Final Note before polling day!

With polling day less than 24 hours away, I am sure that many Singaporeans, like me, have made the effort to see, hear and gather as much information as they can for themselves so that they can make the best possible decision come D-Day tomorrow. I would have loved to attend more rallies but alas, I was only able to make it down to 2 days of rallies as my papers ended on the 4th of May. Thankfully, Todaydigital provided a rather comprehensive collection of most of the election rallies on their YouTube channel. Granted that the PAP has been leading this country for the last couple of decades and have shown their worth through their tenure, I decided to head down to the opposition rallies instead to see what the folks on the other side of the fence had to say and offer.

I managed to catch the WP’s rally at Ubi on the 4th of May and the SDP’s final rally at Woodlands on the 5th of May. Having watched most of the rallies online and actually listening to the above two in person, I thought that I’d share my thoughts on the elections and how it would actually affect Singaporeans.

At the rallies, it was humbling and heartening to see the large number of people who turned up despite the less than stellar conditions. Though the field that the WP organized their election rally in on the 4th of May was waterlogged and muddy, the immense crowd, which showed up, reflected a cross section of Singaporean society. The old, the young (dragged around in prams) and individuals from every racial and strata of society stood ankle deep in the mud cheering and listening to what the opposition members had to say. The stunning turnout at the rallies and the huge buzz in online forums and various networking sites proved to many that Singaporeans were genuinely interested in the political future of our country and not the politically apathetic fools as many claim.

The intention of my note today is to hopefully highlight the importance of voting for the right team tomorrow. From what I gathered from the speeches and articles on the mainstream media, I believe that the PAP has been encouraging the people to vote for the party with an established track record. The incumbents have repeatedly criticized the opposition on its plans for Singapore should it get elected into power and repeatedly appeals to the rationality of an enlightened people not to “ruin a good thing” by “rocking the boat.”

First and foremost, I believe a political party’s performance in rallies during its electoral campaign is an excellent indicator of just how seriously the party is taking this election. This is especially true in Singapore’s context given that the oppositions have only this period to communicate their plans and vision to Singaporeans. I was an ardent supporter of the PAP, having myself served with the YPAP in Kaki Bukit before, but I feel that the party has lost focus on what it means to be members of parliaments and representatives of the people. I also believe that for the Opposition to be effective there needed to be an acceptance on the part of both the Government and the wider society of the essentials of parliamentary democracy and an agreement reached on the ‘rules of the game’. Essentially, all-round acceptance that the Opposition has an important role to play must be present before an Opposition can take charge here.

As a result of the GRC system, the people of Singapore have only two important considerations to make before heading to the polls. We as voters, do not only have to consider what is best for the country as a whole but we also need to decide what is best for the constituency which we reside in. I, like many others, take issue with this system but debating about it at this juncture in time isn’t very different from the incumbents apologizing for their high handedness 48 hours before polling day. So that brings us to the million-dollar question at hand how should we vote this coming Saturday?

In the world we live in today, opinion and feedback polls are crucial sources of information that gets analyzed and listened too by politicians. In Singapore, the politicians obtain their feedback through REACH and MPS but also through informal GRC gatherings and the ever popular block visits, neighborhood walks. The political leadership in Singapore today cannot live in a vacuum between elections but must engage in constant dialogue with the electorate. Many fervent PAP supporters out there believe that the stability and security that a dominant party system offers is far more beneficial to the vibrancy of a multi-party system. In fact, a significant number of MPs have raised this issue up during their rally speeches and many talked about how the party will listen more and better represent the diversity of Singaporean society should they be elected into power. I however would beg to differ.

As I have written previously in my earlier notes, there remains a strong distinction between the party, the parliament and the bureaucracy. The PAP is a political party and it is important that despite its size and experience it still has its own agenda and policies that might not include all the voices in Singapore. I believe that a single party cannot fully represent the voices of all Singaporeans and that the PAP has too, not proven itself the exception. PAP MP Tan Soo Khoon was rebuffed by the then-PM Goh when he called for fellow ‘backbenchers’ in parliament to be given more freedom to vote. PM Goh was quoted as saying, “If you sing Jailhouse Rock with your electric guitar when others are playing Beethoven, you are out of order. The whip must be used on you (Straits Times, April 6, 2002).” Party whips are party 'enforcers', who typically offer inducements and threaten punishments for party members to ensure that they vote according to the official party policy. How then can we expect the PAP MPs to voice the concerns of the general population especially those pertaining to unfavorable government policies if they’re expected to be subordinate to party lines?

