1 | P a g e

HA205

THE GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS OF SINGAPORE

TERM PAPER

SEMESTER 1

ACADEMIC YEAR 2010/11

Word Count: 6,206 Words

(Main Text)

Done by: CHAN ZHE YING

NANYANG BUSINESS SCHOOL | ACC 3

2 | P a g e

DISCLAIMER

THIS PAPER IS BASED UPON WORK DONE IN FULFILLMENT OF THE COURSE REQUIREMENT OF HA205 GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS OF SINGAPORE. THE OPINIONS OF THE AUTHOR DOES NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OPINIONS OF NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, NANYANG BUSINESS SCHOOL, SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES, ITS ACADEMIC STAFF OR ITS ADMINISTRATION.

3 | P a g e

ABSTRACT

Singapore‟s progress from a third world country to a first world metropolitan state within 45

years of independence has caught the attention of many political observers and governments.

For all her successes, the Singapore democratic system has been continuously scrutinized,

and in many instances, criticised by many western political analysts, politicians, governments,

as well as Singapore‟s immediate neighbours in the region. Is there democracy in Singapore?

If so, how much of the Singapore success story can be attributed to democracy?

To discuss these issues, one must first define democracy, and the different forms of

democratic systems that currently exist around the world. One must also understand the

geopolitical constraints faced by Singapore since its independence and the historical events

that led to the current political environment. Singapore‟s success today is largely attributable

to Lee Kuan Yew. This is the view that is widely agreed upon even among his most severe

critics. One cannot ignore the influence of Lee on the politics and policies in that exist in

modern Singapore today. There are also other factors that can be attributed to Singapore‟s

success. These factors range from a capable leadership since independence to a strong

armed forces. By understanding these factors and issues, it is not hard to see why the

Singapore democratic system works and why it has resulted in her continued success.

Singapore‟s political system is not without its flaws though. Some of the key criticisms include

the lack of an alternative voice in parliament, a lack of media and press freedom, and the

restriction of certain civil liberties such as freedom of expression. This paper will conclude by

analyzing these criticisms and discuss as to whether there are any basis for and truths in

these criticisms.

4 | P a g e

Table of Contents

Pg

Abstract 3

Chapter One: Introduction: What is democracy?

1.1 Definition of democracy 5

1.2 Types of democracies 5

1.3 Is Singapore democratic? 6

Chapter Two: Singapore: An accidental sovereign state

2.1 Going it alone 7

2.2 Singapore‟s geopolitical constants: “A tiny red dot, in the middle of a green sea” 8

2.2.1 Ups and Downs with Malaysia 8

2.2.2 Indonesia: from foe to friend 10

2.3 Getting the basics right: Lee Kuan Yew and the Old Guard 11

2.3.1 The need for a strong and deterrent armed forces 12

2.3.2 Workfare, not welfare 13

2.3.3 Many tongues, one language 14

2.3.4 Keeping a clean government 15

2.3.5 Media management 16

Chapter Three: From third world to first

3.1 Stable social-economic environment 17

3.2 Stable business environment and a competitive financial centre 18

3.3 Sports, arts and convention centre of Asia and beyond 19

Chapter Four: Analysis of key criticisms of Singapore’s democratic model

4.1 Lack of opposition representation or lack of credible opposition candidates 20

4.2 Lack of transparency in electoral process and the GRC system 22

4.3 Lack of freedom of expression and press & media freedom 24

Chapter Five: Conclusion 26

Bibliography 27

5 | P a g e

1. INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS DEMOCRACY?

1.1 Definition of democracy

Democracy‟s roots could be traced to the ancient Greek political and philosophical thought.

The definition of democracy has changed greatly since then and has been continuously

contested. To date, there is yet to be a single agreed upon definition of democracy.

Some definitions of democracy include:

Democracy is a political system in which different groups are legally entitled to compete for

power and in which institutional power holders are elected by the people and are responsible

to the people. – Vanhannen 1997, 31

Democracy is not majority rule: democracy is the diffusion of power, representation of

interest, recognition of minorities.” – John Calhoun, 1989, 63

1.2 Types of democracies

Many forms of democracies have since surfaced throughout the world and a few forms of

common democracies are:1

Electoral democracy is a political system in which the government comes into power through

free and fair elections at regular intervals.

Liberal democracy (or constitutional democracy) is a common form of representative

democracy. The principles of liberal democracy require that elections are free and fair, and

that there should be civil liberties such as freedom of expression and press freedom. In

contrast, illiberal democracy (or delegative democracy) does have elections; however, there

is a lack of civil liberties.

Illiberal democracy is a political system in which the government comes into power though

(mostly) free and fair elections, but where civil liberties are not guaranteed.

1 Prof U.G Theuerkauf, Democratic Theory, IR210 Building Democracies from Conflict, LSE Summer School

2010, London School of Economics and Political Science, 26 July 2010

6 | P a g e

The liberal democracy is often heavily promoted by western nations to (and at times forced

upon) countries around the world.

1.3 Is Singapore democratic?

Singapore‟s system (as is the case with many nations) does not seem to fit into any particular

definition of democracy.

Part IV of the Singapore Constitution confers the liberty of a person to freedom of speech,

religion and movement, among other rights.2 The civil liberties drafted into the constitution

can be construed to fit the definition of liberal democracy.

According to Samuel Huntington, a system is democratic when “its most powerful collective

decision makers are selected through fair, honest, and periodic elections in which candidates

freely compete for votes,”3 but as Larry Diamonds asked: what constitutes to “fair, honest,

and free”?4 Does the fact that Singapore experiencing multiparty elections, with some degree

of competition and uncertainty qualifies it to be democratic? Many scholars and political

observers consider Singapore to be an autocratic regime because it is not entirely liberal and

lacks opposition representation in the parliament. Many have criticized how civil liberties are

restricted and concluded that Singapore is not undemocratic. Often contested issues include

the freedom of speech and media, as well as civil liberties such as freedom of assembly.

