Opinion
Can Singapore’s authoritarian past pave the way for a grassroots democratic future?
Opinion: Can Singapore, often criticized for its authoritarian traits, become a trailblazer in grassroots democracy? PM Lawrence Wong’s recent dialogue with students, part of the Forward SG initiative, highlights a potential shift towards more inclusive, bottom-up policy-making in the city-state.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2024/07/15105752/Lawrence-Wong-2-July.png)
by Simone Galimberti
Can Singapore, whose political system has often been criticized for its authoritarian traits, become a trailblazer in deliberative, bottom-up forms of grassroots democracy?
Prime Minister Lawrence Wong’s recent dialogue with students is a positive continuation of a tradition that he helped cemented when he was a Deputy Prime Minister.
During the Institute of Policy Studies-Varsity Voices Dialogue on 2 July, PM Wong engaged participants by providing his view on an array of issues, including some common-sense piece of wisdom that also were broadly covered by media around the world.
“Nowadays, you have many more opportunities, and you start worrying if you are making the right choice. You start comparing with your what your friends are doing, and it may lead to a certain paralysis and a certain level of stress and anxiety. How do you decide what path to take?”, the PM shared.
“My suggestion for all of you, is to start from within. Do not compare, do not ask what your friends are doing. We all have our own abilities and strengths, there is no need to compare with others to squeeze into boxes we were not meant to fit. Instead, follow your own talents and strive to reach your own full potential”.
The dialogue builds on the groundbreaking Forward SG initiative that was launched in June 2022 to engage all “Singaporeans from all walks of life on how we should refresh our social compact for the road ahead”.
As I wrote at the time for this column, it was ironic that the new social contract that the government of Singapore is shaping does not also include aspects related to political and personal freedoms that the city state is still lacking so badly.
It a missed opportunity because the People’s Action Party could undertake a profound introspection, revisiting some its assumptions about essential liberties that are now taken for granted even in much less developed nations than Singapore.
Comparatively speaking, borrowing few terms indicating the social and economic development of a country, in terms of democracy and freedoms, Singapore, while not being a least developing nation, is surely still a developing one.
Yet PM Wong could herald a new horizon for his country by embracing stronger forms of grassroots democracy based on deliberations.
The press, while covering the event on 2 July, might have missed something important that Mr. Wong said during his speech.
“As far as the Government is concerned, we will create more opportunities for you to contribute to the common good, and to shape the character and tone of our society. We set up the Singapore Government Partnerships Office earlier this year, to make it easier for Singaporeans to partner with the Government”.
This statement deserves attention because it could potentially open the door to a new era of political reform.
I am saying “potentially” because it will all depend on the political will of the new Prime Minister and his team.
It could also be speculated that, following a classic PAP’ recipe, PM Wong will uphold a “wait, watch and see” approach to understand how the “opportunities” he mentioned could lead to something bolder, bigger and even transformative.
It wasn’t unsurprising that at the IPS event, the Prime Minister did not utter a word on democracy and citizens ‘rights, especially from a freedoms perspective.
As of now, PM Wong is following the script, and he is staying away from grand commitments.
Yet the Prime Minister appears to value a bottom-up way of policy-making.
Clearly, Singapore’s challenges are so daunting that finding innovative ways of consulting the citizenry has become indispensable.
In his speech before the 2 July Q&A with the participants, PM Wong added some details on how the government of Singapore intends to engage with a key segment of the national population: the youth.
“More recently, we have setup youth panels to deliberate over issues of concern to young people. We have setup four such panels, that cover issues like financial security and sustainability”.
He further explained:
“The youths on the panels that come together put in tremendous time and effort to understand the issues, and they will be given a chance to present their recommendations for improvements at an inaugural Youth Policy Forum in August. You may not have had the chance to participate in this round of Youth Panels, but there will be subsequent editions, and we welcome more of you to join in”.
This might not look like the heralding of a new political era for Singapore, but I believe that it can be the stepping stone to something bigger.
Here a scenario that I could imagine: in the next five to ten years, Singapore might be able to open up, initially very cautiously (after all, this is the PAP’s way) to some major political reforms, starting with relaxing some of the draconian legislations that are still now so much defining the city state’s way of life.
Such a gradual path of reforms might expand and turn into something really pioneering.
Singapore could not only embrace but also show the way on key principles and practices of deliberative democracy that are emerging throughout the West world actually are also part of the social fabric throughout the world.
But in order for these upcoming exercises announced by PM Wong to be really meaningful and ultimately, impactful, the PAP must “let it go”.
The party must accept that, if the youths are to be taken seriously and if it wants them to be really involved and engaged in these dialogues, then, it must also be at peace with the real possibility that the participants might vent out some of the frustrations that the party’s top echelon might, conveniently, brush aside.
