During the late evening of the 11th of September 2015, as the sample poll results for GE 2015 came in, my first reactions were ones of disbelief and suspicion at the accuracy of these polls. But as the actual results streamed in, it became clear that the sample polls were nothing but accurate, differing only slightly from the actual results. I, like many others, had expected the Worker’s Party to make big gains in the east and Dr Chee Soon Juan’s SDP team to give Dr Vivian Balakrishnan’s team in Holland-Bukit Timah a ‘run for their money’, forcing the ruling party further down the political abyss. However, the results ran counter to all my predictions and what made them exceptional was the fact that the country was rife with anti-establishment sentiments up till polling day. The huge turnouts at opposition rallies and the constant stream of anti-PAP articles online made me feel confident about my predictions, but they were all overturned as the night went on.
The reasons
In hindsight, I might have been too caught up with the commotion the opposition made and therefore turned a blind eye to the other factors important in every election. In fact, I am now better able to see the possible reasons as to why the PAP was handed such a large share of the votes, despite all that hoo-hah about bring changes to the political scene here in Singapore. Some die-hard PAP supporters will insist that the surge in the vote was due to the AHPETC saga while others will claim it is an endorsement of the government’s approach in the past 4 years. I disagree; it is way more than just those two reasons. The causes of the surge are a combination of national and external events; and are generally unrelated to policy changes or petty municipal politics.
Of course, it is easy and attractive to attribute the PAP’s success to its leftward shift in policy, but I do not see it as playing an essential role in the electoral battle. In the aftermath of the 2011 GE, the PAP realized that this shift was necessary if it were to remain in power in the foreseeable future. All of this had undoubtedly gone down well with the majority of the electorate during the previous parliamentary term, but there is no evidence to suggest that it was key to their electoral success. In the months running up to the election, all that effort put into ‘inclusive policies’ was overshadowed by the AHPETC saga and the accusations made by the WP that the playing field had been made unfair by politicizing the People’s Association and restricting the usage of public facilities in opposition wards for community events. In fact, we could tell that in the upper echelons of the PAP, many were expecting that their policy changes were not enough to sweeten the ground when the Prime Minister said that the results had ‘exceeded our expectations’. Therefore, there are little grounds for the argument that the surge of support was a result of more ‘inclusive’ politics, it was not.
Neither was the AHPETC issue as important as some ministers claimed it to be. It is again easy to designate this as the main cause of the WP’s abysmal performance. However, in my honest opinion, it was not a significant enough to result in a slump of more than 6% in the WP’s vote share in the areas it contested in. Politicians, who wish to attribute and are attributing their success to the financial weakness of the WP, are not seeing the full picture. If the key driving force behind people fleeing to the PAP’s side was management of municipal finances, the PAP would have suffered together with the WP. When the AGO flagged several lapses in the financial practices of the PA after the AHPETC saga, the mistakes made on the part of the PA outnumbered those made by AHPETC. In terms of the severity of the financial lapses, both the ruling party and the WP have made serious and grave mistakes that should not be forgotten or forgiven lightly. The 9.8% swing to the PAP was not driven by petty municipal politics or shifts in policy; it was driven by a combination of other factors, both national and external.
The first and very obvious national reason was the demise of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew. The man had exhibited enormous courage, vision and conviction in setting Singapore on the course it takes today. After independence from Malaysia, the island was nothing but small piece of land sitting at the southernmost tip of continental Asia with a largely immigrant population. Despite the odds, he set about creating a national identity to unite the country and brought about widespread prosperity by attracting investments. Regardless of our political allegiances today, all Singaporeans pay homage to this great man. That is why, it is rational to say that a sizeable number of voters who sit on the fence, voted in favor of the PAP this time as a way of expressing their gratitude towards and recognition of the man’s efforts and visions, costing the opposition parties a valuable source of potential votes.
The second and equally obvious national factor is the so-called ‘feel-good’ mindset that Singaporeans have as a result of the celebrations for our Golden Jubilee year. The government has been extremely studious in entrenching this feeling across the country by holding nationwide celebrations and events all throughout the year and reminding Singaporeans of our success despite our size and lack of natural resources. The constant reminders, consciously and subconsciously, urged people to think about what brought us to such heights over such a short period of time, and the answer no doubt was the PAP’s economic policies. The surge of support for the government comprised of both fence-sitters and opposition voters, who were mindful of the reasons for our achievements, swinging back to the PAP.
The third, and possibly the most significant of all the national reasons, was that for the first time since independence, all parliamentary seats were contested. The anti-establishment talk that was so rampant on the ground and on social media inevitably spooked fence-sitters into voting for the ruling party, for they feared a freak election result. That fear was further propagated by cabinet ministers reminding Singaporeans that there was no guarantee that the PAP would be returned to government on September 12. The fear-mongering did its job, and the PAP was returned with a resounding share of the popular vote.
