Can PAP stay dominant? A daunting task, says Ho Kwon Ping

'Freak election', party split, or defeat by opposition possible scenarios
By Tham Yuen-C, The Straits Times, 21 Oct 2014

SINGAPORE'S best days are still ahead of it but, in contemplating its next 50 years, a key question to ponder is whether the ruling party will stay dominant, said leading public intellectual Ho Kwon Ping yesterday.

The People's Action Party (PAP), which has been in uninterrupted power for 56 years, has accomplished two major feats where many others have failed, he said.

First, it has produced consistent economic growth with broad- based gains for its entire people, and second - even harder - it has maintained exemplary, transparent governance with an entrenched ethos of incorruptibility.

"Its third challenge is not to just remain in power, nor to maintain its one-party dominance and deny the opposition its self-described role as a 'co-driver' of the nation, but to do so in a manner which ensures that the party truly renews itself and retains its original vitality, vibrancy and vigour," said Mr Ho in the first lecture of the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS)-Nathan lecture series on Singapore's public policy.

But will it be able to do so, asked the businessman as he sketched out three basic possibilities.

First, an accidental or freak election that throws out the PAP. Second, a split within the PAP resulting in a loss to an opposition party which might not otherwise be stronger than a united PAP. And third, an anticipated, outright loss to an opposition party.

"I would rate the first possibility - a freak election - as having the highest chance, followed by an internal split, and the least likely is an outright, widely predicted loss," he said.

In all likelihood, it would be an interplay of these scenarios, he added.

While he did not think the PAP would lose its dominance in the next 15 years, it could happen further down the road, he said.

Only one other democratically elected ruling party, Mexico's Institutional Revolutionary Party, had ruled continuously for a longer time than the PAP's 56 years, said Mr Ho.

Pointing out that a change of power can happen only when people believe an opposition party can govern, Mr Ho noted that recent elections had established the credibility of some opposition parties as "serious-minded, competent and constructive".

Mr Ho, who was giving the talk as the first S R Nathan Fellow - a title given to honour the former president's contributions - predicted that the journey towards socio-political and cultural maturity would define Singapore's next two decades. In yesterday's first of five lectures, he said: "In the history of young nations, this is the most precarious period of transition, when new generations who have not the slightest personal memories of or connections to the founding generation, take on the mantle of leadership."

Noting that Singapore was at a "watershed moment in history", where "economic progress must now be matched by a more holistic maturation in other spheres of life", Mr Ho urged the younger generation to grasp the nettle and define how society should develop.

The one-time rebel and political detainee also said that this evolution would not be tension-free.

How the younger generation approached this task would determine if the country was "fated to either decline through thoughtless hubris, or flounder in equally thoughtless self-doubts and anxiety", he said.

Five thought-provoking quotes from Ho Kwon Ping's first IPS-Nathan Lecture
By Fiona Chan, The Straits Times, 20 Oct 2014

What the next 50 years holds for Singapore's sociopolitical scene was the subject of the first Institute of Policy Studies (IPS)-Nathan Lecture delivered by businessman and one-time political prisoner Ho Kwon Ping on Monday.

Mr Ho, the executive chairman of hotel group Banyan Tree Holdings, spoke for about an hour on the expected "dramatic" changes in politics and governance in the coming half century.

As IPS' first S R Nathan Fellow for the Study of Singapore, Mr Ho will hold four more public lectures in this series over the coming months. They will look at what Singapore can expect in the next 50 years in the areas of economy and business, society and identity, demography and family and security and sustainability.

Below are five of the choicest quotes from his first lecture on politics and governance, held at the National University of Singapore's University Cultural Centre:


On what to expect in the second act of the Singapore story:

"Because the foundations of economic growth and the pillars of political stability have already been laid, today's young generation can - and will - define and then set out to achieve its own definition of what a developed society means in terms of social justice, an egalitarian culture, political maturity, cultural creativity, and all the other markers of the truly exceptional nation which we can be...

"It becomes obvious, then, that it is in the domestic socio-cultural and political realms that change will be the most evident and the most dramatic in the next 50 years. These changes will also involve a process of continual self-invention, so that the Singapore narrative, while hopefully remaining vibrant and relevant in a constantly evolving world, may not necessarily resemble what it was before."


