[h=2]PAP to reclaim Aljunied: ‘A’ for effort, ‘D’ for effectiveness[/h] Posted by
theonlinecitizen on December 10, 2011
33 Comments
by Howard Lee/
This much is obvious: The ruling People’s Action Party is hell-bent on re-claiming Aljunied Group Representative Constituency, which it lost during Singapore’s last general election in May 2011, at the bitter price of two ministers.
In a recent news report, PAP sketched out its renewed plan for the effort, starting with the appointment of retired minister Lim Boon Heng as the leader for the Aljunied GRC push, who will recruit and direct a new slate of party activists in their grassroots efforts, with the eventual view of fielding them as future election candidates. The energies of these candidates will be focused on engaging citizens in policy formulation forums, in the hope of winning their trust and future votes through a renewed consultative process.
But Aljunied GRC, an embarrassing thorn in PAP’s side while the Worker’s Party holds its seats, is merely reputation. The PAP is also cognizant of the greater issue of its declining popularity, which it has pegged to the increase of negative sentiment towards it in social media. Which is why party members, led chiefly by Members of Parliament, has decided to increase efforts on social media platforms. These are to be driven by two key thrusts – similarly, the increase in activities by party activists to crowd-source online for policy directions, and a focus on creating positive spin when policy directions are unavoidably unfavourable, where necessary.
For whatever their reasons, these efforts are a positive reflection of the PAP’s willingness to come to terms candidly with its failures. It should also be commended for bravery, as it is clear that the resources needed to put these proposals into action will be more intensive than their utterance.
The deployment of grassroots leaders as potential candidates for MPs, in particular, deserves a mention. Evidently, much effort has been put into understanding ground gripes, one of which has been the parachuting in of new faces with no grassroots experience to run as MPs.
The cynical among us might either say that this new direction is likely the result of there being no fresh-faced “star candidates” now willing to take up the Aljunied gauntlet, or dismiss it as merely the struggle for power at the grassroots level. Nevertheless, this major deviation from PAP standard operating procedure is note-worthy.
Also, the concept of opening social media channels as a form of policy feedback is a daring move. Just thinking of the resources needed for stringing such comments into a coherent whole boggles the mind, let alone the next steps needed to use them to inform policy decisions, which would likely face internal skepticism about the validity of inputs from the much-criticised “vocal minority that exists online”.
But if PAP scores an ‘A’ for effort, its rating for effectiveness is probably a dismal ‘D’. For some reason, there does not seem to be any thought put into understanding why the opposition parties have gained such momentum in the last election. Too much of the election post mortem seems to be about why the PAP did not win.
Sounds contradictory? Well, the concept is that if you spend too much time naval-gazing, you are basically blind to the winning strategies of your opponents, which could serve as better learning points on how you can do better.
I believe that these latest directions towards what the Prime Minister promised as a “new PAP” still falls short on three counts, for such a party revitalisation to really take place:
- Citizen’s problems still not solved
- No clear direction that represents the PAP brand
- Transparency as the missing cornerstone of engagement
These points are by no means exhaustive, but they might cut through the PAP’s self-delusion, help them understand citizens better and draw closer to what exactly made opposition parties so attractive to nearly 40% of the population.
The first point – outstanding issues from before the elections. No matter what new party structure, election strategy or engagement mantra it comes up with, the PAP will be plagued by the curse of the incumbent. Policies relating to foreign talent and immigration, transport management, high cost of housing, increasing cost of living, flood management, ministerial salaries, ministerial competence and accountability, level playing field for politics… The list goes on.
These problems have not gone away just because the PAP decides to improve its consultation process. In fact, citizens have the right to be indignant, as suggestions have already been made over the years on many a public forum, yet feeble attention paid to resolving them. Who would now participate in these (re)engagement efforts? The writing is already on the wall, go read that first.
By comparison, the opposition parties have taken these citizen gripes early into their election mantra, and for some parties, these views continue to inform their current policy prepositions. You might argue that opposition parties are opportunistic populists, that they only need to propose and challenge, and the tough job rests with the PAP to implement. But the sad truth is that even the policy steps taken by the PAP since May have been little more than token responses which, in my view, have thus far failed to address or resolve the actual problems. The recent tweak to stamp duty for private property purchases, for instance, does not address the housing woes of the 80% who live in public housing.
The second point – a weak PAP brand that pales in comparison to what some opposition parties can muster. Let’s not mince it. When compared to WP’s First World Parliament, PAP’s election pitch sounded like a cheap multi-purpose koyok that has been over-played since 1965.
Citizens are not buying it, not because the PAP unique selling preposition is not trendy or hip. Citizens just cannot assimilate with a concept that is out of touch with their current position and aspirations.
Can WP really deliver a First World Parliament? I don’t know, and I don’t really care, because it offers a political promise, the promise of a stronger citizen voice to the powers that be. (The “I” is figurative, by the way – I don’t stay in Aljunied GRC, nor had the chance to vote for WP.)
But it would also be erroneous to say that opposition parties are all air and no substance. Many have publicised well thought-out election manifestos, and while it is arguable that not all proposals are feasible, a good effort is always appreciated. PAP needs to remember that its own manifesto was high on gloss and intangibles, which left them spending much of their canvassing time on yet more intangibles, like bantering with WP about backseat drivers, rather than tackle policy issues – something that PAP has insisted is their core substance.
And the third point – making transparency the bedrock for all citizen engagement efforts. It is all and well to set up a Facebook page and seek the wisdom of the crowd, but what citizens desire to see is that their inputs have been taken seriously and allowed to inform the views of others, even if the are not eventually factored into policy making. When they make the effort to propose something, on their MP’s page or any other open platform, the last they want to see is their views classified as astroturfing, dismissed as extremist, or simply deleted or ignored.
Take the review of ministerial salaries, for instance. The Singapore Democratic Party and the National Solidarity Party have issued their own proposal and conducted a forum-like discussion, respectively, on the subject. While by no means conclusive nor without their flights of fancy, both efforts demonstrated the willingness of SDP and NSP to be open with their ideas and seek citizen engagement and inputs on the issue.
Gerard Ee, on the other hand, is left in the shadows with his proposal, with hardly a beep since he has been tasked to head the review. If his team has consulted citizens for feedback, the efforts are not demonstrated. In all likelihood and giving the benefit of the doubt, he has done so, but where do we see evidence of this? How are we to believe that this thorny issue has received its fair share of inputs from citizens who have been crying, “it’s about time”?
There is much to learn from the fall/rise of Aljunied, but just focusing on what happened during the elections would only yield partial results. More can be learnt from other political parties, as much as more can be gleaned online.
Citizen policy consultation groups are good, but they must necessarily be open, and must also first be informed by the feedback that currently exists. Edwin Tong, MP for Moulmein-Kallang GRC, ironically hit the nail on the head by saying that the PAP’s “viewpoint change (about online engagement) is very important… because that means it’s a recognition that you can look into what’s on the blogs and websites to get a sense of what the ground sentiment is.”
So, go ahead and do that first! From there, PAP can then formulate policies and a party brand that resonates with an increasingly discerning electorate. Winning back votes is not just about being louder and more prominent online. It is about sincerity and genuine openness.