What constitutes to “freedom”, however, is highly subjective and ultimately depends on one‟s

perspective. Contested issues aside, one cannot deny that elections in Singapore are held at

regular intervals and the much of the electoral process is free and fair. The lack of opposition

in the government does not mean that it is an autocratic system. Hence, one should not

suggest that democracy does not exist in Singapore. However, the perceived control of

certain civil liberties such as media coverage for opposing views, suggests that it is not a “full”

democracy in the truest sense.

2

Singapore Statutes Online, Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, Part IV Fundamental Liberties, Copyright© 2001, Government of Singapore. Extracted 20 October 2010 3 Samuel P Huntington, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, Norman: University of

Oklahoma Press, 1991, p7 4 Larry Diamond, 'Thinking about Hybrid Regimes', Journal of Democracy p22, 2002

7 | P a g e

2. SINGAPORE: AN ACCIDENTAL SOVEREIGN STATE

2.1 Going it alone

“9 August 1965 was no ceremonial occasion. We never sought independence.” –

Lee Kuan Yew 5

Fundamental disagreements over policies between Singapore and the Malaya federal

government led to the separation of Singapore from the federal government (and

independence of Singapore). One prominent disagreement was Singapore‟s government, led

by then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, insistence for a Malaysian‟s Malaysia, with

meritocracy and equal rights for all citizens regardless of race, language or religion. This was

rejected by the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) – which consisted of many

Malay Ultras (racial extremists) – who wanted to build Malaysia for its Malay citizens, with

specific policies to benefit the Malay and Muslim citizens.

To prevent the political and racial tension between Kular Lumpur and Singapore to rise to

dangerous levels, Singapore was eventually ejected from the Federation of Malaysia on 9

August 1965. Singapore‟s independence was hence thrust upon her. Many foreign journalists

and political analysts did not believe that Singapore would survive. As observed by Lee in his

memoires, Denis Warner wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald (10 August 1965), “An

independent Singapore was not regarded as viable three years ago (when she first joined the

Federation of Malaysia). Nothing in the current situation suggests that it is more viable today.”

Many Malay leaders in KL believed that Singapore should never have been allowed to leave

Malaysia, but should have been forced into submission.6

Being a tiny state with no natural resources, lack of land mass, coupled with a non-existent

defence force, the challenges faced by the country seemed almost insurmountable. Unlike

many nations with a distinct culture and citizenry, the population that existed in Singapore at

that time consisted of immigrants from China, British India and the Dutch East Indies.

5 Lee Kuan Yew, From Third World to First: The Singapore Story (1965-2000) – Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew.

Singapore, Times Editions, 1998 6 Lee Kuan Yew, From Third World to First: The Singapore Story (1965-2000) – Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew.

Singapore, p19-22, Times Edition, 1998, p19-22

8 | P a g e

2.2 Singapore’s geopolitical constraints: “A tiny red dot, in the middle of a green sea”

Singapore‟s immediate neighbours are Malaysia and Indonesia. According to the last

population census (both in 2000), the Malays accounted for 65% of Malaysia‟s population7,

while 86.1% of Indonesians are Muslims.8 Singapore, being a majority-Chinese country, was

hence seen by many as being “trapped” in a sea of green (green being the auspicious colour

associated with Muslims).

Though Singapore‟s foreign relations with her neighbours have been good throughout her

independence, it is not without conflict, as evidenced in the various disputes Singapore has

with her neighbours from time to time. Such conflicts were especially frequent during

Singapore‟s early years.

2.2.1 Ups and downs with Malaysia

“Singapore is a tiny country. Don‟t talk big. Just as there are many ways to skin a

cat, there is also more than one method to skin Singapore” – Dr Mahathir

Mohammad, with regard to the water issue and competition between the ports in

both countries.9

In the years that followed the separation, Malaysia‟s leaders continued to treat Singapore as

though the Singapore government were seeking merger to re-integrate into the Malaya

federal government. With one battalion of soldiers still remaining in Singapore, and their

ability to cut off Singapore‟s water supply, or even to shut down the causeway to stop all

trade and travel, the Malaysian government continuously pressured Singapore to comply with

their stance on to how Singapore should run its affairs from matters such as governance,

trade and currency valuation.

One constant conflict Singapore has with Malaysia was over the issues water supplies.

Singapore had no natural resources. Two water agreements, signed with Malaysia in 1961 7 Census of Population and Housing Malaysia 2000, Dept of Statistics Malaysia. Extracted 17 October 2010.

8 Indonesian Central Statistics Bureau (30 June 2000), 2000 Population Stats Release 2010

9 Media Resource Centre, Transcript of Remarks On Malaysia-Singapore Relations by Minister for Foreign

Affairs, Prof S Jayakumar in Parliament, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore. Extracted 17 October 2010

9 | P a g e

and 1962, are currently in force to for Malaysia to provide water supplies to Singapore until

2011 and 2061 respectively. It has often been alleged that water is used as political leverage

by Malaysia whenever Singapore is seen to have impinged on its interests and rights.10

Another recently concluded long-standing dispute the two nations was the Pedra Branca

territorial dispute, over several islets at the eastern entrance to the Singapore Strait. The

dispute began in 1979 and was largely resolved by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in

May 2008, which ruled that Pedra Branca belonged to Singapore.11 This was just one of

many ongoing disputes between the two nations.

But Singapore‟s relations has not always been rough, one such issue that originated in the

late 1980s was recently resolved. The issue first arose when Lee wanted to shift the

Singapore customs at the Singapore rail train station closer to the Singapore causeway

checkpoint at the north of the island (the train station was near the Central Business District

in Singapore). The Malaysia government was unhappy because, under the law, the land on

which the rail tracks sits on will be returned to Singapore once they were no longer in use.

Negotiations broke down time and again because both governments could not come to an

agreement on how to resolve this issue.

In September 2010, leaders of both countries, Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong

and Malaysia Prime Minister Najib Razak announced a groundbreaking land swap deal12 that

is widely seen as a resolve of the Malayan Railway dispute and marks a huge step forward in

foreign relations for both governments.

10

Tan, A., Problems and Issues in Malaysia-Singapore Relations, Working Paper No. 314, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, The Australian National University, 1997. 11

International Court of Justice, Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), Press Release 2008/10, 23 May 2008. Extracted 17 October 2010 12

S Ramesh, Singapore, Malaysia finalise land swap deal, Channel News Asia, Singapore News, 20 September 2010. Extracted 18 October 2010

10 | P a g e

2.2.2 Indonesia: From foe to friend

“Look at the map. All the green [area] is Indonesia. And that red dot is Singapore.

Look at that.” – former Indonesia President B. J. Habibie in an interview with the

Asian Wall Street Journal (4 August 1998)13

Singapore‟s relationship with Indonesia has been rocky in the past. It reached one of its

lowest points when former Indonesia President B. J. Habibie voiced his dislike for Singapore

wanted Singapore to know its place and realize its vulnerability.

Over the last decade, Indonesia‟s farmers will burn the forests to clear the land for new

plantations annually. The seasonal winds sometimes carry the haze to not just Singapore,

but Indonesia‟s other neighbours as well. This creates heavy air pollution and hazy

conditions which could potentially cause serious health hazards to many living in Singapore.

This has been a thorny issue between Singapore and Indonesia over the last few years, due

to Indonesia‟s government inability (and blatant inaction) to resolve the issue.

Relations seem to have improved when Singapore responded swiftly to the 2004 Boxing Day

tsunami disaster that struck Aceh, Indonesia, and aided in the recovery efforts in the tsunami

hit areas. However, in Jan 2007, the Indonesian government moved to impose bans on sand

exports to Singapore14, in a move many analysts sees as a measure to curb Singapore‟s

economic progress in the construction sector. Singapore immediately released its stockpile of

land to meet market demand and was able to work around the issue.

Singapore is constantly being exposed to Indonesia‟s unpredictable attitude and would have

to work within these geopolitical constraints.

13

Lee Kuan Yew, From Third World to First: The Singapore Story (1965-2000) – Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew. Singapore, Times Editions, 1998, p319 14

Pearl Forss, Indonesia bans sand exports, Channel News Asia, 24 Jan 2007. Extracted 18 October 2010

11 | P a g e

2.3 Getting the basics right: Lee Kuan Yew and the Old Guard

“We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people,

regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society, based

on justice and equality, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for

our nation.” – Singapore National Pledge15

To say that Singapore is a success today and the success is largely attributable to Lee, there

can be few doubts, even among his most severe critics. 16 Lee knew that in order for

Singapore to survive, Singapore needs a strong government with strong-willed leaders to

make up for its lack of weight as a country.

Lee also believed that race, language and religion are divisive factors that could impede

national unity and nation building. Many of his policy decisions were therefore aimed at

addressing these challenges in building up the nation. Lee built Singapore on several

fundamentals, including but not limited to:

1. The need for a deterrent armed forces

2. Maintaining a fair, not welfare, society

3. Many tongues, one language

4. Keeping a clean government

5. Managing the media

15

www.sg website, Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts (MICA), Government of Singapore. Extracted 10 November 2010 16

Han Fook Kwang, Warren Fernandez and Sumiko Tan, Lee Kuan Yew: The Main And His Ideas, Singapore, Times Edition, 1998, pg 13

12 | P a g e

2.3.1 The need for a strong and deterrent armed forces

“The British had made no offer to help us build an army as they had done with the

Malayans in the 1950s.” – Lee Kuan Yew 17

The immediate challenge for the ruling party, the People‟s Action Party (PAP), at that time

was the lack of an Army to defend Singapore‟s sovereignty. This was especially crucial at the

time when racial tensions were high. With only two battalions of soldiers under Malaysian

Command in Singapore, the threat of a potential coup by the military, under the influence of

the Malaysian government was eminent. In the months and years following Singapore‟s

separation from Malaysia, threats continued to be inflicted upon Singapore, as mentioned

above. The need for a strong and deterrent armed forces to safeguard the nation‟s interest

was obvious.

Goh Keng Swee, then finance-turned-defence minister set out to build the Singapore Armed

Forces (SAF) from scratch so that Singapore would not be easily intimidated into submission.

The leaders felt that it was important for people in and outside Singapore to know that

despite the small population, the country could mobiles a large fighting force at short notice.18

The show of force and mobility acts sends a clear message of Singapore‟s ability to defend

her rights and sovereignty in the face of adversity.

The Enlistment Act19, passed in 1970, made it mandatory for all male adult Singaporeans to

report for national service by the age of 18-years-old. Making national service mandatory

helped in nation building as all Singaporeans, regardless of skin colour and social status will

play their part in protecting national interest.

17

Lee Kuan Yew, From Third World to First: The Singapore Story (1965-2000) – Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew. Singapore, Times Editions, 1998, p29 18

Lee Kuan Yew, From Third World to First: The Singapore Story (1965-2000) – Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew.

Singapore, p19-22, Times Edition, 1998, p33 19

Singapore Statutes Online, Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, Part IV Fundamental Liberties, Copyright© 2001, Government of Singapore. Extracted 20 October 2010

13 | P a g e

2.3.2 Workfare, not welfare

“My primary preoccupation was to give every citizen a stake in the country and

its future.” – Lee Kuan Yew 20

At the time of her independence, Singapore had no natural resources. The only resource

available was the people. However, because people had different abilities (and different

contribution to the nation), the challenge for the Singapore government was how to strike the

right balance in the distribution of national income, in such a way that is for the greatest good

for the greatest number of people.

This utilitarianism principle guided many of the policies that were introduced during

Singapore‟s early years by the PAP government. The most prominent of which, is the

Housing Development Board‟s (HDB) home ownership scheme. The scheme, which is still in

effect today, gives citizens an asset (home property) in the country, and it is a means of

financial security that can be used to hedge against inflation.

Another important policy revamp was the Central Provident Fund (CPF) (Amendment) Act.

The CPF is social security savings scheme for retirement, where a nominal percentage of a

citizen‟s wages is contributed by him and his employee, into his CPF account. Once a worker

reaches the statutory retirement age, this fund could be used by citizens for retirement.

This provident fund is very different from the pension scheme many western countries are

practicing. Instead of having the taxpayers to pay for the pensions, every working citizen has

to accumulate his own savings in the CPF for old age. This also helps to encourage “work-

fare”, not “welfare”, because the harder a citizen works, the higher the amount of contribution.

