Punggol East: An opposition win?

Let me first declare that I am a Son of Bukit Ho Swee (or maybe Son of Kandang Kerbau), whatever relevance that might have to my credibility, credentials or character.  http://www.todayonline.com/Hotnews/EDC130110-0000082/PAP-unveils-son-of-Punggol-Koh-as-Punggol-East-by-election-candidate

The Prime Minister has decided to call for a by-election at Punggol East and I think instead of criticising him, we should all welcome this move.  Given the fact that in the Mdm Vellamma case (Hougang by-election) the High Court has ruled that it is the PM's absolute discretion to decide on whether to call for a by-election, it is heartening that the PM is exercising his discretion in a fair manner by calling for a by-election early on. (I disagree with the legal reasoning in the Hougang by-election case.  My analysis is set out here: http://www.article14.blogspot.sg/2012/12/the-hougang-by-election-case-belated.html) 

I have read some nasty comments online about how this decision by the PM is a sudden move.  So what if it is sudden?  It would have been sudden anyway if it happened after Chinese New Year or after the budget debate or for that matter if it happened later in the year.  In fact, the earlier that the vacancy is filled, the better.  I am glad that it only took the PM 3 weeks to make a decisive move on this one. 

So, whilst we are quick to criticise when there is a flaw, let's be quick to give the man a pat on the back when he does the right thing. 

WHAT ARE THE CHANCES OF AN OPPOSITION WIN IN PUNGGOL EAST?

On the assumption that it is a straight fight between PAP and WP.

The first observation that must be made is that if this was a General Election, there would be very little movement of votes away from the PAP to the WP.  A 5% swing in less than 2 years would be difficult to accomplish.  One could safely bet that Punggol East would remain with the PAP. 

This is a by-election and we have to consider one important factor that often influences a not-too-insignificant proportion of the Singaporean electorate.  Nationwide, I would guess that about 20% to 25% of voters belong to a category that is unhappy with the current government's policies and yet wouldn't want the PAP government to be replaced.  Note that in the Presidential Election (PE) in 2011 barely a few months after the General Elections (GE), only 35% voted for the PAP 'endorsed' candidate.  25% of the electorate had switched from voting for PAP in the GE to voting for an alternative candidate in the PE.  Given the fact that the issue of whether the PAP would form the government was not at stake, many voters chose an alternative candidate in the PE. 

Would the entire 25% be a potential vote bank for the opposition parties?  I don't think so.  During the PE, one attraction away from the PAP endorsed candidate was the existence of an ex-PAP MP (a highly likeable doctor and one that has the reputation of playing the role of an opposing voice within the ruling party) in the form of Dr Tan Cheng Bock.  I do not think that all of the 25% would have been persuaded by an outright opposition candidate.  Perhaps, we could take it that between a third to half of these voters would be open to voting for a credible opposition candidate if they were sure that PAP's rule was not going to be terminated. 

These voters would be prepared to vote in an opposition candidate to voice their concerns without the potential 'threat' that PAP would go out of power.  This is the potential voter base that can be persuaded to vote for the opposition in a by-election.  By working on the assumption that the nationwide voter behaviour is more or less similar, we can conservatively estimate this category of voters to be about 10% in Punggol East (making allowance for potential variation from the norm in that ward.)  There is, to my mind, a realistic possibility of a more than 5% swing against the PAP.  If the issues are pitched in the right way and if recent failures are highlighted appropriately and frequently, there are enough votes up for grabs in Punggol East to turn the seat 'blue'. 

In a previous blog post, I estimated a vote swing of about 2% to 3% without factoring in the by-election effect.  I am revising this now after taking into account the above factors.  http://article14.blogspot.sg/2012/12/by-election-in-punggol-east.html

On the assumption that it is a multi-cornered fight

There will be an inevitable split of the opposition vote.  Voters do not disuss amongst themselves, collaborate or guide each other in voting.  Whatever opposition votes that may be up for grabs would inevitably be split.  This is where the PAP probably stands to gain. 

Firstly, opposition disunity may put off some of the potentially persuadable voters.  If we work on the assumption of 10% being persuadable, there is bound to be a significant proportion of those voters being put off by a multi-cornered battle in the constituency.  On the assumption that half of them swing over to the opposition, it is still difficult to predict whether they would all head in the direction of the same opposition party. 

The two strongest contenders would be WP and SDP.  Each have their relative merits and, of course, much will depend on the candidates that they field.  (WP has arguably a better branding and SDP has  more charismatic and vocal candidates.) Out of a potential 51% that might vote for the opposition in the by-election, there is bound to be a split in the votes.  That would hand the seat back to the PAP.  If there is an overall swing of 10% to the opposition, a split in the opposition vote may narrowly hand the seat to an opposition candidate.  This candidate is more likely to be the WP candidate.  The result could be 46% for WP, 9% for SDP (and others) and 45% for PAP. 

