The Day After - GE 2011 and Beyond
Many people asked if I am pro-PAP or pro-Oppo. Afterall, I have always professed my admiration of MM as one of the greatest thinkers of our times, of the uselessness of many of the opposition parties, and yet I am also greatly appreciative of Chiam See Tong. I speak highly of PAP's economic policies, disparage some of the scatter-brain policies suggested by the opposition, and yet I also speak about the need to consider the needs of the lower middle classes more sensitively. What am I? Thinking about it after the elections, I think my answer will shock many - I am neither. I don't support either party per say, because that would be too irrational and blind with love.
I belong to what is termed, in political science terms, the 'middle ground'. And many people are like that, in all democratic societies. In Singapore, this 'watershed' elections, so to speak, is indicative of that same pattern. There are the die-hard fans of course: the purest Whites (纯白）, the darkest Blues （深蓝）, and in my coined term - the Colours （任何颜色）. The Colours is an interesting group - they will support any opposition team, regardless of the team's colour. But the Colours is very likely a small percentage of all Singaporeans, perhaps 15-20% at most. I don't think I belong to any, being more pragmatic and commentative than that - I don't think I could be comfortable to fully support any party. I suppose the middle ground voters could be considered the Transparents, just to continue the colours analogy of Singaporean political landscape. The Transparents take on colours of the day - depending on the changing situations and needs, reflecting the respective colours or issues.
In most societies that get to vote regularly, the middle ground is a highly crucial set of people, almost 40%, and they owe no long-term die-hard allegiance to any party. Rather, they will support the party that they either think is good for the nation or is able to raise their concerns in Parliament with a stronger voice. In a socio-political sense, the middle ground is also a very necessary group of voters. Parties that are entrenched in power for a long time could meander or wander off at times, and the middle ground will shift to try to bring the ruling party or the opposition part(ies) back to the middle. I like to perceive it as a democratic ground movement of 中庸 in the pure Confucian sense - the Confucian Golden Mean. (中庸 , 不偏不倚 .) It prevents parties from going too far into the extremes, which could not only divide a nation, but destroy one half in the process. Thus, in a mature democratic society, the middle ground provides a natural fulcrum of balance.
This 2011 elections is one in which the middle ground seemed to have sent a signal. They want to be heard, heeded and hosted with greater sense and sensitivity. More importantly, they want a more compassionate Singapore with a soul. Yet, they are also mindful of the quality of opposition candidates and parties. If we were to examine the results, it is an interesting but very clear picture. Of the vote swing to the opposition parties, does it mean that all the opposition parties have gained die-hard supporters? Not so. Only the WP seems to have gained more darkest blues supporters, and thereafter perhaps the NSP of the Nicole Seah effect. SPP is on the decline; it has never really stepped out of Mr Chiam See Tong's personal star effect. As for SDP, SDA and RP, they would be deluded if they think the 30 odd percent of votes that they are garnering this time (up from the previous election's 20%) implies voters supporting their respective parties.
That 10% increment is merely the general protest vote swing nationwide. it is, if we strip off the details of sound and fury, I would see the general baseline opposition support to be at about 20%, which is then augmented by another 10% because of the general unhappiness with the ruling PAP's brisk style and approach to costs of living, transport, foreign worker, the freak incident of Mas Selamat and floods. That sets it to a general 30% of opposition support in general, which is what most of the opposition parties garnered this time. This analysis also fits the reduction of about 8% on the part of PAP's national vote percentage from the last elections. The WP, in particular, is the only opposition party that has made clear inroads in picking up more supporters. It probably won over another 8-10% of die-hard deep blues, evidenced in its average vote percentage and its rallies' attendance figures in comparison to the others. Most significant would be the outcome of the one three-cornered fight this time, with WP winning 42% of the votes there, in comparison to the 4% votes won by the other opposition contestant. When there is a choice between opposition candidates, quality obliterates. What more need to be said?
