Making support a criterion for upgrading is against the national interest

11 February 1996


        I was taken aback by Buona Vista Group Representative 
Constituency Member of Parliament Peter Sung's candid admission 
that support in the form of votes for the People's Action Party in the 
forthcoming election forms one of three criteria determining the priority 
that a constituency will receive in the HDB upgrading exercise ("Buona 
Vista already in main upgrading scheme", Straits Times, 8 February 96). 
So far as electioneering goes, Mr Sung's tactic is unremarkable. It is, 
however, a decidedly ill-advised strategy that may alienate many voters, 
and thus rebound upon Mr Sung's party. More seriously, this strategy 
risks undermining the legitimacy of the Government with those who did 
not support the party in power.

        The Housing and Development Board is not an arm of a 
political party. It is a governmental agency charged with providing 
public housing. As such, it should seek to discharge its responsibilities 
without regard to the voting pattern of the residents in its estates. The 
funds available to the HDB for the upgrading exercise should not be 
used to advance the political fortunes of any party. This is for the 
simple reason that these funds are public funds that do not form any 
part of party financial resources.

        Although Government ministers are members of a political 
party, they are equally, but separately, state officials who must be even-
handed in their decisions. Mr Sung's statements reveal a disconcerting 
failure to distinguish the two roles. It is a failure with grave implications.

        One of the strengths of a democratically elected Government is 
its legitimacy even among those who may have voted against the party 
that ultimately forms the Government. However, the Government's 
right to command the allegiance of all the citizens of the state is based 
upon its pledge to provide for the common welfare. Governmental 
decision making on the basis of rewarding political supporters is 
patronage politics, which undermines the right to claim universal 
allegiance. If political party and Government blur into one, what 
argument prevents those who had withheld their support from the party 
from subsequently withholding their support for the Government? For 
the sake of national unity, therefore, it is in the self-interest of the 
Government to keep itself separate from political parties.

        Patronage politics discourages voters from considering 
national interests. Instead, national cohesion will probably decline as 
the citizenry fractures into special interest groups, each competing for 
their share of the pork barrel regardless of the overall consequences for 
the country. This is contrary to the shared value of "community above 
self, and nation above community".

        Moreover, the strategy of rewarding party supporters with 
public goods only whets the potentially insatiable appetite of the 
recipients of the largesse, with the result that favours will have to be 
continually renewed, if not extended, if support would be kept.

        In the short term, the strategy revealed by Mr Sung will 
probably be rewarded by an increase in votes for his party. Beyond 
that, the strategy is unsustainable without inflicting substantial costs 
upon the national polity. For all that the strategy is unsustainable, once 
started, it is also likely to prove difficult to rescind. In this regard, the 
conditioning of an electorate's selfish attitude towards public subsidies, 
whichunderlie the growth of the welfare state is an instructive example.

        Mr Sung's strategy is counter-productive; and it may be 
inimical to the national interest as well. As a responsible politician 
belonging to the People's Action Party, Mr Sung may wish to 
reconsider his advice to us all.