By Howard Lee
It would take a very hard heart not to admit that the results of GE2015 point to something that is very different in Singapore. The real question is, what specifically? This question should keep Singaporeans up for many more nights, even years, to come.
Personally, nothing disappointed me more than the results for Lina Chiam in Potong Pasir and the Singapore Democratic Party team in Holland Bukit Timah GRC. Potong Pasir had been a pillar of what it means to hold firm to values and fighting stoically against incredible odds. And I felt the tremendous waste that SDP’s policy proposals, painstakingly crafted since GE2011, would not have the air time it deserves in Parliament.
It is not that I do not sympathise with WP’s supporters. I was camped out with Workers’ Party supporters at Hougang Stadium on polling night, and I could feel their anguish as WP lost its footing, first in Punggol East, then every other new SMC and GRC it contested in. But in truth, WP did not lose that much. The ceding of one seat and the drop in vote count would have been considered negligible in any other democracy. In addition, WP would likely retain its total presence in Parliament given the Non-Constituency MP scheme.
But these individual party victories and losses are something that they will have to mull over and plan for their future. More should be said about the massive vote swing of nearly 10% in favour of the People’s Action Party, which would have stunned even seasoned analysts. If the PAP has gained a few percentage points, that would have been expected. But this massive vote swing far outweighs any gradual progression that we might expect, particularly since GE2011 showed downward movement for the PAP.
What happened?
The easy way is to think that the PAP has clawed back its vote share in the past few years, but that would simply discount the fact that the PAP has made just as many policy blunders in that time. What, then, was on the mind of voters when we gave the PAP such a resounding mandate for its series of policy tweaks; election goodies; reluctance to directly address issues like jobs and immigration; lack of a clear and resounding vision for the future; and constant battering of opposition party leaders?
Singaporeans are not stupid. We are not likely to be hoodwinked by the PAP’s attempts at character assassination, and would have seen through the hype of SG50 and the PAP’s attempt to play up the death of former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. GE2015 must be seen as a conscientious decision by the collective of voters to give the PAP a mandate. If so, what exactly is this mandate for?
We need to look at GE2015 in the light of the watershed GE2011. In 2011, most Singaporeans got a taste of the power of their vote, and this continued even in the Presidential election and two by-elections since then. The ability for them to express their dissatisfaction with the incumbent suddenly became very real at the ballot boxes, and the PAP felt this humiliating defeat round after round.
Some, like me, were eagerly expectant that this taste of democracy would continue, not necessarily in the sense of more votes for the opposition, but a greater interest in our democratic process, public policy and the dedication-vs-capability among leaders to govern. I have hoped that we have finally taken the first step through the door into a brave new world of politics, where citizens would finally be mature enough to seriously consider which other party is fit to run Singapore, and stand ready to vote them in should the PAP fail. It should have been a vote for an alternative party, rather than a vote against the incumbent.
That did not happen. The massive vote swing did not indicate so. It suggests that, collectively, Singaporeans have decided that PAP has been punished enough since GE2011, and that they can be given a massive reward for grovelling with a slew of goodies.
In essence, this is Singapore practicing democracy in its crudest form. Or as mrbrown’s Kim Huat would put it, we “suka-suka vote”, vote for whoever we feel the best about. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this approach, except that we do not have any feels for the opposition since they do not give us any goodies to feel good about. All they have are proposals and dream to take us forward to where the PAP has thus far failed to dream for us.
This is the carrot-and-stick way of voting, only ironically the carrot and stick are being held by the voters. The unfortunate thing about this method of voting is that the relationship is always between the incumbent and the people.
We reward or punish the PAP based on how we evaluate their performance, but this means that we always want them to be around to perform better the next time. We do not give ourselves the wider liberty of considering other possibilities, alternative parties with new ideas that we can call upon when the PAP fails to deliver.
We vote to short-change ourselves, because we do not dare to take the risk that there is someone out there that can be better than the PAP.
That adversity to risk-taking, unfortunately, is the fault of Singaporeans, born of a culture of indoctrination through the education system, media propaganda and plain political rhetoric. But nowhere has this entrenched mindset been better exhibited than on 11 September 2015.
That in itself is ironic. If we are really that risk-adverse, the kiasu Singaporean in us should be hedging our bets, making sure that we have a balanced Parliament in the eventuality that the PAP fails. And mind you, at some point it will, if it has not already. No party lasts forever.
Chee Soon Juan
GE2015’s vote tally reflects the choice of the majority of Singaporeans, but it does not mean that this collective choice is right or cannot be challenged. Perhaps the words of Dr Chee Soon Juan ring the truest:
“I do worry. I worry if we continue on in this fashion the future of Singapore is not going to be where we all want. So what we are going to do is… continue to be honest with Singapore and conduct our politics with integrity and continue to get the message out, and hope that there is something better than what we have right now.”
GE2015 is done, and it would seemed we have regressed to the days before GE2011. But if we need to pick it up again and rebuild what we have so painfully lost in the last few years, do so we must.
A democratic Singapore depends on the men and women who have seen a vision beyond the carrot-and-stick way of choosing our leaders. If they are determined to help us reach a shore that makes us stronger and more discerning as citizens, why wouldn’t we help them?