On the future of the People's Action Party (PAP):

"The PAP will face a challenge to retain the same degree of control over Parliament as it has had in the past. So long as the very popular current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong remains in control - not only as Prime Minister but as Senior Minister or Minister Mentor like his predecessors, the mantle of legitimacy can perhaps be extended to younger leaders. But even Mr Lee will be in his 80s by three more elections. The challenge will be considerable from then onwards...

"Historical trends elsewhere point towards an election loss by the PAP in the second half of the next 50 years. Or to put it another way, it would be extraordinary if that did not happen."


On what might cause the PAP to lose an election:

"There are three basic possibilities: first, an accidental or freak election. Second, a split within the PAP resulting in a loss to an opposition party which might not otherwise be stronger than an united PAP. And third, an anticipated, outright loss to an opposition party...

"Of these three possible causes for loss of power, which have the greatest likelihood of occurring? I would rate the first possibility - a freak election - as having the highest chance, followed by an internal split, and the least likely is an outright, widely predicted loss. But this is a quite arbitrary stab in the dark.

"In all likelihood, it is the interplay and combination of these three scenarios in different ways, which will pose a challenge for the PAP and its scenario-planners in future decades."


On how today's youths see government:

"They regard the government and the PAP as a matter of fact - not a saviour, nor a tyrant, but somewhat like a parent who is respected but who must be grown out of. Clearly, a paternalistic political culture is not going to excite, much less retain, the loyalty of younger Singaporeans...

"What unites them all is the immediacy of self-agency; not waiting around for somebody else to do something you think is needed, but doing it yourself. This kind of political DIY or Do-It-Yourself attitude has in the past decade encouraged a participatory democracy which resembles Singapore's early years, but which then surrendered to decades of developmental authoritarianism."


His advice for young Singaporeans below 35:

"If we do not accept, almost as a point of faith, that our economic progress must now be matched by a more holistic maturation in other spheres of life, and that this flowering of the Singapore garden is the central task of your generation, then we are fated to either decline through thoughtless hubris, or flounder in equally thoughtless self-doubts and anxieties."

Political leaders who practise 'servant leadership' would be respected
By Tham Yuen-C, The Straits Times, 21 Oct 2014

NO MATTER how political leaders are chosen, it is how sincerely they treat people that will determine if they have legitimacy, said businessman Ho Kwon Ping yesterday.

He said this in response to a question about what defined political legitimacy in Singapore.

At a dialogue after delivering his first lecture as part of the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS)-Nathan lecture series, Mr Ho said political leaders who truly practised "servant leadership" would be respected by people.

"Legitimacy is when people recognise that the leaders who are there... are doing it for the sake of the people they are supposed to lead... it is conferred upon leaders whom people see are truly acting in their best interest," he said.

During the dialogue, he was also asked about the possibility of a "super freak election".

The session's moderator, IPS director Janadas Devan, had asked if Mr Ho thought an opposition party could win one election and suddenly find itself the majority in Parliament, controlling as many as the 80 seats that the People's Action Party (PAP) had now.

In response, Mr Ho said such a scenario was unlikely. He added that he did not think any opposition party would want such a situation.

"I don't think the Workers' Party (WP) itself would like to have a situation where suddenly it has 80 seats in Parliament because it's probably going to be voted out in subsequent elections," he said.

Currently, the WP has seven elected MPs and two Non-Constituency MPs.

He quipped: "I don't know to what extent this super freak scenario is going to frighten Singaporeans to not vote for (the opposition)."

On whether the PAP would accept such an election result if it happened, or there would be an "unprecedented military takeover", he said he believed the PAP would honour the results. Noting that it "plays by the rules, although it may push it a little bit", he said: "They would recognise that losing one election and biding time to win again is quite easily achievable, but disallowing the democratic process from proceeding is going to destroy Singapore."

Asked how he thought the PAP would do in the next election, he said that it was hard to tell.

But there was a segment of Singaporeans for whom the desire for an alternative voice in Parliament is strong.

"I have not met anyone who voiced out that they hope to see a change in government, but I have met people who told me that no matter how much the Government has done, they will still vote opposition because they believe in entrenching an opposition (in Parliament)," he said.

