TR EMERITUS

Like many observers, I had also underestimated Singaporeans’ (especially younger Singaporeans’) desire for fairness, accountability, and decency in our political system. The results, as many have pointed out, bode well for Singapore. I think we can all be proud of the way we seized the opportunity this GE offered to send a signal on the kind of politics, and the kind of PAP government, we would like to have. The prospect of having a courageous, young, and likeable WP team in Parliament (Leon, Gerald, Jamus, Tingru, Raeesah, and possibly Nicole)—capable of questioning and scrutinising government, demanding accountability and checking potential abuses of power—must have been one of the reasons the WP did well in this GE. (Btw, the WP’s overall vote share in the places it contested was higher than 50 percent.) But we shouldn’t get ahead of ourselves. The PAP is still dominant and fully in control of the levers of power. The results also do not necessarily mark the start of a transition to a fairer, more democratic system. There is nothing inevitable about democratization. Older Singaporeans like me know that we’ve been here before. In 1991, the PAP also performed poorly in the first GE after Goh Chok Tong became PM, winning 61 percent of votes and losing two more seats to the Opposition. PM Goh had gone into that GE promising a kinder, gentler style of government. The PAP’s main response to the 1991 GE results was not to make Sg’s political system more representative, competitive, or diverse. In fact, it did the opposite. For example, GRCs were enlarged from a maximum of 4 seats to 6 seats. Gerrymandering became more blatant; in the following GE in 1997, Marine Parade GRC stretched all the way to Serangoon Gardens. The use of law suits against political opponents, often bankrupting them, became almost routine. Likewise, after the shock of GE2011, the PAP responded with a combination of social policy reforms (this explains Tharman’s popularity) and (especially after 2015) hardball and repressive politics (attacking the WP’s management of the town council, the reserved Presidential election, POFMA, the vilification of political opponents including private citizens, etc.) Nonetheless, I’m hopeful that this time would be different. For one, unlike 2011 when people voted against the PAP because of its lapses on bread-and-butter issues (housing, transport, immigration), I think the signal that (younger) voters care about more than bread-and-butter issues could not be any clearer in this GE. The PAP went into this pandemic elections promising that it would look after our jobs and health—you really can’t get more salient reminders of the PAP’s appeal in terms of reliability and a safe pair of hands. Paradoxically, it was possibly because voters were confident that the PAP would deliver on these issues that they could signal that they wanted more from our political system—that fair process matters as much as good performance. Second, I think voters are coming round to the idea that diversity in our political system and humility in our political elites are virtues. The PAP went into this GE assuming that people would rate its handling of the pandemic as world-class or at least above average. When confronted with criticisms of its pandemic response, it has been prickly and defensive. (A senior 3G minister even haughtily characterised such criticisms as “dyspeptic”.) In short, the PAP probably underestimated the deep undercurrent of discontent and scepticism at the government’s management of the pandemic; it really should not have assumed that people would rush to give it a strong mandate simply because this was a serious crisis. Legitimacy has to be earned. In this GE, enough Singaporeans indicated with their votes that it’s precisely because we’re facing a crisis of historic proportion that we need to tap on a wider array of ideas in society, and that political elites should always remember that they are servants of the people. (I had earlier written a piece on why diversity and humility are the real lessons the Singapore government needs to draw from this pandemic; see link in the comments below.) Beyond the style of governance, I’m also cautiously optimistic that we might just see a substantive change in policies in the next few years. Of course, this initial optimism is justified only if the PAP does the necessary housekeeping to remove, or reduce the influence of, its hardliners and to elevate the role of reformists in the party. This is also why I think the PAP should press on with the transition to its 4G leaders (especially those who did relatively well in this GE, eg. Ong Ye Kung, Lawrence Wong), rather than delay it any longer. (I wrote another piece on the thinking that should inform our policy reforms to deal with a pandemic-disrupted future; see link in my comments below.) For these reasons, I’m hopeful we’d see a better-governed and politically more inclusive Singapore in the years ahead.   * Facebook post by Prof Donald Low.      Read More →