The ways which the CPF funds could be used have since been considerably liberalized.21

20

Lee Kuan Yew, From Third World to First: The Singapore Story (1965-2000) – Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew. Singapore, p116, Times Editions, 1998 21

Lee Kuan Yew, From Third World to First: The Singapore Story (1965-2000) – Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew. Singapore, p169, Times Editions, 1998

14 | P a g e

Other initiatives that were introduced over this period included access to good and affordable

medical benefits for all Singaporeans22 and regular redistribution of national surpluses so that

all citizens could share the fruits of Singapore‟s success.

All these measures served two main purposes: First, nation building by ensuring every

Singaporean had a stake in the country. Second, to win the hearts and mind (and votes) of

Singaporeans.

2.3.3 Many tongues, one language

“Singapore never had one common language. It was a polyglot community

under colonial rule.” – Lee Kuan Yew 23

When Singapore was under colonial rule, Singapore had no common language. The British

left the people to decide how to educate their children. Hence, the respective racial groups

set up schools that used their respective mother tongues as the language of instruction.

The first self-ruled Singapore government – formed in 1959 – decided that Malay will be the

national language, to pave the way for merger with Malaya.24 However, Lee (who received

his university education in the London School of Economics and Cambridge University)

quickly realized that English had to be the administrative language due to its popularity and

wide-acceptance in the world economies. The government administered English as the main

language of instruction in Singapore‟s education in the 1970s. Although this move was a

hugely controversial (and highly unpopular amongst the Chinese, which made up for more

than 75% of the population) decision, many understood and accepted the change.

To allay the fears of the respective racial ethnic groups, Lee introduced the English

Language in Malay, Chinese and Indian schools, while introducing Mandarin, Tamil and

22

Ministry of Heatlh 2010, Government of Singapore website, About MOH. Extracted 10 November 2010 23

Lee Kuan Yew, From Third World to First: The Singapore Story (1965-2000) – Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew. Singapore, p116, Times Editions, 1998 24 Lee Kuan Yew, From Third World to First: The Singapore Story (1965-2000) – Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew. Singapore, p170, Times Editions, 1998

15 | P a g e

Bahasa Melayu as Second languages in English schools. The switch to using English as the

administrative language also helped to level the playing field for all races as all the ethnic

groups will have to start learning the language from scratch. No one race will be advantaged.

This played an important factor as Singapore was strengthening its position as an

international trading community. Without it, Singapore will not be in the financial hub it is

today, with over 400 banks and financial institutions operating here.25

2.3.4 Keeping a clean government

“When we took the oath of office… in June 1959, we (the PAP leaders) all

wore white shirts and white slacks to symbolize purity and honesty in our

personal behavior and our public life.” – Lee Kuan Yew 26

50 years on, PAP members continue to wear the customary white-and-white uniform during

official functions such as the National Day Parade and key Party functions.27 Corruption was

an issued faced by many governments, especially Singapore‟s immediate neighbours. The

greed and temptation were everywhere, not just in Singapore. Corruption could still be

uncovered in countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia today.28 The Singapore government

moved quickly to establish a climate of opinion which looked upon corruption in public office

as a threat to society. Singaporeans generally do not tolerate corruption.

With a clean and able government, Singapore has been continuously ranked as having one

of the cleanest and transparent governments. The 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index ranked

Singapore as the most transparent country out of 178 countries, while many of Singapore‟s

neighbours were ranked lowly (Malaysia – 56th, Indonesia – 110th).29

25

MAS Financial Institution Directory, Monetary Authority of Singapore, List of Financial Institutions. Extracted 02 November 2010 26

Lee Kuan Yew, From Third World to First: The Singapore Story (1965-2000) – Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew. Singapore, p192, Times Editions, 1998 27

Party History, People‟s Action Party website. People‟s Action Party 2010. Extracted 11 November 2010 28

Indonesia is seen as Most Corrupt Nation in Asia-Pacific region, Jakarta Globe, 09 March 2010. Extracted: 10 November 2010 29

Corruption Perceptions Index 2010 Report, Transparency International 2010. Extracted 10 November 2010

16 | P a g e

2.3.5 Media management

“Freedom of the press, freedom of the news media must be subordinated to

the overriding needs of Singapore, and to the primacy of purpose of an elected

government.” – Lee Kuan Yew 30

For all of Singapore‟s good performance in many world rankings and indexes, media freedom

is an area that Singapore continuously ranked very lowly annually. The Press Freedom Index

2010 published by Reporters Without Boarders ranked Singapore‟s press freedom 136th out

of 178 countries.31

Lee was of the view that the freedom of the press was the freedom of its owners to advance

their personal and class interest. More importantly, Lee believed that the media should first

serve the interest of the nation and that the domestic politics of Singapore should be left to

Singaporeans and not foreign publications. Though a complete ban on foreign commentaries

on Singapore politics is not enforced, the government reduces the circulation of such

publications by restricting the sale of these publications.

It is not hard to understand the government‟s position on this matter. The Maria Hertogh

racial riots32 (June 1950) and the Prophet Muhammad Birthday Riots33 (July and September

1964) all resulted from sensationalistic press reporting and imagery. These riots greatly

disrupted law and order in Singapore and caused deaths and injuries to many. It showed that

the press, without restraint (much like in the United States and Taiwan), could easily stroke

tension by reporting on sensitive issues with utter disregard of the consequences.

30

Lee Kuan Yew, From Third World to First: The Singapore Story (1965-2000) – Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew. Singapore, Times Editions, 1998 31

Press Freedom Index 2010, Reporters Without Borders, Jean-François Julliard. Extracted 11 November 2010 32

Syed Muhd Khairudin Aljunied, Colonialism, Violence and Muslims in Southeast Asia: The Maria Hertogh Controversy and Its Aftermath, London: Routledge, 2009 33

Lai Ah Eng, Beyond rituals and riots : ethnic pluralism and social cohesion in Singapore, Eastern Universities Press, 2004

17 | P a g e

3. SINGAPORE: FROM THIRD WORLD TO FIRST

For a country with a population over 5 million, Singapore is a small nation that packs a punch

well above its size. Its progress and achievements made in the space of 45 years is a

testament to what Lee and the early forefathers have done by lay the foundations for success.