Moving on to the global scene, the cause of greater endorsement of the PAP brand was our poor economic outlook. On cooling-off day, the Straits Times published an article that stated that rating agency Moody’s and DBS Bank had slashed Singapore’s GDP growth forecast to around 2%, with Moody’s being even more pessimistic, predicting a mere 1.8% rise in GDP for 2015. The fact that we were now headed into a looming economic crisis, and the global economic slowdown resulting from China’s faltering economy would have sent shudders down the spines of average Singaporeans. These would have seen voters flock to the safety of the PAP as they began to fear for their jobs and incomes. The Singaporean electorate has always been a pragmatic one, and in times of economic uncertainty, we all tend to seek shelter under the PAP umbrella because we believe in their economic competency and trust that they will do what it necessary to protect our livelihoods; just like how we did in the 2001 GE which took place in the aftermath of 911. This, aside from all the petty municipal politics; aside from the nostalgia and gratitude for our achievements in the past 50 years; aside from the more leftist stance of the government, is the key to the PAP’s surge of support. Generally, Singaporeans are unwilling to risk their ‘rice-bowls’ for any form of political reform, regardless of how attractive it sounds. Most Singaporeans have always sought and will continue to seek stability in their lives, especially when they know that things are going to get a little bumpy.
All in all, the PAP rode a wave of support back into government. But they did not create that wave by taking a more leftward stance in governance and neither did they outperform the WP because of the latter’s weakness at financial management. The wave (or tsunami) that swept them back into power was a result of factors beyond their control. They were lucky as these factors worked in their favour this time around, but it will not always be the case. Therefore, it is dangerous for them to think that they had triumphed solely due to their own merit. Sure, they can claim some of the credit, but there needs to be more firmness, more steel, and more conviction before they can take the all the credit for their victory.
The lessons learnt
If there is one thing the WP can learn from their abysmal performance was that they should not take votes for granted. They have to show their supporters that their votes were worth it. In the past 4 years, the WP has done little to prove that they really cherish the support they received in 2011. Yes, they did walk the grounds a lot more often than their PAP predecessors; yes, they were a lot more attentive to the needs of their residents; and yes, they were more ‘human’ and easy to engage than their predecessors. However in Singapore, when opposition MPs are voted into parliament, a tall order is issued to them. We expect them to manage the towns as well as the PAP and we expect them to be constructive voices against the ruling party in House. As unfair as this tall order is, there is a need to fulfill it, but in the past 4 years, it was not. The town council finances were a mess and the WP MPs threw mostly hammers in parliament without actually providing alternatives to government policies. If they are serious about retaining their seats or gaining new ones in 2020, then they have to improve their performance both inside and outside of parliament.
The WP also has to learn to accept responsibility when faulted. Although they broke no rules in getting FMSS to provide the systems to manage the town councils, there was a severe conflict of interest when the co-owners of FMSS were also staff members of the town councils. It may not be illegal when a conflict of interest exists, but there is a need to declare that conflict of interest. Otherwise, the WP would have given the wrong impression that it was giving special privileges to its ‘friends’.
Lastly, as much as I enjoyed the lively and energizing rallies organized by the WP, I could see that they were focusing a too much effort and rally time on hurling back the mud which had been thrown at them by the PAP. That ‘a-tit-for-a-tat’ approach to elections does not win votes. It may let one win the petty arguments, but it deprives the party of the time it needs to convince the people to vote for them. What wins people over is convincing them to believe in your vision, your motto and most important of all your policies; not mud-slinging or in this case, counter mud-slinging. I should also say that I feel disdainful towards the PAP for starting the mud fights. For the ruling party to engage in such low skullduggery it shows that they are willing to bend their principles for political expediency; and that is beneath them. In fact, regardless of ruling party or opposition, character assassination and name-calling is not something that should be condoned in a democratic election. That is why the focus on the re-directing attacks and the negligence towards selling the party’s policies lost the WP substantial support. If they had fought on policy grounds and ignored the accusations and character assassination attempts, they would have fared better.
New directions
As with all elections in Singapore, the PAP is given a fresh mandate to govern for the next term of parliament; and with a that, comes a new direction for governance. In 2011, the government took the inevitable veer to the left to save itself from falling deeper into the political abyss. However, with this resounding victory, I hope that the party will stop that swing to the left. As I mentioned earlier, the party did not win based on policies and I hope that the government acknowledges that the result is not an endorsement for their shift to a more welfare-oriented state.
Let me just say that I mean no disrespect to those who now have a better life now as a result of increased subsidy levels. In fact, I passionately believe that every society needs some form of wealth redistribution mechanism so that the poorest people are not left out while the rest of society progresses. Over the past few years, the government has indeed taken correct steps towards greater wealth distribution. For example, the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme or WIS, is probably the best policy put forth in the past 4 years. It encourages people to work and not rely on unemployment benefits (in the form of the Public Assistance Scheme) in order to support themselves by supplementing the incomes of low-income Singaporeans through cash payouts and CPF top-ups. This policy extols the essential values of a meritocratic society by rewarding the willingness of individuals to work hard.