Practising real deliberation on the ground will take time because, at the end of the day, it is going to be a gamble that the PAP.
Is PM Wong ready to listen to what could be defined as “problematic” complaints from the youths?
It might take time but the young generations of the city state might seize the chance and really start picking up tough topics for the PAP.
Do not get me wrong.
If the government of Singapore will come up only with a major initiative on climate assemblies because this will be one of the key demands emerging from the upcoming exercises with the young people, that would be also a very positive development.
Yet, discussing climate change, as complex as it is, is still within a safe area for the PAP.
But what if the youths will also go beyond an unspoken “red line”, raising their concerns about civil and political freedoms like freedom of assembly?
What if they seriously put in question not just the issue of capital punishment but also the unjust way unjust way that is currently administered?
The PAP might be very clear on how to hold the upcoming discussions with the youths.
First it might be planning to tightly control them, guiding and directing the conversation.
Equally probable is the fact that the party will fall into the temptation of swiftly pushing back against any sensitive issues if these cases were to emerge.
Both reactions would be a mistake.
The party should ultimately accept, if it is serious about dialoguing with the citizenry, that it does not hold the monopoly on what a future compact for the nation might entail and what would look like.
A new compact might not be just about fairer wages and mental health, even though these are two paramount issues.
It might also mean a more democratic and freer society for the citizens of Singapore.
It’s time the party started letting it go, and PM Wong, deep inside, knows it.
The author writes about regional integration, human rights and democracy in the Asia Pacific.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2023/03/26202010/TOC_newlogo_small.webp)
Opinion
Means testing or Mean Testing? Are Singapore’s housing grants unfair to middle-income families?
Singapore’s public housing system is often praised for affordability, yet the disparity in housing grants raises questions. Middle-income families face steep declines in grants as incomes rise, receiving far less support than lower-income groups for BTO flats.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2024/08/21143736/cooling-measures-ZL6TAY.png)
Singapore’s public housing system is often lauded as a model of efficiency and affordability. However, when it comes to housing grants, particularly for the middle-income group, one cannot help but question whether the current system is truly fair.
The disparity in grants between different income groups, especially those buying Build-To-Order (BTO) flats versus resale flats, raises concerns about whether the middle-income segment is being systematically disadvantaged.
The Middle-Income Squeeze
The Enhanced CPF Housing Grant (EHG) is structured in a way that gradually decreases the grant amount as household income increases. While this might seem equitable on the surface, the steep reduction in grants for households earning between S$4,000 and S$9,000 reveals a deeper issue. These middle-income families receive significantly less support despite still facing substantial housing costs.
For instance, a family with a monthly household income of S$1,500 can receive up to S$120,000 in EHG, making a substantial difference in affordability. However, as income rises, the grant amount rapidly declines. A family earning S$5,000 receives just S$65,000—nearly half of what lower-income families receive. For those earning between S$8,501 and S$9,000, the grant amount is reduced to a mere S$5,000.
According to the Singapore Department of Statistics, among resident-employed households, the median monthly household income from work (excluding employer CPF contributions) grew by 10.8 per cent in nominal terms, from S$8,904 in 2022 to S$9,646 in 2023. This places the middle-income range squarely within the median income bracket, yet these families continue to receive significantly less support through housing grants.
This “middle-income squeeze” leaves families in this income bracket in a precarious position. They earn too much to qualify for substantial grants but not enough to comfortably afford rising housing costs, particularly in a high-cost city like Singapore.
The disparity in grant amounts becomes even more glaring when considering that these middle-income families, while receiving minimal grants for BTO flats, could potentially receive up to S$110,000 in grants if the family that doesn’t exceed S$14,000 in household income opts for a resale flat instead.
This discrepancy suggests that the current grant structure may be inadvertently favouring wealthier households.
The Unfairness of “Means Testing”
The term “means testing” is often used to justify such disparities, suggesting that those with higher incomes should receive fewer subsidies.
However, this principle seems to be turned on its head when it comes to housing grants. Why is it that those who can afford to buy more expensive resale flats are receiving significantly more grants than those opting for BTO flats, which are typically seen as more affordable options?
Consider a household with an income of S$9,001 to S$14,000. If they decide to purchase a resale flat, they can receive up to S$110,000 in housing grants, comprising the CPF Housing Grant (CHG) of S$80,000 and the Proximity Housing Grant (PHG) of S$30,000. On the other hand, if the same household opts for a BTO flat, they would receive no grants at all.
This stark contrast highlights a troubling aspect of the current system: higher-income households buying resale flats are awarded significantly more government support than those purchasing BTO flats, which are meant to be the more affordable and accessible option for Singaporeans.
One particularly puzzling aspect of the current grant system is the Proximity Housing Grant (PHG) and the CPF Housing Grant (CHG), which are only available for those buying resale flats.