I would propose, with the best of intentions, that RP, SDA and SDP simply dissolve themselves and the good candidates to join the other main opposition parties. The current RP, SDA and SDP are just languishing in a different league altogether, and their rambling and many a time disjoint and under-developed policies suggestions are just a waste of constituency places and voters' time. They devalue the opposition, the cause of the opposition, and the votes of the electorate. This is not to discredit the usefulness of these opposition parties this GE, because they do provide that critical mass and momentum - the whole of Singapore is involved in voting, accelerating a national awareness and support. However, how sustainable is it to have six opposition parties, all vying for candidates with slightly different nuanced views, which then erupts into a messing confusion of party platforms? In a non-unhappy year, when the PAP is held in higher regard, these opposition parties' votes could very well be reduced to the 20% band again.
The SPP is a different story. My deepest respect and admiration goes to Mr Chiam See Tong, who gave 27 years of good dedicated public service to provide that balance in our Parliament. However, my general gut feel is that the SPP has reached its end-point, because it simply does not seem to be able to attract new younger members who are capable, or to sustain and keep them. Neither did it seem to have a strong party organ structure. I am very appreciative of what I sense to be a family-oriented 'my kind of town' style in the SPP, from the vibes I get at their rallies, but that will not bring SPP into the new age of Singaporean politics. Unless it changes its style, it would have served its purpose.
The WP has won the praise and support of Singaporeans in this 2011 Elections, but I do hope they take caution too. I am most exhilarated at the WP win of Aljunied, because that means a breakthrough, and Parliament will see a good 2-party system in the making. Yet, the greatest moment of achievement could also be the most precarious moment. For when one reaches a peak, one could very well slide or drop all the way down. On the positive side, the WP, in my observations, is most credible and viable. It is well organised, with clear vision, and it seems to be the most similar in structure, party rules, party discipline and style as the PAP. I have attended the rallies of the blues, and indeed, I came away inspired about a better Singapore. To some extent it reminds one of the early PAP, of those times of worries, dreams and battles for a young nation. This GE, they are wise, real and practical too. That augurs well for Singapore. In many policies, I think they do recognise the wisdom of the PAP's general policies, and they just want tweaking so that the concerns of the common man is better heard. The main difference is in the extremes. PAP tends to be more business-oriented, while the WP tends to be more social/under-class oriented. In a sense, it's like being on both sides of a swinging pendulum, and one provides the necessary check on the other, and that is perhaps what Singapore's future political landscape would turn out to be. Yet, I do hope that over time, if and when WP does make more in-roads, they do not become complacent, take voters and party members for granted, for that is a typical route taken merrily and unconsciously by organisations which reach a certain state of stability and achievement.
On the other hand, though PAP seemed to have lost quite a bit of votes this time round, dropping all the way to a mere 60%, it could benefit from it. It could be perceived as a winner in the long run. It is indeed a shocking loss of George Yeo and the others - 5 good men and women, and this could only force the party reflect on the necessary changes seriously. Many organisations went through such crisis before - the Catholic Church during the Reformation, and Japan when it was forced to open its ports. And they changed - the Catholic Church underwent its own Counter-Reformation, and Japan underwent the Meiji Restoration, and they emerged stronger than before. Similarly, the British lost the American colonies, but they learnt from it and thereafter created an even greater empire, one on which the sun, supposedly, never sets.
The changes and analysis reflections that PM has said the PAP will undertake is thus a necessary and highly beneficial stage it has to undergo. In my opinion, it can only come out of this stronger, if it takes heed of the messages sent by the electorate in this election. The voters have not abandoned PAP. In fact, the dismal results of the RP, and the not too illustrious results of the SDA and SDP, indicate that quality of party still matters. Even the vote difference in Aljunied is only about 10%. PM's AMK GRC gave him a good 69%, which is more indicative of the trust that the people have in PAP without the distractions of minsters in charge of ministries with unpopular policies. If PAP as a party could change and adapt to the new electorate profile and needs, it could very well emerge a stronger party than before. On hindsight, I wonder if this sense of connectedness, which PM spoke about in his apologies, had been adopted earlier, especially after the famous episode of Catherine Lim's 'The Affective Divide' in 1994, perhaps the PAP would not have lost the affection and trust of that 10% of the electorate in this 2011 Elections. But, hindsight is always cheap, so I shall not explore that further.
