Voting against the PAP does not mean embracing a liberal agenda
by Derek da Cunha
Since the 2011 general election, some of the chatter in the online world appears to have misread – either unintentionally or otherwise –the Workers’ Party’s breakthrough in taking down a GRC (Group Representation Constituency) as somehow suggesting voting against the PAP means embracing a liberal agenda. It is difficult to accept that a shift towards liberalism was what the voters in Aljunied GRC had intended in GE2011.
In my meetings with diplomats since the May 2011 GE to discuss the significance of that election I would tell them that before we delve into any discussion one point needs to be understood right at the outset: that the forces which dominate Singapore’s political ground are overwhelmingly conservative and moderate in nature. And often times the conservatives and moderates are allied to each other. What evidence does one have to support this contention?
One piece of evidence was the way the vote divided in the four-candidate presidential election of August 2011. In the PE, the status quo (read “conservative”) candidate, Dr Tony Tan, and the moderate candidate, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, garnered 70.05% of the vote between them. The candidate who deliberately drew the sharpest distinction to both the status quo and the other three candidates, namely Mr Tan Jee Say (TJS), secured 25.04% of the valid votes. TJS had also just four months before the 2011 presidential election been a candidate in the parliamentary general election, standing for the Singapore Democratic Party – perceived as the most liberal and left leaning of Singapore political parties.
Dr Tony Tan and Dr Tan Cheng Bock were both ex-PAP men. Dr Tony Tan had risen to the rank of deputy prime minister. On the other hand, Dr Tan Cheng Bock had been a member of the PAP’s highest policy making body, the Central Executive Committee, and remains as only one of a few non-Cabinet ministers to have been a member of the PAP’s CEC.
The fourth candidate in the 2011 presidential election, Mr Tan Kin Lian, was unable to craft any distinct identity for himself. He had formerly been the CEO of insurance cooperative, NTUC Income. Since retiring from NTUC Income he had blogged regularly, largely dispensing financial advice to his readers. In fact Mr Tan Kin Lian had the most substantive online presence prior to the presidential election. The paltry 4.91% of the votes he secured underscores why personal online popularity does not necessarily translate to votes at the ballot box, offline.
It would seem that TJS miscalculated in the same way that many liberal bloggers are currently miscalculating by thinking that post-GE2011 the political landscape had moved significantly that voters would accept anything other than the PAP . In the presidential election, TJS went to extraordinary lengths to position himself the furthest away from the status quo candidate, Dr Tony Tan, and, in so doing, he secured his own marginalisation in the race. If TJS had positioned himself as a moderate and centrist, together with his relatively impressive CV, all this would likely have drawn towards him a significant number of votes away from the two ex-PAP men. In the event, TJS nailed down merely the irreducible core of the anti-PAP vote (which accounts for 25% of the electorate) and nothing more.
TJS is not the only person to have totally misread the reasons that allowed the WP to claim a hard won victory in Aljunied in May 2011. Liberal bloggers are now also doing the same thing. The majority of middle ground Singaporean voters want political leaders who are moderate and reasonable not just in policies but also in style and temperament as well.
The only voters who want the opposition to, metaphorically, “take a swing” at the government happen to be within the irreducible core of anti-PAP voters, and they also happen to have a disproportionate presence in online sociopolitical blogs. Do the views of these people matter? Not really. Those who matter and who would determine the outcome of elections are those who are within the middle ground of voters. These voters do not spend much time browsing sociopolitical blogs.
Calling on foreign governments to apply pressure on the Singapore government on the issue of the rule of law, as the SDP has done in the past, and in so doing openly criticizing the WP for not supporting the same approach, is not a moderate policy that would appeal to many middle ground voters who feel that domestic social and political matters are solely the preserve of Singaporeans and no one else. Losing your cool in a roundtable discussion among election candidates,as TJS displayed during the presidential election campaign, does not demonstrate moderate style and a dignified deportment. In other words, TJS was simply, in the eyes of most middle ground voters, not presidential at all.
