By Sylvia Lim

In many educational institutions, academic subjects are given code numbers for administrative purposes. Subjects which are coded "101" are basic, foundational modules, giving the student a grounding in the fundamentals of the subject before he progresses to more advanced level study. For instance, one would need to study Sociology 101 (or its equivalent) before going on to do Sociology of the Family or Social Research.

In recent memory, no public issue has roused Singaporeans to react as much as the decision to have integrated resorts including casinos in Singapore. Organised protests by way of numerous letters and discussions and other activities were initiated by Singaporeans, including the Workers' Party, who were concerned about the implications the casino(s) would have on our society and the way we live. A petition was even presented to the President by Families Against the Casino Threat in Singapore ("FACTS"), which the President said he would read, though what follow-up action he had taken was not reported.

These initiatives reassure us that Singaporeans are not always "bo-chap" (unconcerned and not bothered), nor do they always accept a position of helplessness vis-à-vis the government. Nevertheless, it was probably at the back of people's minds that the government had already decided to embark on having casinos long before the April announcement.

There are valuable lessons to be learnt by Singaporeans in Politics 101 here.

Lesson 1: Parliamentary majority means ultimate control.

What we inherited from our colonial masters is a system of Parliamentary democracy, where whoever controls Parliament is supreme. So, we have PAP MPs like Mr Tan Soo Khoon pleading for the Whip to be lifted so that PAP MPs could vote according to their consciences. Apparently, the Whip was not lifted.

This led to rather peculiar proceedings in Parliament in the week of 18 Apr, 2005. Four days were set aside to "debate" the casino decision, which was announced by the Prime Minister on the first day and would not be changed, and neither would MPs be allowed to vote on it. Why, then, go through several days of debate after that? The air-time allowed PAP Ministers and MPs to express their personal agonies over the issue in public, but it would not make one iota of difference to the decision.

The lesson Singaporeans can learn from this is that if the government has made up its mind about something, MPs from the ruling party have no way of changing the decision even if there are enough MPs who would personally oppose the decision. This is called Party discipline in a Parliamentary democracy.

For all the good intentions of some PAP MPs, their presence presents no threat to the political power of the PAP government and hence the PAP government can do as it wishes knowing that everyone is "of the same flock" and subject to the PAP Party whip.

While it is also true that opposition MPs have to follow their own Party stand in voting, the fact is that their stand can differ from the ruling Party's stand. Even if the opposition MPs are few in number, the threat of the ruling party losing more seats will force the government to be less arrogant about forcing its will on a reluctant population. Hence, voting in more numbers of opposition MPs is necessary if we are serious about putting pressure on the government to convince us of its decisions.

Lesson 2: When (If?) the PAP Whip will be lifted

Speaking after the General Elections on 3 Nov 2001, then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said that he would consider lifting the party Whip, in all except constitutional Bills, to let 20 PAP Members of Parliament who were not holding government office speak their minds freely in the House. He also alluded to possibly allowing them "a free vote". This idea was quickly abandoned amidst discomfort within the PAP itself.

Those harbouring hopes that the PAP will be magnanimous and lift their Party Whip when voting on divisive, sensitive matters must realise by now that this will not happen.

Prior to the 2001 GE, the PAP Whip was reportedly lifted only 3 times in 40 years. And since the 2001 GE, the PAP Whip was lifted a further 2 times, in matters which were not significant or not contentious:

a) Motion on whether to have Nominated Members of Parliament ("NMPs") in 2002;
b) Motion on whether to refocus Junior College and Upper Secondary Education towards broader, cross-disciplinary knowledge, also in 2002.

Motion (a) resulted in 58 "Ayes" and 5 "Nays", while (b) was carried unanimously.

Of course, no government can function if it allowed free voting on every issue, either by MPs in Parliament or by the public directly through a referendum or as an issue at the General Election. However, this issue of having several casinos on tiny Singapore would impact society in fundamental ways, yet the people had no effective say. We are told instead to "have faith in the government and the strength of Singaporeans…" (Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, 20 Apr, 2005). This is especially discomforting in the light of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's admission that the government now regrets its earlier decisions not to allow Singapore to plug into pop culture or F1 racing. And what happened to the calls to "debate issues with reason, passion and conviction, and not be passive bystanders in their own fate"? (Then DPM Lee Hsien Loong, 6 Jan, 2004)?

The lesson from this is that any PAP talk that they would lift the whip to allow PAP MPs a free say / vote to effectively check the government has been proven to be a myth. At best, it is a political gimmick to convince people that opposition MPs need not be elected, which would be the ultimate blank cheque Singaporeans could give!

Lesson 3: The Real Purpose of Public Feedback

In his address at the Harvard Club's 35th Anniversary on 6 Jan, 2004, then DPM Lee Hsien Loong acknowledged that the PAP feedback gathering process had its share of critics. These critics believed that the government was using the sessions more to explain policies from top-down rather than to genuinely gather views for policy formulation. He then promised to be more open about whether a decision had already been made or was still negotiable.

