Netizens should focus on the 1990s, not the 1960s
There has been plenty of focus on the events of 50 years ago, including those chronicled in a recently released documentary film. However, in my opinion, those events have dubious relevance in understanding Singapore’s current political situation.
On the other hand and, ironically, there has been virtually no focus or commentary whatsoever on the events of 20 years ago (i.e., the 1990s), even as they have total relevance to the political situation in Singapore in 2014.
In the 1991 general election, a promising, perfectly good, and centrist Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) succeeded in securing three parliamentary seats. However, it did not take long for the SDP to be completely ruined when it lurched leftwards and adopted an uncompromising and abrasive political stance towards the ruling PAP after Dr Chee Soon Juan took over the helm of the SDP from Mr Chiam See Tong.
Since then there has been nothing whatsoever that has made the SDP come close to being electable again. The SDP cannot be electable as long as the current leadership, headed by Dr Chee, remains in post.
If not for the ructions in the SDP during the 1990s, instead of 6 fully elected opposition MPs emerging from GE2011, the likelihood is that we would have seen the number of opposition MPs in the double digits. A lot of time for the opposition cause was, therefore, lost when the SDP skewed left and went off the rails.
This is why the events of 20 years ago are important -- they provide major lessons on how not to engage in political activism in Singapore.
But it seems that the liberal blogosphere is not keen in focusing on any of the above. And if it did so, you can expect a great deal of historical revisionism to be generated. Or we might be told, in a dismissive manner, that we should forget the events of the 1990s but to remember those of the 1960s. Ironic, isn’t it? For many in the liberal blogosphere and many netizens in general, their understanding of politics in Singapore is simply the divide between pro-PAP and anti-PAP.
They do not realise that the majority of middle ground voters do not view it as simply a black-and-white choice which, effectively, is a false choice. The choice for most middle ground voters – who will ultimately decide on elections-- is either the PAP or a moderate alternative to the PAP that has established its credentials as being a safe pair of hands. If that moderate alternative does not exist then a majority of middle ground voters will stay with the PAP. It is as simple as that. If this were not the case then we would not have seen the significant variation in the vote garnered across the six opposition parties that contested GE2011.
Given people’s short memories, it is worthwhile recalling how the opposition parties stacked up in GE2011, in terms of their average percentage vote in contested electoral divisions:
Workers’ Party – 46.6%
Singapore People’s Party – 41.44%
National Solidarity Party – 39.25%
Singapore Democratic Party – 36.76%
Reform Party – 31.78%
Singapore Democratic Alliance – 30.06%
It is not coincidental that the top three were perceived by voters as moderate and politically centrist. And the bottom three were perceived as anything but. Insofar as voters’ perceptions are concerned, not much has changed since GE2011 except that the party at the top of that list is now striding away from the rest of the opposition pack. Put that down simply to the advantage of having a parliamentary presence, among other factors (which I will elaborate on in future articles).
Also, note that the 9.84% gap between the WP and SDP tends to flatter the SDP. This is because WP contested twice the number of electoral divisions (8 as against 4) and fielded twice the number of candidates (23 versus 11) as did the SDP. Even an arts student like myself knows rudimentary math – the larger the total numbers the more difficult it is to move the percentages in your favour. Or, inversely, the smaller the absolute numbers, or the lower the base, the easier it is to chalk-up a decent-looking percentage.
If you cut through the headline numbers, all the gloss and the smoke-and-mirrors, the stark reality emerges for all to see. Those who keep on saying that virtually any kind of opposition -- including confrontational opposition -- can do well against the PAP are simply mistaken in their belief.
The writer is author of the books: Breakthrough: Roadmap for Singapore’s Political Future (Singapore: Institute of Policy Studies, 2012), 288pp; Singapore Places its Bets: Casinos, Foreign Talent and Remaking a City-state (Singapore: Straits Times Press, 2010), 192pp; and, The Price of Victory: The 1997 Singapore General Election and Beyond (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1997), 150pp.