It could be argued that one of the main lessons of the 2011 presidential election was not so much the election of the status quo candidate, Dr Tony Tan, but, rather, that that election had finally brought to the surface the extent of the size of the various political poles within Singapore’s body politic – i.e., conservative, moderate, and liberal, with the first two differing from each other only to an insignificant degree. Both conservatives and moderates are generally risk averse. However, moderates – who dominate the middle ground of voters -- would accept some risks as long as they do not amount to a too radical shift from the status quo.
All of the foregoing, however, would not find favour with liberal bloggers. One prominent liberal blogger, Mr Alex Au, had as recently as 30 September 2013 accused a mainstream broadsheet of an “incessant drumming of the claim that Singapore is ‘a conservative society’ [with] no good evidence offered.” This has been a constant theme in Mr Au’s commentaries over many years. For instance, in September 2005, he wrote about an encounter he had with twin brothers on a bus and whom he recognized as having been regular customers at a sauna which he had operated. He said that the brothers, who were with their families on the bus, were unfazed by their chance meeting with him. He observed:
'I don't know, but they both seemed so relaxed about it, whatever the answer was, it wasn't a problem. It certainly didn't seem like a deep secret, not something that might jeopardize their marriages. And that they're so relaxed about it suggests a social climate within their demographic class that is quite different from the simplistic picture of a disapproving, unaccepting "conservative" majority.
How do we square this with the belief that the less-Westernised section of Singapore's population is "conservative"? (And the fact that the brothers spoke to each other in Cantonese indicated that they belonged to this demographic).' [See “Two brothers on a bus,” September 2005] http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2005/yax-488.htm
Many people would likely be bemused at Mr Au’s assertions, given that he ascribes attitudes to an entire demographic – Chinese speaking/educated Singaporeans – based on an encounter with members of just one family and his interpretation of their body language. Clearly, Mr Au does not seem particularly fussy at the sample size he uses to make his claims as long as the sample – any sample -- supports his long-held thesis that Singapore is not a conservative society.
The fact that the government had announced on 8 November 2013 that it would block access to the extra-marital dating website, Ashley Madison, testifies to the strength of the forces of conservatism in Singapore. It is unlikely that the government would have acted on its own accord without the urging of key stakeholders representing large swathes of the population. To that extent, religiosity remains in the ascendant in Singapore even as it is on the wane in many parts of Europe where secularism has been gaining ground. And social mores in the Singapore of 2013 are not markedly different from a decade or so ago.
The other commonly held contention by quite a few observers that Singaporeans are maturing politically also does not necessarily mean a clamour by most Singaporeans for social and political space that falls neatly into a liberal ideology. A maturing polity might simply mean a greater awareness by people of their rights and ability to be self-empowered, with their desire to also see an overbearing government have its wings clipped.
This does not mean a PAP that will continue chalking-up thumping parliamentary majorities. What it means is that middle ground voters would be willing to coalesce around an opposition party that is considered a suitable, reasonable, competent and compassionate alternative to the PAP.
Here, the WP has positioned itself correctly. The WP will continue to benefit from a slippage in the PAP’s vote even if, as I have suggested in the past, a general election were to take place in 2015. In 2015, the political environment will be most favourable to the PAP government, and very exacting for the opposition parties, because the PAP will likely roll out a raft of populist measures on the pretext of celebrating Singapore’s 50th National Day.
In the event of a 2015 general election, the other opposition parties and the liberal blogosphere might collectively become nostalgic for the far less challenging environment that was 2011. They will also realize, very belatedly, the virtue of being politically moderate, and that stridency, bluster and gratuitous belligerence might be par for the course in other polities but they amount to sheer folly when the objective is to persuade the majority of Singaporean middle ground voters of the wisdom in bringing down to earth an imperious government.
Dr Derek da Cunha is author of the books: Breakthrough: Roadmap for Singapore’s Political Future (2012), which is an analysis of the 2011 Singapore general election; and, The Price of Victory: The 1997 Singapore General Election and Beyond (1997).