Annual per capita income has grown from less than S$1,000 at the time of independence to

over S$50,000 (as at 2009).34

From a relatively unknown country, Singapore has become an influential voice in the

international community, as noted by Singapore‟s Prime Minister in a recent National Day

Rally, “People know about Singapore. When people talk about Singapore, they no longer

think that we are in China.”

3.1 Stable social-political environment

The People‟s Action Party (PAP) has been the city-state‟s ruling political party since 1959.

From the 1963 General Elections and into Singapore‟s independence in 1965, the PAP has

dominated Singapore‟s parliamentary democracy and has been central to the Singapore‟s

rapid political, social and economical development.35 Having such long periods of largely

uncontested rule allowed the PAP government time to implement its policies, such as its

multiracialism and media regulations.

One of the most important factors for Singapore‟s success is a stable social environment.

Having gone through racial and religious conflicts in its early years, the government has

successfully integrated the main cultural groups with its policies. Race, language and religion

remain highly sensitive issues, with the government‟s intolerance over individuals or groups

that stroke racial and religious tension. Many ethical and racial conflicts in the world such as

the former Yugoslav federation in the 1990s 36 (which has led to the disintegration of

Yugoslavia), and the ongoing India-Pakistan ethnic conflict37 are not only disruptive to the

social stability, but have the potential to break a country apart, as evidenced in the

34

Statistics Singapore, Per Capita GDP at Current Market Prices, Department of Statistics – Singapore, Government of Singapore 2007. Extracted 12 November 2010 35

Discovery Channel, A History of Singapore: Lion City, Asian Tiger, © 2005 Discovery Networks 36

Cohen, Lenard J, Broken Bonds: the Disintegration of Yugoslavia, Westview Press 1995 37

Lyon, Peter. Conflict Between India and Pakistan: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO, 2008.

18 | P a g e

disintegration of Yugoslavia. In a diverse society such as Singapore, politicians cannot afford

to engage in racial politics.

Tight customs control and a strong defence and counter-terrorism force also ensured that

Singapore has been able to stay free of terrorism since the hijacking of Singapore Airlines

Flight 117 in 1991.38 The downside however, is that its citizens may be taking Singapore‟s

safe and protected society for granted and lower their vigilance.39

3.2 Stable business environment and a competitive financial centre

Singapore‟s economy is set to grow as much as 15% in 201040, which economists believe

could make Singapore the world‟s fastest growing economy in 2010.41 Singapore managed

to come out of many global recessions (such as the 1997-98 Asian currency crisis, 2003

SARS recession and the 2008 Subprime financial crisis) relatively unscathed due to the

government‟s prudent approach and responses to the economy downturn.

Singapore has been rapidly opening up its market and adapting to economic trends to drive

its economy forward. The government has been continuously lowering its corporate tax rates

from 25.5% in 2001 to 17% in 2010.42 This has helped Singapore to retain and attract global

corporations and increase its competitiveness. One example of how Singapore continuously

adapt to economic competition is the intended merger between the Singapore Stock

Exchange (SGX) and the Australia Stock Exchange (ASX) to create the third listing venue in

Asia Pacific, to compete with the Tokyo Stock Exchange (TSE) and Hong Kong Stock

Exchange (HKEX).43 Having a stable government also gave investors the confidence to shift

their operations in Singapore.

38

MINDEF History, 1991 – SQ117 Rescue, Ministry of Defence Singapore, Government of Singapore, 07 March 1999. Extracted 14 November 2010 39

Hoe Yeen Nie, DPM Wong on how community can be engaged to be vigilant, Channel News Asia – Singapore News, 09 November 2010. Extracted 09 November 2010 40

Press release, MTI Forecasts Growth of 15.0 Per Cent in 2010 and 4.0 to 6.0 Per Cent in 2011, Ministry of Trade and Industry Singapore. Extracted 18 November 2010 41

Aaron Low, More modest 4% to 6% growth next year, The Straits Times, 19 November 2010 42

IRAS, For Companies: Tax rates & tax exemption schemes, Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore 2007. Extracted 15 November 2010 43

Press release, ASX and SGX combine to create the premier international exchange in Asia Pacific – the heart of global growth, Singapore Stock Exchange Ltd. 25 October 2010. Extracted 25 October 2010

19 | P a g e

3.3 Sports, arts and convention centre of Asia and beyond

Economic successes aside, Singapore is also starting to make rapid progress in other areas

over the last decade. The Esplanade Theaters and Concert Hall unveiled in 2002, is a

symbol of Singapore‟s thrust into the performing arts scene. Many international acts had

since performed in Singapore, including musicals like “The Phantom of the Opera” and “We

Will Rock You” and world-renowned orchestras and soloists such as the Berliner

Philharmonic and Yo-yo Ma. This expansion has continued with the opening of more

performing arts theaters such as the Marina Bay Sands in 2010.

Away from the arts scene, Singapore has hosted many international sporting events such as

the Formula 1 (being the first night race in Formula 1 history), the inaugural Youth Olympic

Games and the FINA World Swimming Championships in 2010. Singapore is also making a

strong reputation for being a convention centre. It has held many events such as the 117 th

International Olympic Council (IOC) Session (where London was announced as the host city

for the 2012 Summer Olympic Games) in 2005, the 61st International Monetary Fund / World

Bank (IMF/WB) Meet in 2006 and the 9th Shangri-La Dialogue where high level defense

ministers meet in Singapore annually. The opening of the two Integrated Resorts in 2010

also added to the city-buzz and contributed significantly to Singapore‟s economy.

Such events can be held in Singapore due to a stable and safe environment for such events

to be held, and the government‟s commitment to promote and continuously improve the

efficiency at which the country can plan and execute big scale events.

20 | P a g e

4. ANALYSIS OF KEY CRITICISMS OF SINGAPORE’S DEMOCRATIC MODEL

The Singapore democratic system is often criticised for laws that suppress free speech and

other civil liberties. Some even go as far to suggest that Singapore‟s electoral process is

similar to that of Myanmar‟s election in 2010.44 But as seen in the events in Singapore‟s

history, it is not hard to understand those laws. Are there any truths to many of the criticisms

thrown at the Singapore system and the PAP government?