There’s a saying, Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Haven’t Singaporeans been fooled before? Haven’t we seen this movie that we are now witnessing? What makes us think that things would be any different this time around? The People’s Action Party (PAP)’s popular vote share for GE2020, although a significant drop from 2015, is still higher than 2011. The PAP lost a GRC for the first time in 2011 and had to do soul searching. It followed up with some position and policy changes and managed to appease ground sentiment and curtail the tide of resentment and unhappiness. And so in GE2015, the PAP scored a landslide victory in the aftermath of Lee Kuan Yew’s death. The PAP saw this as a resounding endorsement by the people. It could do no wrong. The results of GE2011 were nothing but an aberration, to be consigned to the history books. After the 2015 sweeping electoral success, water prices went up steeply, impending GST hike was announced, foreign influx continued, Parliament passed controversial changes to the elected presidency, the hotly debated online falsehoods Bill (POFMA) was passed. In recent months, handling of the COVID-19 pandemic became a contentious issue and a general election was called despite pleas and advice to hold back. Many call GE2020 a watershed election. GE2011 was also dubbed a watershed election, the PAP losing a GRC for the first time. GE2015 was also called a watershed election, coming in the wake of Lee Kuan Yew’s passing. If we start calling every GE a watershed election, when does it hold significance anymore? For GE2020, the PAP was true to form, conducting its campaign in predictable fashion. Ms Raeesah Khan of Workers Party Raeesah Khan’s past social media posts were whipped up and made a meal of at the height of the hustings. To the PAP, it was an opportunistic strike par for the course. But many of us watched and winced because we had seen it all before, it was trademark gutter politics. As for the calling into question of Dr Chee Soon Juan’s integrity, we have also seen it before. But the use of an analogy involving spousal violence to make a point – that we have not seen, and it made us wince. Fear mongering? It happened. As with every GE, Singaporeans were told they could find the PAP losing power overnight and what’s more, winning alone wasn’t enough, the PAP had to win big otherwise investors would lose confidence. In 2011, late Lee Kuan Yew told Aljunied GRC voters they would “repent” if they voted in the Workers’ Party. For GE2020, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong went to Sengkang GRC and told the voters, “Why settle for PAP-lite? The real thing is much better.” He must have thought it was witty and amusing because he laughed as he said it. The Sengkang voters, as it turned out, rejected “the real thing” in favour of “PAP-lite”, otherwise known as the Workers’ Party. But having asked voters to go for “the real thing” in Sengkang, the PAP repeatedly touted the fact that no matter what happens, there would be 12 opposition NCMPs in Parliament. Guess what, where this is concerned, voters would much rather prefer “the real thing” – electing an MP into Parliament is far superior to having a losing candidate as an NCMP. So when all is said and done, given the results of GE2020, we can expect the PAP to conduct a post-mortem – like it did in 2011. We can expect some fine-tuning, even some position and policy changes. As for a less divisive, more inclusive style of governance, embracing diversity and aspirations of Singaporeans – that, we shall have to see. So it’s not yet time to get swept away on a tide of euphoria. By all means, in the wake of GE2020, let’s look at the glass as half-full. The people have spoken, the rest remains to be seen. The PAP said of Dr Chee Soon Juan during campaigning: “a leopard does not change its spots.” The best we could hope for is for the PAP to prove that a leopard can indeed change its spots.   Augustine Low      Read More →

For decades, many Singaporeans have suffered and struggled against the seemingly unbeatable Goliath – the People’s Action Party (PAP). We seethed at the way they messed with our Constitution and rammed through undemocratic repressive laws like POFMA (Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act). We shed tears reading how they gunned down vocal critics and destroyed the reputation and lives of opposition leaders like Workers Party (WP)’s JB Jeyaratnam, Tang Liang Hong and  Singapore Democratic Party (SDP)’s Chee Soon Juan. We were hurt and insulted by how they disrespected Singaporeans with their arrogant words and dismissive actions which made our people feel like second class citizens. After the disappointing General Election (GE) 2015 where the PAP won almost 70% of the votes, many hopeful Singaporeans became despondent and frustrated as the PAP-ruling party tightened its control over us and accelerated its toxic brand of politics with the help its increasingly aggressive Internet Brigade (IBs). The sense of hopelessness grew with the implementation of laws like POFMA, which purportedly is to fight fake online news but which in reality has been weaponised by the government. The light at the end of