Singapore’s ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) has built its reputation on honesty and integrity, while delivering superior economic progress to its citizens. Those credentials are at stake as the party grapples with the latest scandal in its ranks: the case of former minister for transport S. Iswaran.
On Tuesday, Iswaran pleaded guilty to five charges, four for obtaining valuable items as a public servant and one for obstructing the course of justice. Newly appointed Singaporean Prime Minister Lawrence Wong (黃循財) has a chance to renew trust with voters, and refresh the social contract between the government and the people.
Iswaran was meant to face a lengthy trial, but his last-minute about-face has dominated conversations in coffee shops and social media forums across the city-state. He was charged in January for allegedly taking expensive gifts from two businessmen — property tycoon Ong Beng Seng (王明星), who owns the rights to the Singapore Grand Prix and played a key role in bringing the Formula One race to the city-state, and construction boss Lum Kok Seng (林國城).
When the charges were first filed, Iswaran insisted he was innocent and vowed to contest them. On Tuesday, the prosecution amended the accusations and dropped the corruption crimes. Iswaran subsequently pled guilty to a smaller set of five indictments. He is on bail and due to be sentenced on Thursday next week. Such is the public interest in the case that people were lining up for tickets to watch the proceedings.
This is almost certainly the end of Iswaran’s political career, and the latest stain on the PAP’s once spotless record.
In June last year, two senior cadres were cleared of wrongdoing by the anti-corruption bureau for their rental of colonial-era houses in an upscale neighborhood, after the opposition alleged they paid below-market rates. A month later, two parliamentarians who had an extramarital affair resigned, after then-Singaporean prime minister Lee Hsien Loong (李顯龍) intervened to break them up — twice.
The government could do without the distraction. Elections must be held before November next year, and the focus is on reminding Singaporeans about the challenges ahead, and which party is best placed to guide the nation through them.
Earlier this week, a headline in the Straits Times read: “More Singaporean deaths than births possible by first half of 2030s,” warning that the population would shrink without immigration. Then the government released figures that showed the population is now above 6 million people — a record — with the biggest growth among non-residents.
Immigration and the cost of living are key concerns for voters. The PAP had one of its worst-ever showings in 2020 — despite winning 61 percent of the popular vote — due in part to concerns about the economy.
It is a tricky balancing act for Wong, who just this week has been warning of the “dark clouds over the horizon” regarding the US-China contest for dominance in the Asia-Pacific region. He is leading a team of ministers who are vastly different from the ones who built the nation, bringing it, in the words of the late founding father, Lee Kuan Yew (李光耀), from Third World to First. The current crop, or the 4G, as they are known, are viewed by a segment of Singaporeans as arrogant and out of touch. The fact that they earn million-dollar salaries, more than 10 times the average Singaporean’s wages, is also a sore point.
The government implemented private-sector standard salaries in 1994 to attract the best talent and prevent a culture of graft. However, times have changed, said Chong Ja Ian (莊嘉穎), an associate professor of political science at the National University of Singapore.
“These rules were established at a time when the PAP could legitimately say if we pay our ministers the highest salaries, they will be corruption-free. With the wealth that is available in Singapore today, is this approach still feasible? Whether the PAP can come up with some alternative mechanisms remains untested,” Chong said.
As the new leader, Wong has already clocked that there is an image problem, saying when Iswaran was first charged in January that maintaining clean government is non-negotiable.
“This is part of our DNA,” he added. “There can be no compromise, no relaxation, no fudging of this, no matter the political price.”
There are things Wong can do to remind voters of the party’s principled history, and hark back to the can-do philosophy that helped build Singapore’s success. He has an opportunity for radical transparency and could impose sweeping changes. One option is to mandate that parliamentarians, elected officials and their families publicly disclose their assets. Currently, Singaporean political office holders only have to declare their income and assets to the prime minister. Wong could also argue that a parliamentarian or civil servant should not hold another job or directorship in the private sector, as some currently do.
The prime minister addressed this in a dialogue with students in July, saying the government recognized some lawmakers have “other private-sector commitments” and that they were allowed to have full-time jobs, but that they were also fully expected to discharge their parliamentarian duties.
Divorcing public service from private-sector pay could go a long way toward weeding out those not fully committed to their electorates. In the past, it was thought that if you want to attract the best talent to the ranks of Singapore’s elite, you need to pay them handsomely. However, perhaps the new philosophy should be: If you do not want to make some sacrifices to serve the people, then perhaps you are not cut out for politics.
After all, it is not a management or executive job — it is a calling. Singaporeans deserve that much.
Karishma Vaswani is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Asia politics with a special focus on China. Previously, she was the BBC’s lead Asia presenter, and worked for the BBC across Asia and South Asia for two decades. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS