Netizens should focus on the 1990s, not the 1960s

[PoliticalDialogue]

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

 

[zhihau]

Why not start looking at our history after JBJ won Anson in the by-election?

 

[PoliticalDialogue]

Where one is talking in terms of important lessons to be learnt, then it would be equally valid if Singapore's political history were to start from the 1980s (although the 1991 GE is equally valid as a starting point). JBJ's victory in the 1981 Anson by-election is important, but the 1984 GE was even more important.

In GE1984, JBJ was re-elected and Chiam See Tong was first elected to Parliament. But I draw significance in the difference in the percentage votes garnered by each. In Anson, JBJ secured 56.81% of the vote; whereas in Potong Pasir, CST got 60.28%. How is it that CST could chalk-up a hefty percentage as a first-time elected MP and well ahead of JBJ in Anson? I put it down to this one fact which I have been consistent in all my writings: voters tend to dislike too much confrontational politics or politics that is heavily personalised.

During the 1984 campaign LKY launched a personal attack on CST by comparing his average 'O' level results to Mah Bow Tan's 6 distinctions. Many voters in PP were turned off by this attack which was widely viewed as unfair and unnecessary. A segment of voters (middle ground voters) will always decide whether an attack is fair or not, and act on it accordingly. If opposition politicians (or political activists) make the mistake of being too confrontational and personalise politics too much then they will draw heavy fire from the PAP, and many voters will simply nod their heads in agreement, saying that the opposition politicians (and activists) asked for it.

On the other hand, if the PAP makes the mistake of launching a personal attack on an opposition politician who has all the while not engaged in personal attacks, then voters will penalise the PAP. This was further compounded in the instance of CST where most voters can relate to average O level results, hence the spectacular 60%+ vote for a first-time elected MP. These are the real lessons which I arrive at based purely on empirical evidence.

 

[zhihau]

Thank you for reinforcing my point

 

[PoliticalDialogue]

The key lesson of this relatively recent Singapore political history of 20-25 years is that the Singapore electorate is heavily socially and politically conservative. (However, you will not get that feeling in the online world which is simply a gathering place for all the very hardcore anti-PAP elements who are anything other than "conservative".) Therefore, Teo Soh Lung's recent lamentation that no opposition party speaks up for civil society activists who get in trouble is somewhat misplaced. Her quarrel is really with the bulk of the electorate who are socially and politically conservative; it is not with the opposition parties.

 

[zhihau]

Her quarrel is really with the bulk of the electorate who are socially and politically conservative; it is not with the opposition parties.

The tides turned after the fall of Aljunied, much as the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East TC were flagged as red in TC management, the electorate isn't blind to see that things are running relatively smoothly.
Looking at JC-SMC, EC-GRC and perhaps MP-GRC... Lee Hsien Loong is very welcomed to stand in there to be elected in the next GE

 

[SockPuppet]

The key lesson of this relatively recent Singapore political history of 20-25 years is that the Singapore electorate is heavily socially and politically conservative. (However, you will not get that feeling in the online world which is simply a gathering place for all the very hardcore anti-PAP elements who are anything other than "conservative".) Therefore, Teo Soh Lung's recent lamentation that no opposition party speaks up for civil society activists who get in trouble is somewhat misplaced. Her quarrel is really with the bulk of the electorate who are socially and politically conservative; it is not with the opposition parties.

Perhaps the lesser parties should just let WP take on the PAP given the fact that it will be very unlikely for any of them to break through.

 

[PoliticalDialogue]

Perhaps the lesser parties should just let WP take on the PAP given the fact that it will be very unlikely for any of them to break through.

In the upcoming GE the contest is clearly between PAP & WP. The other parties (and personalities) have effectively been sidelined but they are not going to disappear quietly.

Not putting up robust opposition to the PAP or speaking up for activists (as Teo Soh Lung had lamented) is only part of the problem some hardcore anti-PAP elements have with WP. The other problem is that they want WP to help them get elected. This is of course a bizarre idea, but it is an idea these hardcore anti-PAP elements habour because they only think in terms of PAP and Opposition, as though opposition in Singapore is monolithic. The opposition is not monolithic.