4.1 Lack of opposition representation or lack of credible opposition candidates?

All members of parliament are voted for by the people before they can take their seat in

parliament. In the last General Elections in 2006, the PAP government won 82 of the 84

elected seats.45 Of the 84 elected seats, only 47 were contested, the remaining 37 seats

were won by a walkover by the PAP as they were uncontested. The high representation of

the PAP in parliament has led to criticism about the lack of an alternative voice in parliament.

There are about 12 active political parties in Singapore today (out of 24, including the PAP)46

However, with 37 seats going to the PAP uncontested seems to suggest that the opposition

do not have enough members to challenge the PAP government. The inability of the

opposition to field credible candidates is also a prime reason why the PAP was able to stay in

power for such extended periods.

Singaporeans, in general, do not cast their votes for oppositions that do not appear to be

serious in the politics of Singapore. One example of this is when the Singapore Democratic

Party (SDP), led by Dr. Chee Soon Juan, lost the Bukit Panjang Single Member Constituency

(SMC) to the PAP by an overwhelming 54.36%, garnering only 22.82% of the votes. The

SDP are currently unrepresented in parliament because many Singaporeans are of the view

that the party, and its secretary-general Chee, are more interested in sensationalistic politics,

often wildly accusing the PAP government for “robbing democracy away from its people”,47

44

Htet Aung Kyaw, Burma elections „similar to Singapore‟, Democratic Voice of Burma, 09 June 2010. Extracted 19 November 2010 45

Elections Department Singapore, 2006 Parliamentary General Elections Results, © Government of Singapore 2010. Extracted 19 November 2010 46

GuidemeSingapore.com, Singapore‟s Political System – An Introduction, © Janus Corporate Solutions Pte Ltd, Singapore. Extracted 19 November 2010 47

Chee Soon Juan, A Nation Cheated (2008)

21 | P a g e

and creating unrest in the Singapore political scene instead of the affairs that concerns

Singaporeans. Many foreign journalists and political observers alike supported Chee‟s efforts

for a more open and democratic society, often slamming the Singapore government‟s

“underhanded tactics” with dealing with opposition parties and figures.48 The view of many

Singaporeans are that Chee has yet to show how the SDP intents to achieve its vision of a

more democratic society. Its credibility as a strong opposition party is doubted by many

Singaporeans.

Singapore is not without credible opposition party candidates though, as seen throughout its

history, candidates who have a proven track record have been re-elected time and again,

such as the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) Chairman Chiam See Tong (since 1984)

and the Workers‟ Party (WP) secretary-general Low Thia Khiang (since 1991) both being re-

elected into the parliament garnering 55.82% and 62.74% of votes respectively against the

PAP candidates running in their constituencies.

The PAP government has over the years accepted that the PAP‟s dominance in parliament

results in a lack of an alternative voice to raise the concerns of its citizens. In April 2010, the

constitution was further amended to allow for more opposition voices to be heard in

parliamentary debates.49 The creation of Non-constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs)

and Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) allows for representation in parliament of a

minimum number of MPs from a political party or parties even though they have not been

elected into parliament. NCMPs and NMPs can participate in all parliamentary debates,

however, since they were not elected, they are not able to vote on any key motions such as

bills to amend the constitution and votes of no confidence in the Government. Measures such

as these create an avenue for an alternative voice and the PAP government cannot be

therefore considered „draconian‟ as the foreign media portrays it to be.

48

Daine Francis, Singapore‟s shame: ordeal of Chee Soon Juan, The National Post, 21 October 2008. Extracted 21 November 2010 49

Imelda Saad, Parliament amends constitution to change NCMP and NMP schemes, Channel News Asia. 26 April 2010. Extracted 21 November 2010

22 | P a g e

4.2 Lack of transparency in electoral process and the Group Representative

Constituency (GRC) system

One of the biggest criticisms of the electoral process is the Group Representative

Constituency (GRC) system, which is a type of plurality majority system where members of

parliament are elected in a block vote.50 This form of electoral system allows a party to field

multiple candidates, and voters vote for the party (not the individual). This form of system can

be seen as a double-edged sword: if parties win, all members in the group get elected into

parliament. On the other hand, if a party loses, all members will not be eligible to be

represented in parliament.

The Parliamentary Elections Act51 requires each GRC to have minority representation. This

requires party to field groups that have at least one member from the minority race – either

Malay, Indian or others. This is a reflection of the government‟s stand that the GRC system

allows for minority representation in parliament. However, the existence of Single Member

Constituency (SMC) system in the electoral system seems to contradict. Singapore currently

has a total of 23 constituencies – 14 GRCs and 9 SMC.52 There will not be any minority

representation in these constituencies.

The government argues that the GRC system allows for minority representation because it

believes the Chinese population (being the majority) would most likely vote for Chinese

candidates. Such a belief is unfounded because many Singaporeans judge a candidate

based on his track record and not the colour of his/her skin. One instance of this is the former

Workers‟ Party candidate Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam (JBJ), who was the first opposition

party candidate to be elected a member of parliament in Singapore in the 1981 by-

elections. 53 Chinese Singaporeans would not have voted JBJ into parliament if they

50

Dr. Paul Mitchell, Electoral Systems, IR210 Building Democracies from Conflict, LSE Summer School 2010, London School of Economics and Political Science, 28 July 2010 51

Singapore Statutes Online, Parliamentary Elections Act, Copyright© 2001, Government of Singapore. Extracted 20 November 2010 52

Elections Department Singapore, Map of Electoral Division, © Government of Singapore 2010. Extracted 19 November 2010 53

Elections Department Singapore, 1981 Parliamentary By-Elections Results, © Government of Singapore 2010. Extracted 19 November 2010

23 | P a g e

genuinely wanted to vote for a Chinese party candidate (the PAP fielded Chinese candidate,

Pang Kim Hin to contest for the ward).

The GRC system, coupled with the inability of the opposition to field credible candidates

meant that not every Singaporean gets a chance to exercise their right to vote, as many

constituencies were won by the PAP by means of a walkover. This has led to criticisms from

Singaporeans and foreign observers alike, that the citizens do not get to access the

candidates before deciding which candidate or party will best represent them in parliament.