Young's DIY approach 'can propel Singapore's progress'
By Nur Asyiqin Mohamad Salleh, The Straits Times, 21 Oct 2014

THEIR forefathers helped Singapore make the leap from Third World to First World. Now, it is up to the younger generation to keep the momentum going over the next 50 years, said businessman Ho Kwon Ping.

He is, however, hopeful that young Singaporeans, with their boundless optimism, are up to the task. Their sense of self-agency - acting to bring about the change they want - sets them apart from his generation.

He said: "What unites them all is the immediacy of self-agency; not waiting around for somebody else to do something you think is needed, but doing it yourself."

Mr Ho made the point when he wrapped up his lecture as an S R Nathan fellow yesterday, passing the baton to the young while calling on them to help the country progress beyond economics.

The younger generation's "do-it-yourself" approach, he said, could spark the return of the "participatory democracy" that thrived in Singapore's early years before what he described as its surrender to a period of developmental authoritarianism.

When it comes to politics, the young are looking towards loftier ideals, like championing civil society causes, he said, pointing to the mass reading event staged this year to protest against the National Library Board's decision to remove a book with same-sex content. "Whereas in my generation, the Government and the PAP were always the reference point around which all discussion revolved, whether positive or critical, today's young people seem to be bored by too much purely political discussion," said Mr Ho. "They want to move on, to talk about: What next?"

The young, he added, are not content with a top-down approach, recognising that they have a role to play in building Singapore's future from the ground up. "They regard the Government and the PAP as a matter of fact - not a saviour, not a tyrant, but somewhat like a parent who is respected but who must be grown out of," said Mr Ho.

"And clearly, a paternalistic political culture is not going to excite, much less retain, the loyalty of younger Singaporeans."

As Singapore changes, politicians across party lines will find the country a greater challenge to govern. Mr Ho identified some key trends that would make it an uphill task, such as the struggle to hold the political centre together in the face of polarising extremes, and social media eroding the Government's ability to control information.

The diminishing status of political leaders will also pose a challenge, he said. "Future leaders simply cannot command sufficient respect and moral authority to decree what is acceptable and unacceptable criticism."

But he cautioned that political power being shared among competing groups could give rise to "non-constructive" politics.

A political culture of mutual respect must, therefore, be established to prevent political discourse from descending into "theatrical farces" seen in Hong Kong and Taiwan, he added.

In his lecture, Mr Ho also pointed out that the civil service - which has known only "one political master in 50 years" - would need to learn to stand on its own.

"With more electoral volatility in the future, it is imperative that the civil service work harder to develop its own sense of self, its own ethos and values," he said.

Gap between ruling elite and masses is biggest political risk for the PAP
By Chua Mui Hoong, Opinion Editor, The Straits Times, 26 Oct 2014

What might cause the People’s Action Party to lose power?

This was the subject of a lecture by Mr Ho Kwon Ping, erstwhile dissident journalist turned Establishment businessman and latterly the Institute of Policy Studies’ first S R Nathan Fellow for the Study of Singapore.

Mr Ho painted three scenarios of how the PAP might lose dominance: a freak election result; an internal party split; and a massive loss of confidence in the PAP, due perhaps to corruption. He also cited factors that would erode support for the PAP: demography, its organisational structure and the relative strength of the opposition.

His speech can be found here.

These are perfectly lucid analyses but also predictable, as he himself noted.

But it was his comments on what made Singapore less governable that I found more insightful.

He cited four factors that would make Singapore harder to govern, regardless of which party is in power.

These are:

“First, the ability of governments to control information will continue to erode, despite sometimes frantic and illogical attempts to stem it.”

“Second, it will be increasingly difficult to hold the political centre together in the midst of polarising extremes.”

“Third, diminution in the stature of political leadership will encourage the rise of so-called "non-constructive" politics.”

“Fourth, maintaining an ethos of egalitarianism in an increasingly unequal society will require more than just political oratory.”

On the last point, Mr Ho added:

“The gulf between rich and poor Singaporeans, not only in terms of wealth but also in terms of values, is probably more than ever before, and is continuing to widen.”

