8years
By Andrew Loh
In the past week, much has been discussed about how the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) could lose power.
Ho Kwon Ping, former detainee and current chairman of Banyan Tree Holdings, laid out various scenarios at a public forum last week of how this could happen.
On Sunday, Straits Times opinion editor, Chua Mui Hoong, picked it up and went one step further – she said that the gap between the ruling elite and the masses “is [the] biggest political risk for the PAP.”
“I think the biggest and most dangerous political divide in Singapore that can arise is that between the political and socioeconomic elite, and the hoi polloi,” Ms Chua wrote.
It is ironic that she used the term “hoi polloi” to describe the masses, in an article to raise the alarm about the detachment of the elite from the common folk.
“Hoi polloi” is often used in a derogatory sense.
Be that as it may, before we get into what Ms Chua and Mr Ho said, it is worth remembering that a collapse of the PAP is not a new idea.
Presidential candidate, Tan Cheng Bock, had raised this scenario in 2011, after the conclusion of the presidential elections.
Dr Tan, who lost to the PAP’s chosen candidate, Tony Tan, said:

“There’s definitely a division in the PAP. I can see many of the grassroots openly come and tell me they support me in spite of being told by others not to. They obviously abandoned that expected stand and it’s reflected in the votes. The PAP split is right down in the middle.”

So, there is nothing new in the idea that the PAP may collapse and how this can happen, which seems to be the focus of Mr Ho and Ms Chua.
What we should realise is that the PAP will lose power – because nothing stays permanently, forever.
So, to speculate why this will happen is really quite a meaningless and useless thing to do. It is a waste of time because it is a given that it will happen.
The real question we should focus on is, instead: do we have a system in place which is robust enough to carry Singapore forward when the PAP loses power, and when a new party takes over, or if we have a coalition government?
This is the more important question which will focus our minds on what is crucial – for the country, not for a political party which will come and go, be it the PAP or the Workers’ Party or any other.
And if the PAP govt is failing the people, isn’t it good that it loses power?
Isn’t it the responsible thing to do to vote them out?
The real question is thus: how can the system be changed or improved – so that no matter which party is in power, Singapore will not go under.
And for this, it is clear that we cannot depend on the PAP to change or for it to change the system. This is because even if it wants to, it cannot. Why?
The vested interests are too entrenched.
Do you think a grassroots chairman, for example, will tell the PAP Govt that the grassroots should be allowed to serve any MPs who have been elected by the people, whether PAP or opposition MPs? Has any grassroots chairman ever told the PAP Govt this?
And even if some have, will the PAP listen and agree to this?
Of course not.
The chairman of the grassroots umbrella organisation is also the secretary general of the PAP.
And the Board is filled with ministers from the PAP as well.
On Monday, the Straits Times reported how PAP MPs and activists were in Sembawang GRC helping to paint the homes of some rental flats residents.
It reported MP Hawazi Daipi emphasising “the importance of having grassroots organisations and party activists working together and gelling in GRC-wide activities.” [Emphasis added.] You may well ask, “Why are grassroots organisations ‘working together and gelling’ with PAP activists?”
One would have hoped that the grassroots organisations would be apolitical or politically neutral.
The same grassroots organisations do not seem to want to work with the opposition WP or its activists.
This is but one example of how the PAP cannot change the system – it is too valuable for it at times. Being able to make use of the grassroots organisations to further its political agenda is something which it will never give up, unless there is a change from the outside, even as Singaporeans keep telling the PAP Government that the grassroots should be politically neutral.
So, it is not whether the PAP will lose power which should concern us. Instead, it is a question of how the system can be improved, which can only happen via others outside the PAP.
There are also other examples of how the PAP will not listen even to good ideas and suggestions.
It may be because they are stubborn, or because they think they know better than the “hoi polloi”.
But the more important observation would be this: the PAP cannot change simply because it has too much invested in keeping the current system going, even when the warts are clear to one and all.
Will the PAP introduce an independent election commission?
Will it free the media?
Will it change or improve the system of how our judges are appointed?
Will it let the Arts have free space, instead of banning such works at the slightest discomfort?
Will it introduce a Freedom of Information Act so that Singaporeans will have a more transparent government?
Will it have an independent electoral boundary review committee which is outside of the purview of the prime minister’s office?
What are the economic growth directions, going forward, besides building more skyscrapers and flooding the island with foreigners?
These, and more, are the things that matter.
Often, the PAP refuses to listen – to the very serious detriment of Singaporeans.
Here are two recent examples:
The Little India riot last December showed how the red flag raised by WP chairman, Sylvia Lim, about the shortage of police resources had been ignored and neglected by the authorities – for 8 years – until the riot happened and the police commissioner himself revealed the shortage during the commission of inquiry hearings.
[Read it here: “Lack of police resources – how Sylvia Lim tried to sound the alarm for 8 years.”] “We need more police officers, more firefighters, more immigration officers.  What has been done to ensure that recruitment is keeping pace with the increased population?” Ms Lim asked in Parliament in 2008.
The answer?
Apparently not much.
In fact, the prime minister admitted in 2011 that his government has not foreseen such needs even as it increased the foreign population.
Another example is how the WP had also warned – also 8 years ago – about the danger of congregation of those with economic power and those with political power.
“Those with economic power tend to congregate with those with political power, resulting in a power elite network,” the WP election manifesto of 2006 warned.
“The consequence of such a structure is imbalance in policy formulation.”
This, arguably, is what has indeed happened, with the influx of cheap labour, the proliferation of shopping malls, condominiums and such all over our island, decimating our land and our places of heritage and history, the depression of wages, and the increasing inequality gap of which Ms Chua wrote about.
And all these despite Singapore’s position as one of the wealthiest places on earth, with its people one of the hardest-working, slogging for more hours than most on the planet, with one of the highest forced savings rate to boot.
What then has gone wrong?
At root, a government which is so ensconced in its ivory tower that it no longer can hear what the people are saying, until the problem stares it in the face – and then it starts running after the problems, the same problems which it created by its faulty and ill-conceived policies.
And this is again indeed what the PAP Government has been doing since 2011 – running after problems it created, with no time for new ideas, new imaginations, new creativity.
It is the same old same old – from trying to curb freedom of speech online, to defamation suits, to leaving the door wide to foreigners, to erasing places of memories.
In conclusion, as Elaine Ee wrote in January 2013:

