- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=2]PAP fears loss of power, not vocal parliamentary opposition
[/h]
by Derek da Cunha on Thursday, January 24, 2013 at 8:30pm ·
PAP fears loss of power, not vocal parliamentary opposition
By Derek da Cunha
The Workers’ Party has made its presence felt in Parliament even though this is devoid of the sound and fury of a scatter-gun. This, ironically, is insufficient for some online critics who want more robust opposition to the Government so as to hold it to account. This issue of confrontational opposition is one I had actually dealt with as far back as 1997 in my book The Price of Victory: The 1997 Singapore General Election and Beyond. In short, my argument was that confrontational politics simply does not work in Singapore when one party is so overwhelmingly dominant in terms of parliamentary seats.
However, now after 15 years that same issue has arisen again with the Punggol East by-election. Let us therefore re-examine this issue.
The late J.B. Jeyaretnam (JBJ) was known to be very vocal and confrontational in Parliament. He himself said he was confrontational though not offensive. The question arises: was JBJ able to effect changes to Government policy? Another question arises: under JBJ’s stewardship of the WP was he able to expand the opposition’s parliamentary presence on the back of his fiery speeches in Parliament and overall confrontational style? On both counts the answer is in the negative. In fact, faced with JBJ’s stridency the PAP Government simply dug in its heels and refused to concede to changes in policies. In some respects JBJ’s confrontational style was counter-productive to the development of parliamentary democracy, in that the Government felt compelled to construct more and more obstacles in the way of the opposition. This is reflected in what I have described as the current Byzantine-like electoral structure we now have in Singapore (see Breakthrough: Roadmap for Singapore’s Political Future, p. 43).
Over the years I have asked many fellow Singaporeans about JBJ and what they remember of him. Almost always, the answer appears the same: that he was a fiery oppositionist, but he often got sued until he was bankrupt. They remembered nothing else. They had no memory of any specific thing he said in Parliament. This is unlike another former opposition MP, Chiam See Tong, a mild-mannered person who was not confrontational in his politics. Yet, when it mattered, Mr Chiam rose to the occasion. Many older Singaporeans remember Mr Chiam as being the only MP to rise in the chamber to object to the Speaker when then PAP MP Choo Wee Khiang made a racist joke about Indians in Serangoon Road. In terms of being vocal is concerned, for the relatively low profile, six-term MP Chiam, it was clearly the case of less is more.
More recently, another person entered Parliament with the apparent objective of having an impact on Government thinking. This was Mr Viswa Sadasivan. He had been a Nominated MP. In his very first speech in Parliament in August 2009, Viswa moved a motion,"That this House reaffirms its commitment to the nation building tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge when debating national policies, especially economic policies." Anyone would think that this was fairly innocuous and indeed something that would gain broad popular support. Not so for leading lights within the PAP.
Then Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew rose, saying of the motion and the objectives behind it as espoused by Viswa that it was “dangerous to allow such highfalutin ideas to go undemolished and mislead Singaporeans.” Mr Lee proposed an amendment to the motion, which was passed: “That this House acknowledges the progress that Singapore has made in the 50 years since it attained self-government in 1959, in nation building and achieving the aspirations and tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge, and reaffirms its commitment towards achieving the goals and ideals of our Pledge when debating national policies.”
All politics are about public perceptions, and as public perceptions go, Viswa’s credibility and his subsequent interventions in the House were impacted by the vigorous putdown he suffered. Viswa himself appeared not to have much fight left in him after he disclosed that he had turned down 14 requests from local and foreign media agencies for interviews following his maiden speech in Parliament because as, he said, he did not want his speech “to be incorrectly portrayed or politicised” (Quoted in theonlinecitizen.com, 30 Aug 2009.) . Indeed, most Singaporeans have no recollection of Viswa’s subsequent parliamentary speeches, but they remember his being putdown by Mr Lee. A senior Establishment personality I spoke to about this incident said, “Viswa is a good man, but he made a major tactical blunder. He showed his hand too early.”
Even the PAP fully understands the dynamics of electoral cycles: bring in all unpopular policies within the first two or three years after an election and then bring in the sweeteners in the year before the next election. On the other hand, the tiny opposition adopts an inverse approach, which is to initially consolidate and entrench itself in the constituencies it has newly won and then step up attacks on Government policies as the next election approaches. Does anyone seriously think that the WP’s regular securing of more than 60% of the vote in its Hougang seat is the result of unpopular PAP policies or is it because the WP has sunk deep roots in the constituency that the PAP simply cannot dislodge it from there? To that extent, it is more apt to describe Hougang as a WP seat and not just an opposition seat, as the vote there simply cannot be transferred to any other opposition party.
