP does place unusual restrictions on political expression, these restrictions shield people from criticism, not policies. Opposition candidates who avoid personal attacks against PAP politicians can and do freely attack PAP policies as ineffective or unfair. An opposition candidate could safely campaign on a platform to abolish Electronic Road Pricing or slash immigration. Indeed, an opposition candidate could safely campaign on a platform to rein in politically-motivated defamation suits. In the Median Voter Model, embracing these positions would quickly usher opposition politicians into power – assuming, of course, that the median voter genuinely wants the changes in question.
Third, there is virtually no evidence that Singapore’s elections are corrupt. Indeed, international observers have consistently rated its government as one of the least corrupt in the world. The World Bank’s Governance Matters data set, for example, gives Singapore stellar scores in “Rule of Law” and “Control of Corruption.” [ix] Despite Freedom House’s negative assessment of political freedom in Singapore, it grants that “elections are free from irregularities and vote rigging.” [x] The Global Barometer country report for Singapore finds that 86% of Singaporeans believe that their country is either “a full democracy” or “a democracy, but with minor problems.” [xi] The same percentage agrees that the last election was either “completely free and fair,” or “free and fair, but with minor problems.” [xii] Yes, decades of one-party electoral dominance is normally is a strong symptom of electoral corruption, but not in Singapore. [xiii]
Evidence from the World Values Survey, administered in Singapore in 2002, reinforces this conclusion. 18.7% of Singaporeans were “very satisfied” with “the way the people now in national office are handling the country’s affairs” and another 72.7% were “fairly satisfied”; the comparable numbers for the United States in 1999 (the survey year closest to 2002) were 6.9% and 60.2%. [xiv] Similarly, when asked whether their country “is run by a few big interests looking out for themselves,” or “for the benefit of all the people,” only 20.4% in Singapore say, “a few big interests,” versus 63.3% for the U.S. [xv] International observers may say that the United States is much more democratic than Singapore, but Americans are markedly less likely than Singaporeans to feel like their government delivers the results the public wants.
I do not mean to deny the many peculiarities of Singaporean politics. In most democracies, leading members of the opposition have successful careers and a serious chance of winning. In most democracies, the members of the ruling party respond to their opponents’ verbal abuse with more verbal abuse – not lawsuits. The government of Singapore partially owns the main newspapers and television stations, and practices a moderate form of censorship. [xvi] My point, though, is that these peculiarities are largely irrelevant as far as the Median Voter Model is concerned. In Singapore, voters are free to vote for opposition candidates, and opposition candidates can safely advocate the elimination of unpopular policies. In the Median Voter Model, this is all you need for the will of the people to prevail.
Explanation #2: Singapore’s Voters Are Unusually Economically Literate
Many of Singapore’s policies are unpopular around the world, but they persistently survive the democratic test in Singapore. Once we accept reject the dictatorship hypothesis, the next obvious explanation for Singapore’s unusually efficient policies is its unusually economically literate public opinion. In my The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies [xvii] I find that even in the relatively market-oriented United States, the market mechanism is unpopular, especially in international and labor markets. But why couldn’t Singapore be the exception that proves the rule? Who says there can’t be a country where the man in the street embraces the market mechanism, even for international and labor markets?
At the outset, it is worth pointing out that the “unusual economic literacy” hypothesis largely fails for the country where it is most plausible: Hong Kong. Consider: Hong Kong has been ranked the freest economy in the world since 1970, the earliest year covered by the Economic Freedom of the World data set.[xviii] Under these laissez-faire policies, Hong Kong enjoyed decades of remarkable economic growth. One would expect this excellent performance, combined with status quo bias, would lead to popular support for laissez-faire policies. It does not: Lau Siu-kai and Kuan Hsin-chi find that a majority of Hong Kongers want to change many of its most distinctive policies: 57.6% favor a minimum wage, 68.4% favor price controls for necessities, 74.7% want more progressive taxation, and 75.5% want to “protect local industry against foreign competition.” [xix] Decades of success have failed to convince the citizens of the free trade capital of the world of the merits of free trade.
Given Singapore’s many economic, political, and cultural similarities to Hong Kong, it seems unlikely that Singaporean public opinion would be significantly better. Unfortunately, nothing comparable to the Hong Kong survey exists for Singapore. To the best of my knowledge, public opinion researchers have never conducted a detailed survey of Singaporeans’ economic beliefs. Still, the 2002 World Values Survey contains a few questions that allow us to assess the “unusual economic literacy” hypothesis in a preliminary way.
The evidence turns out to be mixed at best. Singaporeans are more likely to accept inequality to provide good incentives. When asked whether “incomes should be made more equal” or whether “we need larger income differences as incentives,” (higher scores on a 1-10 scale indicate greater support for incentives) Singaporeans’ average answer was 6.88, versus 5.72 for Americans. [xx] Singaporeans and Americans have virtually the same beliefs about the social benefits of competition.[xxi] But Singaporeans are actually less sympathetic to private enterprise than Americans. When asked whether private ownership or government ownership should be increased (higher scores on 1-10 scale indicate greater support for government ownership), the average answer in Singapore was 4.75, versus 3.62 for the U.S. [xxii]
While there is little public opinion data for specific policy questions, there is solid evidence that Singaporeans do not support Singapore’s unusually open immigration policy. In fact, Singaporeans favor a sharply more restrictive approach than Americans: Only 4.0% favor open borders, and just 24% are willing to admit immigrants “as long as jobs [are] available”; the comparable numbers in the United States are 12.4% and 44.8%.[xxiii] Mauzy and Milne confirm this pattern: “[A] 2000 poll of 500 Singaporeans conducted by Channel NewAsia found that 78 percent of respondents preferred a cut-back on immigration, mainly out of fear for their jobs.” Opposition parties clearly view anti-foreign populism as a vote magnet.[xxiv] As Mauzy and Milne (2002: 152) note: “All the opposition parties complained about jobs going to foreigners while Singaporeans were being laid off, and the SDP called for a ‘Singapore First’ hiring policy.”