© Derek da Cunha
https://www.facebook.com/notes/dere...s-not-the-1960s/10153389344468797?pnref=story
Related:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/dere...-having-an-army/10153359285343797?pnref=story
There has been plenty of focus on the events of 50 years ago, including those chronicled in a recently released documentary film. However, in my opinion, those events have dubious relevance in understanding Singapore’s current political situation.
On the other hand and, ironically, there has been virtually no focus or commentary whatsoever on the events of 20 years ago (i.e., the 1990s), even as they have total relevance to the political situation in Singapore in 2014.
In the 1991 general election, a promising, perfectly good, and centrist Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) succeeded in securing three parliamentary seats. However, it did not take long for the SDP to be completely ruined when it lurched leftwards and adopted an uncompromising and abrasive political stance towards the ruling PAP after Dr Chee Soon Juan took over the helm of the SDP from Mr Chiam See Tong.
Since then there has been nothing whatsoever that has made the SDP come close to being electable again. The SDP cannot be electable as long as the current leadership, headed by Dr Chee, remains in post.
If not for the ructions in the SDP during the 1990s, instead of 6 fully elected opposition MPs emerging from GE2011, the likelihood is that we would have seen the number of opposition MPs in the double digits. A lot of time for the opposition cause was, therefore, lost when the SDP skewed left and went off the rails.
This is why the events of 20 years ago are important -- they provide major lessons on how not to engage in political activism in Singapore.
But it seems that the liberal blogosphere is not keen in focusing on any of the above. And if it did so, you can expect a great deal of historical revisionism to be generated. Or we might be told, in a dismissive manner, that we should forget the events of the 1990s but to remember those of the 1960s. Ironic, isn’t it? For many in the liberal blogosphere and many netizens in general, their understanding of politics in Singapore is simply the divide between pro-PAP and anti-PAP.
They do not realise that the majority of middle ground voters do not view it as simply a black-and-white choice which, effectively, is a false choice. The choice for most middle ground voters – who will ultimately decide on elections-- is either the PAP or a moderate alternative to the PAP that has established its credentials as being a safe pair of hands. If that moderate alternative does not exist then a majority of middle ground voters will stay with the PAP. It is as simple as that. If this were not the case then we would not have seen the significant variation in the vote garnered across the six opposition parties that contested GE2011.
Given people’s short memories, it is worthwhile recalling how the opposition parties stacked up in GE2011, in terms of their average percentage vote in contested electoral divisions:
Workers’ Party – 46.6%
Singapore People’s Party – 41.44%
National Solidarity Party – 39.25%
Singapore Democratic Party – 36.76%
Reform Party – 31.78%
Singapore Democratic Alliance – 30.06%
It is not coincidental that the top three were perceived by voters as moderate and politically centrist. And the bottom three were perceived as anything but. Insofar as voters’ perceptions are concerned, not much has changed since GE2011 except that the party at the top of that list is now striding away from the rest of the opposition pack. Put that down simply to the advantage of having a parliamentary presence, among other factors (which I will elaborate on in future articles).
Also, note that the 9.84% gap between the WP and SDP tends to flatter the SDP. This is because WP contested twice the number of electoral divisions (8 as against 4) and fielded twice the number of candidates (23 versus 11) as did the SDP. Even an arts student like myself knows rudimentary math – the larger the total numbers the more difficult it is to move the percentages in your favour. Or, inversely, the smaller the absolute numbers, or the lower the base, the easier it is to chalk-up a decent-looking percentage.
If you cut through the headline numbers, all the gloss and the smoke-and-mirrors, the stark reality emerges for all to see. Those who keep on saying that virtually any kind of opposition -- including confrontational opposition -- can do well against the PAP are simply mistaken in their belief.
The writer is author of the books: Breakthrough: Roadmap for Singapore’s Political Future (Singapore: Institute of Policy Studies, 2012), 288pp; Singapore Places its Bets: Casinos, Foreign Talent and Remaking a City-state (Singapore: Straits Times Press, 2010), 192pp; and, The Price of Victory: The 1997 Singapore General Election and Beyond (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1997), 150pp.
© Derek da Cunha
https://www.facebook.com/notes/dere...s-not-the-1960s/10153389344468797?pnref=story
Related:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/dere...-having-an-army/10153359285343797?pnref=story
