As a Singaporean, I thank you for bringing this piece of history to light. It's a vital topic to keep alive, precisely because it's so morally ambiguous. Another stereotype of my country's politics besides being authoritarian is that of ruthless amoral pragmatism. The ends justify the means. Perhaps destroying the lives of so many individuals was a cruel set of means, but if the end was a secure and prosperous Singapore? Worth a ponder, regardless of which side of the balance you eventually fall on.
I really enjoyed this read, thanks Oliver. It's nice to see the moral ambivalence, as the question is: is the end goal democracy and representation or is the end goal good governance and higher quality of life for the majority of a nation's citizens?
Also, it's interesting to note the downside of high material prosperity: Singaporeans have the highest unhappiness rates in the world and among the lowest birthrates. Compare to Malaysia, much poorer but much happier and with a much higher fertility rate...perhaps there's more to life than GDP numbers.
The role of Winsemius in 1960s Singapore's anti-leftist crackdown is overblown. If you want to find Western culpability, the better place to look is the British colonial administration, which still controlled security matters at the time, not the musings of an economic consultant with no political power. (Though, by the standards of British colonial administration around the world, Operation Coldstore itself was pretty tame stuff.)
As for the PAP's staying power: in postcolonial states, the political party in power at independence tends to have a huge advantage. They get to conflate the party with the project of nation building itself. And unlike Congress in India, BN in Malaysia, or the ANC in South Africa, the PAP has made few economic missteps. They have, by and large, kept their promise of delivering economic prosperity. Just going by fundamentals, they *should* be expected to be hard to unseat.
And that's another reason Singapore draws attention in the developing world, not directly related to the allure of authoritarianism. Unlike the other East Asian Tigers coming up around that time, Singapore was a post-western-colonial state. For lots of post-colonial states, post-independence history was a litany of disappointment, brought about by mismanagement by the same leaders who had led the independence struggle. But Singapore was the Boy Who Lived; independence turbocharged its economic development, as so many elsewhere in the postcolonial world had hoped for their own countries.
As I note in the piece, Winsemius wasn't decisive. But I'd view his influence as akin to a therapist suggesting to a patient they should rob a bank, and they do—years later. Perhaps they were going to do it anyway. In a strictly consequentialist sense perhaps they had no effect at all. But I think most of us have an intuition that a moral wrong has occurred—not least that therapists shouldn't be telling their patients these kinds of things.
Your points on the success of the PAP are well-taken. Yes, it is hard to an unseat an incumbent which has managed growth as spectacularly well as they have. But is economics everything? Surely there are other contributing factors to their near-monopolistic hold on Parliament—without those factors, would we expect a Party, even an economically successful and clean one, to routinely win >90% of the seats for half a century?
I think the 2011 general election illustrates that the reality is far more complicated, and Singaporeans have political grievances that aren't answered just by stellar headline GDP growth. In that sense, perhaps the mere 8 seats won by the WP were an underestimate of democratic sentiment. The strong reaction and subsequent reforms of the PAP, which viewed that election as catastrophic, points in that direction.
I'm not all that familiar with Singaporean politics, but there are governments and countries that are considered relatively democratic and free where almost all of the political expression and horse-trading that one considers characteristic for a free government happens in the context of a factional contest within one political party with an opposition party being merely ancillary. The US has had a few of these periods in its history, though I don't think any has lasted as long as Singapore's 1.25 party system has.
Yeah, you’re describing systems like Japan’s LDP, which has also remained in power for a long time. But I don’t think that’s an accurate description of the PAP in Singapore.
Also, the grass may look greener with messier Western politics but this quote really was striking to me as an American. "The strong reaction and subsequent reforms of the PAP, which viewed that election as catastrophic, points in that direction."
No Western party has reacted like that to a undesirable election result for as long as I can remember, and I'm not that young. Actual reflection, reform, and a course change in response to popular sentiment? I've never seen it happen in the my country (the US). Instead, the losing party just keeps trying to find new angles of attack on the other party. We have two parties that tell the truth about each other and lie about themselves.
For the PAP, is it that there aren't any visible factional splits or that it's all worked out behind closed doors and public participation is discouraged? Either one would be eyebrow raising, I'll admit.
Honestly, considering the future of Singapore after 1965 compared with developing-world countries that allowed communists and socialists to participate in government, getting them out of the way was smart.
The CIA, in this era, would constantly use the excuse of communism to overthrow governments that were focused on national economic development in order to prevent the sort of deliberate industrial policy that would make rapid economic development possible. By eliminating the pretext for such action, Singapore protected itself from the turmoil that happened in Indonesia. Is it right in the sense that Singapore should undermine its own political independence for such a reason, not at all. However, it's the sort of grating and pragmatic action that the smaller countries of the world are often forced to make. Staying off the CIA's hit list is nothing if not a good idea.
Singapore, next to China, has become one of the world’s bywords for authoritarian development?
Singapore was and remains more authoritarian than China, both at the micro and macro levels. This is reflected in surveys of both countries' opinions about democracy.
Singapore's internal surveillance is heavy, as befits an authoritarian nation. It's the only country I've visited where my hosts, two university professors, feared losing their jobs if our conversation was overheard.
I come from an American family full of academics. If I had a dollar for every time they'd started a comment with, "I'd never say this in my department, but...," I could buy my own university.
