Ending the politics of dominance

At first glance, one is right to dismiss Tharman’s statement as self-serving politician speak. But this “dominant party” concept warrants closer scrutiny. The interview, which covers a range of subjects, appears to be an attempt by the establishment to launch a “new look” PAP. Tharman is setting up stall for the 2016 general elections, while at the same time presenting himself as the left-of-centre leader of a supposedly refreshed party. Firstly, he emphasized that the PAP today is “unrecognisable compared to 20 years ago”, hence an attempt to disassociate himself with the Lee Kuan Yew-Goh Chok Tong era.  Next, he said that the PAP would be inclusive by welcoming “diverse opinions” – ostensibly an important departure from Lee Kuan Yew’s approach.

It is important to note that Tharman had chosen his words with great care, as he often does. He was not merely saying that Singapore needs a strong government. He wants the PAP to “retain a dominant position” and “play a dominant role”, yet “without wanting to completely dominate”.

The qualification “without wanting to completely dominate” is clearly intended to appease those critical of the PAP. Yet it is devoid of content, and in any event, self contradictory to his core idea. The idea of a “dominant party” is itself a perversion of democracy, because democracy involves the contests of competing ideas on a level playing field where there is equality of arms. It is precisely for this reason that within capitalism itself, cartels and monopoly tendencies are outlawed.

The term “dominant party” is at times used by journalists and academics to describe the political environment in some countries, Singapore included, where an incumbent party is so entrenched that it is deemed by observers as almost impossible for challengers to dislodge. Taiwan during Chiang Kai Shek’s era was an example. There are many possible reasons how such dominance came about. But Tharman was not using the term “dominance” as a casual description of Singapore’s political landscape. He was prescribing the dominance of the PAP for Singapore. This is a subtle, yet crucial difference.

I have respect for Tharman as an economist, and will readily agree that some aspects of his economic policies are left–of-centre. Yet by drumming up the PAP as the dominant party for Singapore, he has inadvertently moved to the right.

For  someone like Tharman, who in his younger days in the United Kingdom, was exposed to progressive strains of thought on participatory democracy through his acquaintance with those associated with the  Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, I find his aspiration to retain the “dominant” status of the PAP disconcerting. The young Tharman would have scoffed at a patronising term such as “responsible opposition”, but now as a member of the elite, he embraces the language of the oppressor as his own.

“The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought” describes “dominance” as follows:

"The behaviour pattern by which, in social animals, individuals establish the hierarchy of the group. In some birds, including domestic fowls, a pecking order develops, with one bird dominant to more or less fixed positions in the chain. Rats and some other mammals behave similarly. Dominance is maintained by aggressive or threatening, behaviour on the part of one animal, and by submission on the part of its inferior. In most cases, particularly in the wild, this aggressive behaviour becomes ritualized and ceases when the threatened individual is seen to submit, so violent combat is rare. ….”

This description of dominance in the animal kingdom has an uncanny resemblance to Singapore’s political history of the past 50 years. Tharman may recall that many of his close comrades were themselves given the knuckle-duster treatment by the obnoxious Internal Security Department. One may also recall how dominance was maintained by the combative Lee Kuan Yew who articulated the following during his heyday:  “Anybody who decides to take me on needs to put on knuckle-dusters. If you think you can hurt me more than I can hurt you, try. There is no way you can govern a Chinese society.”

The end result of that “aggressive, or threatening” behaviour, as in the animal kingdom was “submission”. And in the context of Singapore, it was the culture of silence which permeates throughout the island state for the best part of the last 50 years until most recently.

As long as Tharman signs up to the PAP’s dominant party doctrine, he cannot deviate far, and disassociate himself from the knuckle duster approach, even if he swaps it with a pair of velvet gloves.

It is clear that the PAP is desperately trying to re-invent itself into a voter-friendly party  masquerading as a national institution representing all Singaporeans. Tharman’s equation of PAP’s interests with that of the interests of Singapore is one such manifestation.

The next general election in 2016 will provide a golden opportunity for Singapore to redefine its political destiny by entrenching the rule of law, participatory and parliamentary democracy free from the dictates of its erstwhile dominant party. The real interests of Singapore lie in breaking up the hegemony of the PAP, but this can only be achieved if the electorate delivers a strong government, ideally with non-PAP Members of Parliament taking up more than two-thirds of all Parliamentary seats.  Only then can a new government abolish  all undemocratic Constitutional amendments, and laws introduced by the PAP during the period of its reign.

This is a project which can only be delivered by the collective efforts of all Singaporeans, and certainly only through a strong coalition of opposition parties, NGOs, and netizens where the common platform is based on the protection of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.

This will also mean that whatever the result of the next general election, opposition parties, its leaders and prospective parliamentary candidates should not enter into any coalition arrangement with the PAP for reasons of expediency. Rather, they should focus on a social contract with the electorate to protect our fundamental human rights by making a clean break with the politics of dominance.