My take on this is that what makes Singapore less governable is also what might cause the PAP to lose power: the growing gap between rich and poor.

As Mr Ho points out, the gulf is widening, not only in income, but in values.

I think the biggest and most dangerous political divide in Singapore that can arise is that between the political and socioeconomic elite, and the hoi polloi.

We already see this happening in jurisdictions elsewhere. In Hong Kong, chief executive C.Y. Leung said in an interview last week that that if Hong Kong had free elections with candidates nominated by the public, then the largest sector of society would likely dominate the electoral process:

"If it's entirely a numbers game and numeric representation, then obviously you'd be talking to the half of the people in Hong Kong who earn less than US$1,800 (S$2,250) a month," Mr Leung said in comments published by the Wall Street Journal and International New York Times.

A few weeks ago, Mr Wang Zhenmin, a regular advisor to Beijing, had made a similar point, when he said greater democratic freedom in Hong Kong must be balanced against the city's powerful business elite who would have to share their "slice of the pie" with voters.

“The business community is in reality a very small group of elites in Hong Kong who control the destiny of the economy in Hong Kong. If we ignore their interests, Hong Kong capitalism will stop," he had said in August.

Such views are not the sole preserve of defenders of undemocratic Hong Kong’s system. Even leaders of the world’s freest country, the United States, are wont to express such a view in private.

Think back to Republican candidate Mitt Romney in the 2012 US presidential election. At a private $50,000-a-head fund raising dinner, he responded to a question on his campaign strategy by dissing the 47 per cent of voters who are dependent on government aid and pay no taxes, who will support Democrat incumbent Barack Obama.

He said: “There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what… These are people who pay no income tax...My job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Mr Romney later claimed the comments which were secretly videotaped by a bartender at the dinner, were taken out of context.

As New York Times’ columnist Paul Krugman noted this week:

“The political right has always been uncomfortable with democracy. No matter how well conservatives do in elections, no matter how thoroughly free-market ideology dominates discourse, there is always an undercurrent of fear that the great unwashed will vote in left-wingers who will tax the rich, hand out largess to the poor, and destroy the economy.”

Mr Krugman describes America as being caught in a struggle between the plutocrats and the democrats, the way some depict the struggle in Hong Kong.

In Singapore, we don’t see such a striking dichotomy -yet.

But if you were to read some of the comments online, you can see the rise of such polarised views - such as when bloggers and commenters paint the PAP as a bunch of self-serving elite people who pay themselves multi-million-dollar salaries to perpetuate a system in which they and their family members can become very rich.

We start to see the seeds of distrust being sowed - and a clear wedge driven between people and government, when activists demand the “return” of Central Provident Fund money - as though CPF monies are not clearly the sole property of each CPF member, as though they can be pilfered by a dishonest government.

Nor is it just some among the literate digerati who are at risk of sowing distrust.

When leaders and those in the elite shake their heads at a government policy and mutter that the PAP is “becoming populist”, they too drive a wedge between the government and the governed, as though doing something that makes a government popular is a bad thing for the country.

It can be, but it need not be.

A good government first needs to create the conditions for business to flourish. Then it needs to spend and redistribute the wealth created to maintain harmony and fairness in a society, to enhance citizens’ wellbeing. Doing the latter is not being populist.

Spending money to ensure universal health coverage is not populist - just the responsibility of any decent, humane government that has the wherewithal to do so.

Helping the jobless and underemployed get back into the job marketplace via wage subsidies and training is not populist - just good old common sense to get people back onto their feet.

Nor is spending on early childhood education to help poor children do well in school populist - just good investment in these kids’ futures.

If a government has rich state coffers, but its people feel stressed and anxious at every stage of their lives, it cannot be a good government.

A good government strikes a balance between collecting enough for a country’s future, and spending enough for the present.

It has to satisfy the elite generating most of the wealth, and the masses whose labour help sustain it. The 47 per cent, the ones who earn below US$1,800 a month.

Buy into common national mission

LEADING public intellectual Ho Kwon Ping discussed both politics and governance in his lecture on the future of Singapore ("The next 50 years in Singapore politics"; Tuesday).