There is a specific reason why there are half-a-dozen opposition parties -- the reason is that they are different from each other in terms of personalities (temperament), approach, and even policies. That said, I still think that WP might be able to work quietly in some way with Mrs Chiam and her SPP, and to some extent with Jeanette Chong-Aruldoss and NSP. But for NSP it would have to grasp electoral realities by giving ground to WP in exchange for something in return. Cutting deals on the quiet with 1 or 2 parties (and personalities) you can work with is not out of the question. But there are clearly limits to cooperation, with some other parties one would not wish to touch.

 

[tanwahp]

In the upcoming GE the contest is clearly between PAP & WP. The other parties (and personalities) have effectively been sidelined but they are not going to disappear quietly.

It is inevitable that the political system will be dominated by 2 parties, especially the way the Singapore system has been tweaked further to enhance this.

As long as there is a one-party dominant result, the second will arise. We had the Barisan, then SDP, then WP. People want a choice, but the third choice will find difficulty in rising, esp with the Singapore tweaks. That is why it still preferred that when we have 2 major parties, the electoral system should allow the 3rd party to thrive.

The UK system which inherited from the British did not have the tweaks by the PAP. That is why they have the Liberals.

What Singapore should do when there are 2 major parties is to abolish GRCs so that 3rd party is not at risk of losing seats and deposits at a bigger scale. Also, the threshold for keeping deposit should be reduced from 12.5% to 3%.

 

[Belgarath]

Focussing on the 1990s is depressing. Why? Because that was an era when Singaporeans were fully castrated in a political sense. People had surrendered their political rights in exchange for a false sense of economic security promised by the PAP. The SDP had fucked up spectacularly and its gross missteps cast a dark shadow over all opposition for the rest of the decade. Save Cheng San, nobody dared to dream about change. The high hopes of 1991 had been quickly turned into disappointment, frustration.

Then in 2001, we gave PAP 75% of the votes. Entrenching one party rule for at least another 20 years.

 

[3_M]

What Singapore should do when there are 2 major parties is to abolish GRCs so that 3rd party is not at risk of losing seats and deposits at a bigger scale. Also, the threshold for keeping deposit should be reduced from 12.5% to 3%.

Anything to lower the bar or reduce deposit amount is going to encourage more 3cf which will inevitably benefit PAP. I don't rule out this possibility.

 

[zhihau]

Anything to lower the bar or reduce deposit amount is going to encourage more 3cf which will inevitably benefit PAP. I don't rule out this possibility.

I'm pretty sure Desperate Lim would have very deep pockets :p:p:p

 

[3_M]

I still think that WP might be able to work quietly in some way with Mrs Chiam and her SPP, and to some extent with Jeanette Chong-Aruldoss and NSP. But for NSP it would have to grasp electoral realities by giving ground to WP in exchange for something in return. Cutting deals on the quiet with 1 or 2 parties (and personalities) you can work with is not out of the question. But there are clearly limits to cooperation, with some other parties one would not wish to touch.

I will be surprised if it didn't happen for I do see there is an convergence of interests for WP and nsp to strike a deal to avoid 3cf.

For WP, it affects their chances especially if the winning margin is razor thin.

Secondly if WP wants to expand into pasir ris ponggol GRC, it best to aviod making 2 enemies at one go.

Thirdly pap is consolidating around aljunied GRC to prevent a breakthrough. It will be good if other opposition like nsp can relieve some pressure off WP by putting up a good fight elsewhere and the only way is for nsp to focus their resources there.

For nsp, it better to consolidate in one region than to stretch the resources thin by contesting island wide.

Secondly In a 3cf with WP, they will likely lose their deposit..hardly a sensible thing to do for an opposition with limited resources.

And from a tactical point of view, coming out with a last minute deal (at least it appears so) will give PAP which expects 3cf a rude surprise.

 

[tanwahp]

Anything to lower the bar or reduce deposit amount is going to encourage more 3cf which will inevitably benefit PAP. I don't rule out this possibility.

I said that this should happen when there are 2 parties, meaning these 2 parties are about equal.

The 3rd party won't necessarily pull votes away from Party 2, it can also pull votes away from PAP. That may be better because without Party 3, Constituency A goes to PAP and Constituency B goes to Party 2 but with Party 3, Constituency A may go to Party 2 and Constituency B to PAP because there is a favourite choice for non-PAP and non-Party 2. Party 3 can even defeat PAP and Party 2 and win about 5 to 10 seats on its own.