the tunnel was dimming and some voices went silent. This 2020 election changed it all and has brought a rebirth of hope GE2020’s results on July 11 brought immense joyous relief to many people. The sheer happiness and loud crazy cheers that rang loud in the streets of Hougang and Sengkang at dawn reverberated across the island. Indeed, we have much to celebrate. This was the second general election where all seats were contested since our country’s independence. That is significant. For many years, there were walkovers due partly to pork barrel politics and gerrymandering and many of us could not vote. Some only got to vote when they were middle aged! How galling! Hopefully, walkovers will never again happen here and all of us can exercise our right to vote including more than 200,000 overseas Singaporeans most of whom were upset at being unable to vote as there are only 10 polling centres worldwide. A key milestone to note at this GE2020 is that PAP’s share of the votes dropped in most of the constituencies except for a handful. And its overall vote share fell from the whopping 69.9% in 2015 GE to 61.2%! Contrary to general impression that the PAP is hugely popular, the party’s vote share at every election has actually been dropping since 2001 when it scored 75.1%. It plunged to 66.6% in 2006 and to 60.1% in 2011 before being bumped in 2015 when the PAP used Lee Kuan Yew’s death and legacy to manipulate public sentiments. So what do the latest GE results mean? That it fell again in line with the downward trend shows the underlying unhappiness with PAP is still there and that there is growing widespread concerns over the PAP’s elitist and arrogant style of governing, its brand of gutter politics, its self-serving agendas and certain policies that do not really improve the lives and future of Singaporeans. SCMP’s report yesterday quoted NUS political scientist Chong Ja Ian as attributing PAP’s marked drop in vote share to “less satisfaction with how the PAP has been handling policies from the economy to the coronavirus pandemic” Bridget Welsh, a honorary research associate at Malaysia’s University of Nottinghand was more blunt and said “in the Singapore context, this is a defeat (for the PAP)…(it’s the) worst seat performance and loss of popular vote”. This election’s victories, seemingly small, are in reality significant achievements. WP, led by an astute Pritam Singh, gained much admiration for outplaying and outwitting the PAP and he significantly bolstered the image of the party which had taken a beating in recent years no thanks to the lawsuits instigated by the ruling party over Aljunied GRC. WP won three constituencies and 10 Parliamentary seats, the most ever by WP. This was despite fielding several younger candidates like economist Jamus Lim and lawyer He Ting Ru against PAP’s political office holders including two ministers in Sengkang GRC. WP’s East Coast GRC group led by Nicole Seah lost but dealt an embarrassing blow to the group led by PM-designate Heng Swee Keat which won with a paltry 53.4% of total votes casted. WP’s handsome wins in Aljunied GRC and Hougang were impressive in view of all the allegations and lawsuits thrown by the ruling party at WP over the past few years which led many to assume that voters there would not root for the team in blue again. Instead, WP gained a 9-point vote share from to almost 60% in Aljunied GRC, a testament to the wisdom of voters there. Concerns over WP stalwarts Low Thia Khiang, Chen Show Mao and Png Eng Huat not contesting, proved unfounded. Hougang SMC, long our beacon of hope, also gained vote share with a strong 61.1% win by Dennis Tan. WP’s chief Pritam Singh proved to be an astute politician in planning the party’s success at this election. Fielding younger, smart and eloquent candidates like economist Jamus Lim in Sengkang GRC and Nicole Seah in East Coast was a master stroke that resonated well with young and old voters. Sengkang GRC’s win by a group of relatively young but outstanding WP candidates, was the real surprise of the night. Thousands of households in Sengkang cheered loudly in the wee hours when the result was announced. Hundreds of thousands more across the island cheered along with them, ecstatic as we were over this huge achievement. The seemingly impenetrable GRC system had been cracked again by the Hammer and by many young families living there. While we were disappointed that Progress Singapore Party led by well-respected Dr Tan Cheng Bock did not manage to win a seat, take heart that PSP as a new party managed to do very well in its first election, within a very short time frame, with vote share averaging about 40% for all the GRCs where it contested. Dr Tan’s team in West Coast also lost by a mere whisker with 48.3% of the votes. PSP will also be offered two NCMP seats in Parliament thus further cementing their presence as a credible political party. Eighty-year-old Dr Tan’s poignant and heartfelt messages calling for political changes to improve the lives and future of Singaporeans and his criticisms of bad government policies have also raised extensive awareness