A three-conered or multi-cornered fight could theoretically end in a WP victory.  Considering the way that most people seem to think, there seems to be an entitlement mentality about contesting this by-election.  Many people seem to think of Punggol East as WP turf.  I wouldn't be surprised (given the impossibility of collusion) voters planning to vote for the opposition would err on the side of caution and vote for the WP.  In fact, the other opposition parties might not even garner more than 2% to 3% of the vote.  Against this logic, the only reason why an opposition voter in Punggol East would vote for a non-WP candidate would be because the alternative candidate is a charismatic individual holding the promise of being a genuine vocal element in Parliament (e.g. Vincent Wijeysingha). 

It is quite probable that between WP's strong branding and SDP's potentially charismatic candidate, the votes could be split in such a way that the PAP still wins the seat with about 45% of the votes. 

My preference

Personally, I'd like to see another seat fall into the hands of the opposition.  By-elections represent the golden opportunity to reduce PAP's almost total dominance of Parliament.  My knee-jerk reaction to the possibility of a by-election in Punggol was to feel that the opposition should cooperate to ensure a straight fight instead of a multi-cornered fight.  Like many, I too felt instinctively that the other opposition parties should yield to the WP as they contested Punggol East in the GE. 

But, the more I think about it, the more i realise that there is no inherent logic behind the argument that somehow that constituency has become WP's turf.  Ideally, the opposition parties should come to an agreement as to the fielding of a single opposition candidate.  This candidate should be one that is intelligent, articulate and passionate.  This candidate should be one that is vocal enough to ask the tough questions. 

If the ideal situation cannot be accomplished, then there is no real loss in a multi-cornered fight.  Perhaps, this is the best opportunity that we have for a free contest of ideas to be staged for voters and for opposition parties to test the level of support that they have in such a multi-cornered fight.  We are transitioning from a one-party state.  WP has managed to build itself into the largest opposition party.  SDP is arguably a close competitor even though it does not hold on to any Parliamentary seat.  It is clear that SDP attracts a particular type of audience.  WP is seen in some circles as PAP-lite.  The other politcal parties may take offence at the fact that I have not even mentioned them.  But, let's be realistic about the perception at the national level.  It is SDP and WP that have a realistic chance of picking up the larger share of opposition votes. 

In a multi-cornered fight that eventually delivers the seat to the PAP, there is nothing that would be lost.  Many lessons could be learned about voter preferences.  So, if there is going to be a multi-cornered fight in Punggol East, I'd say, "Bring it on!"

(I wouldn't be surprised if part of the PM's calculation in terms of the timing of the by-election would have involved the fact that very little time should be given to the opposition parties to work out a deal.  By announcing the by-election within 3 weeks of the vacancy of the seat, he has caught the opposition flat-footed.  If the by-election were to be called after the Budget, the opposition parties would have had enough time to do their posturing and walkabouts and eventually work out some kind of collaboration.  With the 16th of Jan being Nomination Day, any likelihood of an opposition agreement to ensure a straight fight is remote.)

Where do we go now?

For the last 20 to 25 years, I have had this feeling that our country had lost its soul. I might even add that maybe we didn’t really develop a soul after independence in 1965. We had become mere digits in a giant GDP focused machine.

Many of my friends and some of my relatives have gone away to work overseas or have relocated and given up their citizenship. If you were to ask most of them what the reason for leaving was, one inevitable reason would be that our country was missing a soul. Some would talk about it in terms of the politics here. Others would lament the lack of a balanced lifestyle. Still others may speak of the lack of a creative environment.

To me, these are all interrelated reasons. Our politics has stifled our cultural environment. The ruling party’s overriding focus on economic growth at the expense of everything else has stunted our development as a nation. After all these years of independence, why are we still not a nation yet? (Mr Lee Kuan Yew asserted as much in 2009 when he insisted that we are still not a nation.)

The answer lies in the fact that for too long the PAP has relied on a top-down model of governance that has stifled the voice of the people. Whilst you are trying to lead a whole community, the voice of the people might feel like a cacophony that distracts you from your primary purpose. But, within that cacophony is a yearning for ownership. Each individual wants to have the dignity of being the creator of his own destiny. This collective yearning to be creators, and therefore co-creators of the community’s destiny, should not be shut out. But, this is what the PAP has done in all these years of governing this country.

The PAP leaders have acquired a ‘we know best’ persona and have refused to hear or accommodate dissenting voices or views. This has manifested itself in a range of ways. Letters written to the forum pages of the state media may not readily be published if they are overly critical of the government. Responses from government departments or ministers have adopted a ‘trust-us-this-is-good-for-you’ approach rather than to suggest that they would consider the complaints and look into how things could be improved. This may sound trivial. But, psychologically this is something valuable for the people. We can feel that we have expressed our frustrations and that these frustrations have not only been heard but that they may possibly be the basis on which policy decisions are made.