Anyway, this can't happen now even if Party 2 right now (WP) wants to because it has too few seats to push for change and of course we know the PAP won't want it. (Actually, the PAP is kind of dumb because it should do it now to dilute the opposition vote as well as to showcase "democracy".)

 

[tanwahp]

I will be surprised if it didn't happen for I do see there is an convergence of interests for WP and nsp to strike a deal to avoid 3cf.

No, I think WP and NSP will clash the most since they both have interests in the east. WP and SDP is supposed to clash the least since one in east one mainly in west, unless SDP decides to do flag-planting in others last-contested wards again.

PD is right that the only opposition party that can get unconditional leeway (provided not too unreasonable) with WP is SPP, due to close relations in parliament, WP leaders respect for Chiam and SPP's exceptional support for WP many a time (eg in Hougang and Punggol East).

 

[3_M]

I said that this should happen when there are 2 parties, meaning these 2 parties are about equal.

The 3rd party won't necessarily pull votes away from Party 2, it can also pull votes away from PAP. That may be better because without Party 3, Constituency A goes to PAP and Constituency B goes to Party 2 but with Party 3, Constituency A may go to Party 2 and Constituency B to PAP because there is a favourite choice for non-PAP and non-Party 2. Party 3 can even defeat PAP and Party 2 and win about 5 to 10 seats on its own.

Anyway, this can't happen now even if Party 2 right now (WP) wants to because it has too few seats to push for change and of course we know the PAP won't want it. (Actually, the PAP is kind of dumb because it should do it now to dilute the opposition vote as well as to showcase "democracy".)

Unless PAP splits, dont think this scenario is possible in our context. Voters who will support party 3 are those who have likely fallen through the cracks of 2-party politics and they are usually the minority of minority. Hence I don't think there is much room for Multi party system other than a 2 party system here.

 

[winnipegjets]

What is confrontational politics?

If Opposition parties do not confront the policies of the PAP, then there is no need for them.

Come 2016, the Opposition parties should go on negative campaigning. Let the ground know how the PAP has screwed up their lives ...the people will be able to relate to that. When the people experience the failures of the PAP, they will vote for their self interest and cast the vote for the opposition.

 

[PoliticalDialogue]

It is inevitable that the political system will be dominated by 2 parties, especially the way the Singapore system has been tweaked further to enhance this.

As long as there is a one-party dominant result, the second will arise. We had the Barisan, then SDP, then WP. People want a choice, but the third choice will find difficulty in rising, esp with the Singapore tweaks. That is why it still preferred that when we have 2 major parties, the electoral system should allow the 3rd party to thrive.

The UK system which inherited from the British did not have the tweaks by the PAP. That is why they have the Liberals.

What Singapore should do when there are 2 major parties is to abolish GRCs so that 3rd party is not at risk of losing seats and deposits at a bigger scale. Also, the threshold for keeping deposit should be reduced from 12.5% to 3%.

In the UK, the threshold for retaining the election deposit for parliamentary elections has fallen over the years. Today it is 5%. Even then many candidates cannot retain their deposits as 5 and 6 candidate contests are very common. In fact in a by-election on the 20th of this month 13 candidates will be vying for the seat of Rochester and Strood. I have generally long been an advocate for multi-cornered fights in Singapore elections. As Punggol East showed, this need not be to the benefit of the incumbent party.

 

[PoliticalDialogue]

Focussing on the 1990s is depressing. Why? Because that was an era when Singaporeans were fully castrated in a political sense. People had surrendered their political rights in exchange for a false sense of economic security promised by the PAP. The SDP had fucked up spectacularly and its gross missteps cast a dark shadow over all opposition for the rest of the decade. Save Cheng San, nobody dared to dream about change. The high hopes of 1991 had been quickly turned into disappointment, frustration.

Then in 2001, we gave PAP 75% of the votes. Entrenching one party rule for at least another 20 years.

The focus on the 1990s is to highlight the mistakes that were made then and to ensure others learn some lessons. However, judging by the actions of some civil society activists, it seems that either they are unaware of that recent history or they do not wish to learn anything from it.

 

[Belgarath]

Anything to lower the bar or reduce deposit amount is going to encourage more 3cf which will inevitably benefit PAP. I don't rule out this possibility.

They allowed one person who clearly did not meet the eligibility criteria to run for President in 2012. I'm sure lowering deposit is already on their sights. They can then claim that they have listened to the people and score points for themselves. Double win.