The government promotes the PHG as a way to encourage families to stay close together and support each other across generations, yet it is unclear why this grant, along with the CHG, is not extended to those purchasing BTO flats. The absence of these grants for BTO buyers adds to the sense of inequity.
In this context, the system appears less like “means testing” and more like “mean testing,” where middle-income families are left with fewer resources to purchase their homes. This approach not only places a heavier financial burden on these families but also raises questions about the equity of the entire housing grant system.
The Consequence of the Sliding Scale and Loan Restrictions
The sliding scale of the EHG, while intended to provide more support to those with lower incomes, inadvertently penalizes middle-income families who do not qualify for sufficient grants yet face the same challenges of homeownership.
For example, a family earning S$9,000 receives just S$5,000 in grants—a negligible amount compared to the S$110,000 a resale flat buyer in the same income bracket might receive through other grant combinations.
Adding to this burden, the recent tightening of the HDB loan-to-value (LTV) limit to 75% further complicates the situation for middle-income families.
With a lower LTV ratio, these families now have to come up with a larger downpayment, which is particularly challenging given the reduced grant amounts. This combination of lower grants and higher upfront costs places middle-income households at a significant disadvantage, making it more difficult for them to finance their homes.
Reverse Means Testing?
Arguably, the system as it stands resembles a form of “reverse means testing,” where wealthier families benefit more from government subsidies than their lower-income counterparts.
A family with a household income of S$9,001 receives no grant if they purchase a BTO flat, yet the same family could receive up to S$110,000 in grants if they choose a resale flat—provided they can afford the cash for the downpayment, which can run into hundreds of thousands of dollars in the resale market. This discrepancy suggests that the current grant structure may inadvertently favour those who are better off at the expense of those who are less financially secure.
The intent behind Singapore’s housing grants is to make homeownership more accessible and affordable, but the current system seems to fall short of this goal for middle-income families, with the distorted public housing system being patched up with grants and subsidies.
The significant disparity in grant amounts between BTO and resale flats, coupled with the exclusion of the PHG and CHG for BTO buyers, raises serious questions about the fairness of the system. The added pressure from the tightened LTV limits only exacerbates the financial burden on these households, making it even harder for them to achieve affordable homeownership.
As Singapore continues to refine its public housing policies, it is crucial that the needs of middle-income families are not overlooked.
These families, who are often squeezed between the lower-income groups that receive more substantial support and the higher-income groups that can afford private housing or resale flats, deserve a fairer share of the pie.
It is perhaps time to re-evaluate the current grant system to ensure that it truly supports all Singaporeans in their journey to homeownership rather than disadvantaging those in the middle of the BTO market.
Opinion
Singaporean voters and the ‘Battered Wife Syndrome’
Opinion: Singaporean voters, much like an abused spouse, remain trapped in a cycle of political dependence and fear. Clinging to the memory of a once-transformative party, they endure empty promises, fearing chaos without the People’s Action Party despite viable alternatives.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2024/09/04151213/carrots.png)
In every election, a significant portion of Singaporean voters return to the ballot box and, with a trembling hand, check the box for the People’s Action Party (PAP).
It’s a ritual that has been repeated for decades, much like the pattern seen in those suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome, a psychological condition identified as a type of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Coined by psychologist Lenore Walker, EdD, in her groundbreaking 1979 book The Battered Woman, this syndrome explains the psychological effects of living with prolonged trauma, particularly intimate partner violence.
While not classified as a mental illness itself, the syndrome often leads to PTSD, which is considered a mental illness. The cycle of abuse involves tension building, violent outbursts, apologies, promises to change, and the inevitable return to violence—a vicious cycle of control, manipulation, and fear.
The comparison may seem stark, but it bears relevance to the political experience of many Singaporeans. Like those suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome, they remain trapped in a cycle of political dependence, clinging to the hope that things might one day change.
Yet, election after election, they find themselves voting for the PAP, a party that bears little resemblance to the one that once led Singapore to prosperity.
The PAP of the past, under the leadership of the late Lee Kuan Yew and his contemporaries, was a transformative force.
This generation brought post-independence Singapore from a colonial port city to a global economic powerhouse, earning its citizens’ trust and loyalty. However, those leaders are long gone, and the party today operates in a very different context, with a new set of leaders, policies, and priorities.
As Lee Kuan Yew’s younger son, Lee Hsien Yang, once said, “Today’s PAP is no longer the PAP of my father. It has lost its way.”
Yet, like someone suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome, many Singaporeans continue to vote for the PAP, holding on to the memory of a party that no longer exists. They cling to the hope that this time, things might be different—that the promises made will be kept, and the “abuses” will stop.
But election after election, the reality hits hard: the promises to improve lives and provide support during challenging times remain unfulfilled, especially as the cost of living escalates and homeownership and retirement concerns grow due to policies like tax hikes—only temporarily relieved by measures (carrots) such as GST and CDC vouchers, which some see as a euphemism for food stamps. The relationship between the people and the party remains toxic, and in some ways, worsens over time.
