Connect with us

Current Affairs

NUS Prof who says PAP will wipeout opposition explains why it can win public support in book

Published

4 years ago

on

NUS Prof Bilveer Singh who recently gave an interview said that PAP will entirely wipe out opposition in this GE (‘Experts say PAP will wipe out entire opposition in upcoming GE 2020‘, 3 Jul). Prof Singh is the Deputy Head of Political Science Department in NUS and an author of a number of books on Singapore’s politics.

In the interview, Prof Singh thinks PAP will win by landslide in this GE. “It is without a doubt that GE2020 will be a landslide victory for the PAP. In fact, the opposition may be entirely annihilated this election. Singaporean voters will run back to papa,” he said.

He warned not to overestimate the power of social media. He explained that in times of crisis, Singaporeans will run back to the ruling party. “We would rather forgo time for check and balance, accountability and transparency if it means securing our bread and butter as quickly as possible,” he opined. He noted that many Singaporeans have been living on government handouts during the Circuit Breaker.

PAP has proven throughout Singapore’s history that it could craft strong policies to revive the economy during a crisis, Prof Singh said. He cited 3 instances: Lee Kuan Yew after independence, Lee Hsien Loong during the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis and Heng Swee Keat during the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. As such, he thinks that it is still likely PAP will win by a generous margin because of its track record of handling crises, despite slip-ups like Ivan Lim.

“GE2020 will be like 2015, it will be another ‘freak election’ (for opposition), because of Covid-19. But what is more exciting to come is GE2025. It will be a referendum on the 4G leaders and not the 3G leaders… the PAP will have to prove themselves (by then),” Prof Singh said.

Prof Singh’s book: Is The People’s Action Party Here To Stay?

Last year, Prof Singh published a book, ‘Is The People’s Action Party Here To Stay?‘, to explain how the PAP has continued to win support from the public and why it’s difficult for the opposition to challenge them.

In his book, Prof Singh wrote that PAP has entrenched power since 1959. He said, “The continuous rule of the PAP has allowed it to implement policies with long-term consequences, one of which is to marginalise the opposition and establish a compact with the voters.”

So, with the ability to both punish and co-opt dissenters, the PAP has remained at the apex of political power since 1959.

“By being the incumbent since 1959, the PAP has engaged in rule-making that has established the rules of engagement and forced both the citizens and opposition to operate within the PAP-created system that advantages the ruling party,” he noted.

Voters are apathetic

Prof Singh has also observed that despite criticising the PAP, most voters are not quite interested in politics. PAP understands that the voters are primarily concerned with material benefits, something the ruling party is highly adept in, he shared.

Voters may have demands, but replacing the government doesn’t seem to be one of them. So, since 1965, there has been no major demand to replace the PAP as the ruling party and even key opposition parties such as the WP have said they are not interested in replacing the PAP, yet.

While the voters may have specific demands, such as lower cost of living and fewer foreigners in the country, it is never to replace the PAP as the government of Singapore. This is primarily because the PAP has been successful to satisfy the majority of Singaporeans.

PAP created a system where the highly competitive Singaporean is more focused on creating a good life for himself and his family rather than partaking in the national politics of replacing the government.

Prof Singh added, “What is even more intriguing is the perception that one’s well-being is directly linked to the continued rule of the PAP and hence, the compact between the PAP and the voters.”

“As long the PAP continues to deliver the goods for the populace, the Singapore voter will adopt the attitude and posture of ‘leave politics to the PAP’, and this advantages the PAP and its political dominance,” he said.

“Hence, from the perspective of rational voter behaviour, the PAP has been successful in providing the ‘goods’ that the voters want and where the PAP is in a position to deliver, thereby entrenching even more deeply the PAP in the public’s psyche as the ruling party.”

While there may be fear of the ruling party’s repressive measures, there is also a fear of losing the PAP that many Singaporeans believe would lead to the loss of a good, safe, secure and successful life.

The voters’ sense of disempowerment as far as political issues are concerned, and the unwillingness of major public interest groups to support an alternative political party to challenge the PAP, have also created a situation of almost no real challenge to the PAP from the present set of opposition parties in Singapore.

“For all the faults of the PAP, the voters have also got used to the beast called the PAP and their love-hate relationship in a situation of a lack of alternative, which has allowed the PAP to continue to rule Singapore with no sight of this being overturned in the short term,” Prof Singh opined.

Pervasive control by PAP

In addition to the legislature domination, PAP has also exercised control over the political and non-political organisations in Singapore, Prof Singh noted.

This includes the PAP’s control over grassroots organisations, the mass media, civil service, trade unions, and the economy as well as being credited for our ethnic and inter-state peace and harmony.

“In short, there is a sense of pervasive control over the city-state despite exuding a political system of openness in various sectors,” Prof Singh shared.

“This also makes it clear that the PAP government has captured the non-government sectors of the society, thereby compelling the political, economic and socio-cultural organisations to work in tandem and not against the state that is controlled by the PAP.”