A big sore point for many voters is the redrawing of the electoral boundaries. When

boundaries were drawn in 1958, explanations were set out in a 42-page report, with one

page for the PAP‟s dissenting view. But in 2006 (where the last General Elections were held),

the report had just seven pages, with the reasons reduced to just one paragraph.54 The

disappearance of several high-profile constituencies over successive elections has bred

cynicism among some voters about the process by which electoral boundaries are decided.

These constituencies (such as the Anson SMC [1988], Eunos GRC [1996], Cheng San GRC

[2001], Ayer Rajah SMC and Bukit Timah SMC [2006]) are often heavily contested (and

nearly won) by opposition parties. The government has said time and again that the

population shifts are what drive the process of redrawing of electoral boundaries.

Commenting on the vanishing constituencies, law professor Eugene Tan pointed out in a

Straits Times review that there is a patent need to enhance the confidence level with regard

to the process at which the electoral boundaries are drawn.55 Singaporeans often view the

redrawing of boundaries as a calculated attempt to benefit the PAP or to undermine the

opposition. The redrawing of the boundaries being an integral part of the electoral process, if

the electoral boundaries reports continue to be generic in their reasoning and justification for

redrawing the boundaries Singaporeans will continue to question the legitimacy and

transparency of the electoral process.

54

Li Xueying, Making sense of electoral boundaries, The Straits Times – Review & Insight. 18 September 2010 55

Li Xueying, Making sense of electoral boundaries, The Straits Times – Review & Insight. 18 September 2010

24 | P a g e

4.3 Lack of freedom of expression and press & media freedom

Singapore has one of the worst rankings in terms of media freedom and freedom of

expression. As recounted in this paper earlier, there were several instances in Singapore‟s

history where irresponsible journalism and foreign commentaries has led to racial riots and

civil unrest. The Straits Times, when it was owned by the British, often used the paper to

evoke racial tensions to rally the citizens against the PAP government in the 1950s-1960s.

Since then, several laws had been passed to significantly control the media in Singapore.

The laws include the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (CAP 206), Media Development

Authority Act (CAP 172), Undesirable Publications Act (CAP 338) and the Media Market

Conduct Code all set the boundaries which the press can report and write analysis on. It is

clear that issues of race and religion remain largely off-limits. Many politicians also agreed

that western liberal style of journalism is not suitable for Singapore‟s political climate.

Though the role of the media in Singapore is largely to serve the nation‟s interest, the view of

many Singaporeans, and foreign organisations such as Freedom House and Reporters

Without Boarders, is that the press – due to the government‟s tight control – has become the

PAP‟s avenue to drive its own political agenda. The PAP government gets far more press

coverage than opposition parties do. When news on opposition parties are reported (if any, at

all) are often placed away from the headline news or prime news. However, the laws and

regulations do not prohibit political parties (both the ruling and opposition parties alike) from

publishing its own party papers for distribution. The Workers Party for instance, uses its

regular publication – The Hammer to present its views and commentaries to citizens.

After the 2006 General Elections, the law was promptly amended to subject online bloggers

and podcasts to the Parliamentary Elections Act. The amended law requires all political

websites are required to register with the MDA, these websites include those belonging to

political parties as well as to "individuals, groups, organisations and corporations engaged in

providing any programme for the propagation, promotion or discussion of political or religious

issues relating to Singapore on the World Wide Web through the Internet."56 Such control

56

Internet Code of Practice, © 2010 Media Development Authority of Singapore. Extracted 21 November 2010

25 | P a g e

mechanisms are heavily criticised by many bloggers and political commentators in Singapore

as a violation of freedom of speech and observed that it could hinder the development of

citizen journalism in Singapore.

The government soon realized that the emergence of new media and technological

advancement meant that the government would not be able to control information flow to the

citizens. It took some time for the government to adjust to the emergence of new media and

citizen journalism. One such incident was when Singaporean blogger Lee Kin Mun (known by

his handle mrbrown) wrote an article in his weekly column on the TODAY newspaper titled

“S‟poreans are fed, up with progress!”57 The article was largely regarded as a harmless

banter about the rising cost of living in Singapore. The governmental official from the Ministry

of Information, Communication and the Arts (MICA) responded in the same paper a few days

later, branding Lee K M as a “partisan player whose views distorted the truth”.58 The TODAY

paper hastily suspended mrbrown‟s column. The government‟s handling of the whole issue

did not sit well with many Singaporeans who considered their strong action as “overkill”.

Though the regulations have been gradually relaxed since then, there is still considerable

control over the use of both traditional and new media. The opposition parties still received

very little coverage in the mainstream media.

57

Lee Kin Mun, TODAY: S‟poreans are fed, up with progress!, mrbrown: L‟infantile terrible of Singapore. 03 July 2006. Extracted 21 November 2010 58

Lee Kin Mun, Letter from MICA: Distorting the truth, mrbrown?, mrbrown: L‟infantile terrible of Singapore. 03 July 2006. Extracted 21 November 2010

26 | P a g e

5. CONCLUSION

The Singapore Constitution does provide for fundamental liberties, as to how much of these

liberties could be exercised is largely debatable. This means that merely having “free and fair”

elections, as pointed out by Larry Diamonds, does not automatically qualify Singapore as a

liberal democratic country.

However, one cannot deny that Singapore does have elements of democracy. After

understanding at the geopolitical constraints – its conflicts with its neighbours, and the

historical events such as the racial riots experienced by Singapore, it is not hard to see how

Singapore arrived at the political environment it is in today. The influence of Lee Kuan Yew

and the founding fathers of modern Singapore in setting up a strong armed forces, keeping a

clean government and many policies to manage the racial and religious harmony provided

the platform for Singapore to progress as a leading financial hub, sports and entertainment

centre in Asia and the world. With the policies that are in place, one cannot deny that the

Singapore government to put the citizen‟s concerns first and looks after the need of every

Singaporean extremely well. Many of these policies are necessary for Singapore‟s progress

and does not deserve any criticism that it experience from time to time.