Although there is little reason to believe that the Singaporean electorate is unusually economically literate, there is admittedly some indication that Singaporeans are unusually concerned about economic performance. 58.8% of Singaporeans say that “a high level of economic growth” should be their nation’s top priority; 48.6% of Americans say the same.[xxv] Similarly, only 37.9% of Singaporeans – versus 65.2% of Americans – think it would be a “good thing” if people put “less emphasis on money and material possessions.”[xxvi] Once Singaporeans recognize the economic benefits of a policy, they seem more willing to support it; there just isn’t much evidence that their beliefs about polices’ economic benefits are especially astute.
More research is necessary to decisively reject the “unusual economic literacy” hypothesis. Surveys about the popularity of Singapore’s most distinctive policies would be helpful. Singaporean versions of high-quality instruments like the General Social Survey[xxvii] and the Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy would be especially informative.[xxviii] Still, at this point the case for the “unusual economic literacy” hypothesis looks rather weak.
Explanation #3: Singapore’s Voters Are Unusually Loyal, Deferential, and/or Resigned
Even if Singaporean public opinion were unusually economically literate, it would still be hard to explain the dominance of the PAP. In the Median Voter Model, opposition parties’ best response would be to mimic the policies of the PAP, leaving voters indifferent. Singaporean politics plainly doesn’t work this way. It is hard to name any other democratic country where the ruling party has held power so firmly for so long.
Singapore seems to be in a class of its own as long as we think of it primarily as a country. But the picture changes radically if we instead think of Singapore as a city. In the United States, big city politics is often about as lopsided as Singaporean politics. Democratic mayors have won without interruption since 1931 in Chicago[xxix] and 1964 in San Francisco.[xxx] While the Democrats have failed to monopolize the mayor’s office in New York City, they have near-PAP dominance of the New York City Council: Democrats hold 45 out of 48 occupied seats.[xxxi] Note that in the Median Voter Model, this cannot be explained purely by the liberalism of urban voters. After all, why can’t the Republican parties in Democratic cities simply move sharply to the left?[xxxii]
In purely formal terms, a modified version of the Median Voter Model can easily account for one-party democracy. You simply need to assume that voters have not only policy preferences, but party preferences as well.[xxxiii] Intuitively, this means that even if two parties offer identical policies, some voters still decidedly prefer one party to the other. If the median party preference favors one party over its competitors, the members of the favored party then have the slack or “wiggle room” to deviate from the public’s policy preferences without courting defeat in the next election.[xxxiv] By itself, of course, “wiggle room” does not improve the quality of public policy; but well-informed and well-meaning politicians could use it to persistently deliver economically efficient but politically unpopular policies.
Why precisely would voters have these “party preferences”? The most straightforward interpretation is that party preferences reflect group identification or loyalty. Voters might see one party as being “their party,” just as they see the local sports team as “their team.” Another interpretation of party preferences is that they reflect deference – a belief in one party’s superior competence and/or intentions. This deference could stem from a successful track record, but it doesn’t have to; voters could also defer to politicians’ current traits, such as intelligence and charisma. A final, more pessimistic interpretation of party preferences is that they reflect resignation. A voter might favor one party over another not because he wants it to rule, but because he feels that resistance is futile. In the United States, people who sympathize with a third party rarely vote for it because “it has no chance of winning.” The same mindset could lead sympathetic Singaporeans to withhold their votes from opposition parties. Why vote for second party when “it has no chance of winning”?[xxxv]
Which interpretation – or mix of interpretations – best fits the realities of Singapore? Once again, it is difficult to resolve this question using current data. Empirical evidence relevant to the loyalty interpretation is particularly scarce. For the deference and resignation stories, however, there is some preliminary evidence to light our way.
Several different sources confirm the importance of deference in Singaporean politics. As mentioned earlier, Singaporeans are actually markedly more satisfied with their national leaders and convinced of their good intentions than Americans.[xxxvi] The Global Barometer survey finds that Singapore’s Prime Minister and National Government enjoy extremely high trust; they are tied for the third most-trusted on a list of thirteen national institution.[xxxvii] Compared to Americans, Singaporeans show little interest in “giving people more say”; just 19.7% make this a top priority, compared to 32.6% of Americans.[xxxviii]
Even critics of the PAP seem to endorse the deference hypothesis. Mutalib, for example, finds it “imperative” to “highlight the success of the government in the economy,” then immediately adds:[xxxix]
Obviously, such a success in turning Singapore into an affluent country accords the government a high degree of “performance legitimacy.” This in turn directly impairs the Opposition’s image and effectiveness and also explains its inconsequential role in this Republic.