In this analogy, the “abuse” is not physical but political and emotional. It manifests in the erosion of freedoms, the lack of genuine political competition, and the paternalistic attitude that suggests Singaporeans cannot be trusted to make decisions for themselves.
The cycle of control mirrors Walker’s description of Battered Woman Syndrome: tension builds, dissatisfaction grows, and yet, the same promises are made over and over with no real change.
Many voters, much like those trapped in abusive relationships, have been conditioned to believe that without the PAP, the country would fall into chaos, that their livelihoods would be at risk, and that alternatives are too dangerous or incompetent to consider.
This is where the PAP’s control turns into coercive control—a key feature of Battered Woman Syndrome. The party retains control over public discourse, media narratives, and financial policies, limiting the scope for political alternatives and isolating citizens from opposing viewpoints.
The manipulation doesn’t stop at control; it extends to gaslighting as well.
Like an abusive partner, the PAP continues to undermine its “spouse’s” confidence, telling Singaporeans that they are nothing without the party—creating crises through policies and media control, all while using taxpayers’ money to maintain that grip.
The party insists that only the PAP is qualified to govern while portraying those who offer a different vision for the country as untrustworthy or incompetent, even when evidence suggests otherwise. Much like an abuser convincing their partner that they are incapable of surviving alone, the PAP perpetuates the myth that Singapore would crumble without its leadership, despite having a world-class civil service capable of running on its own.
This gaslighting leaves many voters doubting their own judgment.
But here’s the truth that so many fail to see: Singapore, much like someone suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome, has options.
There are opposition parties that offer different visions for the country, leaders who are ready to step up and serve with integrity. However, even when presented with viable alternatives—opposition parties with clear policies and capable leaders—Singaporeans continue to cling to the familiar, fearful of the unknown.
The continued loyalty to the PAP, despite the abuses, is not a sign of strength or wisdom but of fear and conditioning—an unhealthy relationship where the victim has been made to believe they cannot survive on their own.
A key element in this perceived manipulation is the role of state media, such as Straits Times and Channel News Asia, which is heavily funded by taxpayers’ money—directly and indirectly.
For instance, the recent allocation of S$900 million to SPH Media Trust has raised concerns among some observers who view it as an extension of the ruling party’s influence over public discourse.
While the government has justified this funding as necessary to support media outreach and improve journalistic quality, critics argue that such funding can blur the lines for media outlets and raise concerns about potential bias. This can leave citizens unsure of what to trust, making it difficult to distinguish between factual reporting, opinion, or sheer propaganda.
Furthermore, it appears that the alienation of independent media voices may be another tactic used to maintain control.
The Online Citizen (TOC) was effectively forced out of Singapore after being required to reveal the details of its subscribers, and its financial lifelines were impacted by declarations of POFMA Declared Online Locations—possibly as part of an effort to silence independent voices that challenge the government and fact-check the narratives pushed by state-controlled media.
These actions would appear as attempts to remove dissenting opinions and limit the public’s access to alternative perspectives, seeking to reinforce the perception that the PAP is the only viable option, casting doubt on opposition parties and alternative views.
In any case, the public is left with little room to critically evaluate the realities of governance as state-controlled media continues to frame dissent as dangerous or uninformed.
Holding on to a past that no longer exists only perpetuates the suffering.
It’s time for voters to take a hard look at their options, especially in light of the upcoming General Election and the underwhelming performance of the 4G leadership in the PAP. Voters must weigh the promises against the reality, and make a choice that reflects their true interests and aspirations.
Like a battered woman who finally finds the courage to leave, Singaporean voters must find the strength to vote for change.
The path may be uncertain, and the fear of the unknown is real, but continuing to suffer under the illusion of security is far worse. Singapore deserves better, and so do its people.
-
Opinion2 days ago
Singaporean voters and the ‘Battered Wife Syndrome’
-
Civil Society2 days ago
CIVICUS Monitor labels Singapore as ‘repressed’ for crackdown on civic freedoms
-
Opinion4 days ago
Is the shuttle bus service at Marine Parade town cluster just a S$1 million political ad campaign?
-
Economy2 days ago
IRAS reports S$80.3 billion in tax revenue for FY2023/24, a 17% increase from the previous year
-
Economy4 days ago
Singapore faces 25% increase in bankruptcy filings during first half of 2024
-
Food17 hours ago
NTU stall food prices questioned after parent pays S$6.30 for meal
-
Parliament2 days ago
Workers’ Party to question Govt on Mobile Guardian breach and entry of extremist preacher in upcoming parliamentary sitting
-
Politics6 days ago
Desmond Lee issues two POFMA correction directions against The Online Citizen