“For those of us who have chosen or who have no choice but to stay, we need to continue to build real alternatives to the PAP and stop viewing them as the only party that can ever govern Singapore.”

This is crucial because, yes, the PAP will lose power one day.
It is our responsibility as Singaporeans to install in the system checks and balances as safeguards for ourselves.
And such safeguards cannot come from the PAP itself.
It must and can only come from others outside of it.

Subscribe
Notify of
86 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

屠妖节燃放烟火 两嫌犯被逮捕

涉嫌在昨日(6日)凌晨于小印度格洛士特路非法燃放鞭炮,两名分别为29及48岁的嫌犯被警方逮捕。 根据警方文告,警方在上述路段发现有人燃放鞭炮后,不久即逮捕涉事者。 相信是为了欢庆屠妖节,涉事者在上述地带燃放鞭炮长达一分钟,也被网民拍摄短片上载社交媒体。影片末段可见有警察奔跑向烟花点燃处。 警方称目前仍在进行调查。 在我国《危险烟火法》下,严禁民众使用和拥有烟火,只有特定活动、安全标准等获得许可的情况下,才能使用。 燃放烟火的人一旦罪名成立,将面对2000元到1万元不等的罚款,或长达两年监禁,或两者兼施。  

揪出涉滥毒同僚 马警“蓝魔行动”上周逮逾百人

为了扫清警队中的吸毒者,马来西亚警方自上周在全国展开“蓝魔行动”,至今已揪出逾百名吸毒警员,并且有3千438名被怀疑“有问题”的警员进行尿检。 全国总警长拿督阿都哈密指出,警方之上周二(8月13日)展开蓝魔行动(Op Blue Devil),要清除警队内涉毒的警员,岂知一周就揪出百余人,连他都感到惊讶,并认为情况非常严重。 他披露有关的行动针对所有警官和警员,他们都必须进行尿检,而被揪出的警员涉及毒品种类繁多。“不过主要还是冰毒。” 他在接受马新社访问时指出,警务人员向来被俗称为“蓝衣人”(Men In Blue),但是涉毒的警员确实知法犯法,相信还涉及其他违法行动,就好像魔鬼一样,所以称此行动为“蓝魔行动”。 被揪出者都有问题行为 阿都哈密指出,上述令人震惊的数值显示了马国毒品泛滥问题已经处于危险水平,因此蓝魔行动必须继续。 他也想毒品罪案调查组发出明确指示,不能让行动松懈。 他说,可以预见,并且已经证实这些涉毒警员的行为都有问题,他们都涉及勒索、贪腐、威胁和加害外劳。“要满足毒瘾的代价很高,他们必须以昂贵价格购买毒品,但是他们的薪金根本不足,因此只能找非法钱财。”…

【冠状病毒19】印尼1千600志愿者 接种测试中国生产疫苗

今日(11日),邻国印尼有多达1600志愿者,将开始接种测试中国生产的冠状病毒19疫苗。 这款疫苗由中国医药公司北京科兴控股公司研发,进入第三阶段,仍待最后一道临床试验。 早前,该疫苗已在巴西完成9000志愿者的测试。 印尼目前由超过12万7千人确诊,死亡人数超过5千700人。至于上述疫苗测试将持续至明年2月份。若能被证实无风险且有效,当地政府将下令量产。

Long queues for temperature checks at Suntec City and Raffles Place amid DORSCON orange alert on coronavirus outbreak

As the Singapore’s Disease Outbreak Response System Condition (DORSCON) level to the…