Copyright © Derek da Cunha
10 November 2013
https://www.facebook.com/notes/dere...-embracing-a-liberal-agenda/10152663024868797
by Derek da Cunha
Since the 2011 general election, some of the chatter in the online world appears to have misread – either unintentionally or otherwise –the Workers’ Party’s breakthrough in taking down a GRC (Group Representation Constituency) as somehow suggesting voting against the PAP means embracing a liberal agenda. It is difficult to accept that a shift towards liberalism was what the voters in Aljunied GRC had intended in GE2011.
In my meetings with diplomats since the May 2011 GE to discuss the significance of that election I would tell them that before we delve into any discussion one point needs to be understood right at the outset: that the forces which dominate Singapore’s political ground are overwhelmingly conservative and moderate in nature. And often times the conservatives and moderates are allied to each other. What evidence does one have to support this contention?
One piece of evidence was the way the vote divided in the four-candidate presidential election of August 2011. In the PE, the status quo (read “conservative”) candidate, Dr Tony Tan, and the moderate candidate, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, garnered 70.05% of the vote between them. The candidate who deliberately drew the sharpest distinction to both the status quo and the other three candidates, namely Mr Tan Jee Say (TJS), secured 25.04% of the valid votes. TJS had also just four months before the 2011 presidential election been a candidate in the parliamentary general election, standing for the Singapore Democratic Party – perceived as the most liberal and left leaning of Singapore political parties.
Dr Tony Tan and Dr Tan Cheng Bock were both ex-PAP men. Dr Tony Tan had risen to the rank of deputy prime minister. On the other hand, Dr Tan Cheng Bock had been a member of the PAP’s highest policy making body, the Central Executive Committee, and remains as only one of a few non-Cabinet ministers to have been a member of the PAP’s CEC.
The fourth candidate in the 2011 presidential election, Mr Tan Kin Lian, was unable to craft any distinct identity for himself. He had formerly been the CEO of insurance cooperative, NTUC Income. Since retiring from NTUC Income he had blogged regularly, largely dispensing financial advice to his readers. In fact Mr Tan Kin Lian had the most substantive online presence prior to the presidential election. The paltry 4.91% of the votes he secured underscores why personal online popularity does not necessarily translate to votes at the ballot box, offline.
It would seem that TJS miscalculated in the same way that many liberal bloggers are currently miscalculating by thinking that post-GE2011 the political landscape had moved significantly that voters would accept anything other than the PAP . In the presidential election, TJS went to extraordinary lengths to position himself the furthest away from the status quo candidate, Dr Tony Tan, and, in so doing, he secured his own marginalisation in the race. If TJS had positioned himself as a moderate and centrist, together with his relatively impressive CV, all this would likely have drawn towards him a significant number of votes away from the two ex-PAP men. In the event, TJS nailed down merely the irreducible core of the anti-PAP vote (which accounts for 25% of the electorate) and nothing more.
TJS is not the only person to have totally misread the reasons that allowed the WP to claim a hard won victory in Aljunied in May 2011. Liberal bloggers are now also doing the same thing. The majority of middle ground Singaporean voters want political leaders who are moderate and reasonable not just in policies but also in style and temperament as well.
The only voters who want the opposition to, metaphorically, “take a swing” at the government happen to be within the irreducible core of anti-PAP voters, and they also happen to have a disproportionate presence in online sociopolitical blogs. Do the views of these people matter? Not really. Those who matter and who would determine the outcome of elections are those who are within the middle ground of voters. These voters do not spend much time browsing sociopolitical blogs.
Calling on foreign governments to apply pressure on the Singapore government on the issue of the rule of law, as the SDP has done in the past, and in so doing openly criticizing the WP for not supporting the same approach, is not a moderate policy that would appeal to many middle ground voters who feel that domestic social and political matters are solely the preserve of Singaporeans and no one else. Losing your cool in a roundtable discussion among election candidates,as TJS displayed during the presidential election campaign, does not demonstrate moderate style and a dignified deportment. In other words, TJS was simply, in the eyes of most middle ground voters, not presidential at all.