There are some points that many argue over this elections. The mind versus the heart. Many people say that they vote 'with the mind'. But frankly, I do not know what that means, because it could mean different things to different people. Voting with the mind could mean voting for more alternative voices in Parliament, because that voter sees the need for it, even as it could mean voting for the ruling incumbent party, because the voter sees stability and economic success as more important for the overall good of the nation. The same argument could be used in voting 'with the heart' too. So I am most amused to hear people tell each other to 'vote wisely', because that is the most vague expression ever. Another point raised is whether one is being ungrateful in not voting for the incumbent, or one is not thinking of nation and rather just concerned with self interest. Again, that's a matter of perceptions - one might be grateful, but yet believe in the need for change for the good of the nation. One might also think that having more voices in parliament is for the greater good of the nation as compared to estate upgrading, or short term foreign affairs. Similarly, others might accuse those who vote for more voices in parliament to be myopic and selfish because they simply want their complaints to be heard, that they are not thinking about the dent it would create on Singapore's national interest in foreign affairs. Yet others further assert that voting for a more 'caring society, for the heart' and compassion is to betray the elderly and underprivileged who need upgrading and tangible help. The list goes on. I think this is probably healthy debate, because there is no clear answer, and such civic discussion in the rallies, coffeeshops and online will crystallise for all the Singapore we want, and the Singaporean values we hold dear. It will take a few elections for this to emerge, and that will be when we truly know what we mean by our great Singaporean dream and identity. It connects Singaporeans together, whichever parties they may support, regardless of new or old citizens, because there is public discourse and consensus thereafter.
So, now that the dust has settled, and the shock and euphoria and sadness have subsided, can we say that certain political parties have won and certain parties have lost? That would be too simplistic an interpretation of it all. Perhaps, in a short term view, parties can proclaim their own victory or failure, but the true effects and impact of GE2011 on the respective parties will only be fully understood in the long term. But one thing is clear - the true great winners of this General Election 2011 are Singaporeans and Singapore.
For once in many years, all Singaporeans are exercising their responsibilities to discuss, to assess, to reflect, to think, to dream, so as to decide on their individual votes. And for once in many years, all Singaporeans are exercising their privilege and right to vote - that single paper that represents each person's voice on the matter of discussion. And that, truly, is what binds Singaporeans together for a common purpose, a common destiny, for our great country Singapore.
I belong to what is termed, in political science terms, the 'middle ground'. And many people are like that, in all democratic societies. In Singapore, this 'watershed' elections, so to speak, is indicative of that same pattern. There are the die-hard fans of course: the purest Whites (纯白）, the darkest Blues （深蓝）, and in my coined term - the Colours （任何颜色）. The Colours is an interesting group - they will support any opposition team, regardless of the team's colour. But the Colours is very likely a small percentage of all Singaporeans, perhaps 15-20% at most. I don't think I belong to any, being more pragmatic and commentative than that - I don't think I could be comfortable to fully support any party. I suppose the middle ground voters could be considered the Transparents, just to continue the colours analogy of Singaporean political landscape. The Transparents take on colours of the day - depending on the changing situations and needs, reflecting the respective colours or issues.
In most societies that get to vote regularly, the middle ground is a highly crucial set of people, almost 40%, and they owe no long-term die-hard allegiance to any party. Rather, they will support the party that they either think is good for the nation or is able to raise their concerns in Parliament with a stronger voice. In a socio-political sense, the middle ground is also a very necessary group of voters. Parties that are entrenched in power for a long time could meander or wander off at times, and the middle ground will shift to try to bring the ruling party or the opposition part(ies) back to the middle. I like to perceive it as a democratic ground movement of 中庸 in the pure Confucian sense - the Confucian Golden Mean. (中庸 , 不偏不倚 .) It prevents parties from going too far into the extremes, which could not only divide a nation, but destroy one half in the process. Thus, in a mature democratic society, the middle ground provides a natural fulcrum of balance.
