by: Ghui/

George Yeo and Lim Hwee Hua were both politicians who have made contributions to Singapore. George Yeo especially, was an outstanding Minister for foreign affairs. However, both have resigned from active politics after failing to win in Aljunied GRC in GE 2011.

I am disappointed by their respective decisions because it signals a lack of willpower and commitment. Every politician suffers setbacks in his or her career. All politicians the world over have lost elections and many have come back to fight another day. Most, were victorious eventually. Each failed election campaign is a learning experience after all. Singapore is unique in this because the PAP has been the ruling party for over 50 years with little or no competition, leaving us with a generation of politicians who seem ill adept to fight.

This begs the question; do our PAP candidates lack qualities which real politicians should possess? Are they in fact, true politicians?

In an article entitled “The PAP and the idealism of Nuns”, the writer quotes Laurel Teo, a Straits Times journalist who once wrote “Being an MP is still about helping people, but it is also about wielding political power. One is not asking for scheming Machiavellian types, but those who enter politics must know this. Know why they want that power, and how they intend to exercise it.”

How true! In that one statement, she has identified the difference between a “do gooder” and a real politician. While not undermining the importance of altruistic commitment, politicians must possess additional qualities such as foresight, leadership, charisma and most importantly, tireless persistence coupled with the ability to conquer setbacks. He or she must also possess a certain degree political awareness and realism.

Perhaps there is an inherent problem in PAP’s selection process. New candidates do not appear to take up the challenge of standing for elections (or walk overs) by their own volition. In recent years, it would seem that the candidates are handpicked by senior PAP cadres and invited to serve. Candidates would be selected from a pool of “elites” who have a track record of community service and volunteer work. This therefore rules out home grown politicians within the PAP and creates the “packaged” politician. Most of these individuals may never have had political aspirations had they not been “invited” to “join the club”.

The negative impact of “packaged” politicians is the creation of a “super volunteer”, ill suited to the challenges of the political stage. Someone willing to serve but without an “individual” opinion. In fact, some have no opinions at all! Take Tin Pei Ling as an example. When asked what policies she would change if elected, she replied that she would alter nothing as all existing policies work! This disturbing lack of thought on policies signals an administrator, an able one perhaps, but not a person with the political acumen and skills to qualify as a genuine politician. This lack of awareness for what true politics entail impedes a candidate’s ability to engage the voters. After all, if a particular candidate is unable to effectively articulate what he or she believes in or what policies he or she represents, how can such candidate convince voters of what they are voting for?

As Laurel Teo states “These may be do-gooders, but by appearing not to have given much prior thought to a topical issue, they make themselves look as politically apathetic as the worst of the Singaporeans”. In its selection process, the PAP has unwittingly created a breed of politicians who are politically apathetic!

In an article entitled “The 4Cs which leaders need”. Teo Ser Luck described himself as “not a natural politician”. If candidates had not been “manufactured” would someone like Mr Teo have ventured into the political arena?

Not all “created” politicians have been dismal failures of course. In the history of Singapore, a fair few have made genuine and significant contributions to Singapore. However, the drawback of such candidates is complacency and an inability or unwillingness to challenge the status quo. After all, why bite the hand that feeds you?

Juxtapose these “produced” politicians with those who have willingly stepped up to the plate. They have joined opposition parties and contested in GE 2011 without having to be “invited” to participate. You could not have a starker contrast. Take Nicole Seah for instance. She was quick witted at interviews as opposed to Tin Pei Ling’s scripted responses.

There are also other shining examples of enduring and persistent commitment.

Chiam See Tong is one such steadfast figure. Chiam entered politics in 1976 but only won his first election in 1984. At each failed election campaign, he increased his vote share, finally beating Mah Bow Tan with 60.3 % of the votes. In GE 2011, he lost in the Bishan Toa Payoh GRC. Despite this defeat, his age and his ill health, he has said that he will try again. This tenacity and strength of character is truly inspirational and is what defines a genuine politician. Chiam is willing to work hard, possesses a heart for service, realises the importance of engaging his voters and above all, has a “never say die” attitude. Someone who is willing to soldier on no matter the odds. His ability to be “one with the voters” earned him the ongoing loyalty of Singaporeans.