The current system, however, is not perfect. With a lack of transparency in the electoral

process and a lack of media and press coverage on alternative political parties, its citizens

are not always satisfied with the policies implemented. While there is some accuracy in some

international criticisms of the Singapore system, others such as the lack of alternative voice

in parliament, are drawn without understanding the past and current political situations, as

evidenced by the lack of credible opposition candidates in Singapore.

At the end of the day, Singapore‟s politics and affairs should be left to its citizens and not

foreign players.

27 | P a g e

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Books and Journals

Chee Soon Juan, A Nation Cheated (2008)

Cohen, Lenard J, Broken Bonds: the Disintegration of Yugoslavia, Westview Press 1995

Diamond, Larry, 'Thinking about Hybrid Regimes', Journal of Democracy p22, 2002

Han Fook Kwang, Warren Fernandez and Sumiko Tan. Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His

Ideas. Singapore: Times Edition, 1998, p.13

Huntington, Samuel P, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century,

Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991, p7

Lai Ah Eng, Beyond rituals and riots : ethnic pluralism and social cohesion in Singapore,

Eastern Universities Press, 2004

Lyon, Peter. Conflict Between India and Pakistan: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO, 2008

Mitchell, Paul, Electoral Systems, IR210 Building Democracies from Conflict, LSE

Summer School 2010, London School of Economics and Political Science, 28 July 2010

Syed Muhd Khairudin Aljunied, Colonialism, Violence and Muslims in Southeast Asia: The

Maria Hertogh Controversy and Its Aftermath, London: Routledge, 2009

Tan, A., Problems and Issues in Malaysia-Singapore Relations, Working Paper No. 314,

Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, The Australian National University, 1997.

U.G Theuerkauf, Democratic Theory, IR210 Building Democracies from Conflict, LSE

Summer School 2010, London School of Economics and Political Science, 26 July 2010

28 | P a g e

B. Press Releases, Reports and listings

Dept of Statistics Malaysia. Census of Population and Housing Malaysia 2000. Extracted

17 October 2010

Elections Department Singapore, 2006 Parliamentary General Elections Results, ©

Government of Singapore 2010. Extracted 19 November 2010

Elections Department Singapore, Map of Electoral Division, © Government of Singapore

2010. Extracted 19 November 2010

Elections Department Singapore, 1981 Parliamentary By-Elections Results, ©

Government of Singapore 2010. Extracted 19 November 2010

Indonesian Central Statistics Bureau, 2000 Population Stats Release, © 2010

Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore, For Companies: Tax rates & tax exemption

schemes. Extracted 15 November 2010

International Court of Justice, Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle

Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), Press Release 2008/10, 23 May 2008.

Extracted 17 October 2010

Media Development Authority of Singapore, Internet Code of Practice, © 2010. Extracted

21 November 2010

Ministry of Trade and Industry Singapore Press release, MTI Forecasts Growth of 15.0

Per Cent in 2010 and 4.0 to 6.0 Per Cent in 2011, Extracted 18 November 2010

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore, Media Resource Centre, Transcript of Remarks On

Malaysia-Singapore Relations by Minister for Foreign Affairs, Prof S Jayakumar in

Parliament. Extracted 17 October 2010

Monetary Authority of Singapore, MAS Financial Institution Directory, List of Financial

Institutions. Extracted 02 November 2010

Reporters Without Borders, Jean-François Julliard, Press Freedom Index 2010, Extracted

11 November 2010

29 | P a g e

Singapore Stock Exchange Ltd. Press release, ASX and SGX combine to create the

premier international exchange in Asia Pacific – the heart of global growth, Extracted 25

October 2010

Singapore National Printers. Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Investigations

Concerning the Late Mr Teh Cheang Wan. Singapore:1987

Statistics Singapore, Per Capita GDP at Current Market Prices, Department of Statistics –

Singapore, Government of Singapore 2007. Extracted 12 November 2010

Transparency International 2010, Corruption Perceptions Index 2010 Report, Extracted

10 November 2010

C. Newspaper articles and commentaries

Aaron Low, More modest 4% to 6% growth next year, The Straits Times, 19 November

2010

Daine Francis, Singapore‟s shame: ordeal of Chee Soon Juan, The National Post, 21

October 2008. Extracted 21 November 2010

Hoe Yeen Nie, DPM Wong on how community can be engaged to be vigilant, Channel

News Asia – Singapore News, 09 November 2010. Extracted 09 November 2010

Htet Aung Kyaw, Burma elections „similar to Singapore‟, Democratic Voice of Burma, 09

June 2010. Extracted 19 November 2010

Imelda Saad, Parliament amends constitution to change NCMP and NMP schemes,

Channel News Asia. 26 April 2010. Extracted 21 November 2010

Jakarta Globe, Indonesia is seen as Most Corrupt Nation in Asia-Pacific region, 09 March

2010. Extracted: 10 November 2010

Li Xueying, Making sense of electoral boundaries, The Straits Times – Review & Insight.

18 September 2010

30 | P a g e

Lee Kin Mun, TODAY: S‟poreans are fed, up with progress!, mrbrown: L‟infantile terrible

of Singapore. 03 July 2006. Extracted 21 November 2010

Lee Kin Mun, Letter from MICA: Distorting the truth, mrbrown?, mrbrown: L‟infantile

terrible of Singapore. 03 July 2006. Extracted 21 November 2010

Pearl Forss, Indonesia bans sand exports, Channel News Asia, 24 Jan 2007. Extracted

18 October 2010

S Ramesh, Singapore, Malaysia finalise land swap deal, Channel News Asia, Singapore

News, 20 September 2010. Extracted 18 October 2010

D. Other Websites and references

Discovery Channel, A History of Singapore: Lion City, Asian Tiger, © 2005 Discovery

Networks

GuidemeSingapore.com, Singapore‟s Political System – An Introduction, © Janus

Corporate Solutions Pte Ltd, Singapore. Extracted 19 November 2010

Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts (MICA), www.sg website,

Government of Singapore. Extracted 10 November 2010

Ministry of Heatlh 2010, Government of Singapore website, About MOH. Extracted 10

November 2010

MINDEF History, 1991 – SQ117 Rescue, Ministry of Defence Singapore, Government of

Singapore, 07 March 1999. Extracted 14 November 2010

People‟s Action Party 2010. Party History, People‟s Action Party website. Extracted 11

November 2010