Why Southeast Asia should pay attention to PAP and Singapore

Not often one could feel excited about Asian politics, especially Southeast Asian politics - but Singapore is a cause for revisiting that notion. Not because of the May 7 election and what it did to the PAP, but I am excited because of PAP's response (so far) and the lessons it can perhaps hold for the rest of Southeast Asia.

Compared to its economic and social progress, Southeast Asian politics has at best been stuck at a stand-still over the past decades. Some places actually regressed. There are very few cases where one saw progress in the past 30 years, Indonesia being one of those rare cases and even then, Indonesia today is hardly a role model. In most countries, the political scene is one of cynicism and disenfranchisement - the only difference is a matter of degree: i.e. whether the disenfranchisement is with the ruling parties (e.g., Malaysia) or with the entire political class (e.g., Thailand). The symptoms are rampant corruption, erosion of national institutions, elevation of political interests over the national interest, increased social division and general deterioration in the quality of governance.

The outcome is usually a rapture from the past either through the ballot box, a coup or violence; when the people got fed up and demanded any kind of change. Right now, in many Southeast Asian countries the people want change and are willing to try for change even if it is doubtful they would get something good in the end. The nation and the political system usually got weaker as a result, not stronger while the quality of government (or even the democratic process itself) generally head downhill. Witness how successive "revolutions" or "changes" in Thailand and the Philippines - a group that arguably can be extended to Taiwan and Japan - led to paralysis instead of national rejuvenation. Indonesia and South Korea fare better but I do not profess to know the reason.

I believe what is missing is the political maturing process. As income level grows and society changes, there is need for some necessary but difficult adult conversations to take place between the political establishment (single party or more parties) and the people to agree on their common national values, on what constitutes good government and to renew the political contract. The key word is "adult" because in most Southeast Asian countries the political class often treat themselves as adults and the people as children, and no conversation as equals could take place.

Enter Singapore. A fortnight after the May 7 elections, many aspects of what I had written in the aftermath is happening at great speed. Instead of holding on to the past, the PAP is trying its best to engage in that conversation with its citizens. The response could so easily be sour sulking, dark threats, denial or dirty tricks but they chose the high road - and I believe it is the right one. The jury is still out but kudos to the PAP for being smart enough to know that, even with their track record, its past is no longer enough and, more importantly, has the humility and courage to embrace the change. Any exercise in self-improvement (or rebranding) is quite risky because the outcomes could please no one while disappointing everyone. These are still early days but the PAP is earning my respect for taking the Singaporean people seriously, treating them as adults, as citizens and with respect.

Many countries would kill for the kind of clean, (largely) competent government that cares about the national interest that Singapore have long taken for granted from the PAP. But by having this crucial conversation with its citizens, Singapore is poised - if it succeeds - to move to the next level of what it means to be a good government in an Asian society and set an example that will be watched closely by the rest of Asia.

The key is - using the contractual analogy - instead of a yes or no answer to the question whether to renew the social contract, there is need for a good faith renegotiation to adjust the contract terms. For this to succeed, both sides must behave in a mature and responsible manner. Until now, there are no good models to follow. Is the enlightened autocracy model doomed with time? Probably. Is a Western style multi-party democracy the only way to go? But how well is this working out in Asia? Being in Southeast Asia how do you protect against racist, tribal or feudal divisions? Is an consensual oligarchy/managed democracy better suited for Asia? Well, that didn't work too well in Japan. How about a highly stable system that allows change of ruling parties but maintain a certain national consensus (like in many smaller European or Scandinavian countries?) - may be, but how do you get there in a multi-racial and dynamic Asian society?

These are important questions that have implications for the rest of Southeast Asia and I do not know of any good answers. The PAP are the region's ace students when it comes to solving tricky questions and moreover, as much as a political party could, they actually want to be a good government. I am glad they are sitting for this exam and I, for one, am looking forward to learning about their answers.

For a start, I reproduced below PM Lee's recent speech during the swearing in of the new cabinet, where he stated the new PAP's intentions for the years to come.

------------------------

We have just gone through a watershed general election. Almost all the seats were contested, for the first time in decades. Many Singaporeans were voting for the first time. Singapore has entered a new phase in its political development.