Without an effective opposition, good decisions and resolutions on difficult or controversial matters are almost impossible. (Just like the IRs, you’ll get an efficient means of reaching a consensus but I’ve always felt that the ends do not justify the means and more rigorous debate on national policy should always be welcome.) In the end arrogance and ignorance will dominate if the only voices heard are those of Yes-men. Singapore has in place a first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system. FPTP often favors larger parties where the distance between members on the parties' right and left wings may be significant, which in turn can easily lead to internal conflict against the official party view when certain issues are voted on. The cracks within the PAP have started to show, and it became evident during the rallies that there was a lack of coherence and unity within the party. Can the PAP be entrusted with the full responsibility of leading the country? What then can the opposition provide which is so vital and lacking in a PAP dominated parliament?

It is highly unlikely (again a personal opinion), that the opposition occupies the necessary numbers to collectively amend or block a PAP bill in parliament but it can still suggest changes. Indeed the majority often sounds out the opposition whilst preparing a bill to minimize resistance on presentation to the house. (Obviously I am not sure how much effect 2 opposition members would have on the rest of the men/women in white over the past 5 years…) The role of the opposition is hence crucial in the legislation process as an opposition, in contrast to checks within the party, is better able to provide for more detailed and rigorous discussions when planning/debating the proposed bill. Again, I must reiterate the point which was made that mechanisms to promote accountability and exposure will only be effective if the general ‘culture of accountability’ and commitment that the opposition is campaigning for is also embraced by the incumbents. There is a consensus amongst the people that all aspects of administration must be subject to scrutiny and it is only through acceptance of such a “culture of accountability” will the overall effectiveness of the parliamentary system be realized. My case for more opposition members within the parliament is further strengthen by the somewhat diminishing effect of the mechanisms available to the Opposition to hold the Executive to account. A notable example as such is the reduction of time allocated to the MPs to make their speeches or to ask questions. Assuming everyone in the parliament is given a chance to talk, the time for the oppositions to actually present cases or to debate in parliament is merely a fraction of the time allocated to the PAP representatives in parliament. Assuming the opposition takes only 2 seats in parliament, that’s 40 minutes in total of speaking time, down from an already miserable one hour…

I must also point out here that the choice isn’t always simply between national and party interest. From the electoral campaign, it seems that the Opposition parties intend on representing important minority interests too. By having more opposition members in the parliament, the people will be able to ensure that governing parties, specifically those making up the majority party in parliament, do not exploit their majority force-reach agreements made in the interests of consensus and ‘the national interest’.

Former US ambassador to Singapore, Franklin Lavin was quoted to have described “Singapore’s 20th-century political model” as being inadequate for the 21st century, warning that the government “will pay an increasing price for not allowing full participation of its citizens.” I have heard the opposition speakers and I have heard the PAP members make their case. Whilst the PAP rhetoric reeks of arrogance and a strong sense of entitlement, I believe that the Opposition members we have running for a seat in the parliament are equally deserving of that seat. Whilst the PAP has been doing a decent job thus far in running the country, I believe that the PAP has had the chance to prove themselves over the past 10 years. They have done a good job, but it is clear that an additional perspective is necessary if we’re going to get it. I believe that having an having a sizable opposition in the parliament will not only rejuvenate Singaporean’s interest in political matters, as observed during the electoral campaigning period, but it will also help whip the PAP which has gotten complacent and disengaged from the population back into shape.

Paul Wellstone once said, “Politics isn’t about big money or power games; it’s about the improvement of people’s lives.” I believe in change and I believe that it is possible to realize a better Singapore than what we have right now. Make your vote count.