At the extreme end of the spectrum, too many Singaporeans have grown up with a sense of fear as to what could happen to them if they voiced their views in public. Detentions under the Internal Security Act had caused many of us to fear a government that we saw increasingly as being bent on retaining its grip on power through whatever means possible. The 1987 detentions under Operation Spectrum were pretty unconvincing in terms of the reasons supplied by the state. Roman Catholic church members, social workers and lawyers: these are hardly the kind of people that we consider to be dangerous communist insurgents. But, the government through the state media tried to sell that story to us. Some of us bought it. Many didn’t. But, amongst the many that didn’t buy into the reasons, we certainly got entangled in the state of fear that the arrests induced.

Singapore society fell silent. Social activists fell silent. The Law Society fell silent. We knew that it was not prudent to criticize the ruling party or to speak in support of opposition parties. I remember for a long period of time that any conversation critical of the PAP or its leaders had to be conducted within the privacy of our homes or if in a public place, with hushed tones so as not to attract the attention of some ISD operative. You could be in a coffee shop and the conversation could veer into politics and friends would uneasily glance over at other tables especially if there is a lone individual sipping his coffee for an endless period of time.

As a concurrent development in the 1980s, the youth of that time were displaying dissent at the ballot box. (Presumably it was the youth as LKY was pretty upset with the younger generation at that time.) At its peak the opposition managed to get 4 seats in Parliament and had reduced the PAP’s popular vote to 61%. That was in 1991. Since then the PAP has been effective through redrawing of boundaries and the extensive usage of the GRC system to effectively neuter the opposition and limit them to Hougang and Potong Pasir.

By the time we stepped into the 1990s, it was becoming clear that voicing your views against the PAP was not a prudent thing to do. In the 1990s, we moved from ISA detentions to defamation suits. In a country where the pursuit of wealth or at least economic survival is of penultimate importance, the threat of defamation suits was a powerful weapon against dissent.

But, the last five years have been different in many ways. Little by little people were voicing out their views and getting away with it (with the exception of the law extending its arm now and then to show who’s the boss). The internet gave us two things: an avenue for alternative news and an avenue for venting our frustrations. The 2011 general elections saw online criticism of the PAP reach fever pitch with some really nasty and heated comments being dished out by disgruntled individuals. For the first time in a general election we had policy issues to grumble about and the discussions were not merely about checks and balances in Parliament. (But, arguably the a sizeable percentage of voters have matured enough to realize that the best way to effect policy changes is to have an effective system of checks and balances in Parliament)

Ironically, the government’s decision to adopt a light-touch approach to the internet as well as the decision to allow the internet to be used as a campaign platform became a sword against the PAP. The opposition parties do not have the organizational strength of the PAP nor the kind of structural reach into the population through grassroots organizations. But, through the internet and the internet-savy youth, they penetrated well into the hearts and minds of a frustrated population. Alternative news could not be ignored. The mainstream media could not ignore the online chatter. The PAP leaders could not ignore the sheer anger that was being displayed by the population during the campaign period. All that led to that historic day of ministerial apologies and we felt that Goliath, whilst not slain, was made to have a good hard look at himself (even if he may find it difficult to really alter himself).

Polling day came. More than 800,000 people made their roar audible. A GRC fell. Several GRCs were close. A warning has been served.

We stand now at the threshold of a new dawn. This is liberation day all over again. Not liberation from a colonial power but liberation from the fear that had gripped our nation. Suddenly, we realize that there is nothing to fear. The mighty PAP is fallible. The present leaders are not going to come down on us with the ISA. They appear willing to let us have our say and not quash us or our views.

During the election campaign period, many volunteered their services for the opposition parties. To do this in Singapore takes tremendous courage and a sense of self-sacrifice. Many had to battle disapproval from family members or colleagues or superiors. After the elections were over, many came forward to volunteer their services. I know of many (usually younger than me) who have voiced the intention to serve on the ground with opposition parties either as members or simply as grassroots volunteers.

One thing is clear: Anyone who volunteers in this manner to serve opposition parties is not trying to gain some kind of benefit for himself. The unfortunate fact about most people who join existing grassroots organizations is that they seek some kind of benefit for themselves. I have a relative who urged me a long time ago to join the grassroots as I am bound to benefit through contacts and I could get better clients that way. When I first moved to Choa Chu Kang, a court clerk that I knew bumped into me and suggested that I join the RC in my zone (in which he was a member). His rallying cry was also about the benefits that I could get as a result of being a RC member. I know of many parents who volunteer their services to grassroots organizations in the hope that they will get preference for the primary school where they intend to send their kids. There is only one thing to say about this. It is pure selfishness and self-interest at play. There will surely be some who join purely out of a sense of service and I am not going to lump them up in this generalization.

