Singapore General Elections 2015: ten key takeaways

With the 2015 General Election results now confirmed, here are ten 'quick and dirty' takeaways.

Pros:

1.   GE 2015 was a genuine general election. Every constituency was contested and every Singaporean cast a ballot. There were no walkovers.

2.   Singaporeans made politicians work hard to earn their votes. No vote was taken for granted. Even the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) made an effort.

3.   The Workers Party (WP) consolidated its role as the only credible opposition party in Singapore. The new talent brought in by the WP is ostensibly of well qualified and of high quality.

4.   A natural narrowing of the political arena is occurring with other opposition parties beginning to fade away thus, ultimately, leaving the field clear for the possible evolution of two party system.

5.   Singaporeans are developing a taste for accountability from its leaders. This may translate into unpredictability of voting patterns, something that should keep the PAP leadership on constant alert and sensitive to voter concerns.

Cons:

1.   The PAP's margin of victory may influence its leadership to revert to the party's past leadership style, often perceived as arrogant and condescending.

2.   Singapore has no worthwhile opposition to speak of, at least not presently. If the WP can survive and 'professionalize and corporatize' itself over the next few general elections then it has a chance.

3.   All the other (not WP) opposition parties are perceived by the electorate as amateurish with no genuine leadership capability or platform. None was able to make a significant mark among voters in any constituency.

4.   Given the strength of the PAP's mandate, it may now attempt to 'strangle' and discredit other political parties through 'political-administrative' measures to 'cleanse' the political arena.

5.   Singaporeans must wait five more years if they want to make a change!

Imran is a business and management consultant. Through his work at Deodar Advisors and the Deodar Diagnostic, Imran improves profits of businesses operating in Singapore and the region. He can be reached at imran@deodaradvisors.com. 

Singapore’s strategic challenge: SG50 to SG100

SG50 celebrations are quickly fading from Singapore's collective memory. The mutual self-congratulations and laudatory speeches are a thing of the past. Indeed, the political focus has shifted decisively towards the future with the official announcement of general elections expected imminently.

While Singapore's 'usual suspects' (e.g. immigration, public transport, cost of living, etc.) will command most attention during the forthcoming election campaign, it is Singapore's welfare over the next 50 years which demand more focus.

Arguably, the 50 years nation building period since 1965 may prove easier to navigate than the coming 50 years. Why? Several reasons come to mind.

Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) is the most obvious answer.

Singapore was fortunate to have firm, visionary leadership for several post-independence decades – a luxury denied most newly decolonized nations. Leadership best symbolized by LKY, but also includes other cabinet members (e.g. Goh Keng Swee, Rajaretnam et. al.) influential in their own right in shaping critical national policy frameworks.

Singapore circa 1965 was a typical third world city: undeveloped, unclean and riddled with crime. Arguably, things could not get much worse – only better. Certainly, development is easier when started from a low base - improvements are more visible and impactful.

Singapore took a free market, export led approach to generating economic growth in an era when many decolonized countries practiced and preached economic self-reliance. China was well and truly a People's Republic. Deng Xiao Ping had not yet worked his magic. India was a socialist country firmly implanted on the Soviet Union's side during the Cold War. Both China and India were off limits to international investors.

For ASEAN's Asian Tigers it was a sunny period as they received large doses of direct foreign investment from wealthy industrialized nations. There was far less competition for the international investment dollar. Fast forward to 2015 and things are different.

Singapore no longer starts from a low economic base.

On the contrary, Singapore is now one of the wealthiest nations in the world. It is hard, if not impossible, to generate and sustain (say) seven percent annual GDP growth with GDP per capita at USD 56,000 versus the 1965 per capita income of USD 516. Put simply, seven percent growth equals an annual increment of USD 36 in 1965 versus a yearly increase in income of almost USD 4,000 today (a monthly wage increase of approximately SGD 450).

Suddenly one pillar of Singapore's historical social contract looks a bit wobbly?

Like other Asian Tiger economies, a key factor in Singapore's early economic success was its low cost structure. Contemporary Singapore is no longer cost competitive for traditional businesses. Quite the reverse, recent surveys suggest Singapore is now a frightfully expensive place for international companies.

That's not all. Singapore's economic success brings with it other concerns.

A wealthy, literate population has different expectations from the country's political leadership.

Having achieved success, some Singaporeans believe they are entitled to a 'cradle to the grave' social welfare structure, often citing various European countries as appropriate models. The increased demands by citizens coupled with the power of the social media – think Arab Spring – has on occasion forced the government's hand towards populist polices.

Undoubtedly, Singapore can afford higher social expenditure but if the 'entitlement' trend continues then Singapore becomes closer to Europe in other ways too: high taxes, poor delivery of government services and a rigid labor market. Or Singapore heads towards unsustainable social expenditure (think Greece)?

