But that question got me thinking about this phenomenon called "co-opting". It seems to me that we in Singapore are doing it in a way that is quite different from the major liberal democracies in the West. We speak of co-opting with reference to the roping in of people, whereas elsewhere it's the stealing of ideas.

For example, after Margaret Thatcher's successful shaking up of the UK in the 1980s, the Labour Party adopted some of the Conservative Party's programs in order to win future elections. In the past known for defending nationalised industries, the Labour Party reformed its platform to speak of competition and outsourcing of some governmental responsibilities.

In many European countries, after the extreme rightwing parties scored notable electoral successes in elections, many mainstream conservative parties co-opted some of their anti-immigration positions in an attempt to fend off the threat from that direction.

Thus, the term "co-opt" is usually used to mean taking in ideas from one's opponents for electoral advantage. This seems to demonstrate that mature democracies operate primarily at the level of contending ideas.

Of course, very few political parties would admit to stealing ideas from their opponents; it does not do any good for one's branding. So who would be using the word "co-opt" there?

The press. A free press will call a spade a spade. Independent commentators will say such-and-such a party has co-opted ideas from that other party, which the first party itself will strenuously deny, claiming that their own think-tank came up with these "fresh" ideas.

But the fact remains that it is ideas that are being fought over, not personalities.

* * * * *

 
By contrast, in Singapore, the object being co-opted (by the PAP) tends to be people, not ideas. Moreover, its move to co-opt is often trumpetted rather than denied, and amplified by our media.

It suggests to us that in the main, politics here does not operate at the level of ideas, but is an exercise of brute power and the maintenance of that power. Ideas are not imported in order to contest other parties', but people are absorbed in order dominate the political space.

Before we go further, it may be necessary to elucidate what we mean by "co-opt" in the Singapore context. At least for the purposes of this essay, it does not mean all instances of the PAP's recruitment of new political talent, but rather a subset of that, that subset being such instances where new political recruits have had a history of independent, perhaps dissenting, opinion, or have been previously active in civil society.

In recent years, Vivian Balakrishnan (currently Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports) and Raymond Lim (currently Minister for Transport) would be examples of co-opted leaders. The former was quite outspoken 20 years ago, though very few remembered until the PAP brought it to people's attention at the time of his induction into the the party. This was a case of the PAP making a boast of their being able to co-opt a dissenter, though it would also beg the question whether, considering Vivian's relative silence since 20 years ago, he was really a dissenter anymore, or was he merely being re-dressed as a dissenter to make the PAP look magnanimous.

PAP candidates on stage at the party's election rally in Hougang, May 2006. The crowd before the stage.

The co-opting of Raymond Lim may be a better example. He had been active in the 1990s in the independent political discussion group The Roundtable. His example also illustrates what can happen when the PAP co-opts someone from civil society. Yawning Bread understands from informal sources that his jumping ship led to some strain within The Roundtable; this may have contributed to the demise of the group soon after.

Earlier this year, Denise Phua, president of the Autism Resource Centre, was inducted into the new line-up of PAP candidates just prior to the general election. Hers would be another case of co-opting, she having been quite vocal about the state's neglect of autistic children. While her motivation for joining the PAP may not be entirely clear -– her public statements were little more than boilerplate reasons -– many have speculated that she may feel it more advantageous to advance her cause within the PAP than without.

After all, the claim is made that the PAP is open to debate within its ranks in order to arrive at the best policies. Hence, it is possible for people, otherwise known for their (mildly) dissenting views, to speak their mind within the PAP and influence policies. By co-opting such persons, the party (and government) expects to be able to deliver better-tuned policies to the public.

That may sound logical but may be quite facile, for what is not discussed is why the debate must take place within the PAP. If the PAP is genuinely open to alternative views, why can't the debate take place in the public sphere? Why can't the PAP take heed of dissenting opinion expressed outside of the party? In other words, why can't it co-opt outside ideas without absorbing the people who may embody those ideas and putting those persons under its party discipline?

This therefore seems consistent with my reading of our politics: that the party does not seek to engage with the public (and opposition) in the realm of ideas, but instead seeks to silence it. This is the imperative if its primary aim is the maintenance of its power especially when it sees democracy as a threat to itself.

On the other hand, it recognises that a party that does not have the benefit of new ideas will ossify. Hence it co-opts -– selectively -– in order to ensure that ideas continue to surface within the party.

At the same time, co-opting has side benefits for the party, for once the person is co-opted or absorbed into the party, the further development of the causes or ideas that he is enthusiastic about is kept within the boundaries set by the party. The risk that these ideas may evolve into something that seriously challenges the fundamental nostrums of the party leadership is neutered.

By such means, the party seeks to monopolise political debate within itself, as well as control how much of that debate is articulated to the public.

But the flip side is that political engagement with the rest of the population is impoverished, not least through the snatching away of dissent-leaders from the public sphere. For example, one has to wonder whether Singapore is richer or poorer with the demise of a political think tank like The Roundtable.

* * * * *

 
Co-opting is also an exercise in spin -– that's why in Singapore it is trumpetted rather than denied. It says to the segments of the public whose articulators are being co-opted that the government hears their concerns and is likely to evolve its policies in the directions they wish. The hoped-for result is to win over these segments electorally.

Whether this is effective is another question; I don't know if any political scientist has done a study to measure either its polling effects or its impact on public attitudes (cynicism?) towards the PAP and the government.

This of course, may be the inevitable result of having over-burnished his "dissenter" credentials for electoral purposes after 20 years of oxidation. Was he ever a change-maker to begin with?

The underlying problem however, is that the PAP is a party without much of a program, witness its thin but glossy manifesto for the May 2006 general election, full of sunshine pictorials and motherhood statements. Unlike parties in the West, it is co-opting people, not ideas, not even co-opting people for their ideas.

It is primarily co-opting people in order to appeal to the dissent-constituencies that these people may speak for, or merely in order to soften the party's image by appearing accommodating.

The question then is how much real debate goes on behind the closed doors of the party after people have been co-opted? One has the vague suspicion that there is very little; in fact, the closed-door habit of the party itself suggests that as an institution, it believes more in control than in debate.

Another problematic outcome of co-opting for the sake of spin is that, this being the case, the PAP does not have to be averse to co-opting people from conflicting segments. There is a real risk then that, even if debate is lively within the party, the ideas the co-opted dissent-leaders bring into the party will cancel each other out. With the usual secrecy with which the party conducts its affairs, no one outside will be any the wiser what has happened. All they will see is that nothing of the hoped-for evolution in policy is forthcoming. Things remain largely the same. So before long, the co-opted persons lose their credibility and the party's hope -– that these new leaders can help change its stern, unlistening image and sway the populace -– is dashed again.

Meanwhile, cynics will say, in the broad church that the PAP wants to be, anything of consequence is decided by the high priesthood and no one else. Given the fruitlessness of co-opted leaders, or worse, their complete conversion once absorbed into the PAP, the cynics will be seen to be right. It should hardly be any wonder that this produces either apathy or contempt.

© Yawning Bread