However, what I cannot comprehend or bring myself to believe in is blanket subsidies; especially where it is unnecessary. Unless we are talking about education, I do not believe that subsidies should be given to all Singaporeans regardless of their household incomes or their personal wealth levels. In the past 4 years, as the PAP shifted its consensus to the left of the political spectrum, there have been numerous subsidy schemes that were not means-tested at all. For example, waiving the fees for national examinations in government-funded schools was implemented in the budget for the fiscal year of 2015. That to me, made no monetary sense at all, as I knew that the majority of my classmates could well afford their examination fees and only a small handful facing financial difficulties needed assistance from the government. Another blanket subsidy scheme was announced during the National Day Rally when the Prime Minister announced that a once-off 20,000 dollar grant would be given to young couples purchasing new flats near their parents’ houses, under the Proximity Housing Grant. This puzzled me even more as I felt the millions of dollars spent on the scheme could have been allocated more efficiently, for example by giving the more grants to lower-income couples who wanted to live near their parents. The money would have had a greater impact in this case as lower-income households are unable or less able to afford domestic help and would have greater reason to live nearby to care for their elderly parents.
In an essence, when managing the public purse, a government must be prudent and ensure that every dollar spent reaps the greatest possible benefits. In household terms, what one buys must be value for money. In the two schemes mentioned above, none of the two conditions above are fulfilled. Blanket subsidies do not reap maximum benefits. They may be popular but they are an inefficient way of spending public money, and I hope, for the sake of Singapore’s public finances that the expenditure on blanket subsidies will shrink and not balloon.
Another issue that I hope the government will address in its new direction is its way of governance. After the 2011 GE, the government has come under increasing pressure to be more consultative and to be more in touch with the average Singaporean. It has succumbed under that political pressure and it cannot be blamed for taking on such a drastic change in governance as it came under immense political pressure to reform. However, my main gripe is that they have become over-sensitive to how people will react and over-fearful of political backlash. For example when a commercial columbarium was slated for construction in Fernvale, protests from a handful of residents from Fernvale Lea made the government u-turn on its policy almost immediately and it terminated the contract with the developer. The issue behind this saga was that the construction of the columbarium had good intentions as it made paying respects to deceased relatives far more convenient for people in the East. However the government, fearing the political ruckus it would cause, quickly retracted the project and spent little effort in engaging residents to explain the rationale behind the project.
Do not misunderstand my rather harsh take on such a style of governance. Consultative government is good as I feel that all Singaporeans, not just politicians, have a stake in their country and should have some say in the direction the country is headed. However, what I dislike and see as being dangerous, is a government that lets its people, and its people only, decide what is best for the country at any one point in time and steer the country in the direction they deem fit. The reason this is dangerous is because the majority of the people are unable or unwilling to extend their sight beyond the individual level. They will usually want what’s best for themselves and will very often ignore the ripple effects on society and on future generations. I am not disparaging individuals who seek what’s best for themselves; it is human nature that we will tend to put ourselves first before others. However, I see mixing governance with too much consultative politics as being a serious threat to the security of our future. A line needs to be drawn and obeyed, and I hope that during this term of government such a line will be established.
The last issue that I hope will be addressed by the next election would be the de-politicization of the People’s Association and town councils. Although it is not an openly stated fact, we all know that the PA and town councils are far from being non-partisan when they should actually be. Under this system, residents in opposition-helmed constituencies are often deprived of the funds required for estate upgrading and maintenance. Unlike their counterparts in neighboring wards who voted for the ruling party, they were not assigned the funds they deserved. One just needs to look at Potong Pasir SMC. During the twenty-odd years it was helmed by Mr Chiam See Tong, the HDB blocks had little upgrading and there were few amenities and bus services. But as soon as the ruling party won the ward in the 2011 GE, the estate’s facilities were upgraded; a new supermarket and bank branch opened and a feeder service was introduced. Such a practice runs counter to all the principles of an advanced democracy. In a democracy, no voter should be disregarded by the ruling party just because he or she voted for another party. But in the case of Singapore, voters are being punished when they exercise their democratic right to choose the party they believe in. This is shameful and immoral. Regardless of political allegiance, all Singaporeans should be entitled to estate upgrading. It is their basic right as they contribute to the upgrading funds by paying their income taxes and Goods and Services Tax and these funds should not be conditional; they should be unconditional.
The Final Take
All in all, I have no intention of criticizing the government where it is unnecessary and neither am I extremely keen in supporting the opposition. In fact, I am thankful for the PAP’s free-market approach when dealing with the economy, as it has spread wealth across all segments of society. Their education policies, although inadequate for those less academically inclined, has let loose a form of healthy competition for those more suited for traditional education; and I have benefited greatly from it, as I enjoy relishing good results after long periods of hard work and perseverance. But I am also hungry for a more formidable opposition able to challenge government policies effectively and provide alternatives as well as an alternative to the government we have had in the last five decades.
The PAP has done a great job and that is evident in its fifty-odd years of uninterrupted rule. With the adequate steps taken to correct where it had gone wrong, I see no reason why it cannot take us into the next fifty. The opposition too, has made considerable progress and although they have faltered in the recent general election, I strongly believe that hard work on their end will gain them the traction needed to entrench themselves firmly in parliament. Singapore’s political scene is far from reaching its full development and there will be more exciting things to come in the subsequent general elections.
The Coffeeshop Talk 