Singapore

Chinese leaders afraid of losing control: LKY

I would encourage my fellow citizens who have a heart for people and a passion to bring change for the better to Singapore, to count the costs, and then step out and be counted. If more of us step out and live out our passions in life, it is really the ruling party which has to fear losing the control they have over Singaporeans.

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew gave an interview with Charlie Rose, which was broadcast on Bloomberg Television on October 22^nd. The interview covered mainly the rise of China and India, and their relationship with the US.

While the discussion hardly touched on domestic Singapore politics, Mr Lee did reveal some of his thinking which has undoubtedly shaped the actions of the Singapore government.

Charlie Rose had asked how communications, technology and the flow of information will impact China. Mr Lee said that the Chinese leaders were “watching the Internet very carefully” and paying attention to what people think.

Continue reading “Chinese leaders afraid of losing control: LKY”

WP rebuts Minister on lift upgrading

This shows the respect the government has for the people’s choice of Member of Parliament, who is vested with the Constitutional mandate to represent the constituency.

The Workers’ Party’s rebuttal published in the Straits Times today.

————–

I refer to the reply from the Minister for National Development’s Press Secretary on Tuesday entitled: “Ministry: MP Low wrong on lift upgrading”. I am responding to it as Mr Low Thia Khiang is currently out of town.

MND states that HDB’s letter published last Friday “should be read in conjunction with” the Minister’s earlier explanations to the media. This impliedly acknowledges that the reason given by HDB to Mr Muhd Yusuf Osman, who had pointedly asked why protocol seemed to be ignored when HDB worked with the unelected candidates in opposition wards to announce LUP plans rather than with the elected MPs, does not stand up to scrutiny.
It is not disputed that the LUP is a government programme. After all, it is to rectify a design flaw in public housing which does not cater for an ageing society. Given this imperative, the public interest should trump politics.

Mr Low’s letter was not about wanting credit for the programme. He has stated that he is prepared to work with the government’s appointees for the benefit of his constituents, and indeed has met the grassroots advisor several times over many months to give input on the LUP plans for Hougang.

It was HDB’s unjustifiable answer to Mr Yusuf – that the grassroots advisor was more appropriate than the MP to announce the LUP plans because he was able to gather residents’ input and marshal support for the plans – which compelled Mr Low’s response. HDB should have just given the real reason in its letter and not beat around the bush.

MND’s letter goes further to state that the LUP is funded from budget surpluses which Opposition MPs are not responsible for generating. However, the budget surpluses are hardly the effort of the government alone, as they include significant contributions from the public through taxes, levies and stamp fees, which the government simply reaps.

Finally, MND also appears to interpret the General Elections as an event where the only outcome which matters is who forms the government. This shows the respect the government has for the people’s choice of Member of Parliament, who is vested with the Constitutional mandate to represent the constituency.

SYLVIA LIM (Ms)
CHAIRMAN,
WORKERS’ PARTY

Mah to Low: Stay within your sandbox

The Minister for National Development has basically told Low Thia Khiang to stay within the confines of his town council and stop trying to manage the Lift Upgrading Programme.

In what is probably one of his most insulting and condescending statements to date, the Minister for National Development, though his taxpayer-funded press secretary, has basically told Opposition leader and Hougang MP Low Thia Khiang to stay within the confines of his town council and stop trying to manage the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP), period.

Here are excerpts of what the press secretary to the Minister wrote in his Straits Times Forum letter today:

Continue reading “Mah to Low: Stay within your sandbox”

How PAP uses taxpayer-funded grassroots for political gain

Not many Singaporeans are aware of how much the taxpayer-funded grassroots have been used by the PAP for political gain.

Last week, Mr Eric Low and Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, the PAP MP-aspirants who lost to Workers’ Party’s Low Thia Khiang and SDA’s Chiam See Tong respectively in the last election, grabbed the limelight for themselves by announcing HDB’s decision to upgrade lifts in Potong Pasir and Hougang.

I had written an article questioning why HDB had informed the losing candidates in opposition wards of the upgrading plans.

A Straits Times forum letter writer, Mr Muhammad Yusuf Osman, said it best when he called for the mandate that the residents gave to the elected MPs to be respected. He asked: “Under what authority did both Mr (Eric) Low and Mr Sitoh (Yih Pin) act as advisers to the grassroots organisations, given that the People’s Association is a government statutory board and should work with the elected MPs of the constituencies?”