It seems that the experiences of JBJ and Viswa are not remembered by those advocating a more vocal and confrontational opposition to take on the PAP. Take for instance the SDP’s Dr Vincent Wiyesingha. Within the space of two months he has had to publicly apologise to PAP personalities for making defamatory statements. It is reported that he is still facing a claim for damages that could possibly run into “tens of thousands of dollars” for remarks he had made about Acting Minister Tan Chuan-Jin. All this before Dr Wijeysingha can even get into Parliament.
Let us for one moment engage in a hypothetical situation, where a politician from a liberal leaning party – let us call him Mr Liberal -- who took a strident approach in opposition to the PAP was actually elected to Parliament as the sole member from his party. Mr Liberal rose in the House and gave a robust speech attacking various Government policies. In response, some 20 PAP parliamentarians gave him a verbal clobbering. What would happen next is that ardent supporters of Mr Liberal and his party would hurl criticism at the WP parliamentarians who throughout the exchange sat quietly and looked on balefully.
As I stated in a FB Note on 12 January 2013, “The opposition is not monolithic”. Everyone should get to grips with that reality; it is not that difficult to understand. Indeed, not everyone who is inclined to vote against the PAP has a blind hatred for the PAP. A sizeable proportion of people who vote WP, a centrist party, would be disinclined to vote for a liberal or left leaning party. Only those who take a “my way or the highway” approach to politics would find this reality hard to stomach.
The PAP does not fear a vocal or confrontational oppositionist as that person would most assuredly be given a heavy verbal smack down, or all legal and parliamentary devices would be employed to tie that person into a knot. The cloak of parliamentary immunity does not protect an MP from the consequences of making wild allegations, as JBJ was to find out when he faced Parliament’s Committee of Privileges on more than one occasion.
Some of those who continue to advocate for robust parliamentary opposition to the PAP tend to cling on to the romanticized image of the late JBJ as a solitary individual battling away against the might of the PAP behemoth. I contend that that era is over, irrespective of the outcome of the Punggol East by-election. Instead of vocal parliamentary opposition, what the PAP really fears is potential loss of power. If you have an understanding of the Singaporean electorate in terms of its totality and not just a narrow segment, you will realise that only an opposition party that has positioned itself in the political centre can have any chance of displacing the PAP as a government at some indeterminate point in time.
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).
[/h]
by Derek da Cunha on Thursday, January 24, 2013 at 8:30pm ·
PAP fears loss of power, not vocal parliamentary opposition
By Derek da Cunha
The Workers’ Party has made its presence felt in Parliament even though this is devoid of the sound and fury of a scatter-gun. This, ironically, is insufficient for some online critics who want more robust opposition to the Government so as to hold it to account. This issue of confrontational opposition is one I had actually dealt with as far back as 1997 in my book The Price of Victory: The 1997 Singapore General Election and Beyond. In short, my argument was that confrontational politics simply does not work in Singapore when one party is so overwhelmingly dominant in terms of parliamentary seats.
However, now after 15 years that same issue has arisen again with the Punggol East by-election. Let us therefore re-examine this issue.
The late J.B. Jeyaretnam (JBJ) was known to be very vocal and confrontational in Parliament. He himself said he was confrontational though not offensive. The question arises: was JBJ able to effect changes to Government policy? Another question arises: under JBJ’s stewardship of the WP was he able to expand the opposition’s parliamentary presence on the back of his fiery speeches in Parliament and overall confrontational style? On both counts the answer is in the negative. In fact, faced with JBJ’s stridency the PAP Government simply dug in its heels and refused to concede to changes in policies. In some respects JBJ’s confrontational style was counter-productive to the development of parliamentary democracy, in that the Government felt compelled to construct more and more obstacles in the way of the opposition. This is reflected in what I have described as the current Byzantine-like electoral structure we now have in Singapore (see Breakthrough: Roadmap for Singapore’s Political Future, p. 43).
Over the years I have asked many fellow Singaporeans about JBJ and what they remember of him. Almost always, the answer appears the same: that he was a fiery oppositionist, but he often got sued until he was bankrupt. They remembered nothing else. They had no memory of any specific thing he said in Parliament. This is unlike another former opposition MP, Chiam See Tong, a mild-mannered person who was not confrontational in his politics. Yet, when it mattered, Mr Chiam rose to the occasion. Many older Singaporeans remember Mr Chiam as being the only MP to rise in the chamber to object to the Speaker when then PAP MP Choo Wee Khiang made a racist joke about Indians in Serangoon Road. In terms of being vocal is concerned, for the relatively low profile, six-term MP Chiam, it was clearly the case of less is more.
