Advertisement

Intra-Party Dynamics in the People’s Action Party: Party Structure, Continuity and Hegemony

  • Walid Jumblatt AbdullahEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter explores the role of intra-party dynamics within the People’s Action Party (PAP). I argue that the PAP’s closed structure—akin to a cadre party—is an important reason for its political preponderance. The party structure ensures that there has been no major split within the party since independence, and the core ideological predispositions remain unchallenged. Essentially, the party reproduces itself. The choice of a cadre structure was a conscious decision by the party leadership, especially Lee Kuan Yew, following an internal struggle with the leftist faction. This chapter thus interrogates the interaction between institutions (party structures) and agents (personalities), and how one affects the other. At the same time, the chapter investigates the much-touted ‘leftwards’ shift by the party following its dismal showing in the 2011 elections. I contend that the tilt in direction can be more accurately described as a shift in policy focus rather than a significant alteration of PAP core governing ideologies. The party’s closed structure minimises the possibility of radical change in its fundamental underpinnings of governance. The policy shifts should then be considered as pragmatic responses to a declining vote share, rather than a rethinking of the assumptions upon which the party, and the country, are built. The effect of the structure is that the party perpetuates itself, and prospects of significant, rather than cosmetic, change in the party remains unlikely. The PAP case study offers several comparative implications. Firstly, it highlights how personalities—and critical junctures—can have a lasting impact on political institutions and outcomes. Secondly, the case study emphasises the transformative relationship between institutional dominance and ideological hegemony—the party structure being one such institution.

Bibliography

  1. Abdullah, W. J. (2016a). Assessing Party Structures: Why some Regimes are more Authoritarian than Others. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 70(5), 525−540.Google Scholar
  2. Abdullah, W. J. (2016b). Education as a Non-Issue: Political and Ideological Positioning in GE2015. In T. Lee & K. Y. Tan, (eds.) Change in Voting: Singapore’s 2015 General Election. (pp. 134−145) Singapore: Ethos Books.Google Scholar
  3. Abdullah, W. J. (2017). Bringing Ideology in: Differing Oppositional Challenges to Hegemony in Singapore and Malaysia. Government and Opposition. 52(3), 483−510.Google Scholar
  4. Baber, Z. (2002). Engendering or endangering democracy? The Internet, civil society and the public sphere. Asian Journal of Social Science, 30(2), 287−303.Google Scholar
  5. Capoccia, G. & Kelemen, R. D. (2007). The Study of Critical Junctures: Theory, Narrative, and Counterfactuals in Historical Institutionalism. World Politics, 59(3), 341−369.Google Scholar
  6. Case, W., (1991). Comparative Malaysian Leadership: Tunku Abdul Rahman and Mahathir Mohamad. Asian Survey, 31(5), 456−473.Google Scholar
  7. Channel NewsAsia. (2015, November 3). Bilahari Kausikan on ‘The Legacy of LKY’. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/bilahari-kausikan-on-the/2235302.html. Accessed 4 November 2016.