This 2011 elections is one in which the middle ground seemed to have sent a signal. They want to be heard, heeded and hosted with greater sense and sensitivity. More importantly, they want a more compassionate Singapore with a soul. Yet, they are also mindful of the quality of opposition candidates and parties. If we were to examine the results, it is an interesting but very clear picture. Of the vote swing to the opposition parties, does it mean that all the opposition parties have gained die-hard supporters? Not so. Only the WP seems to have gained more darkest blues supporters, and thereafter perhaps the NSP of the Nicole Seah effect. SPP is on the decline; it has never really stepped out of Mr Chiam See Tong's personal star effect. As for SDP, SDA and RP, they would be deluded if they think the 30 odd percent of votes that they are garnering this time (up from the previous election's 20%) implies voters supporting their respective parties.
That 10% increment is merely the general protest vote swing nationwide. it is, if we strip off the details of sound and fury, I would see the general baseline opposition support to be at about 20%, which is then augmented by another 10% because of the general unhappiness with the ruling PAP's brisk style and approach to costs of living, transport, foreign worker, the freak incident of Mas Selamat and floods. That sets it to a general 30% of opposition support in general, which is what most of the opposition parties garnered this time. This analysis also fits the reduction of about 8% on the part of PAP's national vote percentage from the last elections. The WP, in particular, is the only opposition party that has made clear inroads in picking up more supporters. It probably won over another 8-10% of die-hard deep blues, evidenced in its average vote percentage and its rallies' attendance figures in comparison to the others. Most significant would be the outcome of the one three-cornered fight this time, with WP winning 42% of the votes there, in comparison to the 4% votes won by the other opposition contestant. When there is a choice between opposition candidates, quality obliterates. What more need to be said?
I would propose, with the best of intentions, that RP, SDA and SDP simply dissolve themselves and the good candidates to join the other main opposition parties. The current RP, SDA and SDP are just languishing in a different league altogether, and their rambling and many a time disjoint and under-developed policies suggestions are just a waste of constituency places and voters' time. They devalue the opposition, the cause of the opposition, and the votes of the electorate. This is not to discredit the usefulness of these opposition parties this GE, because they do provide that critical mass and momentum - the whole of Singapore is involved in voting, accelerating a national awareness and support. However, how sustainable is it to have six opposition parties, all vying for candidates with slightly different nuanced views, which then erupts into a messing confusion of party platforms? In a non-unhappy year, when the PAP is held in higher regard, these opposition parties' votes could very well be reduced to the 20% band again.
The SPP is a different story. My deepest respect and admiration goes to Mr Chiam See Tong, who gave 27 years of good dedicated public service to provide that balance in our Parliament. However, my general gut feel is that the SPP has reached its end-point, because it simply does not seem to be able to attract new younger members who are capable, or to sustain and keep them. Neither did it seem to have a strong party organ structure. I am very appreciative of what I sense to be a family-oriented 'my kind of town' style in the SPP, from the vibes I get at their rallies, but that will not bring SPP into the new age of Singaporean politics. Unless it changes its style, it would have served its purpose.
The WP has won the praise and support of Singaporeans in this 2011 Elections, but I do hope they take caution too. I am most exhilarated at the WP win of Aljunied, because that means a breakthrough, and Parliament will see a good 2-party system in the making. Yet, the greatest moment of achievement could also be the most precarious moment. For when one reaches a peak, one could very well slide or drop all the way down. On the positive side, the WP, in my observations, is most credible and viable. It is well organised, with clear vision, and it seems to be the most similar in structure, party rules, party discipline and style as the PAP. I have attended the rallies of the blues, and indeed, I came away inspired about a better Singapore. To some extent it reminds one of the early PAP, of those times of worries, dreams and battles for a young nation. This GE, they are wise, real and practical too. That augurs well for Singapore. In many policies, I think they do recognise the wisdom of the PAP's general policies, and they just want tweaking so that the concerns of the common man is better heard. The main difference is in the extremes. PAP tends to be more business-oriented, while the WP tends to be more social/under-class oriented. In a sense, it's like being on both sides of a swinging pendulum, and one provides the necessary check on the other, and that is perhaps what Singapore's future political landscape would turn out to be. Yet, I do hope that over time, if and when WP does make more in-roads, they do not become complacent, take voters and party members for granted, for that is a typical route taken merrily and unconsciously by organisations which reach a certain state of stability and achievement.