More recently, another person entered Parliament with the apparent objective of having an impact on Government thinking. This was Mr Viswa Sadasivan. He had been a Nominated MP. In his very first speech in Parliament in August 2009, Viswa moved a motion,"That this House reaffirms its commitment to the nation building tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge when debating national policies, especially economic policies." Anyone would think that this was fairly innocuous and indeed something that would gain broad popular support. Not so for leading lights within the PAP.
Then Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew rose, saying of the motion and the objectives behind it as espoused by Viswa that it was “dangerous to allow such highfalutin ideas to go undemolished and mislead Singaporeans.” Mr Lee proposed an amendment to the motion, which was passed: “That this House acknowledges the progress that Singapore has made in the 50 years since it attained self-government in 1959, in nation building and achieving the aspirations and tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge, and reaffirms its commitment towards achieving the goals and ideals of our Pledge when debating national policies.”
All politics are about public perceptions, and as public perceptions go, Viswa’s credibility and his subsequent interventions in the House were impacted by the vigorous putdown he suffered. Viswa himself appeared not to have much fight left in him after he disclosed that he had turned down 14 requests from local and foreign media agencies for interviews following his maiden speech in Parliament because as, he said, he did not want his speech “to be incorrectly portrayed or politicised” (Quoted in theonlinecitizen.com, 30 Aug 2009.) . Indeed, most Singaporeans have no recollection of Viswa’s subsequent parliamentary speeches, but they remember his being putdown by Mr Lee. A senior Establishment personality I spoke to about this incident said, “Viswa is a good man, but he made a major tactical blunder. He showed his hand too early.”
Even the PAP fully understands the dynamics of electoral cycles: bring in all unpopular policies within the first two or three years after an election and then bring in the sweeteners in the year before the next election. On the other hand, the tiny opposition adopts an inverse approach, which is to initially consolidate and entrench itself in the constituencies it has newly won and then step up attacks on Government policies as the next election approaches. Does anyone seriously think that the WP’s regular securing of more than 60% of the vote in its Hougang seat is the result of unpopular PAP policies or is it because the WP has sunk deep roots in the constituency that the PAP simply cannot dislodge it from there? To that extent, it is more apt to describe Hougang as a WP seat and not just an opposition seat, as the vote there simply cannot be transferred to any other opposition party.
It seems that the experiences of JBJ and Viswa are not remembered by those advocating a more vocal and confrontational opposition to take on the PAP. Take for instance the SDP’s Dr Vincent Wiyesingha. Within the space of two months he has had to publicly apologise to PAP personalities for making defamatory statements. It is reported that he is still facing a claim for damages that could possibly run into “tens of thousands of dollars” for remarks he had made about Acting Minister Tan Chuan-Jin. All this before Dr Wijeysingha can even get into Parliament.
Let us for one moment engage in a hypothetical situation, where a politician from a liberal leaning party – let us call him Mr Liberal -- who took a strident approach in opposition to the PAP was actually elected to Parliament as the sole member from his party. Mr Liberal rose in the House and gave a robust speech attacking various Government policies. In response, some 20 PAP parliamentarians gave him a verbal clobbering. What would happen next is that ardent supporters of Mr Liberal and his party would hurl criticism at the WP parliamentarians who throughout the exchange sat quietly and looked on balefully.
As I stated in a FB Note on 12 January 2013, “The opposition is not monolithic”. Everyone should get to grips with that reality; it is not that difficult to understand. Indeed, not everyone who is inclined to vote against the PAP has a blind hatred for the PAP. A sizeable proportion of people who vote WP, a centrist party, would be disinclined to vote for a liberal or left leaning party. Only those who take a “my way or the highway” approach to politics would find this reality hard to stomach.
The PAP does not fear a vocal or confrontational oppositionist as that person would most assuredly be given a heavy verbal smack down, or all legal and parliamentary devices would be employed to tie that person into a knot. The cloak of parliamentary immunity does not protect an MP from the consequences of making wild allegations, as JBJ was to find out when he faced Parliament’s Committee of Privileges on more than one occasion.
Some of those who continue to advocate for robust parliamentary opposition to the PAP tend to cling on to the romanticized image of the late JBJ as a solitary individual battling away against the might of the PAP behemoth. I contend that that era is over, irrespective of the outcome of the Punggol East by-election. Instead of vocal parliamentary opposition, what the PAP really fears is potential loss of power. If you have an understanding of the Singaporean electorate in terms of its totality and not just a narrow segment, you will realise that only an opposition party that has positioned itself in the political centre can have any chance of displacing the PAP as a government at some indeterminate point in time.
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).