In the Prof’s views, PAP has essentially created Singapore in its image, be it in national politics, economy, socio-cultural terrain, ethnic management, education policies, civil society, media, trade unions, grassroots organisations as well as the Republic’s defence and foreign policy.

Similarly, nation building and national identity have also been a function of PAP’s policies and imagination. Hence, Singaporeans identify Singapore’s success as being primarily due to the PAP and its policies, from which the voters have benefited immensely.

PAP’s political savvy in political mobilisation, its ability to recruit the “best and brightest” and deliverance of political goods, especially economic and social stability, have also been its key source of legitimacy. With such dominance, there is no sign of the PAP collapsing as the Barisan Nasional (BN) did in Malaysia as PAP leaders are not seen as “Najibs” and the PAP is not seen as the “BN”, Prof Singh noted.

“Through effective policies, often a mixture of hard and soft policies, the PAP has succeeded in capturing the political centre of Singapore and the imagination of its voters.”

Finally, through various measures, the PAP has also succeeded in denying legitimacy to the opposition and any alternative narrative that may surface with regard to Singapore’s past, present and even near future, Prof Singh said.

“While the public may continue to demonstrate some support for the opposition, largely as a protest against the PAP, when it comes to choosing a government for Singapore, since 1959, Singaporeans have continued to support the PAP — thereby explaining and demonstrating the resilience of the one-party dominant state in Singapore,” he concluded.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
24 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
24 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Chee Soon Juan questions Shanmugam’s $88 million property sale amid silence from Mainstream Media

Dr Chee Soon Juan of the SDP raised concerns about the S$88 million sale of Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow at Astrid Hill, questioning transparency and the lack of mainstream media coverage. He called for clarity on the buyer, valuation, and potential conflicts of interest.

Published

1 week ago

on

23 September 2024

By

On Sunday (22 Sep), Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), issued a public statement on Facebook, expressing concerns regarding the sale of Minister for Home Affairs and Law, Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow (GCB) at Astrid Hill.

Dr Chee questioned the transparency of the S$88 million transaction and the absence of mainstream media coverage despite widespread discussion online.

According to multiple reports cited by Dr Chee, Mr Shanmugam’s property was transferred in August 2023 to UBS Trustees (Singapore) Pte Ltd, which holds the property in trust under the Jasmine Villa Settlement.

Dr Chee’s statement focused on two primary concerns: the lack of response from Mr Shanmugam regarding the transaction and the silence of major media outlets, including Singapore Press Holdings and Mediacorp.

He argued that, given the ongoing public discourse and the relevance of property prices in Singapore, the sale of a high-value asset by a public official warranted further scrutiny.

In his Facebook post, Dr Chee posed several questions directed at Mr Shanmugam and the government:

  1. Who purchased the property, and is the buyer a Singaporean citizen?
  2. Who owns Jasmine Villa Settlement?
  3. Were former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and current Prime Minister Lawrence Wong informed of the transaction, and what were their responses?
  4. How was it ensured that the funds were not linked to money laundering?
  5. How was the property’s valuation determined, and by whom?

The Astrid Hill property, originally purchased by Mr Shanmugam in 2003 for S$7.95 million, saw a significant increase in value, aligning with the high-end status of District 10, where it is located. The 3,170.7 square-meter property was sold for S$88 million in August 2023.

Dr Chee highlighted that, despite Mr Shanmugam’s detailed responses regarding the Ridout Road property, no such transparency had been offered in relation to the Astrid Hill sale.

He argued that the lack of mainstream media coverage was particularly concerning, as public interest in the sale is high. Dr Chee emphasized that property prices and housing affordability are critical issues in Singapore, and transparency from public officials is essential to maintain trust.

Dr Chee emphasized that the Ministerial Code of Conduct unambiguously states: “A Minister must scrupulously avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest between his office and his private financial interests.”

He concluded his statement by reiterating the need for Mr Shanmugam to address the questions raised, as the matter involves not only the Minister himself but also the integrity of the government and its responsibility to the public.

The supposed sale of Mr Shamugam’s Astrid Hill property took place just a month after Mr Shanmugam spoke in Parliament over his rental of a state-owned bungalow at Ridout Road via a ministerial statement addressing potential conflicts of interest.

At that time, Mr Shanmugam explained that his decision to sell his home was due to concerns about over-investment in a single asset, noting that his financial planning prompted him to sell the property and move into rental accommodation.

The Ridout Road saga last year centred on concerns about Mr Shanmugam’s rental of a sprawling black-and-white colonial bungalow, occupying a massive plot of land, managed by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), which he oversees in his capacity as Minister for Law. Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, also rented a similarly expansive property nearby.

Mr Shanmugam is said to have recused himself from the decision-making process, and a subsequent investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) found no wrongdoing while Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean confirmed in Parliament that Mr Shanmugam had removed himself from any decisions involving the property.