While many will grant that the scenarios by which the ruling party may lose power - as painted by Mr Ho - are plausible, any development in that direction should not necessarily alarm the citizenry, given the vagaries inherent in a democratic system.

We may or may not rue the demise of a proven and effective political party - if it should come to pass - but it will be our sworn duty to uphold the democratic outcome of a legitimate election, whichever party prevails.

However, the issue of "governability" raised by Mr Ho certainly should make us all sit up and take notice, as it undoubtedly touches the core of much of the difficulties that we now face as a nation.

Mr Ho observed five trends: erosion of government ability to control information, increasing difficulty in holding the political centre together, diminution in the stature of political leadership, difficulty of maintaining an ethos of egalitarianism in an increasingly unequal society, and absence of a galvanising national mission and a sense of dogged exceptionalism.

The last trend, in particular, can be directly or indirectly linked to citizen discontent over the handling of such hot-button issues as the influx of foreign workers, economic restructuring, population growth and social welfare.

Mr Ho said "the deepening of a shared national identity, the pursuit of a compelling social vision, and the shaping, articulation and moulding of that vision through a collective imagination is the central task of the younger generation".

In fact, all should play a part. It cannot be inspiring to the younger generation that, even among the baby boomers, there is much disagreement on how issues are being handled under our current system of governance.

A viable national mission could be one requiring all to look outwards and strive to be a global city, sharing what we have achieved with other like-minded global citizens who are prepared to sink roots here and contribute to our society, thereby increasing the clout of our little red dot and ensuring our future growth.

There are, of course, other aspirations, depending on the imagination of our people. The point is, unless we converge and buy into a common national mission, we shall continue to pull in different directions and make ourselves ungovernable.

Yeoh Teng Kwong
ST Forum, 23 Oct 2014

The next 50 years in Singapore politics
Mr Ho Kwon Ping, the first Institute of Policy Studies S R Nathan Fellow for the Study of Singapore, delivered his first lecture last night on The Future Of Singapore: Politics And Governance. Here is an excerpt of his speech.

The Straits Times, 21 Oct 2014


IN ONLY 20 more years, the youngest minister today will be retiring and there will remain no more politicians who have any working memory of today's leaders, much less the founding generation.

In the history of young nations, this is the most precarious period of transition, when new generations who have not the slightest personal memories of or connections to, the founding generation take on the mantle of leadership.

Passing on policies is easy; transferring ideals and values requires continual collective connections between generations of living, breathing people.

To achieve consistent economic growth with broad-based gains for its entire people has already been a rarely scaled hurdle. To maintain exemplary, transparent governance with an entrenched ethos of incorruptibility is even harder. The People's Action Party (PAP) has enabled Singapore to rise to the top of the list of successful newly independent states with these two accomplishments.

Its third challenge is not to just remain in power, nor to maintain its one-party dominance and deny the opposition its self-described role as a "co-driver" of the nation, but to do so in a manner which ensures that the party truly renews itself and retains its original vitality, vibrancy and vigour.

If history is anything to go by, this last task will be daunting. The fact is, democratically elected ruling parties have generally floundered after about a half century to three-quarters of a century. They become corrupt, riven by internal strife and eventually prompt a previously loyal electorate to vote them out.

One thought is that there are only three basic scenarios for the PAP in the next 50 years:

- 1. The Status Quo Scenario. As it suggests, this scenario sees the PAP controlling, say, 85 per cent to 90 per cent of parliamentary seats, with the opposition controlling at most a dozen seats. This is regardless of the popular vote, where support for the PAP has dropped to a record low of 60 per cent, and may even decline further because control of Parliament is what really counts.

- 2. The Dominant Party Scenario. The PAP retains control of an important two-thirds majority or, at the very least, an absolute majority, of parliamentary seats. Assuming there are still around only 90 to 100 seats in Parliament, that means the opposition parties will control around 30 to 50 seats.

- 3. Two-Party Pendulum Scenario. A single opposition party or a coalition wins an election. Power then shifts between the PAP and the second major party in Singapore. This is pretty much the norm in all other developed, liberal democracies. A variant of this scenario is that the PAP splits and new coalitions form which alternate in winning elections.

These scenarios are quite obvious and commonsensical. It is the likelihood of the various scenarios occurring which may be controversial. Let me rate these probabilities into three categories: Unlikely, Possible and Likely.

And let me divide the next 50 years into three sets of 15 years, with each set roughly comprising three elections. We can therefore create a matrix for the scenarios:

Status Quo Scenario: first 15 years, possible; second 15 years, unlikely; third 15 years, unlikely.

Dominant Party Scenario: first 15 years, likely; second 15 years, possible; third 15 years, possible.

Two-Party Pendulum Scenario: first 15 years, unlikely; second 15 years, possible; third 15 years, likely.

Basically, all these scenarios foresee that the PAP will face a challenge to retain the same degree of control over Parliament as it has had in the past. So long as the very popular current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong remains in control - not only as PM but as Senior Minister or Minister Mentor, like his predecessors - the mantle of legitimacy can perhaps be extended to younger leaders. But even Mr Lee will be in his 80s by three more elections. The challenge will be considerable from then onwards.

This is not actually a radical conclusion - almost everyone I informally surveyed agreed with it broadly, but differed in their estimation as to how many years it would take before the PAP would lose an election, and how many terms it would stay out of power before bouncing back.

In fact, Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself has publicly pointed out that the PAP will eventually lose an election, but he did not foresee a date nor a cause.

Causes for loss of power

SO FAR, historical trends elsewhere point towards an election loss by the PAP in the second half of the next 50 years. Or to put it another way, it would be extraordinary if that did not happen. The issue we should now consider is: What might cause the PAP to lose a general election, given its current overwhelming dominance?

There are three basic possibilities: First, an accidental or freak election. Second, a split within the PAP, resulting in a loss to an opposition party which might not otherwise be stronger than an united PAP. And third, an anticipated, outright loss to an opposition party.

- Freak Election

Advocates of the freak election thesis note that the near-absolute control of Parliament by the PAP is not reflected in the total anti-PAP votes in every general election, which has averaged between 35 per cent and 40 per cent.

This has been due to the first-past-the-post Westminster system, which intentionally favours a strong ruling party rather than multi-party coalition governments. And so a party winning with only, say, 60 per cent of the total votes cast in an election may control some 90 per cent of Parliament - as in Singapore.

However, this can also give the PAP and its supporters a false sense of security. If sufficient voters want more opposition parliamentarians than the paltry 10 per cent at present, or are unhappy about a particular policy, but do not necessarily want a change of government, this might result in a relatively small swing in the total votes cast - say, 8 per cent to 10 per cent. This could result in a small majority still for the PAP of, say, 52 per cent against 48 per cent of total votes cast. But it could also result in sufficient constituencies - especially the big GRCs - being lost, to actually tip the balance and result in an unintended loss of power by the PAP.

- Split in the PAP

The second cause of a loss of power would be if the PAP split into two. History shows that internal differences must be extremely severe to split a ruling party, because opposing factions are self-serving enough to thoroughly dislike each other but remain unhappily married in order to remain in power. Japan's Liberal Democratic Party is an example of convenient marriages between extreme, divergent factions.

Currently, there are not any foreseeable issues nor distinct ideological rifts which can be so controversial as to cause a split. Over the long course of history, perhaps a reunification with Malaysia, or a complete halt to national service, might qualify as fundamentally radical enough to split a party, but these sorts of issues are hardly on the cards. It is hard to imagine issues of the scale of, say, Scottish independence or Hong Kong's system of elections, on the Singapore horizon.

- Massive Loss of Legitimacy

The third possibility, that of an outright, convincing and even widely anticipated win by an opposition party - such as occurred recently in the Indian general elections - is possible only if there is a long, irrecoverable and massive loss of legitimacy by the ruling party.

This is not likely to happen just because of honest policy mishaps, perhaps partly due to an innate Asian conservatism towards regime change and deference to authority. On the flip side, however, Asian electorates are increasingly intolerant about corruption in public office, partly because it is so prevalent.

Singapore achieved its enviable, probably unrivalled record of incorruptibility largely because Mr Lee Kuan Yew set a tone of governance which equated to an almost ascetic personal lifestyle.

