| IS POLITICS a spectator sport or a participatory sport? The People's Action Party Government has traditionally preferred a circumscribed definition of politics, claiming for itself and other political parties the sole right to enter the political arena. This, in essence, leaves citizens in the role of spectators with voting rights. This issue was much debated in the 1990s. Then-prime minister Goh Chok Tong said in 1999: 'Meaningful political participation must mean joining or supporting a political party, advancing its course and work, attending to constituents and, if invited, taking part in elections, winning and serving as an MP.' That same year, Minister George Yeo weighed in on the issue. He said civil society groups should stay out of politics, citing Singapore's past when radical elements used 'seemingly innocuous activities to achieve political ends'. 'Invisible dalangs pull strings and make things happen on the wayang stage. 'What we have done over many years now is to make it clear that if you wish to involve yourself in political activism, declare it, come forward and appear on the stage, for everyone to see, such as in a political party.' In recent years, some pronouncements on the subject may have led Singaporeans to think the PAP Government has softened its stance. The Harvard Club speech by then-deputy prime minister Lee Hsien Loong in January 2004, seven months before he became Prime Minister, is read as a statement of his political intent and aspiration. In it, he spelt out the rules of engagement between the people and the Government on matters of public interest. From the Government, he promised that it would clarify, give out information in a timely manner, allow time for proper debate, promote diversity of views and close the loop with the public to account for decisions taken. On encouraging diverse views, he said: 'To gather the widest range of views, the public consultation exercise needs to be inclusive. In particular, it should include those most likely to be affected or who have the most to contribute.' So, just how much has changed, from the 1980s and 1990s, compared to today? The issue of whether interest groups have a role in politics is brewing again, this time over a 1986 legislation that curtails the Law Society's ability to submit proposals on law reform to the Government on its own initiative. The rules were introduced after the society questioned laws curbing foreign publications that commented negatively on Singapore's domestic politics. The Law Ministry said two weeks ago that considerations for amending the legislation in 1986 'remain valid', and that it did not want the Law Society to behave 'like a political pressure group'. That drew a line in the sand: It is fine for lawyers, or other professionals, to speak up on political issues as individuals. But they cannot do so using the auspices of the professional association's name. Suspicion of organised groups remains hard-wired in the PAP DNA, left over from the bruising political tumult of the 1950s and 1960s when 'united front' tactics became a Trojan horse for communist radicals to manipulate their way into mainstream parties. There are two ways to respond to this fact. One is to accept the limits. Pragmatic Singaporeans know that in politics, change takes place at a trishaw's pace compared to the Ferrari speed of economic transformation. Activists learn to dig in and play by the rules - and bide their time. This may be a good modus operandi for today, but nothing much will change in Singapore politics in the long run, unless there is a vigorous probing of current mindsets among those in power. One of those mindsets which needs probing is the underlying value system which says only political parties have a legitimate role in political participation. That mindset springs from a belief that the Government is the ultimate referee of political debate and participation and has final say on what is legitimate for discussion, and which players can enter the arena. This is in line with the worldview of the PAP of itself as the dominant party in Singapore, and consistent with the stated claim of this Government to both political and moral leadership. In this worldview, other groups and individuals enter the political arena on the sufferance of the PAP Government, like in a patron-client relationship. Hence, citizens are 'consulted' by the Government for their views, and the Law Society and other professional bodies may be 'invited' to give their views. To be fair, the Government has been active in promoting non-partisan channels for political participation. Interest groups engage the state on issues from nature and heritage conservation to sports management and medical practices. But in the Law Society's case, barring it from comment on legislative change unless invited may be seen as running counter to Mr Lee's statement of intent in 2004, that views should be sought from 'those most likely to be affected or who have the most to contribute'. Lawyers are in a good position to add value to debates on legislative change, especially if they touch on constitutional or civil liberty issues. By arrogating to itself the right to determine which group gets to participate in political debate, the Government sees itself as the referee in the political arena. The mental model remains that of control, via a vertical regulatory relationship: The state controls access to political participation and allows only prescribed parties to enter the arena. But there is another way of seeing things. The state could be a horizontal regulator, facilitating competition among different parties, and encouraging robust debate among different groups. Instead of being a referee determining who can take part in a sport while others remain spectators, the Government would then become the person maintaining the conditions of the field necessary for a good game involving many participants to get under way. muihoong@sph.com.sg | 