Note that “performance legitimacy” is almost synonymous with “deference.” Mutalib goes on to explain that current PAP candidates are widely seen as more competent than the opposition: “[M]any in the Opposition leadership today have neither a university education nor a successful professional career. Elitist as this may sound, this educational factor has proven to rank high in voter preferences, as confirmed by media reports all these years.”[xl] Mauzy and Milne similarly argue that PAP leaders have constantly strived to expand their competence edge over rival parties:[xli]
As early as 1959… Lee Kuan Yew said, “It is a battle of ideals and ideas. And the side that recruits more ability and more talent will be the side that wins.” Lee has always had a strong preference for those who perform well scholastically, particularly in the sciences. Some of the other early party stalwarts had concerns about focusing so narrowly, but his view, modified a bit in the mid-1970s, has prevailed. Therefore, the “combing of every nook and cranny of Singapore” for political talent has typically gone outside the party…
While the deference story does fairly well, there is also considerable evidence that resignation matters, too. Singaporeans’ unusually low professed interest in politics is telling. Only 3.2% of Singaporeans say they are “very interested,” and another 32.8% say that are “somewhat interest”; in the U.S., the corresponding numbers are 18.3% and 47.2%.[xlii] Mutalib (2004: 358) reports that three decades worth of studies of National University of Singapore undergraduates judge them to be “politically unaware, disinterested, and apathetic.” The World Values Survey consistently finds that compared to Americans, Singaporeans are extremely reluctant to engage in even low-level political participation, such as signing a petition or attending a rally.[xliii] The stereotype of the apolitical Singaporean appears to have much basis in fact.
Overall, it looks like the solution to the paradoxes of Singaporean political economy lies within the family of “party preference” stories. The challenge is figuring out which variant or variants best fits the facts. Deference and resignation seem to play major roles in Singapore’s politics. But more systematic evidence is necessary to cement these conclusions – and test whether pure loyalty to the PAP matters too.
Conclusion
In the West, Singapore is widely perceived as a benevolent dictatorship. From this starting point, social scientists have little to learn from Singaporean political economy: The explanation for Singapore’s success is simply that it had the good fortune to be ruled by the smartest, nicest dictators on earth.
Once one corrects Western misconceptions about Singapore’s democratic credentials, though, the city-state looks curiouser and curiouser. Singapore seems to contradict everything that economists and political scientists think they know about democracy: How can any party honestly win election after election – much less a party committed to many economically efficient but unpopular policies?
Given the scarcity of data, I can only begin to answer this question. Still, there is little reason to believe that Singaporean voters are markedly more economically literate than voters in other countries. The secret to Singapore’s success seems to lie in its electorate’s “party preference” for a ruling party that happens to take economic reasoning seriously. Party preferences in favor of the PAP give it enough slack to impose policies that would not survive a direct popular vote. There is convincing evidence in favor of both the deference and resignation interpretations of Singaporeans’ party preferences, but the topic deserves further study.
Understanding the paradoxes of Singaporean political economy sheds new light on political economy in general. While most democracies have frequent partisan turnover at the national level, sub-national democratic politics are often as one-sided as in Singapore. In the broader world, though, one-party democracy does not seem to depend on the delivery of remarkable economic performance. Is this because the relative importance of loyalty, deference, and resignation varies? Or did Singapore simply have the good fortune to put blind trust in men who coincidentally deserved it?
Once political economists have a better handle on one-party democracy, they will be ready to take a second look at national politics. Why exactly is it so hard for one party in a democracy to stay on top at the national level? One interesting hypothesis is simply that people are more interested in – and therefore less resigned about – national politics. But this raises further questions: What determines whether a given democratic contest will catch voters’ interest? And under what circumstances does greater interest lead to worse policies?
It is easy to find fascination in Singapore. Observers around the world have been intrigued by its economy, history, policies, culture, cuisine, and architecture. My research on Singapore has convinced me that its political economy deserves to be added to the list of “the most fascinating things about Singapore.” It is an illuminating challenge to time-tested models of how democracy works. But more importantly, the mechanisms underlying Singaporean political economy are probably at work in every democracy. These mechanisms are not unique to Singapore, just uniquely visible.
Notes[i] See especially Ghesquiere, H., Singapore’s Success: Engineering Economic Growth (Singapore: Thomson Learning, 2007).
[ii] Mutalib, H., Parties and Politics: A Study of Opposition Parties and the PAP in Singapore (Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic, 2004): p5.
[iii] See e.g. Cooter, R., The Strategic Constitution (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000): p17-49. One seemingly strong assumption – that preferences are one-dimensional, has received a surprising degree of empirical confirmation. See e.g. Poole, Keith and Rosenthal, Howard, Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997).
[iv] See generally Mutalib (2004).
[v] Mauzy, D. K, “Electoral Innovation and One-Party Dominance in Singapore,” in Hsieh, John Fuh-sheng and Newman David, eds. How Asia Votes (New York: Chatham House Publishers, 2002): p246.
[vi] Mauzy, D., and R. Milne, Singapore Politics Under the People’s Action Party. (New York: Routledge, 2002): p128.
[vii] http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2008&country=7486
[viii] See generally Mauzy (2002): p241-245; Mutalib (2004): p239-267.