On the other hand, though PAP seemed to have lost quite a bit of votes this time round, dropping all the way to a mere 60%, it could benefit from it. It could be perceived as a winner in the long run. It is indeed a shocking loss of George Yeo and the others - 5 good men and women, and this could only force the party reflect on the necessary changes seriously. Many organisations went through such crisis before - the Catholic Church during the Reformation, and Japan when it was forced to open its ports. And they changed - the Catholic Church underwent its own Counter-Reformation, and Japan underwent the Meiji Restoration, and they emerged stronger than before. Similarly, the British lost the American colonies, but they learnt from it and thereafter created an even greater empire, one on which the sun, supposedly, never sets.
The changes and analysis reflections that PM has said the PAP will undertake is thus a necessary and highly beneficial stage it has to undergo. In my opinion, it can only come out of this stronger, if it takes heed of the messages sent by the electorate in this election. The voters have not abandoned PAP. In fact, the dismal results of the RP, and the not too illustrious results of the SDA and SDP, indicate that quality of party still matters. Even the vote difference in Aljunied is only about 10%. PM's AMK GRC gave him a good 69%, which is more indicative of the trust that the people have in PAP without the distractions of minsters in charge of ministries with unpopular policies. If PAP as a party could change and adapt to the new electorate profile and needs, it could very well emerge a stronger party than before. On hindsight, I wonder if this sense of connectedness, which PM spoke about in his apologies, had been adopted earlier, especially after the famous episode of Catherine Lim's 'The Affective Divide' in 1994, perhaps the PAP would not have lost the affection and trust of that 10% of the electorate in this 2011 Elections. But, hindsight is always cheap, so I shall not explore that further.
There are some points that many argue over this elections. The mind versus the heart. Many people say that they vote 'with the mind'. But frankly, I do not know what that means, because it could mean different things to different people. Voting with the mind could mean voting for more alternative voices in Parliament, because that voter sees the need for it, even as it could mean voting for the ruling incumbent party, because the voter sees stability and economic success as more important for the overall good of the nation. The same argument could be used in voting 'with the heart' too. So I am most amused to hear people tell each other to 'vote wisely', because that is the most vague expression ever. Another point raised is whether one is being ungrateful in not voting for the incumbent, or one is not thinking of nation and rather just concerned with self interest. Again, that's a matter of perceptions - one might be grateful, but yet believe in the need for change for the good of the nation. One might also think that having more voices in parliament is for the greater good of the nation as compared to estate upgrading, or short term foreign affairs. Similarly, others might accuse those who vote for more voices in parliament to be myopic and selfish because they simply want their complaints to be heard, that they are not thinking about the dent it would create on Singapore's national interest in foreign affairs. Yet others further assert that voting for a more 'caring society, for the heart' and compassion is to betray the elderly and underprivileged who need upgrading and tangible help. The list goes on. I think this is probably healthy debate, because there is no clear answer, and such civic discussion in the rallies, coffeeshops and online will crystallise for all the Singapore we want, and the Singaporean values we hold dear. It will take a few elections for this to emerge, and that will be when we truly know what we mean by our great Singaporean dream and identity. It connects Singaporeans together, whichever parties they may support, regardless of new or old citizens, because there is public discourse and consensus thereafter.
So, now that the dust has settled, and the shock and euphoria and sadness have subsided, can we say that certain political parties have won and certain parties have lost? That would be too simplistic an interpretation of it all. Perhaps, in a short term view, parties can proclaim their own victory or failure, but the true effects and impact of GE2011 on the respective parties will only be fully understood in the long term. But one thing is clear - the true great winners of this General Election 2011 are Singaporeans and Singapore.
For once in many years, all Singaporeans are exercising their responsibilities to discuss, to assess, to reflect, to think, to dream, so as to decide on their individual votes. And for once in many years, all Singaporeans are exercising their privilege and right to vote - that single paper that represents each person's voice on the matter of discussion. And that, truly, is what binds Singaporeans together for a common purpose, a common destiny, for our great country Singapore.
posted by edwinheng at 1:30 am
|
0 comments