In a rapidly changing world, Singapore is evolving too. Our economy has developed, and our society is changing: from the retirees who experienced our independence struggles in the 1960s, to the generation which grew up with the rapid economic growth of the 1980s, to the teenagers of the 2000s who have never known a world without the Internet. Each successive generation has different life experiences. They see our history differently, view current social issues from their own perspective, and dream new dreams of their future.

The Government cannot stand still. It must evolve in tandem with our society and our people. That is the best way for our Government to serve and to govern, in accord with the spirit of the times and the aspirations of our people.

Our politics cannot remain static either. More interest groups and alternative views have emerged, competing for support. Our political system can and must accommodate more views, more debate and more participation. At the same time, it is absolutely crucial for Singaporeans to stay united on the big issues, understand the fundamental realities facing a small country in South-east Asia, and work together to develop and implement the best solutions for our country.

We must develop a political system and political values that work for Singapore, foster good government and benefit Singaporeans both today and in the long term. Even though we now have more diverse voices, Singapore politics should not become confrontational or worse, divide our people and society, like in some other countries. My government pledges to serve the widest possible spread of our society. We are committed to inclusive growth, and a cohesive Singapore. We will do our utmost to work with Singaporeans to create an exciting and fulfilling future for our people and our young.

I thank the voters of Singapore for giving me and my team a clear mandate to implement our programmes - to grow the economy so that we can create better jobs for all; to educate our young to their full potential; to care for our older generation; and to engage our citizens to build an outstanding city and home for every one of us. All these we will now do.

At the same time, it is clear that Singaporeans do have significant concerns over both the substance of government policies and the way they are implemented. There are anxieties on specific areas such as housing, health care and immigration. Many groups want the Government to be more responsive to their difficulties and predicaments - retirees, single parents, the middle class and young adults, even students.

In implementation, our approach must be more flexible, thoughtful and compassionate. No policy can cover all contingencies. Hence policies must be carried out with judgment, and with heart. Policies are meant to make our lives better. When they have un-intended consequences, we should put things right promptly. When we make mistakes, we should admit and correct them. We must always do what is right for Singaporeans, and Singapore.

We will address all these concerns of the people.

My first step is a new Cabinet to lead Singapore in this new phase. I have comprehensively reshuffled and refreshed my Cabinet team. Many experienced ministers have retired. They have done much to bring us thus far, especially Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Goh Chok Tong. I thank them all for everything that they have done. In their place, we have a younger team, reinforced with several first-term office-holders. We will work closely with Singaporeans to take the country forward in a complex and challenging environment.

Secondly, the Government will engage all segments of society - young and old, students, workers and retirees. We will reach out online and in the real world. We will listen carefully to different voices, understand the day-to-day difficulties and strains facing Singaporeans, address their concerns and be open to inputs on what the Government can do better. Realistically, we cannot fulfil every request, or accept every suggestion. But by engaging Singaporeans in an inclusive dialogue on making policies and governing Singapore, we can solve our problems better, and shape our new Singapore together. This is vital.

Thirdly, we will take a totally fresh look at our problems and policies, and rethink what is necessary and best for Singapore's future. We will address the issues preoccupying Singaporeans, such as health care, housing and immigration. We will review both the policies and their implementation, as well as our broader approach to tackling these issues. We must move quickly to address pockets of urgent need, even as we think through the more difficult long-term challenges. Though Singaporeans trust that our policies are mostly sound, nothing should be sacrosanct.

One important area for review is political salaries. We will always need committed and capable ministers. Politics is not a job or a career promotion. It is a calling to serve the larger good of Singapore. But ministers should also be paid properly in order that Singapore can have honest, competent leadership over the long term. I know that Singaporeans have genuine concerns over the present salaries. Hence I am appointing a committee to review the basis and level of political salaries. The committee will be chaired by Mr Gerard Ee, chairman of Changi General Hospital and chairman of NKF (National Kidney Foundation).

Beyond dealing with these issues, we should focus our energies on our main task: building a bright future for our people. What Singapore has achieved thus far is remarkable. It is not just about good GDP (gross domestic product) growth, but how growth has transformed and improved the lives of most Singa-poreans and their families - workers getting better jobs, low-income people breaking out of poverty, students getting better education. We all enjoy better housing, transport, health care, leisure facilities, and much more. Provided we continue to work in partnership - government and people, workers and businesses - I am confident we will progress year by year, and achieve inclusive growth to realise the hopes and aspirations of our people and our next generation.

I pledge to work together with all Singaporeans to create a just and fair society, which gives all citizens the best start in life, and leaves no one behind. A Singapore which is open to the world yet puts Singa-poreans first. A Singapore which excites our young and respects our old. A society that nurtures and inspires the human spirit, beyond material success. Rich or poor, young or old, men or women, Singapore is our home. Here we all belong. Here we can work together for the common good, and share our pride in being Singaporeans.

Fellow Singaporeans, today marks a milestone in our journey to bond as one people and to build a better tomorrow. I call on all Singaporeans to come forth with your ideas and energies, to join our minds, our hearts and our hands to create a better Singapore. We know not what challenges tomorrow will bring. But I am confident that united as one, we will overcome the odds and secure our future together.

Reflections on American Society from Georgetown University

Graduation is just around the corner. In one week’s time, I will be in possession of a degree from Georgetown University, one of the oldest Jesuit schools in the United States. It marks a transition in my life, as I will be moving to a new city, a new university, in order to continue my studies at the graduate level.

My time at Georgetown was valuable. I’m not the sort of person to show much school spirit. I’m not a party-person. Being a cheapskate, I like to stay home and save money. Nevertheless, I have to thank Georgetown for opening my eyes to the world. When I came into the school as a freshman, I was rather clueless about the way things worked in this part of the world. Four years later, I won’t pretend that I know it all, or that I am properly mature and grown up yet; far from it, I have a lot more to learn. However, I do like to think that me having come into contact with a bunch of interesting people has helped me along this path. Do note that these are “reflections”, and do not constitute an essay with a “point”, so there will be an element of rambling to it. The purpose of this piece is to paint a portrait, no matter how fuzzy, of my impressions of America as seen from Georgetown.

At the risk of over-generalizing, American undergraduates tend to be exuberant and full of energy. Despite the bad economy, the United States is still chock-full of opportunities for those who are willing to seek it out, and many indeed do. Students here (or at least the ones I tend to mix with) are always up to something, and are forever looking for and finding opportunity. I am always astounded by the sheer brightness and intelligence of some young people here. Uptight old-Worlders may sneer, but the fact remains that if you have a good idea and want to test it, you need to go to an American university and bounce it off other bright folk, who will tear it apart, put it back together, and present you with a new, improved version of your thought.

For further reference, look up what the Singaporean leadership, those ever practical, hard-headed individuals, have to say about America. They recognize that America’s freewheeling culture lends itself to an atmosphere of innovation and ambition, the “secret weapon” of the United States that pushed it above its European peers in the 20^th century and will help it remain a major power in the 21^st. The myth of the “lazy American” is one perpetuated by Hollywood (which never shows people working; who wants to watch a movie about people working in an office?). The reality is different; this is a hard-working country, and hard work brings results.

It has helped that for my four years in the university, I never lived alone. I always had roommates and was been surrounded by neighbors living to my left and right. This brought me in contact with an interesting mix of people whom I don’t think you can easily find in the “normal destinations” where my countrymen go to school. I’ve shared my living quarters with one soldier, two bankers, one triathlon runner, a Burmese and a food-loving Hong Konger. Living with wannabe investment bankers is an experience in itself, as you can feel their heat, their intensity, their burning drive to succeed and to strike it rich. Such individuals are very rare in the world, and us non-bankers could do worse than to learn from their drive and ambition. Another group of people with whom I am intrigued are American Sinophiles and Asiaphiles. It is always fun to hear someone else who is not from your culture describe it. You realize that what is familiar and humdrum to you is fun, intriguing and exotic to other people. It makes you realize that everyone is always foreign to someone else.

I also fell in with a crowd of Latin Americans. They’re an interesting bunch of people, and I always felt like I understood what they are talking about, despite not understanding Spanish; it’s all about the gestures and the context. It’s a culture and a part of the world which most Southeast Asians know nothing about. They remind me of folk back home, tropical people who are generally fun to be around.

Another thing which I have observed is the presence of immigrants. America is a magnet for bright, ambitious people from all over the world. They have the “immigrant drive” to succeed, which they pass down to their children who subsequently end up attending some of the top universities in the nation. These young bright things have their feet in both worlds. A typical story goes like this: A baby is born in China and moves with her parents to several European countries before finally settling in America and living an all-American life (with occasional trips back to her grandparents’ farm in China), then going on to attend college and becoming a high-powered banking or corporate executive. Is she American? Is she Chinese? The answer is both. These hyphenated-Americans are totally comfortable in a Western environment and can very well fight and thrive in the rough-and-tumble world that is corporate America. They are also fully rooted in their native cultures, and speak their mother tongues with absolutely no problems. These people help ensure that America remains the “nerve center” of this globalized world.

My time at Georgetown has given me much food for thought. I understand that it may be a rather narrow view, as college life is a bubble. Furthermore, Georgetown is an “elite” university. I imagine that if I went to somewhere else, my view would be quite different. Nonetheless, if this is the world in which the American elites live in, I can say that they have a lot going for them.

So goodbye Georgetown. It’s been a pleasure, and I’ve learnt a lot about how the world (or at least America) works. Next stop, grad school, at an even more “elite” university. Far more lessons to learn, and far more people to meet. Who knows how I will see the world from Boston? Watch this space.

Hackster Central: Observations Of the Foreign Policy Think-Tank World in Washington, D.C.

As a “scholar-intern” at one of Washington, D.C.'s major think-tanks, I officially belong on the lowest rung of the D.C. “foreign policy hackster” circuit . I have learn that in this town, money, brains, ideas (good and bad) and personality all come together to create the result which is the D.C. think-tank circuit. Here, ideas feed into government and shape the way Washington policymakers think. (For the purpose of this post, hacksters are those connected to Washington think-tanks. There is no good reason why I chose the word "hackster" to describe these people, except that the word "think-tanker" is way too clunky. "Hackster" also has a nice ring to it.)

To succeed inside the beltway, the average hackster needs to have mastered a combination of skills (or dark arts, depending on your point of view). Firstly, you need to be highly educated. The MA degree is often an entry-level requirement for a paid position, but in order to carry real clout, the aspiring hackster needs a PhD in history or political science. These dauntingly high educational requirements often mean that there is a high level of crossover from major U.S. universities into the hackster world. I have come to marvel at the influence which Harvard, MIT, Stanford and other top universities have on American decision making. Political science and history professors at these renowned institutions don’t just sit in an ivory tower, but rather go out and move the world.

Secondly, your successful hackster has an ego the size of planet Jupiter, and a personality to match. He (and sometimes she) must be able to make a good argument in order to get his message across. This requires a degree of self-importance, as the hackster needs to be convinced that he is correct no matter what, and back himself up with the appropriate statistics and historical facts. Of course, this means that no one changes his mind about anything, leading to extremely polarized, but highly entertaining, political debates around the water cooler, with every participant armed to the teeth with his own very credible set of arguments. In this town, self-promotion is the rule. You need to be charming, but forceful with your arguments in order to gain a wide audience and a name for yourself.

As a result, hacksters sort themselves into a pecking order. Those with the biggest egos, most experience, highest graduate degrees and best connections float towards the top. These are the personalities who appear in the headlines, and who have the President’s number on their cellphone contacts list. Not all hacksters achieve this exalted status, though, and there are hordes of mid-level hacksters running around who appear on CNN as “country experts” or “political commentators”. These people often hold day jobs as professors at D.C. universities where they recruit the next level of bright young hacksters, thus perpetuating the cycle. Not all know what they are talking about, but they sound like they do, which is the main thing. They are supported by an army of interns and research assistants who do all their research. These are the “coolies” of the hackster world who do all the fact-finding, fact-checking and ultimately much of the writing.

And what of the ideas which these hacksters generate? They ultimately feed into the foreign policy circuit of the United States by several means. One is by publishing reports which are given catchy titles such as “Political Change in Fiji: Between Democracy, Autocracy and Meritocracy”. These tomes are 250 pages long, cost twenty-five dollars each and are widely recommended as cures for insomnia. No one reads them. Another path is by publishing op-eds in the news or commenting on television. Again, there is a natural hierarchy of media outlets, with the Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal occupying the top spot. These op-eds have usually gone through so many hands and are edited to death, such that one would think they were all written by the same committee.

The third, and by far most effective means of spreading the word, is by holding “book events”, “project launches” and “panel discussions”. These are never what they purport to be. Before the event begins, everyone makes a beeline for the free food. During the event, the audience listens politely and asks intelligent questions of the panel speakers (partly in order to sound clever and boost their hackstering credentials). After the event, though, is when the real work takes place. Hacksters, journalists, policy-makers, businessmen, congressmen, diplomats and everyone else in D.C. society mingle and mix. Business cards are exchanged, names are dropped and appointments are made for private discussions over drinks at the nearest overpriced bar or steakhouse. In this manner, policy peddlers exert their influence over the D.C. circuit. It is surprisingly personal and “intimate”.

Of course, all of this requires money. As much as a hackster may love the sound of his own voice, he is unwilling to air his views for nothing; hacksters need to eat, too. Hosting events costs money; there is no such thing as a free lunch. So who provides the cash? Various sources. Sometimes, it’s the Federal Government. Mostly, though, the money comes from either corporate or private donations. In the case of corporate donations, the companies providing the funds would usually want some “spin” on the research which the think-tank conducts. With private donors, the story is slightly different. Billionaires from Boston and New England create huge endowments to fund chairs in particular fields of studies, all promoting their particular point of view, of course. My think tank insists on keeping bipartisan, but there are other institutions out there (which shall remain unnamed) which set out to promote a particular agenda. These usually have some powerful backer behind them, who is connected to some particular industry or corporation. It is in this manner that the New England elites use the money they generate in New York and Connecticut for political influence in Washington, D.C..

The hackster system is a highly effective means of channeling intellectual ideas into government. It ensures that the best ideas which the United States provides do not remain stuck in universities. The nation’s top intellectuals are thus able to put their ideas to good use, and the intellectual fervor of Harvard and Stanford has an effect on K Street. The system can probably be related to the idea of “rule by philosophers”, with highly-educated individuals debating the future of the country. It is reassuring to understand that the country’s foreign policy is not influenced by brutes or blowhards, but rather by sophisticated, cultured intellectuals who know what they are talking about. Of course, there’s a downside to this rule by philosopher-kings. The D.C. community falls prey to the “inside the beltway” mentality, and the philosopher elites end up talking only to themselves and become increasingly divorced from reality and from the mood on the ground. They become vigorously wedded to their point of view and are unwilling to accept that there may be some good in listening to the other side. As a result, they perpetuate whatever myths or mistakes they make, and if their errors make their way into the highest echelons of power, then the result can be very dire indeed. Studying events from afar is no substitute for being on the ground, picking up the murmurings of the laobaixing.

Of course, there is no system which is not perfect, and for all its flaws, the hackster system achieves its fundamental goal, namely that ideas from the academic sphere flow into policy-making. Furthermore, the think-tank world is not the only source of influence on U.S. foreign policy. There is the State Department, military-to-military links, foreign-born naturalized Americans, the list goes on; these serve to “ground” U.S. foreign policy in reality, and bring the high-flown ideas of the hacksters down to earth. This, however, would be beyond the scope of this article to discuss…

Thoughts on Singapore's 2011 Elections (Updated)

Last night, Singapore's People's Action Party secured 81 out of 87 seats in the General Elections winning 60.1% of the vote. What would pass as a landslide anywhere else in the world was viewed as a watershed election in Singapore by none other than PM Lee himself. The opposition WP won a 5 seat Group Representation Constituency (GRC) - beating a PAP team that included the respected and cerebral Foreign Minister George Yeo - and retained the single seat in Hougang. Amidst all that, the Opposition lost Potong Pasir (that has been in Opposition hands for 2 decades) by a whisker.

Although this will mark the beginning of a bigger role for the Opposition in Singapore politics, it is still be far from the end of PAP's 53 years (and counting) of governing Singapore which oversaw a 49 fold increase in GDP. A PAP government plus a more established Opposition seems to the state of affairs that suit most Singaporeans just fine. Even the WP wished and promised nothing more.

To be returned to government with 60% of the electorate is a very respectable majority, unless one's objective is complete political dominance. With total dominance no longer a reasonable or even desirable outcome for the PAP, its objective would be a "soft landing" from its half century of dominance. I won't be surprised if the strategists in the PAP regard a gradual transition to a new equilibrium where the PAP continues to govern along with a credible (but not too ambitious or successful) Opposition occupying 10%-12% of the seats as a long term "win" for the PAP. If Singaporeans voted for the idea of having opposition rather than for any particular party, person or platform, then what the PAP would hope for is to find that "golden mean" just enough to absorb the sentiments but not enough to replace the PAP in government.

That thinking was in fact underlined by the creation in the past decade of up to 10 non-constituency MPs for the top Opposition poll losers to join parliament. It is not as cynical as people might think, because this gives Opposition members a platform in between elections to demonstrate their abilities and get noticed - but without the demands of running town councils and managing the constituency. So the PAP was not against Opposition voices, but unlike the 6 who were elected, NCMPs were often not regarded as "real" MPs and not providing "real" opposition.

[A closer look at the pattern of votes seem to indicate that the 40% who voted Opposition were more of a vote against the PAP than any particular Opposition party or personality. Historically, 25-30% vote for anyone-but-PAP while I would say PAP's bedrock of support to be 35-40%. That leaves 30-40% as the "swing" voters depending on strength of Opposition candidates or weakness of the public sentiment for the PAP. Of the swing voters, Opposition stalwards or flag-bearers with good track record can attract another 20% on his own strength - because those 20% would vote Opposition if there is a credible candidate. Established - and more importantly electorally successful - Opposition leaders were therefore usually re-elected. The wild card is the remaining 10% - 20% swing voters that "lean" but not committed to the PAP which makes the difference in the PAP's margin or Opposition gains. In 2011, I estimate these were split half-half where as in previous years they backed the PAP. I believe the PAP will focus on winning those 20% back while the Opposition will try to build up credible incumbents.]

This general elections coincided with a marked shift in the PAP's political tactics. The official media has never been more hospitable to Opposition candidates - fair and even-handed even. The online media was even more deliberately liberalised because a tech-savvy global financial center like Singapore would not accept China-style controls anyway. Consequently, there have been fewer calls of foul-play or accusations of PAP dirty tricks like in the past.

In many ways, the PAP has changed and matured as much as the political expectations of Singaporeans have been changing. It would be a mistake to see the PAP as a political dinosaur. Apart from its policy of constant rejuvenation of its ranks with younger and younger people to keep pace with Singapore's demographic changes, it has also undergone a sea change from LKY's autocratic and uncompromising style to one that is more respectful, tolerant and compassionate. Nothing illustrates this better than PM Lee's admission and apology that the Singapore Government is not perfect but will always do its best to learn from mistakes. Far from showing weakness, I believe this sense of humility will be a source of lasting respect. Singaporeans do not generally want a change of government, just a better, kinder and gentler version of the one thay have.

In fact, the PAP has also been pretty good losers (and winners) this time round, by accepting that the PAP will listen to all the voices out there even those who disagree/voted against it, and improve from this experience. Contrast that with many other governments in the region, or even with the PAP in 1991 when the Opposition made unexpected gains in Goh Chok Tong's first election as PM; during the press conference that followed LKY was openly annoyed and disdainful for those who voted against the PAP. In fact, the PAP was probably damaged by LKY going off the script last week when he warned that people voting for the Opposition would "repent" for the next 5 years - which attracted an exesperated clarification from PM Lee himself.

At the same time, the integrity of the Singapore system stood-out: despite razor thin margins in some wards there was no suggestion that the PAP rigged the system or refuse to accept results against it. Singapore's meritocratic system was a winner because, arguably, the WP won the Aljuneid GRC when it fielded a strong team of credible people. In a sense, Singapore's Opposition has internalised the PAP's mantra by trying to show they van field good quality people on their side. In the past, the opposition often fielded lightweights or attention-seekers and then claim to be a victim of the PAP or being disadvantaged by the GRC system. Now the PAP and WP has shown that it is possible to play by the rules and win, and system has been vindicated having proven that what benefitted the PAP can also benefit the Opposition.

So, there will be some satisfaction on both sides. In the months ahead, the PAP will no doubt come out of its soul searching with a tremendous response. Be prepared for a PAP that is not only savvy in government but will be more attunated to the ground and have a better political PR operation between elections. The Singapore system is nothing if not for its ability to be self-critical, benchmark against the best and improve. The PAP has intellectual, organization and financial prowess on its side and it will make them count. The Opposition will try to demonstrate their value in Parliament and earn the respect of an electorate beyond being non-PAP. They will be held to the high standards that the PAP has set for politicians in Singapore. In light of the rising political maturity in PAP, the Opposition and the Singaporean people, there are new lessons from Singapore for many countries in the region in building a stable and responsible political system.