As a Singaporean, I thank you for bringing this piece of history to light. It's a vital topic to keep alive, precisely because it's so morally ambiguous. Another stereotype of my country's politics besides being authoritarian is that of ruthless amoral pragmatism. The ends justify the means. Perhaps destroying the lives of so many individuals was a cruel set of means, but if the end was a secure and prosperous Singapore? Worth a ponder, regardless of which side of the balance you eventually fall on.
I really enjoyed this read, thanks Oliver. It's nice to see the moral ambivalence, as the question is: is the end goal democracy and representation or is the end goal good governance and higher quality of life for the majority of a nation's citizens?
Also, it's interesting to note the downside of high material prosperity: Singaporeans have the highest unhappiness rates in the world and among the lowest birthrates. Compare to Malaysia, much poorer but much happier and with a much higher fertility rate...perhaps there's more to life than GDP numbers.
I covered some similar terrain focusing on Lee Kuan Yew's philosophy in this post: https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/lee-kuan-yew-and-singapore-a-knife
Thanks! I hadn't seen that Gallup happiness poll before and it's shocking.
The role of Winsemius in 1960s Singapore's anti-leftist crackdown is overblown. If you want to find Western culpability, the better place to look is the British colonial administration, which still controlled security matters at the time, not the musings of an economic consultant with no political power. (Though, by the standards of British colonial administration around the world, Operation Coldstore itself was pretty tame stuff.)
As for the PAP's staying power: in postcolonial states, the political party in power at independence tends to have a huge advantage. They get to conflate the party with the project of nation building itself. And unlike Congress in India, BN in Malaysia, or the ANC in South Africa, the PAP has made few economic missteps. They have, by and large, kept their promise of delivering economic prosperity. Just going by fundamentals, they *should* be expected to be hard to unseat.
And that's another reason Singapore draws attention in the developing world, not directly related to the allure of authoritarianism. Unlike the other East Asian Tigers coming up around that time, Singapore was a post-western-colonial state. For lots of post-colonial states, post-independence history was a litany of disappointment, brought about by mismanagement by the same leaders who had led the independence struggle. But Singapore was the Boy Who Lived; independence turbocharged its economic development, as so many elsewhere in the postcolonial world had hoped for their own countries.
Thanks for these thoughtful comments.
As I note in the piece, Winsemius wasn't decisive. But I'd view his influence as akin to a therapist suggesting to a patient they should rob a bank, and they do—years later. Perhaps they were going to do it anyway. In a strictly consequentialist sense perhaps they had no effect at all. But I think most of us have an intuition that a moral wrong has occurred—not least that therapists shouldn't be telling their patients these kinds of things.
Your points on the success of the PAP are well-taken. Yes, it is hard to an unseat an incumbent which has managed growth as spectacularly well as they have. But is economics everything? Surely there are other contributing factors to their near-monopolistic hold on Parliament—without those factors, would we expect a Party, even an economically successful and clean one, to routinely win >90% of the seats for half a century?
I think the 2011 general election illustrates that the reality is far more complicated, and Singaporeans have political grievances that aren't answered just by stellar headline GDP growth. In that sense, perhaps the mere 8 seats won by the WP were an underestimate of democratic sentiment. The strong reaction and subsequent reforms of the PAP, which viewed that election as catastrophic, points in that direction.
I'm not all that familiar with Singaporean politics, but there are governments and countries that are considered relatively democratic and free where almost all of the political expression and horse-trading that one considers characteristic for a free government happens in the context of a factional contest within one political party with an opposition party being merely ancillary. The US has had a few of these periods in its history, though I don't think any has lasted as long as Singapore's 1.25 party system has.
Yeah, you’re describing systems like Japan’s LDP, which has also remained in power for a long time. But I don’t think that’s an accurate description of the PAP in Singapore.
Also, the grass may look greener with messier Western politics but this quote really was striking to me as an American. "The strong reaction and subsequent reforms of the PAP, which viewed that election as catastrophic, points in that direction."
No Western party has reacted like that to a undesirable election result for as long as I can remember, and I'm not that young. Actual reflection, reform, and a course change in response to popular sentiment? I've never seen it happen in the my country (the US). Instead, the losing party just keeps trying to find new angles of attack on the other party. We have two parties that tell the truth about each other and lie about themselves.
For the PAP, is it that there aren't any visible factional splits or that it's all worked out behind closed doors and public participation is discouraged? Either one would be eyebrow raising, I'll admit.
Thanks for this
Honestly, considering the future of Singapore after 1965 compared with developing-world countries that allowed communists and socialists to participate in government, getting them out of the way was smart.
The CIA, in this era, would constantly use the excuse of communism to overthrow governments that were focused on national economic development in order to prevent the sort of deliberate industrial policy that would make rapid economic development possible. By eliminating the pretext for such action, Singapore protected itself from the turmoil that happened in Indonesia. Is it right in the sense that Singapore should undermine its own political independence for such a reason, not at all. However, it's the sort of grating and pragmatic action that the smaller countries of the world are often forced to make. Staying off the CIA's hit list is nothing if not a good idea.
Singapore, next to China, has become one of the world’s bywords for authoritarian development?
Singapore was and remains more authoritarian than China, both at the micro and macro levels. This is reflected in surveys of both countries' opinions about democracy.
Singapore's internal surveillance is heavy, as befits an authoritarian nation. It's the only country I've visited where my hosts, two university professors, feared losing their jobs if our conversation was overheard.
I come from an American family full of academics. If I had a dollar for every time they'd started a comment with, "I'd never say this in my department, but...," I could buy my own university.
enjoyed a lot reading this. thanks dude