In response, HDB and People’s Association replied that “it is the Government’s practice to implement its national programmes for residents through advisers to grassroots organisations who are appointed by the Government to gather feedback from residents.”

They forgot to mention that these “advisers” are always PAP men, whether or not they won the election.

Not many Singaporeans are aware of how much the taxpayer-funded grassroots have been used by the PAP for political gain.

Here’s a quick run down:

Continue reading “How PAP uses taxpayer-funded grassroots for political gain”

Do your part to help disaster victims in Asia

We in Singapore are so fortunate to be shielded from all these calamities. Who says we have no natural resources? Our prized geographical position surrounded by calm seas and huge land masses is a natural resource in itself, that has contributed immensely to our economic development.

It is so heartbreaking to read about all the victims of natural disasters in the Philippines, Indonesia, India, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Samoa all in the past one week. I can’t remember a week when so many disasters hit Asia at one go.

According to charity World Vision, 24.8 million people have been affected by floods in Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and India, and the earthquakes in Sumatra, Indonesia.

To him whom much is given, much is also required. Let’s open up our hearts and our wallets to help our neighbours and fellow Asians.

Here’s what’s being done by just World Vision alone, and how you can help. I particularly appreciate the innovation of Child-Friendly Spaces that they have set up in Sumatra:

(From an email I received from World Vision)

Typhoon Ketsana and Typhoon Parma

Countries affected: Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.
Number of people affected: 3.9 million
Urgent need: US$2.65 million

World Vision Philippines has distributed relief goods to 15,670 people. Food items distributed include: 25 kilogram of rice, one packet of crackers, one packet of cheese cake bread, five litres of purified water, six packs of noodles, one kilogram of dried fish, one packet of coffee, one packet of sugar, 500 grams of iodised salt, one litre of cooking oil, four cans of corned beef, two cans of canned meat and five cans of sardines. Non-food items include two packets of sanitary napkins, three pieces of bath soaps, 2 sets of clothing, one mosquito net, one blanket, one plastic mat, one aluminium pot for cooking and 1 ladle for each family.

World Vision Philippines will provide assistance to 20,000 families, totalling 100,000 people in inaccessible areas in Marikina, Pasig, Cainta, and areas in Rizal province. Essential health services, food, water and other relief goods such as blankets and mats, as well as psychosocial support to about 800 affected children will continue to be provided over the next three months. Ongoing relief distributions and assessments are still being done to reach severely hit areas that have yet to receive aid.

For Typhoon Parma, World Vision Philippines is carrying out relief efforts in Zambales, Isabela and Cagayen. To date, more than 18,000 people have received relief packs and World Vision humanitarian relief experts are assessing the needs of the affected families.

World Vision Vietnam has distributed about US$30,000 worth of relief goods comprising rice, noodles, life vest, raincoats, torches and water. About 50,000 people will benefit from this initial response. World Vision Vietnam is also working alongside the government, UN agencies and other international NGOs to meet pressing needs such as food aid and shelter in the hardest hit provinces. In the longer term, World Vision Vietnam aims to help the affected children and families regain normalcy in their lives by helping them rebuild their livelihoods, and will incorporate plans to ensure that school children in affected project areas will receive continuity in their schooling as well.

World Vision Laos has distributed relief supplies such as food, water, candles, lighters and water purification tablets for some 2,755 families in 25 villages in Sepone district. World Vision aims to rebuild livelihoods by providing the affected communities with rice, seeds and livestock, in replacement of their loss. World Vision also plans to rebuild houses, set up rice banks and provide revolving loans.

To help them rebuild their lives, please click here

West Sumatra Quake

Areas affected: Padang and Padang Pariaman, Indonesia
Number of people affected: 600,000
Urgent need: US$2 million

About 60,000 people will benefit from World Vision’s relief efforts. World Vision Indonesia distributed 8,000 family kits and 4,250 children kits. These kits include items such as tarpaulins, sleeping mats, blankets, sarongs, sanitary napkins, toothbrushes and soap.

In Padang, World Vision delivered 2,000 collapsible water containers and 1,022 water containers while in Bungus Timor, World Vision has distributed 1,000 family kits and 2,000 water kits. World Vision will be sending another 16,000 water containers to Padang in the next few days.