Unlike the grassroots organizations from which the PAP draws its strength where sycophancy is often the order of the day, the volunteers that are now coming forward to help the opposition cause carry a serious message through their actions. They want change. They want to live their lives with a sense of purpose. This purpose is not in fulfilling their own narrow interests but in pursuing the greater good of Singapore. The political stranglehold that the PAP has had in our country has sucked out almost the last drop of the idealism and hope that we were born with. But now, something has changed. Something magical has happened.

People are rising up. There is a momentum created during the days of the campaign period that has not gone away. Many are carrying this flame in their hearts and surely more and more capable and passionate people will step forward to join the opposition parties. The next general elections will see the opposition fielding very strong candidates with tremendous passion. This is something the PAP is going to be lacking: passion. It already lacks this and it is failing to attract passionate individuals. Neutered unionists, technocrats and individuals climbing up the PAP-engineered meritocratic ladder are the types that the PAP can churn out. Individuals with a passion for the people are inevitably going to cross over the line and towards the opposition.

What do we do now? There is an important political milestone to be reached in our country. We have to prevent the PAP from amending the constitution whenever it deems it fit. Constitutional amendments must be done only when there is a cross-party support for such measures. To ensure this, the opposition must obtain sufficient seats in Parliament to prevent the PAP from having a 2/3 majority.

30 seats in Parliament for the opposition and the PAP’s stranglehold will be broken. That is the target.

This is achievable even by the next election. Those of us that are committed to building an active democracy must do our part. We could volunteer to assist in the grassroots activities of opposition parties. We could monitor the state media and expose any propaganda. We could continue to highlight the policy failures of the government and socio-economic issues encountered by Singaporeans. We could continue to campaign for the reform of the law and our legal system.

We want a just society. We want an equal society. We want a democratic society.

This is not too much to ask or too much to seek to accomplish. It is nothing more than what we have been pledging to do all those years in our school days. For once, the pledge can mean something. We now have a chance to cease to be hypocrites and really do what we have been pledging to do.

“We, the Citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society based on justice and equality, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.”

Ministerial Responsibility, the PAP and the General Elections

We are in a rather curious position in Singapore whereby the General Elections this year could become a referendum on the performance of individual Ministers.

There exists in Commonwealth countries and more particularly in the United Kingdom, the convention of Ministerial Responsibility. The basic premise of the convention is that Ministers are individually accountable to Parliament for their personal conduct, the policies they device and the failures of their respective Ministries. This accountability manifests itself in the form of Parliamentary scrutiny and questioning and often calls for Ministers to demonstrate such responsibility and accountability by resigning from their posts. This would often depend on the severiity of the Ministerial failing.

Three ministers in Singapore could be said to be in line to be held accountable for policy failings or mismanagement: Wong Kan Seng, Mah Bow Tan and Vivian Balakrishnan. Their respective failings in terms of the Mas Selamat escape, the Housing issue and the YOG budget could have been occasions for some blood-letting in countries like the UK. Ministerial resignations may have been in order based on the constitutional concept of Ministerial responsibility.

In Singapore, the 3 Ministers have escaped unscathed. Given that the PAP has an overwhelming majority in Parliament, it is virtually impossible to operate some sort of Ministerial responsibility convention in Singapore. But, Ministerial responsibility in countries like the United Kingdom is a practice that evovled from political pressures rather than a rule that was created for deliberate and consistent enforcement. Given that we are following the Westminster model of government in Singapore, one might expect the convention to apply here as well. However, the political reality of one party dominance has meant that Ministerial responsibility is not a concept that is alive and well.

But, given the way that the election battles are shaping up and the way that opposition teams in the GRCs are angling their arguements, I wouldn't be surprised if Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, Tampines GRC and Holland-Bukit Timah GRC results represent a form of referendum on the performance of the Ministers. The opposition parties have not been pushing on such an agenda. Nevertheless, it is clear that in many of the rally speeches, the YOG budget, the Mas Selamat escape and the affordability of housing has become a constant refrain.

Assuming the voters are listening carefully and getting the relevant access to information, the aforesaid three GRCs could be turned into a battleground to assess and deliver verdicts on the performance of the 3 ministers. I don't see such a concerted strategy to raise direct Ministerial accountability to the electorate as a GE issue. Some speakers have called upon Ministers to answer for their failings. This is being used as a method of highlighting the fact that the high and mighty PAP has its own flaws and failings. But, the opposition parties could convert the general election agenda into an opportunity for the voters to judge the performance of individual ministers.

Afterall, the PAP has been using the GRC system to scare voters that if they vote out a GRC team, they would lose a Minister. Well, there is nothing stopping us then from considering the election as an opportunity to carry out a performance appraisal of the Minister concerned and throw him out if he has underperformed or made mistakes or his ministry has committed grave errors. The GRC is won on the strength of a Minister. On the strength of a Minister, unknown, untested, inexperienced individuals enter into Parliament. Why can't we then sack the entire GRC team if the Minister has failed in his functions?

Ministerial Responsibility can be ensured by a voter backlash. The opposition parties could ramp it up over the next few days and turn the election in those three GRCs into a referendum. That would be interesting.

