Chapter 4 Media Management and Political Communication in Singapore Terence Lee and Lars Willnat Contextualizing Singapore Since independence from British rule in 1965, the political system in Singapore has been shaped by the rule of Senior Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and his close associates in the People's Action Party (PAP). Convinced that a purely Western model of democracy would lead to ethnic conflict and social unrest in Singa- pore's multicultural society, the government has consistently maintained that only a strong and united government can provide the leadership and policies to secure progress and prosperity in the city-state (Vasil, 2004). In addition, the rul- ing PAP claims that Singapore's racial and religious diversity make it necessary to limit the democratic rights and freedoms of Singaporeans-especially during elections, when there is heightened political activity and emotion (Singh, 1992; Vasil, 2004). While the fear of ethnic conflict has been used as an argument to limit the role of democracy in Singapore, it is important to realize that elections in Singa- pore are not held to determine who is to rule the country, but "to bring together in the institution a body consisting of the most gifted, innovative, well-educated and experienced men and women, who can offer Singapore a good, achievement- oriented and effective government" (Vasil, 2004, p. 110). It is also a mechanism for the government to ensure that "irresponsible populist demagogues and adver- sarial politicians who have little compunction in inciting racial and religious hatred, confrontation and conflict for political gains are kept out of parliament as far as possible" (Vasil, 2004, p. 110). Thus, unlike in liberal democracies, elec- tions in Singapore are not contests of alternative policies and programs offered by competing political parties, a view underscored by Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew when he declared that: There just is no viable alternative program for an island city state other than what we have empirically worked out in the last 30 years. That is why the able and the talented have not come forward to form a credible alternative team and challenge the PAP. They know PAP is doing the right thing. They are content to thrive and prosper with the present men in charge. (cited in Vasil, 2004, p. 110)