As of now, Mr Shanmugam has not commented publicly on the sale of his Astrid Hill property.

Continue Reading

Comments

Redditors question support for PAP over perceived arrogance and authoritarian attitude

Despite Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s warning that slimmer electoral margins would limit the government’s political space “to do the right things”, many Redditors questioned their support for the ruling PAP, criticising its perceived arrogance. They argued that SM Lee’s remarks show the party has ‘lost its ways’ and acts as if it alone can determine what is right. Others noted that the PAP’s supermajority allows for the passage of unfavourable policies without adequate scrutiny.

Published

2 weeks ago

on

19 September 2024

By

In a recent speech, Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong warned that “if electoral margins get slimmer, the government will have less political space to do the right things.”

Mr Lee, who served as Prime Minister for 20 years, highlighted the risks associated with increasingly competitive politics.

“It will become harder to disregard short-term considerations in decision-making. The political dynamics will become very different,” he stated during his speech at the Annual Public Service Leadership Ceremony 2024 on 17 September.

“Singaporeans must understand the dangers this creates, and so must the public service,” SM Lee stressed.

SM Lee pointed out that Singapore faces formidable internal and external challenges in the years ahead, with rising expectations and demands from citizens.

As growth becomes harder to achieve and politics becomes more fiercely contested, he warned, “Things can go wrong for Singapore too.”

He urged vigilance in preparing for an uncertain future, noting, “As the world changes, and as the generations change, we must do our best to renew our system – to ensure that it continues to work well for us, even as things change.”

Critique of PAP’s Arrogance and Disconnect from Singaporeans

The People’s Action Party (PAP) experienced a notable decline in its vote share during the 2020 General Election, securing 61.24% of the votes and winning 83 out of 93 seats, a drop from 69.9% in 2015.

A significant loss was in Sengkang GRC, where the PAP team, led by former Minister Ng Chee Meng, was defeated by the Workers’ Party (WP).

In discussions on Reddit, some users questioned why they should support the ruling PAP, criticising the party’s perceived arrogance.

They pointed out that SM Lee’s recent remarks illustrate that the party has strayed from effectively serving Singaporeans and seems to believe it has the sole authority to decide what is right.

Others highlighted that the PAP’s super-majority in Parliament enables the passage of unfavourable policies without sufficient scrutiny.

One comment acknowledged that while many older Singaporeans remain loyal to the PAP due to its past achievements, younger generations feel the party has failed to deliver similar results.

There is significant frustration that essentials like housing and the cost of living have become less affordable compared to previous generations.

The comment emphasised the importance of the 2011 election results, which they believe compelled the PAP to reassess its policies, especially concerning foreign labor and job security.

He suggested that to retain voter support, the PAP must continue to ensure a good material standard of living.

“Then, I ask you, vote PAP for what? They deserve to lose a supermajority. Or else why would they continue to deliver the same promises they delivered to our parents? What else would get a bunch of clueless bureaucrats to recognise their problems?”

Emphasising Government Accountability to the Public

Another Redditor argued that it is the government’s responsibility to be accountable to the people.

He further challenged SM Lee’s assertion about having less political space to do the right things, questioning his authority to define what is “right” for Singapore.

The comment criticised initiatives like the Founder’s Memorial and the NS Square, suggesting they may serve to boost the egos of a few rather than benefit the broader population. The Redditor also questioned the justification for GST hikes amid rising living costs.

“Policies should always be enacted to the benefit of the people, and it should always be the people who decide what is the best course of action for our country. No one should decide that other than us.”

The comment called for an end to narratives that present the PAP as the only party capable of rescuing Singapore from crises, stating that the country has moved past the existential challenges of its founding era and that innovative ideas can come from beyond a single political party.

Another comment echoed this sentiment, noting that by stating this, SM Lee seemingly expects Singaporeans to accept the PAP’s assumption that they—and by extension, the government and public service—will generally do the “right things.”

“What is conveniently overlooked is that the point of having elections is to have us examine for ourselves if we accept that very premise, and vote accordingly.”

A comment further argued that simply losing a supermajority does not equate to a lack of political space for the government to make the right decisions.

The Redditor express frustration with SM Lee’s rhetoric, suggesting that he is manipulating public perception to justify arbitrary changes to the constitution.

Concerns Over PAP’s Supermajority in Parliament

Another comment pointed out that the PAP’s supermajority in Parliament enables the passage of questionable and controversial policies, bypassing robust debate and discussion.

The comment highlighted the contentious constitutional amendments made in late 2016, which reserved the elected presidency for candidates from a specific racial group if no president from that group had served in the previous five terms.

A comment highlighted the contrast: in the past, the PAP enjoyed a wide electoral margin because citizens believed they governed effectively. Now, the PAP claims that without a substantial electoral margin, they cannot govern well.

Continue Reading

Trending