Graduating from a Spare tyre to a co-driver to a slap on the face!

I must say that Low Thia Khiang is really good with his imagery. His driving analogy started sheepishly by likening the opposition to a spare tyre. But, the truth is that in political terms an opposition should not merely be a spare tyre. I would characterise the parts of the vehicle as procedural safeguards in the system of governance.

Shanmugam was quick to pick up on the analogy and pointed out that in fact what the opposition wants to do is to become the co-driver. But, the analogy came unstuck. He suggested that the co-driver would tussle for the wheel. Wouldn’t that be unsafe for both the driver and the co-driver? Why would the opposition want the country to crash? That would be suicidal.

So, Low Thia Khiang’s rebuttal at last night’s rally using the same analogy was simply brilliant and to really add sting to it he threw in a slap.

"Bear in mind that just putting on a safety belt and hope that the driver will drive you to your destination is not enough. A co-driver is essential, especially as road gets tougher to navigate. The co-driver is there to slap the driver when he drives off course or when he falls asleep or drives dangerously," said Low Thia Khiang reminding us that we are all in the car together.

As the analogy has progressed from a spare tyre to a co-driver, I find that correspondingly more and more people that I speak to are not merely unhappy with the PAP. Many are willing to put their votes where their mouths are. Come the 7th of May 2011, the PAP could be in for a rude shock.

Could the co-driver become the driver?  Wishful thinking.

Low in Aljunied: Masterstroke or Fatal Mistake?

Low Thia Khiang, looking like a brilliant general, gave a press conference after filing his nomination papers at Aljunied GRC. Nobody expected him to venture out of Hougang SMC. That’s his fortress. That’s where he has built up loyal support. His decision to cross over to Aljunied GRC has caught everyone by surprise.

This decision could turn out to be his masterstroke in what many of us are expecting to be a watershed election for the opposition in Singapore. If we assume Potong Pasir to be a safe zone and Hougang to similarly be a safe zone for the opposition, this huge gamble by him to cross over into Aljunied could finally win a GRC for the opposition. That would be 4 seats from Aljunied for a minimum of 6 opposition MPs in Parliament. It would inflict a major defeat on the PAP even though, to be honest, it in no way breaks PAP’s overwhelming control of Parliament. We would perceive this to be a major defeat because losing that GRC would involve the loss of two Cabinet Ministers. In the words of Low Thia Khiang, it would teach the PAP a lesson.

But, everything could go awfully wrong for the opposition. Chiam See Tong did not do particularly well in the last election at Potong Pasir. The margin of victory is one that the PAP could easily overhaul if Potong Pasir residents don’t view Mrs Chiam to be as dependable as her husband. Similarly, if the Hougang voters were more captured by Mr Low’s charisma than the Workers’ Party’s agenda, then Hougang could be lost too.

Aljuneid GRC was the most closely fought battleground in the last election in 2006. In its previous incarnations as Eunos GRC and Cheng San GRC, that part of Singapore has been a breeding ground for strong opposition support but always falling short. At every election, the boundaries have been redrawn for that region and any serious assault by the opposition has been neutralized. The closest outcome was 49.11% for the WP in the 1988 election when it was Eunos GRC. In the last election, the WP obtained 43.91% of the valid votes cast.

Based on the boundaries as redrawn for this election it is clear that 7 precincts have been moved out from Aljuneid to Ang Mo Kio GRC. These could have been areas with large opposition support. 6 precincts from Marine Parade GRC have been moved into Aljuneid GRC. This could neutralize opposition support. In the end, it could be a close fight and the WP could end up losing.

Such a scenario is not improbable and our Parliament might go back to where it was 30 years ago when all seats were occupied by the PAP before JBJ broke into Parliament in the 1981 Anson by-election. That is the doomsday scenario for the opposition. But, it is a scenario that does not bode well for the future of our country. It is extremely unhealthy for so much of pent up frustration to exist on the street and have no voice in Parliament. (And for God’s sake, NCMPs don’t count as a voice when they lack the powers of an elected MP.) It is quite likely that there would be a sizeable swing against the PAP of anywhere between 5% to 7% of the popular vote. Such a swing could translate into 40% of the popular vote in the country to the opposition. That, arguably would be 40% of the citizen population being disenfranchised.

The Workers’ Party gamble could go awfully wrong for the opposition as a whole. Although I hear a great deal of chatter online and on the ground that appears to express dissatisfaction, I do not think that we are going to see a massive swing in the popular vote of about 10% to 15%. Based on the previous election in 2006, the opposition only managed to get about 30% to 35% in most of the constituencies. They had a good showing in Aljunied. But, that was it. So, barring a huge electoral swing, one would not imagine the opposition scoring a win in any other GRC. Perhaps the single member constituencies could throw up some new opposition members. Perhaps not.

That’s my nightmare scenario. Let’s try the slightly more probable outcome.