It could be argued that one of the main lessons of the 2011 presidential election was not so much the election of the status quo candidate, Dr Tony Tan, but, rather, that that election had finally brought to the surface the extent of the size of the various political poles within Singapore’s body politic – i.e., conservative, moderate, and liberal, with the first two differing from each other only to an insignificant degree. Both conservatives and moderates are generally risk averse. However, moderates – who dominate the middle ground of voters -- would accept some risks as long as they do not amount to a too radical shift from the status quo.
All of the foregoing, however, would not find favour with liberal bloggers. One prominent liberal blogger, Mr Alex Au, had as recently as 30 September 2013 accused a mainstream broadsheet of an “incessant drumming of the claim that Singapore is ‘a conservative society’ [with] no good evidence offered.” This has been a constant theme in Mr Au’s commentaries over many years. For instance, in September 2005, he wrote about an encounter he had with twin brothers on a bus and whom he recognized as having been regular customers at a sauna which he had operated. He said that the brothers, who were with their families on the bus, were unfazed by their chance meeting with him. He observed:
'I don't know, but they both seemed so relaxed about it, whatever the answer was, it wasn't a problem. It certainly didn't seem like a deep secret, not something that might jeopardize their marriages. And that they're so relaxed about it suggests a social climate within their demographic class that is quite different from the simplistic picture of a disapproving, unaccepting "conservative" majority.
How do we square this with the belief that the less-Westernised section of Singapore's population is "conservative"? (And the fact that the brothers spoke to each other in Cantonese indicated that they belonged to this demographic).' [See “Two brothers on a bus,” September 2005] http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2005/yax-488.htm
Many people would likely be bemused at Mr Au’s assertions, given that he ascribes attitudes to an entire demographic – Chinese speaking/educated Singaporeans – based on an encounter with members of just one family and his interpretation of their body language. Clearly, Mr Au does not seem particularly fussy at the sample size he uses to make his claims as long as the sample – any sample -- supports his long-held thesis that Singapore is not a conservative society.
The fact that the government had announced on 8 November 2013 that it would block access to the extra-marital dating website, Ashley Madison, testifies to the strength of the forces of conservatism in Singapore. It is unlikely that the government would have acted on its own accord without the urging of key stakeholders representing large swathes of the population. To that extent, religiosity remains in the ascendant in Singapore even as it is on the wane in many parts of Europe where secularism has been gaining ground. And social mores in the Singapore of 2013 are not markedly different from a decade or so ago.
The other commonly held contention by quite a few observers that Singaporeans are maturing politically also does not necessarily mean a clamour by most Singaporeans for social and political space that falls neatly into a liberal ideology. A maturing polity might simply mean a greater awareness by people of their rights and ability to be self-empowered, with their desire to also see an overbearing government have its wings clipped.
This does not mean a PAP that will continue chalking-up thumping parliamentary majorities. What it means is that middle ground voters would be willing to coalesce around an opposition party that is considered a suitable, reasonable, competent and compassionate alternative to the PAP.
Here, the WP has positioned itself correctly. The WP will continue to benefit from a slippage in the PAP’s vote even if, as I have suggested in the past, a general election were to take place in 2015. In 2015, the political environment will be most favourable to the PAP government, and very exacting for the opposition parties, because the PAP will likely roll out a raft of populist measures on the pretext of celebrating Singapore’s 50th National Day.
In the event of a 2015 general election, the other opposition parties and the liberal blogosphere might collectively become nostalgic for the far less challenging environment that was 2011. They will also realize, very belatedly, the virtue of being politically moderate, and that stridency, bluster and gratuitous belligerence might be par for the course in other polities but they amount to sheer folly when the objective is to persuade the majority of Singaporean middle ground voters of the wisdom in bringing down to earth an imperious government.
Dr Derek da Cunha is author of the books: Breakthrough: Roadmap for Singapore’s Political Future (2012), which is an analysis of the 2011 Singapore general election; and, The Price of Victory: The 1997 Singapore General Election and Beyond (1997).
Copyright © Derek da Cunha
10 November 2013
https://www.facebook.com/notes/dere...-embracing-a-liberal-agenda/10152663024868797
