His point was that should the People's Action Party (PAP) government ever fail to deliver or turn corrupt, opposition parties will spontaneously grow in strength.

If you look at history, the answer is both Yes and No. Over a longish period of time, indeed he would be right. Accumulated scandals or hardship will lead to a resurgence of political activity that will eventually displace the government. The danger inherent in that breezy statement by Lee, however, is in leaving the impression that the fall from grace and the rise in opposition occur in tandem.

They won't.

What will happen -- and you can mark my words that it will happen in Singapore, it's only a matter of when -- is that there will be long period of decline before the reaction shows up. The more authoritarian the government, meaning the more it is able to close off avenues of dissent and criticism, the longer that period of decline will be before the corrupt or  incompetent government is removed. This also means, the greater the damage done to Singapore, before corrective action is taken.

In fact, in the initial period, voters may not even see it as decline. If it's gradually slowing economic growth, or a plateauing of the quality of public services and the standard of living, it will be explained away as part and parcel of a maturing economy. It is only natural, it will be said, that other countries, starting from a lower base, will appear to be catching up.

The same with corruption. In the initial period, it will be just cronyism, and it may even be seen as a good thing.

* * * * *

 
Here are two future scenarios:

A large government-linked company is in financial difficulties. After a few years, it becomes obvious that people are sick of seeing government subsidies and loans keeping it afloat. A foreign company attempts a take-over. But the days when globalisation is in fashion are over; instead economic nationalism has come back into vogue. Furthermore, this government-linked company is seen as iconic of Singapore and it's also in a "strategic industry". Should we sell it to foreigners? Will the foreigners downsize the company, throwing many workers out of a job?

At the last minute, a management buy-out proposal appears. They're a team of Singapore managers, planning to take it private but promising to keep the business firmly in Singapore, keeping the flag flying. There will be no major job losses, they promise. 95% of Singaporeans think this is the best solution. The 5% who don't are dismissed as unpatriotic.

And so the company is bought out by the management team. But where did they get the money to buy out such a large company? A sweet loan from a bank -- a government-linked bank. And who leads the management team in the buy-out? A son of a former cabinet minister who used to serve in the cabinet of 2011 (or whatever year... it's only hypothetical).

How did he get to be the CEO of that company in the first place? Simple. Temasek Holdings [2] felt he was the best and brightest.

The terms of the buy-out includes a major write-off of the loans previously extended to the firm by the government. How convenient, you might think, but at that point in time, people will see it as only reasonable -- necessary to keep the company afloat and preserve jobs. But because the loans are written off, the new, private company starts off in the black. Millions of dollars in the black.

Another scenario may be something like this:

Due to aging, there's a sudden and major structural failure in a railway tunnel, and a critical section of a railway line has to be shut down, inconveniencing millions of people.

Furthermore the shopping centres and tower blocks standing over that section of the line are also at risk, and for safety reasons, they are evacuated.

It is extremely urgent to rebuild the tunnel walls, but whole sections need to be excavated again. There is no time for an open tender. The project is given to what is said to be the only capable company that can mobilise work within days.

Furthermore, the government allows the company to acquire the properties lying above the damaged sections of the line. Since these properties have lost their market value due to the safety hazards beneath the ground, the compulsory acquisition is at dirt-cheap prices.

Inevitably, the reconstruction work involved turns out to be more complicated than it first appeared, and for each additional module of work, the cost is negotiated with the already-appointed contractor. Since the work is unprecedented, there are no historical comparisons for this kind of project.

In any case, the people are happy. They see work in progress and can look forward to the railway line running again. The price may be high, but the loss to Singapore's economy from the failure of a major transport system is incalculable. The people don't quibble with the fact that the company is owned by the brother-in-law of the Deputy Prime Minister of the day.

Singapore's population is small. It is inevitable that people are related to other well-known people. Or so it is explained. 

* * * * *

 
As you can expect, once the culture of cronyism seeps in, the culture of corruption cannot be far behind.

At this point, some readers will recall the scandal at the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) [3]. Some too will point out that at the end of the day, it was nonetheless uncovered and fixed. Ah, but we should realise how close we came to it not being so. In the late 1990s, a few individuals had made allegations of impropriety at the NKF under T T Durai's management. Each time, he threatened them with a defamation suit. Lacking hard evidence to support their statements, these individuals succumbed.

It was only on 19 April 2004 that the Straits Times ran an article airing similar allegations. Durai and the NKF sued again -- the case coming to trial in July 2005 -- but this time Durai and the NKF lost.

It's been said that Straits Times succeeded where the 3 individuals did not because it had the resources to hire top lawyers and investigators. Yet it should also be noted that the Straits Times could just as easily have been told by their own Board of Directors not to contest the suit.

It is to their credit that in the NKF case, the Board told the management to fight it, but years in the future, when the culture of cronyism has taken hold, the then Board may take a different decision. After all, given the provisions of the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act [4], the government remains in firm control of the management of newspaper companies. A less scrupulous cabinet may whisper advice to the directors of the newspaper company to withdraw any allegations of wrong-doing against cronies of the government.

Is this far-fetched? If cronyism has taken hold, what makes anyone think that the impulse to protect cronies from exposure will not also take hold?

* * * * *

 
Singapore is taking huge risks by leaving so many levers of control in the hands of the Executive. There are few effective checks and balances, for the PAP's argument has for decades been: Give us complete power and put your trust in us, for we are men of integrity. We check ourselves, we don't need institutional controls. 

Even the justice system suffers a credibility problem. The average Joe has little faith that he can stand a chance in court against government-linked plaintiffs, so he'd rather self-censor than speak out, even when he sees wrong-doing.

Wisdom tells us, the first small steps down the road to perdition should be challenged when they occur, and not have things degenerate for 20 years before people rise up. Yet for these first questionable decisions to be challenged, Singapore needs a culture of civic freedoms and an energetic opposition. There shouldn't be a climate of fear. The dissenters, that "unpatriotic" 5% should feel free to speak up and be heard. Hard questions should be asked in Parliament, so that the government in power have to provide answers.

We cannot wait until our economy has tanked, and scandals too obvious to ignore to begin to think about building up an opposition, because by then, all the more it will be in the interest of the Executive to prevent outspoken citizens and political opponents from organising. The grubby politicians in power will have too much to lose. They will use every rule they have inherited from this generation of the PAP to gag and imprison their critics.

Today, it doesn't look at all urgent for us to think about an alternative government in the wings. Today, it does not look important to have people fighting for things like free speech and a Freedom of Information Act. But is it not foolish to wait until the house has been burgled before we think about getting a dog?

© Yawning Bread