Children are especially vulnerable psychologically to disasters, it is thus very important to give children a safe place where they can play, to provide them with sense of stability, routine, normalcy, to get them with their friends and away from the distress all around them. World Vision Indonesia will set up 13 Child-Friendly Spaces (4 in Padang and 9 in Pariaman) that will benefit some 1,953 children. Child-Friendly Spaces are designed to provide psychosocial support to children after a disaster or conflict.

To help them rebuild their lives, please click here

India Floods

Severely-affected areas: Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh
Number of people affected: 17.8 million in Karnataka, 2.5 million in Andhra Pradesh.
Urgent need: US$2 million

Floods in southern India have left 1.5 million homeless, 200 dead, and more than 200,000 homes destroyed. As a result, millions of farmers are suffering from failed harvests or crops destroyed by floodwaters. Massive food shortages resulting from flooding and drought are now impacting hundreds of millions of India’s civilians and setting back ongoing humanitarian work by years. World Vision India targets to meet the immediate needs of 180,000 flood survivors who have been driven from their homes into relief camps.

Mehboobnagar, Andhra Pradesh: World Vision India has distributed family packs consisting of tarpaulins, mosquito nets, buckets, plates, mugs, towels and bed sheets to 500 families. Some 3,000 families will be receiving food supplies including rice, lentils and oil in the next few days.

Premadhara, Andhra Pradesh: World Vision India distributed cooked food including rice, lentil curry and vegetables to 3,700 people.

Bijapur, Karnataka: World Vision India has distributed emergency food and non-food items for 185 families, and aims to distribute relief supplies to 2,600 families by Oct 9. Currently, many people are getting clean water from the reservoir that World Vision built through its Area Development Programme in previous years.

To help them rebuild their lives, please click here

—–

NOTE: I am not employed by World Vision, neither is this blog post requested by them nor endorsed by them. I prefer donating to World Vision because I find they are one of the most well organised and well run relief agencies operating in our region.

New NMP appointments

The new Nominated MP appointments are out:

Mr Calvin Cheng Ern Lee, entrepreneur
Mr Terry Lee Kok Hua, president, Singapore Insurance Employees’ Union
Mrs Mildred Tan-Sim Beng Mei, managing director, Ernst and Young
Assoc Prof Paulin Tay Straughan, NUS sociologist
Mr Teo Siong Seng, chairman, Singapore Maritime Foundation
Mr Viswaroopan s/o Sadasivan, CEO, Strategic Moves
Mr Laurence Wee Yoke Thong, executive director, Presbyterian Community Services
Ms Audrey Wong Wai Yen, artistic co-director, The Substation
Ms Joscelin Yeo Wei Ling, former national swimmer

I’m glad that Mr Viswa Sadasivan was selected, my opposition to the NMP scheme notwithstanding. Viswa is a very insightful and frank political commentator, although he has not be quoted in the press much the last few years. I attended a very enlightening off-the-cuff talk by him last year, where he commented that there is a “crisis of leadership” in our nation. I blogged about it on TOC (with his permission). If he doesn’t pull his punches, and speaks what he really thinks, I think he will make a good contribution to the discourse in Parliament.

Continue reading “New NMP appointments”

Ditch Earth Hour…Why not Earth Lifetime?

I did not participate in Earth Hour. Well I couldn’t because I was still on the way home at 8.30pm tonight. But I did see quite a few buildings like SMU switching off their lights at 8.30 sharp.

Even if I was at home, I would not have turned off my lights. To all the treehuggers out there, I’m sorry but I think this Earth Hour is quite a load of rubbish. The amount of time, resources and energy it took to come out with all the marketing material would surely exceed any savings from the few people turning off their lights for that one hour. It’s ironic that the bus stop ads for Earth Hour remained lighted up throughout those magical 60 minutes.

Its symbolic, yes everyone agrees on that. But beyond the symbolism, I feel that it makes participants feel they are doing something great for the environment for just that one hour, before returning to their normal, wasteful ways.

I have a few practical and achievable suggestions for people who really want to save the Earth:

1. Sell your car, or don’t get one. Take public transport.

2. Only very occasionally sleep with aircon. Train your kids to sleep without aircon.

3. Limit your TV time to max 1 hr a day.

4. Change all the lightbulbs in your home to energy saving ones.

5. Seldom print anything, and if you do, print double-sided, two pages per side or use recycled paper.

How many Earth Hour participants do all of the above? I do. I’d like to challenge all Earth Hour participants to do the same. I’m sure there are many more ways that we can reduce consumption without too much inconvenience to ourselves.

