Singapore’s New Prime Minister Is Already Worried

It’s a little startling when a senior civil servant begins to casually ruminate about the inevitability of the end for any nation and political order and, in the longue durée, the finite lifespan of the one that they serve. If this were the Second French Empire as Prussians besieged Paris and the Commune ran the streets or Myanmar today one could understand. But what does Singapore have to worry about?

On April 15, then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, the son of Singapore’s revered first prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, announced that he would be stepping down. The succession is proceeding with a smoothness that is near-soporific. Lawrence Wong, a deputy prime minister and finance minister, succeeded him on May 15. He is now Singapore’s fourth prime minister from the People’s Action Party (PAP), which has led the country uninterruptedly since independence in 1965.

Yet even at its most confident, there is an edge of insecurity over Singapore’s fate as a small, ethnically diverse nation. The younger Lee, while prime minister, in a valedictory address on May 1 declared: “The system does not have to fail outright for Singapore to get into trouble. Even if we just become ordinary, average, we will already be in serious trouble.” He added: “Graver still, if our system malfunctions—becomes beset by populism, tribalism, nativism, or obsessed by short-term gains like some other countries—then we will certainly be sunk. … [I]t is crucial that we maintain political stability.”

The rhetoric perhaps sounds stark, but Singapore’s leaders have long liked to remind citizens that the country is a “little red dot,” vulnerable even in times of plenty to larger powers and global events. Underlying this, critics are quick to point out, is also the message that Singaporeans need a strong and competent PAP government to protect them. The deal is similar to the one the British Empire offered—only to fail in spectacular fashion when Singapore fell to Japan in 1942, an event the PAP has cast as a founding moment in modern Singaporean history.

Now as the global geopolitical situation grows precarious, some feel storm clouds may be on the horizon once more, even as Singaporean citizens seem increasingly open to alternatives to the PAP political monopoly.

In the short term few expect any major changes. Wong has an impeccable Singaporean political pedigree, working in the civil service and including a period as Lee’s personal private secretary before being handpicked to become a member of parliament and minister. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he oversaw a government response that was positively viewed by most of the country’s citizens, a rare phenomenon globally.

This has been seen as a useful test of Wong’s mettle in a crisis. A minor cabinet reshuffle occurred on Monday, with a more major one due post-election. And Lee will stay on as senior minister in the cabinet wielding the influence that comes from decades in power.

By Singaporean standards, though, these events are almost dramatic. Wong was not the first choice as successor. That was Heng Swee Keat, who ruled himself out in April 2021 citing his age, though some analysts suggested a weaker-than-expected electoral performance in his constituency in the 2020 general election also played a role. Wong will have to face a general election no later than Nov. 23, 2025.

While there is no prospect of the PAP losing control of parliament—short of an act of God—its total vote share will be watched closely. The party has enormous performance-based legitimacy, especially with older voters who remember the PAP overseeing the transformation of the city-state “from third world to first,” as Lee Kuan Yew put it in the title of his autobiography. Singapore’s GDP per person now sits at around $88,000—having doubled in real terms over the past 20 years.

Security is another promise. Unlike all of its neighbors since independence, Singapore has not faced major race riots, coups, or pervasive corruption. Many see tight social controls—including strict laws regulating speech that see Singapore ranked 126th on the Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index, lower than Zimbabwe—as part of the bargain.

However, there are signs of changing views among voters. In 2020, the PAP won 61.23 percent of votes—a total parties elsewhere would kill for. But the PAP is used to numbers in the mid-60s or above. The major opposition party took 10 seats, the most since 1968. Then-Prime Minister Lee even expressed his disappointment, saying, “We have a clear mandate, but the percentage of the popular vote is not as high as I had hoped for.” The next election could see another dip.

Research suggests a growing number of voters desire a wider range of political options and are more tolerant of more robust discussion of sensitive social issues like race. While these views are not confined to the young, they are more pronounced among Millennial and Gen Z voters. Born into a prosperous Singapore, they perhaps feel less personally tied to the PAP and are generally more liberal in their social inclinations.

Sotto voce, some older Singaporeans think younger citizens could benefit from a bit of a scare and some hardship to remind them of the value of PAP leadership. But the old PAP tactics to rally voters back to them may be losing traction. The PAP in the past has sometimes benefited politically from crises, voters fleeing to the perceived safety of its stewardship. But in 2020, calling a snap election as the island locked down in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic did not stop the PAP vote share from dropping.

The PAP’s often ferocious criticism of its opponents has also at times backfired. Condemnation and a subsequent police investigation into Workers’ Party candidate Raeesah Khan over comments she made alleging police discrimination against minorities in Singapore seem to have mainly had the effect of stirring public sympathy, many younger voters feeling she was unfairly targeted.