  8. Coleman, J. J. (1999). Unified Government, Divided Government, and Party Responsiveness. American Political Science Review, 93(4), 821−835.Google Scholar
  9. Cotton, J. (1993). Political innovation in Singapore: the presidency, the leadership and the party. In G. Rodan, ed. Singapore Changes Guard (pp. 3−13) Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.Google Scholar
  10. Gandhi, J. and Przeworski, A. (2007). Authoritarian institutions and the Survival of Autocrats. Comparative Political Studies, 40(11), 1279−1301.Google Scholar
  11. Geddes, B. (1999). What Do We Know about Democratization after Twenty Years?. Annual Review of Political Science, Volume 2, 115−144.Google Scholar
  12. George, C. (2012). Freedom from the Press: Journalism and State Power in Singapore. Singapore: NUS Press.Google Scholar
  13. George, C. (2015). Legal Landmines and OB Markers: Survival Strategies of Alternative Media. In T. T. How, A. Mahizhnan & A. P. Hwa, eds. Battle for Hearts and Minds: New Media and Elections in Singapore (pp. 29−48). Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  14. Griffin, L. (1992). Temporality, Events, and Explanation in Historical Sociology: An Introduction. Sociological Methods & Research, 20(4), 403−427.Google Scholar
  15. Henderson, J. C. (2016). Remembering Lee Kuan Yew: politics, heritage and political heritage in Singapore. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 22(1), 59−69.Google Scholar
  16. Ho, K. L. (2000). Prime ministerial leadership and policy-making style in Singapore: Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong compared. Asian Journal of Political Science, 8(1), 91−123.Google Scholar
  17. Hong, L. (2002). The Lee Kuan Yew Story as Singapore’s History. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 33(3), 545−557.Google Scholar
  18. Huxley, T. (1991). Singapore and Malaysia: A Precarious Balance?. The Pacific Review, 4(3), 204−213.Google Scholar
  19. Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: a Psychological Study Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Mifflin.Google Scholar
  20. Jones, D. M. and Brown, D. (1994). Singapore and the Myth of the Liberalizing Middle Class. The Pacific Review, 7(1), 79−87.Google Scholar
  21. Jones, M. (2000). Creating Malaysia: Singapore security, the Borneo territories, and the contours of British policy, 1961–63. The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 28(2), 85−109.Google Scholar
  22. Lau, A. (2005). Nation-Building and the Singapore Story: Some Issues in the Study of Contemporary Singapore History. In G. Wang (ed.) Nation Building: Five Southeast Asian Histories (pp. 221−250). Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
  23. Lee, K. Y. (1998). The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew. Singapore: Singapore Press Holdings.Google Scholar
  24. Lee, K. Y. (2000). From Third World to First: The Singapore Story: 1965–2000. Singapore: Singapore Press Holdings.Google Scholar
  25. Lee, T. (2010). The Media, Cultural Control and Government in Singapore. Abingdon, Oxon & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Levitsky, S. and Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Mahoney, J. (2000). Path Dependence in Historical Sociology. Theory and Society, 29(4), 507–548.Google Scholar
  28. Mahoney, J. (2002). The Legacies of Liberalism: Path Dependence and Political Regimes in Central America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Mauzy, D. K. (1993). Leadership Succession in Singapore: The Best Laid Plans…. Asian Survey, 33(12), 1163−1174.Google Scholar
  30. Mauzy, D. K. and Milne, R. S. (2002). Singapore Politics under the People’s Action Party. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Mutalib, H. (2003). Parties and Politics: A Study of Opposition Parties and the PAP in Singapore. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mutalib, H. (2012). Singapore Malays: Being Ethnic Minority and Muslim in a Global City-State. Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. New Eastern Outlook. (2015, October 21). Singapore’s leftward shift behind ruling party’s stunning electoral comeback. http://journal-neo.org/2015/10/21/singapore-s-leftward-shift-behind-ruling-party-s-stunning-electoral-comeback/. Accessed 4 November 2016.
  34. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. O’Donnell, G. and Schmitter, P. C. (1986). Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Ortmann, S. (2011). Singapore: Authoritarian but Newly Competitive. Journal of Democracy, 22(4), 153−164.Google Scholar
  37. Ortmann, S. (2015). Political Change and Civil Society Coalitions in Singapore. Government and Opposition, 50(1), 119−139.Google Scholar
  38. Pang, C. L. (1969). The People’s Action Party, 1954–1963. Journal of Southeast Asian History, 10(1), 142−154.Google Scholar
  39. Pang, C. L. (1971). Singapore’s People’s Action Party: its History, Organization and Leadership. Singapore: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251−267.Google Scholar
  41. Plate, T. (2010). Conversations with Lee Kuan Yew: Citizen Singapore: How to Build a Nation. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Editions.Google Scholar
  42. Quinlivan, J. T. (1999). Coup-proofing: Its Practices and Consequences in the Middle East. International Security, 24(2), 131−165.Google Scholar
  43. Reuters. (2015, September 6). Singapore’s rulers hope a nudge to the left will keep voters loyal. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-singapore-election-idUSKCN0R60XS20150906. Accessed 4 November 2016.