In fact, one particularly wasteful and environmentally unfriendly policy of the Government which flies in the face of Earth Hour is the Urban Redevelopment Authority’s (URA) Lighting Masterplan. Introduced in 2006, the Lighting Masterplan asks building owners to turn on the lights in their buildings at night to beautify the city, as well as design lighting on their roofs to make their buildings more attractive. Choong Yong has written more about this and I shall not repeat what he said. Needless to say I agree with his points. Personally I would find a darkened city that allows me to see the natural lights of the stars much more beautiful.

AIMS report shows the way forward

The government-appointed Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS) released its long awaited report this morning.

Firstly, I would like to publicly commend Mr Cheong Yip Seng, the AIMS committee and its secretariat for a very well-researched, well-thought through and balanced report, and for the very consultative approach they had taken throughout the past 18-months.

When I first heard about AIMS when it was first launched, I thought to myself, “That’s it, now the government is going to use this committee to justify their clamping down on the Internet.”

I’m glad AIMS has proven me wrong. Although I still feel they have been a tad too conservative politically, I think their proposals, particularly the ones on political content can be said to be “one small step for the government, one giant leap for Singapore”.

The AIMS report can be viewed at www.aims.org.sg. The committee proposed the eventual repeal of Section 33 of the Films Act, which bans party political films, and recommended tightened disclosure requirements for Section 35, which currently gives “the Minister” the right to ban any film that he deems to be against the public interest. This is a bold step forward, which I hope the Government will accept. In fact, I hope they go one step further to repeal both those laws.

The AIMS report also contained unedited letters from the public and corporations in response to its consultation paper. I was quite amused how many members of the public appeared to have overreacted to AIMS’ proposed liberalisations. Many letters focused on how liberalisation will lead to an erosion of morals.

Let me say that as a Christian, and a professed social conservative, I am the last one who would want to see any erosion of our nation’s moral fabric. However I agreed with AIMS that, with respect to the Internet, education will serve as a better safeguard of morals than regulation. The thrust of AIMS’ proposed liberalisations are actually in the political sphere. In this aspect, I am strongly in favour of liberalisation, because our country is lagging far behind our peers in the developed world.

It will take me a while to go through the 224 page report to give my comments. But in the meanwhile, the following is my feedback to AIMS’ consultation paper released a few months back. Since the final report is quite similar to the consultation paper, many of my comments still apply to this report.

————-

23 September 2008

Mr Cheong Yip Seng
Chairman
Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society

FEEDBACK TO AIMS’ CONSULTATION PAPER

1 On 29 August 2008, the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS) released a consultation paper to gather feedback from the public on its proposed recommendations to the Singapore Government on engaging new media.

2 This paper is my feedback to AIMS’ consultation paper. They are my personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of any groups or organisations that I am affiliated with.

3 The responses are grouped according to the chapters in AIMS’ consultation paper.

Chapter 1: E-engagement

4 There needs to be a paradigm shift in the Government’s thinking regarding e-engagement. As a general approach, instead of pouring money and resources into only building its own online platforms (e.g., REACH portal), where it tends to only preach to the choir, the Government should venture out to engage the “unconverted” on the latter’s turf. This was rightly pointed out in AIMS’ paper.

5 The Government may need to be selective about which areas it ventures into. The vast majority of bloggers who do not write about political issues would not appreciate it if a government official posts a comment “correcting” them for inaccuracies in their blog postings. However there are a few serious political bloggers who would appreciate a response to their ideas and suggestions, even if it comes in the form of a robust rebuttal from the Government.

6 Government representatives could respond by posting a comment on a blog post, or contributing full article response to the same blog. Serious blogs would be happy to grant the right of reply to the Government or any other party.

7 It would be preferred if politicians and government officials engage in their “personal” capacities — meaning there is no need to parade one’s full designations, titles and ministries when posting a simple comment on a blog. Blogosphere is an egalitarian society where the quality of one’s ideas counts more than the titles one carries.