Some suggest that the government’s issues stem partly from simply having been in power too long and losing touch with the population. “The leadership today is selected from a very narrow Brahmin social structure,” said Lee Hsien Yang, Lee Hsien Loong’s brother who now lives in London and is a notable critic of PAP leadership. Top leaders often rise via the civil service before entering politics and are picked for technocratic rather than political skills. “They are not politicians born out of the cut and thrust of free and fair elections, so they aren’t charismatic.”

This may be an issue for Wong. A recent YouGov poll showed that while 53 percent of all voters saw him as competent, only 28 percent saw him as honest and 21 percent as charismatic. There may be room to improve, with a recent media push to present Wong as down to earth and likeable, often focusing on his guitar playing. And interestingly, Gen Z voters tended to rate him a bit more highly than older voters in a variety of areas including charisma—but lower on likeability.

Cracks have also occasionally shown in the PAP’s usually rock-solid unity and promise of scandal-free government. In the past year, Singapore has seen two major corruption scandals, one involving money laundering, while the other has seen former Transport Minister Subramaniam Iswaran face an ongoing trial over gifts he received from various corporate sources. Some think Iswaran’s resignation and trial will reassure voters that Singapore remains intolerant of graft, but others are nervous.

There has also been grumbling over news that two ministers were renting prime residential properties owned by the government’s Singapore Land Authority and that said authority had spent considerable sums refurbishing them. Both were cleared of any wrongdoing by Singapore’s anti-corruption body. But Singapore’s expensive property market, where most people live in small flats, makes the issue very sensitive.

Even more embarrassing has been the row within the family of former Prime Minister Lee over the will of their father, Lee Kuan Yew. The row centered on whether to demolish the family home that Lee Kuan Yew had lived in. Lee Hsien Yang and his sister, Lee Wei Ling, said their father had been firm in his desire to demolish the house to prevent undue veneration. They accused their brother of misusing his office to prevent this and looking to profit from their father’s political legacy and help lay the groundwork for a political career for his own son. Lee Hsien Loong firmly denied their allegations, having recused himself from all government matters relating to the house since April 2015.

Lee Hsien Yang now lives in exile, moving to the United Kingdom after he faced a police investigation into whether he and his wife had lied under oath about the handling of their father’s will. But he has thrown his weight behind the Progress Singapore Party (PSP), which is mainly made up of people formerly close to the PAP like himself. The party has attracted former political heavyweights and voters disaffected with the PAP.

“The reality there is there are many promises unkept in terms of things like a more open society and engagement with people,” Lee Hsien Yang told me. “The last four, five years you have seen quite a number of legislative moves which are quite draconian.” In recent years, Singapore has passed new laws on fake news and foreign interference, which have been condemned by various human rights organizations.

Some have welcomed the rise of the PSP. Others, however, worry about its rhetoric on migration aimed not at poorer migrants but well-heeled international professions in finance, law, and professional services that some Singaporeans feel compete with them for jobs and drive up local house prices.

For a city as open to global finance and migration as Singapore, any ructions in globalization will be felt domestically. U.S.-China tensions are viewed nervously in a city that is an international hub for finance and logistics and has long maintained excellent ties with both countries. The wars in Ukraine and Gaza have also worried policymakers. And a second term for former U.S. President Donald Trump looms large as another big disruptor to global stability. Over the past six months, the government has taken the unusual step of offering high-level briefings to international banks on these issues to reassure them that Singapore will remain the safest and most reliable financial hub in the region.

Equally worrying is the prospect that these global developments could impact the social unity and stability that the PAP so prizes. There is particular worry about potential influence operations by China, mainly aimed at playing up ideas of ethnic solidarity with Singapore’s majority ethnically Chinese population. In February, the government made first use of a new law against foreign interference to place restrictions on the activities of Philip Chan Man Ping, a naturalized citizen from Hong Kong. Gaza is also a concern given the city’s significant Muslim population and long-standing security ties to Israel. Public events related to the war in Gaza are not allowed.

All of this has created a difficult dilemma for the PAP. Popular desire for a greater degree of social liberalism may have played a role in the city-state finally decriminalizing male same-sex intercourse in 2022. Yet worries about potential domestic disruptions and an increasingly difficult geopolitical situation seem to push it in more conservative directions on issues like free speech. Singapore can change—but only at the PAP’s pace.

The jitters from the ruling party may be overblown. The government’s occasional tendency toward existential angst has also underpinned its focus on effective delivery. Still, a growing number of citizens are open to promises of new ideas beyond the PAP’s promises of security and good governance—and even to the possibility of rethinking the model of governance altogether.