[ix] http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp
[x] http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2008&country=7486
[xi] Tan, E and Z. Wang, “A Comparative Survey of Democracy, Governance and Development”, Asian Barometer Working Paper Series, No.35, p4. 14.6% of the Singaporeans say “full democracy”; 71.5% say “a democracy, but with minor problems.”
[xii] Tan, E. and Z. Wang, “The State of Democracy in Singapore: Rethinking Some Paradoxes.” (Paper presented at conference entitled, “The Asian Barometer Conference on The State of Democratic Governance in Asia” organized by Asian Barometer, Taipei (Taiwan), 20-21 June, 2008): p6.
[xiii] See also Mauzy and Milne (2002): p141: “There is no ballot rigging, intimidation of voters, inaccurate counting of ballots, or manipulation of the electoral rolls to produce so-called ‘phantom’ voters or multiple voters in Singapore. The US State Department regularly reports that ‘the voting and vote-counting systems are fair, accurate and free from tampering,’ while noting as well the ‘formidable obstacles’ facing the Opposition… Similarly, Michael Haas, a critic of the PAP, writes that “… there is no doubt that substantive, majoritarian democracy exists at the polls,’ and that ‘the voters of Singapore baffle many observers by supporting the PAP at each election with huge majorities.’”
[xiv] World Values Survey variable identifier E125. While one might think that the Lewinsky scandal artificially depressed Americans’ 1999 response, they were actually substantially less satisfied with their government in 1995, the year of the previous survey. For details see http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org.
[xv] World Values Survey variable identifier E128.
[xvi] As Mutalib (2004): p307 puts it, “Not only are journalists issued accreditation cards by the authorities, government nominees sit in all major media corporations such as the MediaCorp companies, and, as illustrated earlier, the SPH [Singapore Press Holdings].”
[xvii] Caplan, B., The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007).
[xviii] URL Singapore was the runner-up in 1990, 1995, 2002, 2005, and 2006. For details see http:/www.freetheworld.org.
[xix] Siu-kai, Lau and Kuan Hsin-chi, “Public Attitude toward Laissez Faire in Hong Kong,” Asian Survey 30 (1990): p770.
[xx] World Values Survey variable identifier E035.
[xxi] World Values Survey variable identifier E039.
[xxii] World Values Survey variable identifier E036.
[xxiii] World Values Survey variable identifier E143.
[xxiv] See Mauzy and Milne (2002): p191.
[xxv] World Values Survey variable identifier E001.
[xxvi] World Values Survey variable identifier E014.
[xxvii] General Social Survey. See http://gss.norc.org. Also see Caplan, B. and S. Miller, “Intelligence Makes People Think Like Economists”, 2008 and Caplan, B. and S. Miller, “Positive versus Normative Economic Beliefs: What’s the Connection?”, 2008 for detailed analysis of the GSS’s questions about economics.
[xxviii] This survey was the main data source for Caplan (2007). For details see http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/1199-econgen.cfm.
[xxix] Wikipedia: William Hale Thompson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hale_Thompson
[xxx] Wikipedia: List of Mayors of San Francisco, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mayors_of_San_Francisco
[xxxi] Wikipedia: New York City Council, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Council
[xxxii] See generally Schleicher, D., “Why is There No Partisan Competition in City Council Elections?: The Role of Election Law”, Journal of Law and Politics 23(4), pp419-473, (2008).
[xxxiii] Lindbeck, A. and Weibull, J.W., “Balanced-Budget Redistribution as the Outcome of Political Competition”, Public Choice, 54(3), pp273-297, (1987), and Caplan, B. “When Is Two Better Than One? How Federalism Amplifies and Mitigates Imperfect Political Competition.” Journal of Public Economics 80(1): pp99-119, (2001).
[xxxiv] Why then is one-party democracy so much more common in cities than countries? The most plausible explanation is that small, dense populations tend to be less homogeneous – not only in their policy preferences, but in their party preferences as well. As Mutalib (2004): p272 suggests, “A larger land area and population base would allow greater avenues and wider opportunities for political dissension and other sectional or geographical interests to be articulated.”
[xxxv] Mutalib (2004) p378 despairingly refers to Singaporeans’ “abject political compliance and depoliticisation.” The former sounds very much like a synonym for “deference,” the latter for “resignation.”
[xxxvi] World Values Survey variable identifiers E125 and E128.
[xxxvii] The police are the most trusted institution; the military comes in second. See Tan, E and Z. Wang, “A Comparative Survey of Democracy, Governance and Development”, Asian Barometer Working Paper Series No.35, p.2.
[xxxviii] World Values Survey variable identifier E003.
[xxxix] See Mutalib (2004): p239.
[xl] See Mutalib (2004): p255.
[xli] See Mauzy and Milne (2002): p47.
[xlii] World Values Survey variable identifier E023.
[xliii] World Values Survey variable identifiers E025 and E027.
As it is factually written above,
I say… we need a ‘hero’, we need ‘rescuing’…
or we are MOSTLY all going live a pathetic life & die similarly.
As much as I like Caplan as an intellect, he fails to cite the unique advantageous that incumbent parties have in elections in cities in the US and even more so in Singapore.