8 Civil servants should be allowed to comment on policy matters outside the purview of their ministries, as long as they do so in their personal capacity and they do not divulge classified information. They should not be required to seek their permanent secretaries’ approval before speaking or writing to the media (including online media) on matters that does not directly concern their ministry.

9 The Information Ministry is already actively monitoring blogs and Internet forums. The Government should acknowledge some of the good ideas that are generated online, instead of constantly implying that serious political discussion is absent from the Internet.

10 E-engagement, if executed selectively and sensitively, could cause bloggers to be slightly more circumspect in expressing themselves on their blogs. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Internet experts have highlighted that “people are more polite when they know you are listening” .

11 The Government should consider issuing press releases, releasing embargoed papers or speeches to citizen journalists, and inviting citizen journalists to cover press conferences and official events. Credible socio-political blogs could be issued press passes like the Malaysian government did for Malaysiakini and other online media.

12 This is a good way to encourage citizen journalists to firstly, report rather than simply comment from a distance; and secondly, to provide fairer and more balanced coverage.

13 Ministers and senior officials should not be reticent in granting interviews with credible online media if asked.

Chapter 2: Online Political Content

14 Section 33 of the Films Act, which bans “party political films” outright, is an ill-conceived and unnecessary law. Various arguments have been put forward by the Government in support of the law. Most centre around the possibility of a “freak election” result due to a “scurrilous” video being released a few days before Polling Day.

15 There is no evidence anywhere in the world of an freak election result simply due to a false and malicious video being released in the last few days of campaigning.

16 Any falsehoods or misrepresentations can be dealt with using the existing Penal Code, Sedition Act or Defamation Act. Furthermore, with its unfettered access to the mainstream media, the Government can easily refute any false allegations, even if they are made at the eleventh hour.

17 The goal of keeping election costs down can continue to be achieved by current election laws which limit the amount a candidate is allowed to spend on each voter.

18 In addition, the Parliamentary Elections Act could be amended to require any party political films to clearly state the sponsor of the video, as is required in the US, Australia and other developed countries. This will provide viewers a frame of reference to judge the partisan nature of the video.

19 Most importantly, we should not underestimate Singaporean voters’ ability to discern what is true and what is false and malicious.

20 AIMS has proposed a compromise “blackout period” whereby no new political videos can be released during the election period. A blackout period will take things back almost to square one. It will hamper political parties’ ability to communicate with the electorate during the most critical period when voters are making up their minds.

21 Even if there is a blackout period or if Section 33 remains on the statute books in its entirety, there is nothing stopping someone from uploading a “scurrilous” video to YouTube (or any of the dozens of video sharing sites). The fact that it is “prohibited content” would make it even more attractive to watch.

22 While I applaud AIMS’ attempt to push the boundaries by proposing a relook, and possible repeal of the law, I believe that anything short of a complete repeal of Section 33 of the Films Act would be disappointing to many thinking Singaporeans.

23 Separately, Section 35 of the Films Act (Minister may prohibit possession or distribution of any film) should be also be repealed. This is an omnibus law which gives the Minister absolute discretion in banning a film. If left in place, it would render any repeal of Section 33 meaningless. It should be noted that Section 15 (Prohibition and approval of films for exhibition) already empowers the Board of Film Censors to ban films.

24 I fully agree with AIMS recommendations regarding Internet election advertising and removal of the registration requirement in the Internet Class License Scheme.

25 In addition, election candidates and political parties should be allowed to solicit and accept donations over the Internet without overly stringent requirements to verify the identity of donors.

Chapter 3: Protection of Minors

26 Requiring ISPs to provide filtering in the form of Family Access Networks (FAN) on an opt-out basis is better than nothing. However FAN could give a false sense of security to parents who think that filtering provided by ISPs is going to filter out all undesirable content.

27 In fact, FAN cannot filter out a very large portion of undesirable content. At the same time, it could end up filtering content that the adults in the family may wish to view. For example, adults doing research on terrorism, drug abuse or gay issues could encounter blocked pages when using FAN.

28 It is much more effective to encourage parents to install Internet content filtering software on their home PCs . While PC-based filters do not filter out everything, they provides several advantages over FAN:

a. Access logging. Parents can view all the websites that their children access by checking the logs recorded by the software. If the child knows his parents are monitoring what he is surfing, he is much less likely to access sites he knows are out of bounds to him. Some software packages are able to email the daily log reports to parents.

b. Designating access time. Most filtering software allows parents to set the time in which the Internet can be accessed.

c. Auto lock out. The software can be configured to automatically block Internet access to the child if undesirable websites are accessed too many times.

d. Turning off filtering for adults. Parents (who have the password) can turn off filtering and logging so that they themselves can have full access to the Internet.