Unfortunately (or fortunately) ASEAN is not the European Union and no one owes Singapore a living!

Politically, no single leader has the gravitas and respect accorded to LKY and his team.

The political contract was simpler in 1965: the government improves economic conditions and the citizenry don't ask too many difficult questions. In contrast, today's electorate is keen to question the leadership and flex its muscles at the ballot box. The upshot: despite the ruling People's Action Party's achievements for Singapore over the last 50 years, the city's long standing rulers cannot take the popular vote for granted.

Consequently, the government cannot enact unpopular policies with the same bluster as before. A literate, connected and wealthy (entitled?!) electorate is not as easy to boss around as the less well-off, kampong dwelling Singaporean of the past.  

History is for historians and the future is for the next generation (or, PAP, what have you done for me lately)?!

Despite all the challenges face in an uncertain world, there are many reasons to argue for Singapore's continued success in the next 50 years.

Governmence structures are solidly in place.

Public service and the bureaucracy continue to attract talent due to competitive compensation structures. In an often unstable region, Singapore's educated and English speaking society provides a haven of stability which allows the country to charge a 'Singapore Premium.'

Currency reserves – effectively savings squirreled away for a rainy day - are sizeable.

Between GIC and Temasek, Singapore's two sovereign wealth funds, GIC and Temasek, contain a massive USD 538 billion in assets. A sum equivalent to approx. USD 161,000 for each of Singapore's 3.4 million citizens! These savings provide a limited insurance policy for increased social welfare expenditures.

Singapore's new found wealth also makes the country ideally placed in a capitalist world.

The Republic is a global investor in its own right with large investments, particularly in developing ASEAN and China. In time these investments will generate significant positive income for the country.

But let's forget logic for a moment. After all, human society is a collection of human emotional endeavours?

Singapore's future is about survival for its resourceful and creative population. So if necessity is the mother of invention (or re-invention is this case) then the odds suggest that this small (non-secular!) island republic will succeed in for the next fifty years!

__________________

Imran is a business and management consultant. Through his work at Deodar Advisors and the Deodar Diagnostic, Imran improves profits of businesses operating in Singapore and the region. He can be reached at imran@deodaradvisors.com. 

Punggol East: Workers’ Party victory or PAP’s loss?

Singapore's blogosphere must certainly be buzzing with news of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) loss in the Punggol East by-election. The Workers' Party (WP) victory is significant in several ways. However, first one must decide if the result is primarily a victory for the WP or a defeat for the PAP. The distinction is a fine but important one.

Were Punggol East voters expressing discontent against the PAP and was the WP the only alternative available? Or do Singaporeans' voters genuinely believe the WP fielded the better candidate? The answer is a combination of both factors.

The electorate is tired of being taken for granted by the political elite and the PAP is finding it difficult to reinvent itself in line with the aspirations of a changed citizenry. Take the AIM controversy – voters smelt a rat. There may not be any criminal or legal wrongdoing on the part of AIM but in the court of public opinion the PAP fights an uphill battle to justify its behaviour. The AIM transaction may have been acceptable to voters several elections ago but not today.

The 'New Singapore' demands greater transparency.

Even if the Punggol vote was a protest vote against the PAP, the WP gains much from the results of the Punggol East by-election. WP has established itself as Singapore's only opposition party of note. Over time, other parties will most likely fade away as opposition supporters consolidate around the WP.

Success breeds success and the taste of victory is infectious. The WP's triumph in Punggol East is a positive booster shot for WP supporters. The resolve of parliamentarians, party workers, donors and supporters alike will harden. Moreover, the WP will likely find it easier to attract talent. Supporting the opposition is no longer a lost cause – a significant perception change from just a few years ago.

To its credit, the WP has played its cards reasonably well during the last few years. Understanding its limitations as a minnow in Singapore's political arena, the WP has acted responsibly to date. It has not bitten off more than it can chew.

The Punggol East by-election is one more step in the maturing of Singapore's politics. Just as the PAP is fumbling around to teach itself how to live with a parliamentary opposition, the WP is discovering the intricacies of operating within a parliamentary democracy - a process of 'self-discovery' for Singapore at the national level.

The PAP may not be in danger of losing its parliamentary majority at the next general elections. However, the seeds of a two party parliamentary system in Singapore have been planted. It only remains to be seen if these seeds will grow into a healthy plant. We will only know the answer to that question once Singapore goes through a few more general election cycles.

__________________

Imran is a business and management consultant. Through his work at Deodar Advisors and the Deodar Diagnostic, Imran improves profits of businesses operating in Singapore and the region. He can be reached at imran@deodaradvisors.com.