If future political leaders become blase about corruption, accepting it perhaps as part of the general cynicism of the New Normal, and value their occupation as similar to that of the well-paid investment bankers against whom their pay is benchmarked, rather than as an almost-sacred mission, then Singapore indeed will no longer be exceptional.

And if Singaporeans become cynical about the absolute incorruptibility of their government and see their leadership as being no different than that of counterparts in Asean, in Hong Kong or Taiwan, or indeed in India and China, then the calculus of governance will change forever.

There is no evidence that corruption has increased in Singapore's public life, despite a few scandals involving mid-level bureaucrats. Singapore remains exemplary among its neighbours and even its counterparts in developed countries, for its low level of corruption.

Of these three possible causes for loss of power, which have the greatest likelihood of occurring? I would rate the first possibility - a freak election - as having the highest chance, followed by an internal split, and the least likely is an outright, widely predicted loss. But this is a quite arbitrary stab in the dark.

In all likelihood, it is the interplay and combination of these three scenarios in different ways, which will pose a challenge for the PAP.

Just as I've highlighted three possible causes for loss of power, there are many factors which can either delay or accelerate these possible causes.

One is demography. Singapore is one of the fastest-ageing nations in the world. Old people are inherently more risk-averse than the young. They want to conserve whatever they already have, whether it be wealth, health or benefits. They are not likely to risk what they have for the sake of vague idealistic notions such as freedom of speech or more opposition in Parliament.

However, the silver vote can also be vociferous about protecting their own rights. Just before the last general election, an IPS survey showed that the percentage of elderly swing voters rose to 45.4 per cent, compared to only 35.2 per cent in the previous election. The only demonstrations at Hong Lim Park which have been attended by people over 60 were those protesting about CPF and Medisave issues.

Another factor is the PAP's organisational structure. The cadre system mitigates against internal fractures. Of course, this can also lead to internal rigidity and intrigues. Yet another factor is possible loss of economic competitiveness. The trade-off in fast-growth, low-freedom societies is that the delivery of a rapidly improving material life will offset the relative paucity of civil rights. But as Singapore's economy matures and the low-hanging fruits of economic growth have all been plucked, the social compact can start to fray.

A final and important factor is the relative strength of the opposition parties. Other than a freak election, a change of power can happen only if the electorate believes that, if given the chance, an opposition party can actually govern.

Having covered the politics part of this lecture, let me now talk a bit about governance. And a key issue here is governability - to what extent will Singapore be more difficult to govern, regardless of who is the ruling party?

I can identify several trends which will affect governability:

First, the ability of governments to control information will continue to erode, despite sometimes frantic and illogical attempts to stem it. Because knowledge is power, and the ability to control access to information is the key to power, governments instinctively want to be the gatekeepers. But, increasingly, social media and its incredible variety of means for people to connect even across a heavily censored Internet system is undermining the Government's ability to shape how people think.

Anything censored is still widely available in alternative media, and therein lies the rub: At what point will control and censorship of the mainstream news, cultural and entertainment media become counter-productive by not really achieving the purpose of blocking access to information, but, instead, end up alienating the social activists who, despite their small size, are influencers beyond their numbers?

The Singapore Government has a counter-argument and it is that even if a control or censorship measure does not achieve its stated purpose, it signals the values of a society and must be enacted irrespective of the chances for success.

Against this backdrop, we now have gay penguins singing To Singapore With Love.

Second, it will be increasingly difficult to hold the political centre together in the midst of polarising extremes - liberals versus conservatives; local versus foreign; pro-life versus pro-abortion; gay versus straight, and so forth. While fault lines along race and religion have been contained and have still not cracked, the so-called culture wars are intensifying.

Third, diminution in the stature of political leadership will encourage the rise of so-called "non-constructive" politics. Future leaders simply cannot command the sufficient respect and moral authority to decree what is acceptable and unacceptable criticisms. To have the authority to simply deride wide swathes of criticisms as simply non-constructive is wishful thinking.

However, if political power in Singapore will increasingly be shared between competing groups, as it is now in Hong Kong and Taiwan, it is important that political discourse does not descend to the theatrical farces which now characterise their legislative meetings. In these territories, a political culture of mutual respect has not been established. It is imperative that this be established in Singapore in coming years, so that by common consent of all political players - rather than by ministerial decree - a consensual culture of constructive politics emerges.