29 All this requires training for the parents. For parents who are IT savvy enough or are willing to learn, this provides the best method of regulating children’s access to the Internet and preventing them from accessing undesirable material.

30 For other non-IT savvy parents (who make up the vast majority of parents), there needs to be a concerted programme of parental education and awareness building.

Chapter 4: Intermediary Liabilities

31 I fully support AIMS recommendations in Chapter 4.

Summary

32 The following is a summary of my proposals:

a. Engage Netizens on their turf, not the Government’s.
b. Issue press passes and press releases to serious socio-political websites.
c. Allow civil servants to blog about policy issues.
d. Allow online political donations.
e. Completely repeal Sections 33 and 35 of the Films Act.
f. Encourage parents to install filtering software on their home PCs.
g. Educate parents on the use of such software.

33 I hope AIMS will consider these proposals in its final report to the Government

* * * * *

Submitted by:
Gerald Giam

Having a capable alternative party is in the national interest

Voices Editor
TODAY newspaper

Dear Editor,

I refer to the report, “Adversarial two-party system not for S’pore” (TODAY, November 17). Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong felt that the two party system cannot work for Singapore and that we are much better off with one dominant party.

Mr Lee’s familiar argument is that because we are small and lack talent, if we split our talent into two groups, we will end up with “two second division teams”. This is akin to saying that it is better to put all our eggs in one basket, than to have two baskets with fewer eggs each.

I disagree.

While few would argue that the PAP has performed commendably over the past 40 years, past performance is no guarantee of future success, as investment advisors always caution.

Mr Lee said that if ever the PAP becomes ineffective or corrupt, many opposition parties will spring up to take on the Government.

Therein lies the danger: If the PAP ever becomes corrupt, there will be absolutely no time for a viable alternative party to suddenly “spring up”, since political organisations take years to build up credibility. Furthermore, a corrupt government with firm controls on the levers of power will tend to use that power to entrench itself, stifling any potential opposition from arising. This is because their corrupt leaders will know full well that they will face prosecution if anyone else takes over the government.

Singapore may then be left in a disastrous situation of having a bad government with no capable alternatives.

For a small city-state like Singapore with little margin for error in governance, this could spell an unrecoverable decline leading to our very obsolescence as a nation.

It is therefore in the national interest for a well-organised, competent and morally upright alternative party to emerge, so that should the PAP falter, there will another party to take over the reins of government at the next elections and ensure that our country continues to prosper with interruption.

Obviously I do not expect support for an effective alternative party to come from the PAP, since it goes against its partisan interests.

However, I hope more Singaporeans will realise that greater political competition can produce not just better governance now, but improved stability for our future as well.

Regards,
Gerald Giam

This was published on 19 Nov 08 in TODAY.

The fear of the opposition

I happened to sit next to an older relative at a wedding dinner recently, when our conversation turned to politics.

My relative wondered why I had not followed my parents to Australia, and mused that he was considering moving there too. When I asked why, he cited the fear of political instability in Singapore.

That remark surprised me since Singapore is seen by many to be one of the most politically stable countries in Asia. We have had no change of government – violent or otherwise – since 1959.

When probed further, my uncle said he feared the opposition taking over in a freak election. I assured him that given the current state of the opposition, the PAP government will not be under any threat of losing an election within his lifetime. More importantly, I told him I trust Singapore voters to be wise enough not to vote a lousy party into power.

He countered by pointing out that even when the opposition had fielded “criminals” and slipper-wearing candidates, they were still able to garner 20 to 30% of the vote.

I explained, from my limited knowledge of electoral sociology, that in every election, there will be at least 20% of voters who are hardcore oppositionists and will vote for anyone who ran against the ruling party candidate. In Sembawang GRC where I live, 23% still voted for the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) team sans party chief Chee Soon Juan, even though it was running against a relatively strong PAP team helmed by the likable and Chinese-speaking Health Minister, Khaw Boon Wan. That was the largest margin of victory for the PAP in that election.