Correct me if I’m wrong but prior to the GRC system or prior to its subsequent enlargements the opposition were slowly increasing their number of seats.
It is also worth checking out Caplan’s other infamous views of Spore. Though I think he needs to spend more time in Spore and less among civil servants:
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/11/singapore_where.html
I would say that resignation explains the paradox of Singapore’s political economy. Even the supposedly “rebellious” SDP are more or less jogging on the spot. Opposition politics is a broken record in a Singapore. This actually shows the Opposition Parties’ lack of energy in vision.
Mr Caplan is pro-Singapore establishment. By his own admission, more than 80% of his time here is spent with civil servants. How is it that he can claim to know the political situation here. He should stick to economics where his interest lies.
People, we only have ourselves to blame for the current situation.
Caplan’s third explanation sums it up well: “Singapore’s Voters Are Unusually Loyal, Deferential, and/or Resigned”
Come on, just do the right thing, put the right tick. All problems solved!
Don’t point fingers, don’t find excuses, just vote according to your conscience!
For me, heehee, i’ll vote “correctly” until I get my PR elsewhere…. *dream*
Nice load of bullshit Caplan.
This is exactly what our MSM will love to write about.
Cleverly disguised to praise the PAP to high heavens.
How come there is no mentioned about how certain laws are “concocted” every now and then to slow down or halt the progress of any opposition.
Caplan says, “Singapore seems to be in a class of its own as long as we think of it primarily as a country. But the picture changes radically if we instead think of Singapore as a city. ”
Shanmugam says, “This is where most people make a mistake. … I have tried to explain that we are different. We are a city. We are not a country.”
Most Taiwanese are uneasy with the present situation when fellow Taiwanese represent “Chinese Taipei” instead of “Taiwan, Repbulic of China” at international events. More striking is the struggle in the Middle East. It has taken tremendous sacrifice for Israel to become a nation. Despite that, Palestine has not yet attained statehood. Those familiar with Middle East history shall realize I am putting it very mildly here.
Make no mistake. The status of a country as a COUNTRY is a very sensitive one, intimately tied to an entire People. There are many ways to explain Caplan’s view without declaring “We are NOT (emphasis added) a country.” It does not appear that Shanmugam is quoted out of context in this instance. Is Shanmugam deliberately provocative? If so, why?
Dear editor, please assist to remove #7 as I have misspelled “republic”. Thanks.
A load of CRAP! This is the kind of shit PAP would love to throw at us. How could this article ends up praising PAP? Unpopular policies? Do we have a choice with all kinds of threatening e.g lift upgrading, estate becomes a slump, removal of bus services, essential services and so for. These are not mentioned. CAPLAN, please talk to LTK, CST and CSJ to find out more. One sided story is not needed here.
Caplan may be smart but I suggest that he sticks to economics instead of writing pieces like this. If anything, his piece betrays a lack of understanding of Singapore society. What he has done is to utilise a top-down approach (with impressions formed through interactions with our top civil servents) and the use of figures to support his argument.
My critique of his piece:
1) His failure to see the organs of the state (civil service and judiciary) as extensions of PAP power.
2) His inability to realise that opposition members are dealt with differently. Those who toe the line (CST and LTK) are allowed to exist along with those are beneficial to PAP (for example, CSJ as the bogeyman). Those who are deemed a threat are usually forced into exile (Tang Liang Hong, Francis Seow) or detained (OP Coldstore, Marxist Conspiracy).
3) His failure to recognise that the media is not “moderately” owned by the PAP (try telling that to Mr Brown) and the use of figures from CNA surveys, CNA effectively being owned by the PAP. Figures used should be from external agencies.
4) He says that Singapore is not a corrupt country. That is legally true but he neglects to mention that Singapore civil servants and ministers are paid obscene amounts of money that other democracies would have never tolerated. By legalizing the payments, are they in fact legalizing corruption? When it’s legalized, it can no longer be considered corruption.
5) Lastly, his failure to recognise that the PAP has created a thought-control system that Goebbels would be proud of. By controlling the media and most forms of input, the PAP can shape the thoughts of the young. This is manifested through simple things like singing national day songs, equating Singapore with the PAP and the muzzling of dissenting views.
I thought Caplan’s piece was a well-informed preliminary analysis of Singapore’s political economy. The point he was heading home about was that Singapore is worth a second look as an unusual specimen of a ‘democracy’, even though I’m disinclined to call it that…..by Westminsterian standards.
I think the preceding comments have struck at the heart of what matters to this discussion…that we have authoritarian laws and so much de facto draconian control that it doesn’t really matter that we have all the garbs of democracy.
I don’t need to go into much detail since there’s too many…state controlled media, restrictions on political events and literature, journalistic self censorship, etc. Being a law student, it doesn’t take much for me to uncover the veneer of the ‘rule of law’, not when the law itself is used to give an unfair advantage to the incumbent.
Rockafunkadeliks.
why your essay so long?
The reason is simple lah: who controls the mass media, who wins.
It’s an interesting article, and I would say that I agree with it… at least until 2006. That was when I discovered the ‘rot’ so as to speak. Up till then, I would have placed myself in the loyal/apathetic category.
The truth is PAP did deserved to rule (though admitted there were some questionable decisions) for a long time. However, they made more good decisions than bad, so it’s okay. Alas, that time has passed. I do not know when the rot began, but personally, I only started to notice them after 2006 GE.