Due to prevalent voter dissatisfaction, there is a 5% to 7% swing in the overall popular vote. Potong PAsir and Hougang remain with the opposition. Aljunied falls to the WP. Another 2 or 3 SMCs fall to the opposition. Likely candidates for that: Yuhua SMC, Whampoa SMC and Mounbatten SMC. So, there could be 10 opposition MPs in Parliament.

The best case scenario for the opposition would be that they capture Choa Chu Kang GRC, West Coast GRC, Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, Aljunied GRC, Tampines GRC, Holland-Bukit Timah… That would be 29 seats from GRCs alone. To me, that would be the ideal result to get a sudden leap into a first world parliament. That number would prevent unilateral constitutional amendments.

Well… Let’s see how things unfold. There are plenty of first time voters and plenty of young voters. This election is not going to be easy to predict.

Gridlock? In the Singapore Parliament? – That’s a red herring

Ms Indranee Rajah made a rather curious assertion in the course of her attack on the WP’s slogan to create a First World Parliament. She wants to convey the impression that with a strong opposition in parliament, policies may be blocked. This is echoed by the Law minister Mr Shanmugam as well. He says that what WP really wants to do is ‘to block constitutional amendments. They will also block other policies they disagree with.”

I’ll leave aside the main bone of contention in the to-and-fro between the WP and the PAP over WP’s slogan. But, an impression being given to the electorate is that a first world parliament as envisaged by the WP would involve the opposition effectively blocking government policies.

Let’s get this clear. If the PAP won 50 seats in this election and the opposition gets the remaining 37 seats, then any Bill tabled by the PAP will still get passed because it has the simple majority. No policy proposal is going to be blocked as the PAP has a majority. The gridlock scenario in the US is unlikely to happen here as our system is modeled on the Westminster Parliament.

Any government of the day is only formed because it has a majority in Parliament. Even in the event that there is a hung Parliament, a minority government or a coalition government must demonstrate the support of the majority in Parliament. Therefore, during any Parliamentary term where the ruling party has a majority, it is always able to implement all its policies. In fact, in the UK context it has even been asserted that the near complete fusion of the Executive and Legislature is the efficient secret of the British Constitution. The efficiency is a result of the fact that a government elected through a Parliamentary majority has the legitimate expectation of implementing its policies and in fact has the sufficient numbers in Parliament to be able to do so.

So, on the assumption of my earlier example of PAP winning 50 seats and the opposition getting a sizeable 37 seats, the opposition will not be able to cause the kind of gridlock that arose in the US. What the opposition will be able to do is to prevent Constitutional amendments from taking place. With 50 seats in Parliament, the PAP would not have a 2/3 majority and they would need opposition consent before amending the constitution. What is wrong with that? It is good to have an effective check in Parliament to prevent frivolous, partisan, imprudent, negligent or self-serving constitutional amendments from taking place.

So, if any PAP minister or candidate were to raise the gridlock issue if there is a sizeable opposition in Parliament is either naïve about the constitutional matters or is ‘throwing smoke’.

A sizeable opposition now is an insurance policy for the future

An English friend of mine once remarked that there is a close link between the free market economy and the free marketplace of ideas. Just as the former is reliant on the unfettered exchange of goods and services and the natural forces of competition so is the latter reliant on competing viewpoints seeking attention and acceptance with the most rational or the most socially relevant (given the particular age and location) being pushed to the fore.

It is a case of survival of the fittest idea.

The quality of debate hasn't been stellar in Singapore (with the exception of signs of intelligence emerging via blogosphere). Insofar as Parliament is concerned, MPs haven't been accustomed to vigourous debate and I guess the sedate Parliamentary air can seep into the cells through some kind of osmosis and affect the logical faculties.

The Worker's Party leader Low Thia Khiang, made on Monday what I thought was a rather uncontroversial and straightforward observation about the need for greater opposition presence in Parliament to act as a check and balance on the PAP-led government. He was making the point that people would have no recourse if the ruling party were to abuse its power, trample on people's rights and become corrupt.

In response to Mr Low's assertion PAP MPs are reported to have raised some arguments. From Channelnewsasia:

"Indranee Rajah, Deputy Speaker and MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC, replied that the citizens of Singapore have the right to vote against the PAP, and said Mr Low's suggestion is unsound.

She said: "If that day ever comes, then the people are at liberty to vote out the PAP government and should do so in that situation.

"The premise of Mr Low's suggestion is flawed. He's really saying just in case PAP becomes corrupt in the future, then people had better vote for the opposition now.