For more than a year prior to the casino announcement on 18 Apr, 2005, the government had indicated that it was open to public views and encouraged Singaporeans to speak up. Singaporeans did, hoping to be heard. Those who opposed the casino were vocal, energetic and even organised.

Oddly, the government started labelling them as a "vocal minority" and believed that the "silent majority" supported the casino being established.

In Dec 2004, the Ministry of Trade and Industry formalised a Request for Concepts, inviting bidders to submit proposals for an integrated resort including a casino. Major players in the global gaming industry participated in this exercise which closed end Feb, 2005.

Government Ministers then started to talk about imposing entrance fees and setting up centres to treat addiction. Around end March / early Apr 2005, it was reported in the Business Times that the Singapore Tourism Board had communicated with several of those who had submitted concept proposals, to indicate the expected timelines for tasks to be done "if the government agrees to go ahead". However, as far as the public message went, no decision had apparently been made on whether to go ahead.

During the Parliamentary "debate" on the issue in Apr 2005, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong confirmed what many Singaporeans had long suspected - that once "internationally well-known global players" had submitted concept proposals, there was no turning back (see next section).

What, then, was the purpose of eliciting public feedback on the casino? In my view, one obvious purpose is to allow Singaporeans to ventilate their concerns and to participate in some kind of "due process" in policy-making i.e. the government must be seen to do the right thing by the people. The really cynical would call it a "PR exercise". Secondly, it serves as a barometer of public sentiment and concerns, to guide the government as to how to "sell" the decision to the people. It would indicate what the people are concerned about and give the government time to think of how to package or re-package the proposal appropriately. Hence, we see the government now emphasising safeguards, job creation and long term national survival. Feedback gathering merely makes the decision, already taken, more palatable.

Lesson 4: Foreigners: Saints and Sinners Too

It is interesting to note that Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong told Parliament on 20 Apr, 2005 that not to proceed with the casino(s) after internationally well-known global players had taken time and effort to come up with serious proposals "will hurt our credibility and reputation. We will be seen to be incapable of making rational decisions (and) regarded as timid and not being serious about remaking Singapore" (Business Times, 21 Apr, 2005).

Ever so often, we Singaporeans are told that we do not need foreigners to tell us how to run our country or to impose on us their beliefs or expectations. The government regularly scoffs and ridicules international findings which rate us poorly e.g. on press freedom, political participation and the death penalty, saying that these matters are for Singaporeans to decide. For instance, at a Parliamentary sitting in Nov 2004, Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts, Dr Lee Boon Yang, dismissed the report by Reporters Sans Frontieres ranking Singapore lowest among developed countries for press freedom, saying that we need not "adopt practices not relevant to us just to gain the favours of the international ranking associations".

Yet, when we are rated well by international organisations e.g. PERC (Political and Economic Risk Consultancy), or Transparency International (an anti-corruption watchdog), such favourable rankings are quoted over and over again to justify the government's track record.

I believe that where international benchmarks are available, we should refer to them as a starting point and then make a deliberate decision as to whether they should or should not apply in Singapore. We should, of course, depart from international benchmarks if there are good reasons to do so.

Nevertheless, what Singaporeans should realise is that the PAP is equally capable of using foreign opinion to justify what it is doing, and of mocking it as "foreign" if the opinion is not what the PAP wants to hear!

Lesson 5: Pandora's box has just been opened!

It was reported on 28 Apr, 2005 that PM Lee and others held a close-door session the previous day with grassroots organisations to talk about the approval of the 2 Integrated Resorts ("IRs") with casinos. The reports left readers with even more uncertainty and anxiety.

First, PM Lee said he had thought of approving just one IR and not 2, since having 2 would mean that if problems emerged, there would be 2 sources of problems rather than one. However, he apparently said that he was reassured when the bids from potential investors showed they would be happy even if Singapore went for 2 locations.

It is hard to understand the logic of what was reported, as it would appear that the "problems" would be social ones, which would not be the main concern of investors but rather that of society.

Secondly, PM Lee was reported as saying that while having 2 IRs was the limit for now, he does not rule out more IRs being approved in the future. How many more might we have, despite government claims that we do not want to become a Las Vegas? Extrapolating other possibilities, will existing operators of slot machines such as NTUC Club later be given wider licences to run other games of chance as well?

And would Singaporeans bother to give "feedback" on these extensions in the future?

Conclusion

Alice Walker, an African American activist and author of the novel The Color Purple, notes that "the most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any."

With these invaluable lessons in Politics 101 from the casino "debate", Singaporeans should be better placed to appreciate the value of the vote at the General Elections. Wins for the PAP will be taken by the PAP as a mandate to do whatever they deem fit, even if there are social costs to be paid by Singaporeans. A vote for credible, alternative parties will be a signal to the PAP that they had better sit up and pay attention to Singaporeans or incur further political costs.

During the great casino "debate", the PAP dismissed our existing tourist attractions as outdated, and made a clarion call for Singapore to be remade to become a "fun place" (MM Lee Kuan Yew, Apr 2005). Given the larger-than-life role that the PAP has played in shaping Singapore over the last 50 years, I do find this ironic!