More and more questionable decisions have been made since, more so than usual, which resulted in a visible degradation of life, if not now, then in the near future. Now, we have a PAP that is disconnected to the common people whom they are supposed to serve, and making all kinds of questionable decisions, and outright stupid and nonsensical answers when questioned.
Read his footnotes people. He is under no illusions what people say about the authorianism and control. But he is trying to put it in the global perspective (basically, hey, this sort of situation is actually quite common eg in US city politics, and it’s far worse elsewhere).
This piece by Mr Bryan Caplan is almost totally useless, not least because it is too academic to be relevant. Giving equal weightage to each explanation and considering their merits in turn is a reasonable approach when writing an article for an academic journal. But, in the real world, local knowledge is far more valuable. This, I’m afraid, is not in Mr Caplan’s possession.
In short, the status of Singaporean politics can be explained by 3 factors:
(1) Singaporeans, on the whole, are one of the most politically-ignorant and politically-indifferent people in the world. So, they vote according to what they think how most people would vote.
(2) Their main response to the world is one of fear and insecurity. They are fearful of change, fearful of Government persecution (real or imagined) and fearful of taking part in politics. So, they vote according to how they had voted in the past.
(3) A Singaporean’s sole loyalty is to himself. So, he votes for the party that he thinks can secure his personal survival and prosperity. He has no regard for what is good for his neighbor or for his country.
What the PAP is and what they do to try to dominate the political scene actually have very minimal effect on our political reality.
@smallvoice585 — isn’t that exactly what Caplan is saying, that his Explanation #3 (mirroring your points) is the most likely answer?
Wow, I think I just wasted 15 min of my life reading this load of crock.
After all the mental masturbation, the writer cannot conclude the real reasons why PAP are still in power. Let me try to conclude for him in more economical use of words.
1.) GRC system (number 1 offender), gerrymandering and last minute redrawing of boundaries, very few days given for political rallies and host of minor things that is detrimental to opposition getting votes.
2.) Total control of Mass Media, such that PAP is always portrayed positively and opposition portrayed negatively.
3.) Control of many companies providing essential services. Being the largest employer means voters working for the government and PAP will hesitate to rock their rice bowl.
4.) Intimidation of opposition and supporters, using ISA laws to unfairly detain people of credibility, making them migrate or a fugitive of the law. If ISA is not used, then other things like tax evasion or defamation will be used.
5.) The use of fear. By putting numbers on voting slip, some who wants to vote for opposition are afraid to do so for fear that it would be tracked and they will suffer consequences for it. Also scaring voters to think that if PAP is no longer government, Armageddon will happen the next day or if their constituency is managed by opposition, it will become slums.
While it is true that there were never any irregularities during the voting process itself, the writer should be alerted that in Singapore, the electorate boundaries are always interfered with up to even 24 hours before the election itself so as to enable maximum advantage to the PAP. An outcome of this is that in most cases, there is no opportunity for any opposition to be really represented in any electorate, thus the citizens have never been able to truly exercise their voting power as they do would not be required to vote – this has led to many ‘walk-overs’ fairly frequent ly in favor of PAP in singapore elections.
Law Minister’ highfalutin declaration that “Singapore is not a country’ has been met by silence from all other ministers – who are enjoying their $mllions salaries. As usual, the PM also keeps quiet as in Mas Selamat’s escape incident. Perhaps waiting again and again for his father to speak first? Where is the leadership inititative?
While some (people like Shanmugan) may think that Mr Caplan’s twisted views can be used to debunk criticisms of Singapore’s Dictatorship of the Proletariat of the PAP (the communist equivalent of the dictatorship of the communist party that rules the country), I honestly think that his views though not entirely flawed are twisted and biased towards the PAP. Why? Because:
1. Through his own admission, his views were mainly based upon the inputs given to him by the 80% of his time spent with top civil servants. These civil servants, as Singaporeans know, are either secret PAP members, pro-PAP, pro-government (which cannot be otherwise because they are working for the govt and their paymaster is the govt), pro-establishment, under bondage, relatives of those PAP members in power, or beholden one way or another to at least one of the people in power, or a by character balls-carriers and sycophants. Most important of all, these civil servants have not experience the sufferings and problems Singaporean commoners and opposition politicians have been suffering.
2. He is a foreigner and have not stayed in Singapore for a prolonged period of years. By visiting Singapore a few times does not qualify him to speak authoritatively about the politics, the social well beings, etc. of Singapore. He can think and think and think, and come out with conclusions – his conclusions – but these conclusions cannot be taken wholesale in any way as being conclusive because he cannot feel how the local people feel. As an observer, he could only use his eyes and ears, he cannot use his heart to feel for the people. In other words, he is just like those PAP ministers and top civil servants living in ivory towers, totally out of touch with the ground. Mr Caplan therefore cannot and never will be able to understand the fear in the hearts of each and every Singaporeans (except those who hold the power of course).
3. By comparing or equating Singapore with/to cities in the US, he was actually comparing an apple with oranges. Cities in the US has a country, while if Singapore is just a city, where is its hinterland, its country? Malaysia?
4. In addition, the political parties in the cities of the US do not have the full compliments and establishments of government organisations and machineries, ministries and statutory boards like the PAP is having in Singapore.
5. Moreover, the cities in the US do not have the power to make use of their national police, secret police and detectives, internal security agents, and national armed forces to the extent that the PAP has been enjoying in Singapore over the last 50 years.
6. The governors in the cities of the US cannot amend the US Constitution and National Laws at will like the PAP has been doing to the Singapore’s Constitution and Laws at its whims and fancies, any time.
7. Last but not least, if what Shanmugam has utter were to be uttered by a US lawmaker, he would have been immediately arrested and charged in court or at least face serious protests in the streets for his outrages remarks that “Singapore is not a country”. As a Law Minister, he should know better the impact and subsequent repercussions that such a public statement would bring. (By going ahead with making such a statement, shows how arrogant, callous and ruthless a person can be). Just imagine what if a US Senator were to tell the US lawyers, judges, solicitors, advocates, etc. that “The US is not a country!”??? I think he would be clobbered or shot.
Why are the MM, SM, PM and other Ministers keeping quiet, not responding to the Law Minister’s statement that “Singapore is not a country”? Can we take it that silence means consent.
If the Ministers were to continue to turn a deaf ear and pretend that nothing serious has happened, without refuting the Law Minister’s statement that “Singapore is not a country … but just a city”, that means they are condoning and agreeing with that statement. If so, then we Singaporeans should from now on take Singapore as not a country but just a small city. Therefore, anything to do with a country or a nation, we shall all ignore and not take them seriously, for example the national constitution, national flag, national anthem, national leaders, national service, national policies, national education, nation-building, etc. Is that what the Keeping-Silence Ministers and lawmakers (MPs) want all of us to do? They are not able to see the implications? This really baffles me no end.
Come on, say something men! Don’t forget that you are being paid the world’s highest salaries by Singapore’s taxpayers! Don’t you want to correct wrong perceptions that the Law Minister’s statements have cast? Don’t you want to uphold our Singapore’s Constitution? Don’t you want to avoid or prevent future chaos and confusions?
12) Rockafunkadeliks
I’ll have to agree with you there. Kaplan’s starting point is that Singapore should be examined as a democracy (and he argues it in explanation 1) but the problem is it’s rather difficult to classify Singapore’s political system.
Some call it a benevolent dictatorship. The more cynical ones see it as a constituitional monarchy ruled by the LEE dynasty. I see it as a totalitarian democracy.
At the end of the day, most readers appear to be so turned off by the PAP that they see anything defending the PAP as propaganda and rhetoric.
The paper does have its academic value and frankly, I think this article could be used in political science classes as a paper to critique.
Dear 17) pragmatic,
Mr Caplan’s Explanation#3, which he considers to be the most likely one, posits that “deference” – a belief in one party’s superior competence and/or intentions or “resignation“ – out of the thinking that other political parties have no chance of winning; are the underlying reasons behind the consistent voting patterns.
My contention is totally different. What I said was that the phenomenon has nothing whatsoever to do with the electorate’s assessment of PAP’s competence or their judgment of opposition chances. The way we vote is the result of a deeply ingrained cultural habit of political ignorance and indifference, sense of insecurity and immovable self-interest.
The inevitable conclusion is that if the PAP can continue to capitalize on these cultural weaknesses of ours, they will dominate the political scene for many more decades to come, no matter how unpopular their policies may be and no matter what the opposition does in the future.
as usual boring
I detect a slight leaning towards the MIW with the last few articles.
If Singaporean voters choose the PAP predominantly based on it’s economic policies, what happens when the economy falters? Normally, elections were held after a recession based on past events such as in 1998 and 2003. As predicted, economy was doing reasonably well during election time giving voters limited amount of leverage to fault the PAP. The next election might be held during a positive economic growth year.
I also believe the PAP’s success was due to the stunning economic growth of the past. The party which wants to defeat the PAP must emulate them in the first place. It is in everyone’s aspiration for the best and brightest to lead the nation.
As long as corruption is contained, human rights is not violated and jobs are aplenty, the PAP can be assured of success. But that success happened between 1965-2006. Singaporean’s needs now are at the Social level in Maslow’s hierachy of needs. This is where the PAP will falter based on it’s recent policies with regard to immigration, pace of life and social justice.
Why get upset and work out over an article. We should not blame the writer but
66 pct of Singaporean that make it happened. With apathetic attitude and Kiasu and Kiasi mentality, PAP will continue to rule.
I saw SDP members at Yishun – Chong Pang hawkers center last Saturday and trying to sell their newsletter from table to table, only 3 persons ( including myself ) bought it. Many of them don’t even bother about them. Poor CSJ spoke on the loud hailer telling the peoples about rising cost of living, bad PAP policies and blah blah……., so what. Nobody seem to care. I really pity him and he looked haggard. I like to see him vote into parliament to challenge the Papies policies but will it be a dream come true. Only we the citizens of Singapore can make this happen.
Well,another piece of good read from TOC..
If this observation done by Mr.Caplan is accurate or close to accuracy,I believe
the PAP will have another landslide victory comes the next election.A little bit of
politricking by the ruling party will mesmerize most docile Singaporeans in this
Kiasu and Kiasi society.Tough luck to you oppositions.
Actually, i thought it is was a good read because it made a new novel argument.