Fourth, maintaining an ethos of egalitarianism in an increasingly unequal society will require more than just political oratory. While Singapore was never a socialist state, its ethos was fervently egalitarian and this helped to create a sense of common purpose. In recent years, the ostentatious pursuit of wealth rivalling Hong Kong standards has become fashionable. Extolling our casinos, Formula 1 Grand Prix and highest per capita number of billionaires and Lamborghinis in the world, as evidence that Singapore has now become a world-class city, could perhaps be dismissed as the crassness of the rich, except that this ethos of the elite is occurring just when income inequality has become the worst since independence.

The gulf between rich and poor Singaporeans, not only in terms of wealth but also in terms of values, is probably more than ever before, and is continuing to widen. Even the gap between old money and its sense of responsible philanthropy, and the nouveau riche's penchant for affectation and bling, is widening.

Finally, the absence of a galvanising national mission and a sense of dogged exceptionalism as the little red dot that refuses to be smudged out, will lead increasingly to a sense of anomie - which has been defined as "personal unrest, alienation and anxiety that comes from a lack of purpose or ideals". It is the disease of affluence which affects individual people as well as societies. We have arrived, only to find ourselves lost again.

If this seems unnecessarily pessimistic, it is because I personally think the danger of hubris right now is greater than the danger of under-confidence.

Inheritors of the Future

THE deepening of a shared national identity, the pursuit of a compelling social vision, and the shaping, articulation and moulding of that vision through a collective imagination is the central task of the younger generation. Stumbling into the future without a clue as to what are the promises and the perils is quite possibly the best way to ensure that we will encounter an accidental disaster.

Thankfully, I have not found, in my conversations with young people, either the hubris or the immobilising self-doubts which I was afraid of. It is not as if the young people I spoke to were very happy with the state of Singapore today. Far from it. Almost everyone was critical of one issue or another, and to varying degrees.

But what impressed me was the overwhelming sense of what sociologists call self-agency - the simple notion that I can change things; that I am in control of my life and my future.

This kind of political DIY, or Do-It-Yourself, attitude has in the past decade encouraged a participatory democracy which resembles Singapore's early years, but which then surrendered to decades of developmental authoritarianism.

One striking example - which was not imaginable in my generation - was the response to the famous Gay Penguins episode - which will go down in Singapore's history, I hope, as the kind of comic relief we need as a nation while we tackle the underlying big issues.

The fact that some bureaucrat banned some children's books as pro-gay and anti-family is not unexpected, and not dissimilar in logic to the banning of chewing gum decades earlier. But 20 years ago, such bureaucratic actions - not necessarily about LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) issues but over anything, such as fines for this or that offence, or banning shoulder-length hair for men - would have been met only with grudging acquiescence.

But as a sign of the times, including the power of social media, the response this time was some 400 young parents decamping to the National Library to read the banned and to-be-pulped books to their children. It was not a strident political demonstration and more like a children's outing. But the point was clear.

And the same is true for the unprecedented 26,000 people who gathered at the Pink Dot event - not to just celebrate gay rights nor to oppose the Government, but to celebrate the increasing diversity and self-agency of civil society.

Perhaps the most important point is that they were not organised by any registered political party, but were all connected by social media. So I conclude today's talk with a hopeful view of Singapore politics in the next 50 years, simply because in the bigger picture, I do not see the ossification of an ageing political elite increasingly out of touch with a restless youth, such as led to the Arab Spring; nor do I see fundamentally divisive issues such as in Hong Kong over its relationship with China; nor the exhaustion of Old Europe unable to confront big, difficult issues.

At 50, Singapore is still a young nation in search of its future. I do not think there are more, or fewer, challenges ahead than in the past 50 years. They will simply be different challenges.

Related
Voters: Is a freak election likely?  /  PAP in decline? But what if...
PAP must deliver good leadership for S'pore: PM
Ho Kwon Ping: Why this Fellow? Because I always ask why
IPS-Nathan Lectures
Lecture II: Economy and Business - Ho Kwon Ping: The next 50 years of Singapore's economy