  44. Rodan, G. (1989). The Political Economy of Singapore’s Industrialization: National State and International Capital. 1st ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  45. Sewell, W. H. (1996). Three Temporalities: Toward an Eventful Sociology. In T. J. McDonald, ed. The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences (pp. 262−264). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  46. Singh, B. (2015). Quest for Political Power: Communist Subversion and Militancy in Singapore. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Editions.Google Scholar
  47. Singh, B. (2016). Singapore’s 2015 General Election: Explaining PAP’s Resounding Win. The Round Table, 105(2), 129−140.Google Scholar
  48. Tan, E. K. (2012). Singapore: Transitioning to a “New Normal” in a Post-Lee Kuan Yew Era. Southeast Asian Affairs. Volume 1, 265−282.Google Scholar
  49. Tan, K. P. (2008). Meritocracy and Elitism in a Global City: Ideological Shifts in Singapore. International Political Science Review, 29(1), 7−27.Google Scholar
  50. Tan, K. P. (2009). Who’s Afraid of Chaterine Lim? The State in Patriarchal Singapore. Asian Studies Review, 33(1), 43−62.Google Scholar
  51. Tan, N. (2015). Institutionalized Succession and Hegemonic Party Cohesion in Singapore. In E. Hicken & E. M. Kuhonta, eds. Party System Institutionalization in Asia: Democracies, Autocracies, and the Shadows of the Past (pp. 49−73). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. The Business Times. (2015, March 5). Moving left? Let’s set the context right. http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/opinion/singapore-budget-2015/moving-left-lets-set-the-context-right. Accessed 4 November 2016.
  53. The Economist (2015, March 26). Why Singapore became an economic success. http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/03/economist-explains-23. Accessed 2 November 2016.
  54. The Guardian. (2015, April 4). The UK can learn a lot from Lee Kuan Yew and Singapore. https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/apr/04/uk-learn-former-colony-singapore-lee-kuan-yew. Accessed 2 November 2016.
  55. The New Mandala. (2016, November 2). Confronting ‘Chinese Privilege’ in Singapore. http://www.newmandala.org/brief-history-chinese-privilege-singapore/. Accessed 4 November 2016.
  56. The New York Times. (2007, August 29). Excerpts from an interview with Lee Kuan Yew. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/world/asia/29iht-lee-excerpts.html. Accessed 8 November 2016.
  57. The Straits Times. (2009, December 19). Educate students about politics, says Shanmugam.Google Scholar
  58. The Straits Times. (2012a, August 10). No sacred cows in review of policies.Google Scholar
  59. The Straits Times. (2012b, September 15). Framing the Singapore Conversation.Google Scholar
  60. The Straits Times. (2013, April 19). Cabinet: more left-of-centre now, helping the lower income.Google Scholar
  61. The Straits Times. (2015a, January 6). PAP announces Central Executive Committee posts, 3 new faces in lineup. http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/pap-announces-central-executive-committee-posts-3-new-faces-in-lineup. Accessed 2 November 2016.
  62. The Straits Times. (2015b, September 12). GE 2015: Strong mandate means MPs must work extra hard to serve. http://www.straitstimes.com/politics/ge2015-strong-mandate-means-mps-must-work-extra-hard-to-serve-says-pm-lee. Accessed 29 January 2018.
  63. The Straits Times. (2015c, September 27). They helped six MPs shine online in GE2015. http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/they-helped-six-mps-shine-online-in-ge2015. Accessed 7 November 2015.
  64. Tilly, C. (1988). Future History. Theory and Society, 17(5), 703−712.Google Scholar
  65. Today. (2013, July 15). Our Singapore Conversation themes identified, dialogue to continue. http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/themes-identified-spore-conversation-could-continue. Accessed 7 November 2016.
  66. Weiss, M. L. (2016). Going to the ground (or AstroTurf): a Grassroots View of Regime Resilience. Democratization, 24(2), pp. 1−18.Google Scholar
  67. Weiss, M. L., Loke, H.-Y. and Chua, L. A. (2016). The 2015 General Election and Singapore’s Political Forecast: White Clouds, Blue Skies. Asian Survey, 56(5), 859−878.Google Scholar
  68. Worthington, R. R. (2003). Governance in Singapore. London: RoutledgeCurzon.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Public Policy and Global Affairs, School of Social SciencesNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations