by Foong Swee Fong

Last week, The Straits Times published an article on a survey done by the NUS Institute of Policy Studies: “Singaporeans feel country more democratic now than a decade ago, show support for system: Poll”.

I hope Singaporeans, especially the younger ones, view it as propaganda than as a serious study of the state of democracy in Singapore. Otherwise, life will be even more oppressive in the future.

The article completely destroys the meaning of democracy. It shamelessly list the pertinent characteristics of Singapore and says Singaporeans view them as signs of a healthy democracy:

“…their understanding of the concept is nuanced, with a stronger emphasis on substantive aspects, such as having necessities like food, clothes and shelter for all. They also deem it important to democracy that people choose government leaders in free and fair elections, that the government ensures law and order, and that politics is clean and free of corruption.”

These are basic requirements expected of any government, whether democratic or not. To suggest that Singaporeans equate them to democracy is either a reflection of their ignorance or an insult to their intelligence.

It also claims that Singaporeans “placed less emphasis on political-civil rights, such as the freedom to protest or express political views openly.”

It is more likely that Singaporeans refrain from, rather than “place less emphasis”, on protesting and expressing their political views, because, doing so can get them into trouble with the law or being marginalized economically.

Nonetheless, these rights are fundamental in ensuring that governments serve the public good. An enlightened government will view them as feedback; an unenlightened and corrupt one will feel threatened and suppress them.

The article then quotes SMU Associate Professor Eugene Tan, “….. the one-party dominant system has allowed the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) government to socialise Singaporeans to its conception of what democracy is or ought to be, as well as the desired outcomes and how politics ought to be practised.”

His observation is accurate, but he should have added that the government imposing its view of what democracy ought to be and how politics ought to be practiced, and what ought to be the outcome, is not democracy, but dictatorship.

The word democracy has been so badly abused that it has lost its meaning. By definition, democracy is government by the people, for the people. So, the policies of a democratic government have to benefit the majority rather than the minority.

In that sense, Singapore has not become more democratic in the last decade, or since Independence. On the contrary, it has become less democratic.
In the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, Singaporeans were concerned about jobs and housing. The government listened and delivered. Policies were crafted to benefit the majority and in that sense, there was a modicum of democracy.

But since the turn of the millennium, people have been concerned about foreigners stealing their lunch and the high cost of living.

Not only did the government not listen, but has brought in even more foreign workers so that the population is now at its highest ever, despite Singaporeans not reproducing sufficiently.

Furthermore, rather than reducing the cost of living, the government has increased GST, drastically increased the price of public housing, helped Big Pharma charge exorbitant prices in the name of protecting intellectual property rights thereby increasing the cost of medical care, allowed certain businesses to chase up COE premiums unfairly, allowed oligopolies to thrive so that they can charge high prices with impunity, and crammed more than 6 million people into our small island, thereby chasing up the cost of essentials.

Did the government listen to the people?

No, instead it has pursued policies contrary to what the people want, favoring Big Business and a small group of people, while the majority continue to struggle.
This is not democracy, but plutocracy – government by the wealthy, for the wealthy.

The important characteristic of a true democracy is that the people are free and independent, not being subjected to oppressive forces controlling their lives, despite living together in a body politic.

Despite Singapore being more developed now than the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, the people are more, and not less, dependent on the government, with it controlling almost every aspect of society. It has increased its power over the people, thereby reducing their freedom.

If the government is sincere about promoting democracy, then it should stop trying to control every aspect of society, but let the people manage them; promote transparency and awareness by institutionalizing the Free Press Act and Freedom of Information Act; let the people provide feedback openly by institutionalizing the Freedom of Expression Act and the Freedom of Peaceful Assembly Act; and most importantly, the prime minister and his cabinet should listen to parliament and not the other way round, as parliament is the elected representative of the people.

But the relentless effort to suppress democracy has been so successful and complete, that I fear the majority will never know what it means to be free, for the foreseeable future.

by Jasmine Lim

A Troubling Trend of Speculative Bids

Singapore has always been a beacon of responsible governance, and its recent decision to reject the underpriced bid for the Jurong Lake District (JLD) mega site exemplifies this commitment to long-term stability. At S$640 per square foot per plot ratio (psf ppr), the sole bid fell well below the anticipated range of S$900 to S$1,000 psf ppr (Business Times, Sep 13, 2024).

Yet, this incident is not unique and it raises a troubling question: Are some property developers acting like market gamblers rather than responsible businesses?

In the case of JLD, strategic partnership was formed among the five major players—CapitaLand Development, City Developments Ltd (CDL), Frasers Property, Mitsubishi Estate and Mitsui Fudosan (Asia), and was it a consequent outcome that resulted in limited competition that encouraged speculative underpricing?

Another recent example is the Media Circle site, where a Frasers Property-led consortium offered a bid of S$461 psf ppr—significantly below market expectations of S$650 to S$1,100 psf ppr (Business Times, Sep 19, 2024).

This bid wasn’t just low—it was almost recklessly so. When companies start to treat the market like a casino, underpricing in hopes of getting a “bargain,” it disrupts market dynamics and generates unnecessary uncertainty.

Market analysts have observed that speculative underbidding can depress overall market confidence, causing unnecessary volatility and eroding the value of strategic assets (Cohen & Han, 2020).

In fact, observations have consistently shown that speculative actions—whether through inflated bids or aggressive underpricing—create chaos in real estate markets.

Such behaviour leads to unpredictable price swings, erodes investor confidence, and has far-reaching effects on the wider economy.

So, when companies like Frasers Property, owned by Thailand’s TCC Group, engage in such repeated speculative actions of recent land bids, it raises serious concerns about their commitment to Singapore’s long-term economic health.

Will Developers Win This Game?

Governments around the world play a crucial role in shaping the property market, especially in times of uncertainty.

In fact, academic studies frequently highlight the importance of government oversight in preventing property bubbles and market crashes. When speculative behaviour takes hold, prices can spiral out of control—leading to a boom-and-bust cycle that benefits no one in the long run.

Singapore’s firm stance in the JLD tender echoes these findings and reinforces its long-held principles of responsible governance. After all, losses in land revenue, which could otherwise be invested in infrastructure improvements, translate into more welfare losses for the whole city (Today, Jan 15, 2020).

By rejecting the underpriced bid in the case of JLD, the government is ensuring that the property market remains stable and secure for both developers and residents.

A healthy property market doesn’t just benefit developers; it supports a healthy property sector, maintains investor confidence, and ultimately strengthens the fabric of society. The government’s move is a critical reminder that land, especially in land-scarce Singapore, should be developed with care and foresight.

Is there a Need for Corporate Responsibility?

It’s understandable that businesses are driven by profits, but there’s a fine line between profit-driven strategies and reckless market manipulation.

When large companies act in ways that destabilize the local property market, it becomes clear that corporate responsibility is being overlooked. They need to realize that their actions don’t just affect their bottom line—they affect the country’s economic stability and the property sector dynamism.

In a rapidly evolving global economy, the government’s role is more critical than ever. Without strong regulatory oversight, speculative behaviour could easily spiral out of control, leading to a housing crisis or economic downturn.

By setting firm boundaries, the Singapore government is leading by example, ensuring that our markets remain stable, resilient, and beneficial for all—residents, businesses, and investors alike.

Singapore Government’s “Over-Invention” An Unwelcomed Move?

Singapore’s approach to land and urban development is a model for the rest of the world. By staying true to its principles of responsible governance, the government has managed to build a property market that is resilient in the face of global economic uncertainty. This is a lesson other nations can learn from—how to balance growth with stability.

At the same time, the government’s decision to reject punting low land bid underscores a growing need for companies to act responsibly.

Academic research shows that unchecked speculative actions in real estate markets have historically led to devastating consequences—from property bubbles to economic crashes (Kindleberger & Aliber, 2011).

We must not let Singapore fall into this trap. Instead, we must continue to hold both local and foreign companies accountable for their actions, ensuring that their pursuit of profits aligns with the broader interests of our nation.

Singapore’s strength lies in its ability to balance free-market efficiency with firm regulatory oversight, and will this series of decisions to reject low land bids prove that we are still on the right path for Singapore’s long-term prosperity?