Another familiar figure is JBJ. Despite all his setbacks, he always picked up the pieces to try again. He never gave up till the day he died. He will go down in the annals of Singapore history as the man who was never daunted by defeat, a true hero among heros.

Much as I admire George Yeo for his contributions, he seems to lack this perseverance, announcing his retirement from active politics days after losing the election. While he gave a gracious speech, I was frustrated by his seeming lack of determination. I do not know George Yeo personally so perhaps he had his reasons. But the message sent by this prompt resignation is an unwillingness to fight the good fight. There was talk that Yeo could run for president but he remained undecided, disengaged and finally announced that he would not be running after all.

Perhaps, George Yeo and Lim Hwee Hua, while being able administrators and civil servants were never put in a position whereby they had to really fight for votes. Be that as it may, wanting to fight for every vote is an essential quality every real politician should possess. Chaim is much older than both Yeo and Lim but his love for Singapore is such that he refuses to give up. JBJ was well into his 80s! To these old political veterans, I salute you. You are the real deal. To George Yeo and Lim Hwee Hua, I feel somewhat let down.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

【武汉冠状病毒】新电信一职员确诊 受影响楼层关闭消毒

新电信(Singtel)发表声明证实,该公司其中一名职员,昨晚(5日)确诊患上武汉冠状病毒。 有关职员在新电信电信中心Comcentre一号大楼,第20楼上班。致使新电信需关闭有关楼层进行消毒。 据了解,上述职员最后一次上班时上周三(26日),此后就请病假。不过,同一楼层办公的员工都被指示需在家办公两周,卫生部已启动追踪调查曾与确诊者接触的相关人士。 新电信指出,自我国在上月初把警戒级别上调至橙色以来,就已落实分开工作,减低接触感染风险,以及限制旅游出行、限制公司访客、在公众场所准备消毒液和体温监测等。 根据新加坡卫生部文告,截至本月5日中午12时,本地新增五起武汉冠状病毒(COVID-19)确诊病例,累计确诊病例已多达117例。

Young and restless: Protest parallels in Thailand and Hong Kong

by Dene-Hern Chen, with Jerome Taylor in Hong Kong Hong Kong and…

违反居家通知 一英国人两名本地公民遭提控

据移民与关卡局文告,一名英国人与两名本地公民,由于违反居家通知而在今日(15日)出庭面控。 在去年9月21日,原本在酒店履行居家通知的英国公民,三度没戴口罩擅自违规离开房间。最后一次他还和自己的新加坡籍未婚妻,在相同酒店订另一房间一同过夜。 至于另一起违规个案,是一名在去年3月17日,从印尼巴淡岛返回新加坡的本地公民。他理应在入境当天就在申报住址遵守居家通知,但当天晚上却搭巴士在芽笼士乃一带闲逛! 男子较后还在18日至24日期间,直接返回公司上班,也未告知他的公司或管理层,他正在履行居家通知。他在该公司担任保安职务。在14天居家通知期间,男子还在不同公共场合出现过。 违反居家通知者,包括擅自移除电子监控器,都可在2020年传染病条例(冠病居家通知)下被提控。最高罚款可达1万元,或是监禁半年。 至于外籍人士还可能面对来自移民关卡局或人力部采取行动,这可能包括撤销在本地工作准证。 对此,移民关卡局重申,要保护社群的安全,每个人都扮演重要角色;入境访客也要遵守新加坡的公共卫生条规和需求,相关资讯都可以在新加坡的安全旅游(SafeTravel)官网找到。

Pasar Glamour to raise funds for pandemic-affected freelancers in Singapore performing arts industry

The livelihoods across many industries have suffered due to the COVID-19 pandemic…