"But if you apply the same logic, then the argument can also be made that if you vote in the opposition, then they may become corrupt in the future, so in order to avoid that, you might as well vote for PAP now." "

Ms Rajah's assertion (that when the PAP government does become corrupt in the future, the people of Singapore are at liberty to vote out the PAP) is rather surprising. Let us assume that we have the same power balance in Parliament in about 20 years time. Let us assume that there emerges clear evidence of corruption amongst a number of Cabinet Ministers of that future date. The people of Singapore decide to vote the PAP out of power. But, guess what. The opposition parties are weak and crippled by political impediments that currently exist and presumably would continue to exist at that later date. They are unable to field enough candidates and on nomination day the PAP gets a majority. Alternatively, the opposition parties manage to cobble together enough candidates and manage to deny PAP its majority and a coalition of opposition parties comes to power after the election. From a mere 2 MPs in Parliament, the coalition of opposition parties suddenly has let's say 50 MPs. These fresh Parliamentary faces would now have to figure out governance of the nation from scratch.

The problem with Ms Rajah's argument is that she expects to have a change in government the minute the PAP is corrupt. The presence of a sufficiently viable opposition in Parliament is so that if the existing government should become corrupt, the people have the choice of turning to an alternative that is waiting the wings and is ready and competent to govern. It is an insurance policy for the citizenry.

The reason why democratic elections present a better alternative to autocratic systems is because they allow citizens the opportunity to alter the persons exercising authority when the need arises through a stable process instead of causing a shock to the system. If a country had no elections to begin with, the only way that the citizens could alter the corrupt leadership is by popular revolution and other such drastic means. In a country that has an electoral process, the people are afforded the opportunity to replace their leaders peacefully and without placing undue stresses on the machinery of government. But, merely having the right to vote out the leaders is not going to ensure that there is no shock to the system. A key component of a viable and mature democracy is the presence of a competent and sizeable opposition in Parliament: an alternative that is waiting in the wings; one that can not only deliver peaceful change in leadership but can also govern from Day 1 (instead of coming in suddenly like a revolutionary government with popular backing but little experience and hence still constituting a shock to the system)

Ultimately, it is about having a system in place that will ensure peaceful and smooth transitions inspite of the individuals that pass through the halls of power. If citizens are to refrain from having any opposition in Parliament until something goes wrong with the PAP government, then it would be too late to attempt a complete overhaul. Such an attempt at overhaul would be equivalent to producing a revolutionary government with all the attendant potential problem that an inexperienced leadership could bring.

If in the next few elections, the opposition gets a foothold in Parliament, then in the long run they would be able to present that viable alternative to that hypothetically corrupt PAP 20 years down the road.

There is one other point to the presence of a visible and viable opposition. On the assumption that the ruling party becomes corrupt, who is to raise the issue in Parliament? Who is to exercise independant oversight? Of course, I can imagine that the retort would be that 1 opposition MP is sufficient for this purpose. Now that the PM has announced that there would be 9 opposition MPs (elected MPs and NCMPs), one could argue that these 9 could act as a check. The problem with this is that a small group of MPs would be ineffective in exposing corruption compared to a critical mass of opposition MPs.

Above all, a truly virulent Parliament that acts as the voice of the people is only possible through the diversity of views, ideas and arguments presented in public and debated vigourously. The weaker arguments will be exposed for the people to see and the more cogent ideas will come to the fore.

James Madison in the Federalist Papers once warned that when giving out political power we must bear in mind that 'enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm'.

PAP, The Opposition & the Resilience of Singapore

PAP, The Opposition & the Resilience of Singapore

MM Lee’s latest warning about Singapore without the PAP is nothing new. It has always been the election scare tactic. Don’t vote for the opposition because you are bored, because you simply want to rebel, because you just want to voice your discontent over particular issues. You just might vote the PAP out of power and Singapore’s success is wholly attributable to the PAP and without them Singapore will be in ruins.

Firstly, this is intended to be a statement about the calibre of the current opposition. Singaporeans are not unintelligent. We know that the current opposition leaders and their party members do not have the same kind of political experience as the senior members of the PAP. But, a long time ago when the PAP was itself an opposition party, its leaders did not have the political experience of people like the late David Marshall. The point is that given Singapore’s political climate of single party dominance, I would not be able to honestly assert that the opposition members of parliament or the members of opposition parties that are not in parliament have the same experience as the current ministers.

Whilst opposition candidates may not have the experience of leading and running ministerial departments, I don’t think anyone can honestly deny the fact that they have their hearts in the right place. Being critical of the government is not easy in Singapore. Being concerned enough about our fellow citizens to the point of being openly critical of our government is also not easy. And where that concern for the fellow man leads a person to join an opposition party and stand for elections or to become an activist in pushing the envelope insofar as our freedoms are concerned, that person definitely has passion for the nation.

The figures that have arisen as opposition leaders in Singapore from 1981 till the present have taken upon themselves an unenviable task. They have done so and continue to do so despite the political and legal impediments facing them. Their courage must be applauded and as rational beings we must also ask ourselves where such courage could come from. Unless these were men and women of exceptional willpower and passion for the nation, they could not have displayed and could not continue to show such courage.