and touched the hearts of many people both young and old. Left- Dr Tan Cheng Bock formed PSP to try and right the wrongs he felt were causing unhappiness to Singaporeans. Right – SDP’s Dr Paul Tambyah is the first Singaporean appointed President-elect of the US-based International Society of Infectious Diseases. As for SDP which did not manage to win a seat, it shows it is a party to be reckoned with. The vote share of its two star candidates increased despite the PAP wielding the POFMA sword and casting aspersions yet again at them and their party. Dr Paul Tambyah, an infectious diseases specialist, scored 46.26% – the highest losing opposition candidate among all the SMCs. SDP chief Chee Soon Juan similarly saw a significant 6.4 per cent increase in his votes to 45.2%. All this shows that voters approval of SDP and Chee have gone up and that they stand a good chance of doing even better at the next elections. We need to remember that this victory of this GE2020 is thanks greatly to the tireless efforts of all the alternative party leaders, candidates, members and their armies of passionate volunteers. With so many credible and capable candidates contesting all wards and walking the ground all over the island they were able to enlighten countless Singaporeans that there are many non-PAP people with the ability and the heart to represent us in Parliament. Such a united effort on the ground and online would have made a substantial positive impact on voters. For sure, PAP, even in its worst nightmare, could not have imagined that its plan to hold an election during a pandemic, without election rallies, using only digital platforms, could have backfired so badly. For a long time, many had lamented about the political ignorance and apathy of our people especially the youths who grew up amidst a culture of fear and propaganda in social studies. There was speculation that at this election, the opposition would be wiped out as many would vote for the PAP out of fear of the uncertainties caused by the pandemic and a desire for stability by trusting in the devil they knew best. We were gladly proven wrong. This GE2020 showed us that in reality there are many Singaporeans who are discerning, not cowed by fear and who are willing to speak up and vote for positive change. No physical rallies so what? The winds of change was palpable even on digital platforms. Elections news and messages were shared fast and furious, commentaries and posts drew immeasurable number of comments and robust debates on handphones, on computers on iPads, etc etc. We have globalisation and social media to thank for this change. Better educated, more aware, more woke, the millennials, together with likeminded older Singaporeans, will reshape the political landscape and policies to be more human-centric and Singaporean-centric. Being more sensitive to social issues like fairness and inequality, many will no longer be easily fooled nor intimated should the PAP remain unrepentant and continue to mislead, bully and misuse its power. Like many older voters, the millennials are not blind to injustice nor incompetence. The PAP’s increasing incompetence weighed heavy on many of us. Trust has to be earned and not demanded. Past performance is no guarantee of success. Trust in PAP 3G and 4G leaders was justifiably withered as we saw how the economic policies were hurting many Singaporeans who struggle to cope with the high cost of living, the rising healthcare costs and the ignominy of having to compete so damn hard for good jobs against the overwhelming number of foreigners here. This election, held during a pandemic, also made us question the PAP’s agenda and competence even more when we saw over two million Singaporeans queuing under the hot sun and in crowded polling centres to cast their vote. It defied reason to endanger lives just so the PAP could gain a strong mandate. Long queues formed at most polling centres leading to an unprecedented extension of polling by two more hours All the feelings of anger, betrayal and disappointments…and hope went into the X we marked on the ballot paper on 10 July 2020. The saying united we stand rings true. After so many decades of trying to make our voices heard it seems that our message is finally starting to get through – through our votes. Speaking yesterday after the polling results, PM Lee Hsien Loong acknowledged that the election results show a clear desire for a diversity of voices in Parliament. In a surprise move, he said WP chief Pritam Singh will be formally appointed Leader of the Opposition and will be given the staff support and resources to carry out this role. Through our votes, we have spoken and we have finally been heard. The road to real change is a long and arduous one but we need to find our rightful place as Singaporeans again. We need to make Singapore truly our happy home again. We can do this by being united in speaking up without fear and doing right by our conscience. We can do it and we will get there.   Jentrified Citizen * The writer blogs at Jentrified Citizen. ** More articles by the same writer on TRE.      Read More →