I agree with the other commenters above, that Caplan dismissed the authoritative argument a little too fast. Esp in terms of the media. For Median Voter model to work, it assumes that everyone knows the contesting parties’ position. Right now, the problem is people are not too sure what the opposition stand for. Part of it is due to media constraints and part of it is due to the lack of clear, coherent opposition positions. His casual reference to mass media does not give sufficient weight to the current information asymmetry.
But let’s put it this way, it is academic convention to put down the current thought before putting forth a new argument. By focusing on how poorly he put down the current thought- i.e. the dictatorship argument, misses the point that he has a new argument to make.
His new contribution to the debate is his third point. Ok, people have preferences, loyalty and apathy are not new arguments. But his point is SMALL places such as cities tend to exhibit these symptoms more than BIG places. Using US as an example, he says that there is some kind of social psychology reasoning that make people more loyal/apathatic in small elections than big elections.
In other words, the reason for the current situation is structural. AND we are stuck in it, because we can never change the size of our country. (short of war.)
Now, i personally don’t think his argument is true. If it is a small country/ city-state psychology at play, it will be consistent. However, we see a trend of votes going the other way. Is our country growing bigger? (by 1 million and a few more sq km) but i don’t think we changed our status as small/city state. SO that will be my rebuttal of his argument.
Nevertheless, despite my disagreement with his idea, i still give him points for the novelty of idea and for trying! =)
@22 Smallvoice
Caplan does indeed address indifference/apathy to some extent in Explanation #3 (see below)
All I’m suggesting is that he’d probably not disagree with you, and that the effects you’re talking about have been noticed!
“While the deference story does fairly well, there is also considerable evidence that resignation matters, too. Singaporeans’ unusually low professed interest in politics is telling. Only 3.2% of Singaporeans say they are “very interested,” and another 32.8% say that are “somewhat interest”; in the U.S., the corresponding numbers are 18.3% and 47.2%.[xlii] Mutalib (2004: 358) reports that three decades worth of studies of National University of Singapore undergraduates judge them to be “politically unaware, disinterested, and apathetic.” The World Values Survey consistently finds that compared to Americans, Singaporeans are extremely reluctant to engage in even low-level political participation, such as signing a petition or attending a rally.[xliii] The stereotype of the apolitical Singaporean appears to have much basis in fact.”
I do hope we would have enough to eat in the years preceding the death of the American Dollar
Does anyone know in the last 50 years which policy was EVER officially Rejected by the people?
By the endless support for last 50 years, can i say the people ACCEPTED ALL their policies?
What say u?
When general public praise the government you all criticise (bootlicking, surely civil servant..blah blah) and feel that this place is unbearable to leave want PR else where
When general public criticise PAP to be exact you all agree and want reform.
When Objective acedamic (An establish acedemic has to be as objective as possible) tries to study and explain the sucess of the government. You all not happy cos you want to hear how he/she should criticise PAP’s bad governance.
So hard to please. you all want to hear what u all like to hear.
This place is hardly for acedemic discussion. so one sided.
Also pls read the article carefully. He was hardly supporting PAP. Stop saying its BS and stuff. He was starting facts and trying to understand the workings of such governance, HAS facts and compares with the situation around the world espicially most of your highly esteems democractic country USA.
I’m starting to wonder if many of the people here actually travel around the world or just complain like “singaporeans” stereotypically do.
Hi everyone,
Please stop discrediting Bryan Caplan’s reasoning on the basis that he is perceived as a PAP man. He is an academic. I deem this as a personal attack against his credentials. If this goes on, some comments may undergo moderation. Let’s have a proper debate. He has been nice enough to engage the TOC community. Let’s be nice to everyone.
Cheers
Donald
Deputy Editor
The Online Citizen
Although China is a COMMUNIST Country, its economically thriving cities appear like those in democratic countries. This is because the economy is the economy, it is not Politics. Trading is Trading. Manufacturing is Manufacturing. These are not politics.
China has CHANGED since Mao.
Mao cannot not live forever.
No Man can.
China will continue to evolve as its leader come and go where change is the only constant.
Who will be as regarded or well received as LKY after LKY in the internationl community?
You get my point.
His comments in the original article unfortunately lacks ACADEMIC RIGOUR.
What is benevolant about Singapore , people should understand English words before they use them . Singapore is a hypocritical country , wants communist like controls on populations , freedom of speech etc , yet wants to use the Western system to make money .
Singapore government is arrogant , and the governmental structure too heavy and overweight , after all , they are only running a very small city , not even a real country , have no experience of running a country with big distances or infrastructure . And having lived in Singapore find that the infrastructure and development leave a lot to be desired , and is starting to show its old conservative ideas , Singapore is not the place it used to be.,
Well nowhere is there talk of the gerrymandering and pressure that goes on during elections ( don’t vote for us or you will get nothing) Also how do you study the real Singapore , everything is so opaque . I have never seen anything written about quality of life , basically the government uses workers then throws them or wants to get rid. Even a minister said old people should go and live in Johor.
There is no reference to modifications to the laws that in effect stiffle the constitution , especially concerning free speech and expression.
Also nothing is said about the Gini index for Singapore , that shows the real situation.
History will prove it , but Singapore is past its best with the current system , and unless major changes occur it will disappear into the sunset in the near future .