For the above reasons, I find it difficult to be dismissive about our opposition’s heart. There will be those who say that the heart alone is not sufficient when it comes to leadership, especially leadership of the nation. I will concede that experience counts for sure. But, passion is a precondition for effective leadership. We are not talking about corporate management here. We are talking about a country and its citizens; each one of whom is a living, breathing human being with dreams and hopes. Leaders must not be elitist, other-worldly technocrats. Leaders must connect with the deeper concerns of the common man.

Our First Cabinet was not composed of men of great experience. They were men of great passion and vision. MM Lee was one of them. His passion and the passion of his generation of leaders guided the passion of that generation of adults; the adults of the 60s and 70s who were instrumental in producing the Singapore miracle.

When we look for the next generation of leaders who would lead Singapore forward, I dare say that it would be such passion for the nation that would be of incalculable value.

Secondly, we all know that the PAP is not going to go out of power all of a sudden. As much as I am not frightened by such a prospect, I know that there are many Singaporeans who shudder at the thought of a ‘freak’ election victory for the opposition. (note: it is only freak from the PAP’s perspective. One has to be in power for a long time before formulating a view that the people’s verdict is somehow misguided in order for it to be labelled as ‘freak’) The opposition has for some time been adopting what has been termed as the bye-election strategy. They openly declared this as a strategy when they rightly assessed the feeling on the ground. Many people wanted to have their voices heard. But, they didn’t want the PAP to be out of power. By contesting less than half the seats in Parliament, the opposition has been delivering election victories to the PAP on nomination day. Election day was presented by the opposition as an opportunity for people to send more opposition MPs to Parliament.

That opposition strategy has been neutered in part by GRC system. Each GRC team is led by a minister. The loss of a team equates to the loss of a minister. The worries that voters may have had about change in government was effectively channelled towards a worry that a minister might be sacrificed if a GRC team was voted out. Even then voters fired brave salvos in the form of Eunos GRC and Cheng San GRC albeit unsuccessfully.

The point that I am getting at is that a ‘freak’ election victory for the opposition is not possible under the bye-election strategy. Even if the PAP had lost all the seats contested in the last elections, they would have still formed the government. There would have been a sizeable opposition in Parliament that would have been able to keep the Ministers on the toes. Other PAP MPs would replace those Ministers that had lost their parliamentary seats. I am sure the PAP is not going to say that their MPs don’t have that calibre. Such an argument would be counter-productive for the party.

When more and more opposition members gain a foothold in Parliament, they would have ample opportunity to gain political experience and their parties would be better able to build up a shadow government. A shadow government would be the ultimate step in building an effective alternative to the PAP. Having an effective alternative to the PAP is a priority for us as citizens. We cannot assume that good governance is a given. We cannot assume that good governance will always be a PAP trademark. What if the PAP slackens? What if there is complacency? What if there is negligent leadership? We will, in the end, blame ourselves for not having an effective alternative ready and able to take over from the PAP. We will blame ourselves for the mother of all complacencies: electoral complacency.

Voters need to be far-sighted and realise that the gradual rise of opposition MPs in Parliament will be better for Singapore’s future.

Thirdly, and this was clearly not intended by MM Lee, the warning unintentionally implies a lack of faith in our Civil Service. Imagine this scenario. Take away all our existing Ministers. Place all the opposition party leaders in Ministerial positions. The system is not going to grind to a halt. There is a reason why Civil Servants are expected to be neutral and non-partisan. Political parties may come and go. Ministers may come and go. But, the civil servants are always there. They are the ones that ensure the smooth transition of power from one government to the next. Ministers themselves don’t have insights into the workings of a Ministry without the input of their civil servants. To worry about a ‘freak’ election result is to worry about the resilience of our civil service. I believe it is robust enough to carry on functioning effectively whatever party may come to power. If the PAP’s worry is that policy shifts may harm the country’s prosperity, then this is an argument about the policies that are best for the country. These policies will vary from party to party and the policy issues raised by the different parties ought to be debated effectively and openly in public. If the PAP’s worry is about experience in leadership, then I would backtrack to my earlier comments.

The confluence of a robust, resilient and experienced Civil Service and an opposition with passion for the nation (minus the experience) would produce sufficient conditions for the continued positive evolution of our society and nation.

There is one further point that I want to make and I will draw it from a conversation a few days ago. My mother-in-law remarked whilst watching the news that we continue to be able to live with a roof over our heads because MM Lee is still alive. That might very easily be the view of her generation. I’m sure my parents would readily agree. I too, for my part, would not refute the contributions of MM Lee and his generation of leaders. But, too often, the meta-narrative of this nation tends to underplay the contributions of an entire generation of ordinary citizens: the adults of the 1960s and 1970s. The hardest work of nation-building was done by them. They are our unsung heroes.

In the history of any nation or society, its resilience is not dependant on its leaders. Its resilience is found in the collective will of its people. Leaders marshal that will. They don’t exist independent of that collective will.