However the gulf between 23% and 50% — the latter being the percentage necessary to win a seat outright — is huge. Even in the most closely contested constituency of Aljunied GRC in the 2006 General Election, the PAP’s 55% win against the Workers’ Party would be considered a landslide in most other democracies. Consider the UK’s Labour Party, which won the 2005 election with just 35% of the popular vote. Put in this perspective, the PAP’s 66.6% overall percentage in 2006 was a blowout victory.

My uncle admires the PAP for what they have achieved, not just for Singapore, but for him personally. Growing up in a one-room flat, and now living in a private apartment, he has seen a dramatic improvement in his standard of living over the past 40 years. He reserved stinging criticism for some of his peers who “live in bungalows” and are still so ungrateful as to grumble about the government.

I cautioned him that past performance is no guarantee of future success, as investors always say. Just because the PAP has governed well in the past, does not mean that it will continue to do so for eternity. My uncle agreed that no country has had a particular party govern forever.

In the short term however, he was supremely confident that the PAP’s recruitment process will ensure that only top-notch candidates are presented in each election. In contrast, he said, the opposition was happy to take anyone who had a degree and was willing to pay the election deposit, even if they had no “track record”.

“What is your definition of a track record?” I asked him. Many of the new PAP MPs don’t exactly have a very long resume either. Nevertheless, he was sure that with the many interviews they had undergone with party leaders, coupled with the background checks, PAP candidates would definitely meet the necessary criteria for political leadership.

I asked him if he would consider voting for a non-PAP candidate if he or she were more “qualified” than the PAP candidate.

After initially saying he would, he later reasoned that it would be impossible for an opposition candidate to be as qualified as his PAP opponent. Firstly, the PAP’s recruitment process would throw up only the best men in the country. Secondly, anyone worth their salt, who genuinely desired to serve the people and make Singapore a better place would join the PAP instead of the opposition.

He was of the view that a capable person would be “out of his mind” to join the opposition, and that people who joined the opposition did so only out of self-interest or ulterior motives. Why else would someone want to oppose such an “excellent” government? Apparently, joining the opposition in and of itself indicated a character flaw.

He dismissed the possibility that some principled individuals joined the opposition because they could not see themselves joining the PAP due to fundamental disagreements with the latter’s style of governance. He also did not see the price many opposition members paid for their political beliefs as worthy of much respect.

Our heated discussion went on and on. In the end it was time to go home and we had to agree to disagree.

What the opposition fails to see

While I was slightly dismayed to hear these words from an educated senior citizen like my uncle, I have no doubt that he represents a significant constituency of citizens who have a “rags-to-riches” story to tell.

His point of view is particularly instructive for our opposition.

From my past conversations with many opposition members, I get the sense that many of them joined because they felt a need to “check” the ruling party — nothing else. And many of them think that just because they are not the PAP, and they shake a few hands and show up on Nomination Day, voters will choose them over their rivals.

This is a recipe for defeat — again and again, election after election.

What they fail to see is that the “swing” voters (i.e., those who may vote either way on Polling Day and who effectively decide the outcome of an election) are largely voting for a party to form the Government, not individuals who merely snap at the heels of the PAP behemoth.

Therefore, to win their vote, the opposition parties have to prove to these voters that they are competent and honest enough to lead the whole country, not just their ward, and will not end up flushing half a century of progress down the drain.

The opposition has two crutches that it always falls back on: One, that the unlevel political playing field created by the PAP makes it impossible to mount any significant challenge to it; and two, that good people do not step forward to join their parties.

These are both true to a great extent, but it should not stop the opposition parties from improving themselves internally, so as to present a more professional face to the voting public.

People want to hear different, and better ideas from the opposition on how to run the country, not just gripes about every little fault of the PAP.

It is not unusual that many Singaporeans hold the opposition to a higher standard than they do for the ruling party. After all, the opposition has no track record of successfully running a nation, and therefore has to prove they are twice as good as their PAP opponents before they will earn the vote.

It is my hope that our opposition will shift to a higher gear soon, and that more good men and women will join them. The next election is due by November 2011. With the economy heading south, it is likely that the Prime Minister will call for an election much earlier than that (since a poor economy generally favours the PAP over the opposition).

Time is running out, and the people’s hopes are slowly getting dashed. Can the opposition turn things around and dispel people’s fear of their success?

This article was first published on The Online Citizen.