by Tan Wah Piow
Will the People’s Action Party (PAP) be 13 times lucky?
After all, to buy the votes of the 2.6 million voters, the PAP promises to spend $100 billion on families, communities and businesses. But these are taxpayers money.
The alternative parties are now able to argue that with the amount, they too would be able to deliver their alternative social programs. Instead of being distracted by the various POFMAs against the opposition parties, there is an urgent need to kickstart the debate to define the future social landscape of post-pandemic Singapore.
In the contests for the hearts of minds of the voters, the PAP having absolute control of the mainstream media, and with tricks, smokescreens and mirrors at its disposal is bound to win handsomely. This at least is the view of many foreign observers.
Why then did the PAP Minister Chan Chun Sing warn the voters that the opposition could win enough seats to form a government?
Of the eleven parties in this General Election (GE), the PAP is the only party that people would join without fear of adverse repercussions from the deep state. For many, joining the PAP is a career move.
In contrast, none of the opposition parties has the organisational outreach and membership comparable to the PAP. Since 1959, the ruling party has the entire machinery of the State at its disposal. The PAP can, through its control of Peoples’ Association funded with a budget in excess of $1 billion from taxpayers, reach out to every corner of the island, and homes, rendering it the natural party of government by default.
Unlike other ruling parties in the region which are oiled by corruption, the PAP has alternative means to fund its enormous party machine while painting it as whiter than white. It is no wonder that after the Communist parties of China, North Korea and Cuba, the PAP holds the title as the party in power with the longest period of uninterrupted rule in the world.
By choosing to call the GE now when the election are not due until a year later, the PAP is poised to reap the maximum political advantage brought about by the coronavirus pandemic. In Singapore as elsewhere, voters in such a crisis tend to favour the incumbents. By having the GE amid a pandemic, the PAP is able to deny the opposition rights to public rallies without courting international condemnation.
By the time the GE were announced, the PAP had already, through serial persecutions and legislative changes nipped potential political challenges in the bud and stymied the opposition. POFMA, the so-called Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 is now a handy tool already in use in the past few days against the opposition.
Given the disproportionate advantages the PAP enjoys over the ten opposing parties, wasn’t Chan being disingenuous when implying that the PAP rule would come to an end?
If Chan were to repeat his statement before a lie detector, how would the reading be? Your guess is as good as mine.
Tan Cheng Bok was right to accuse the Minister of fooling and scaring the voters. The scaremongering is bound to discourage some non-diehard PAP voters from casting their votes for the opposition. As a politician, Chan should be aware that other than those who are die-hard anti-PAP voters, the majority of Singaporeans are hard-wired to distrust opposition parties, and indoctrinated to believe that the PAP is a natural party of Government.
The average person who recalls the dog-whistling from Chan that the opposition could form a government is likely to instinctively vote for the PAP. This, unfortunately, is how the mind works because it demands the least effort.
No doubt a more contemplative voter would evaluate the opposition manifestos against the promises of the PAP and would consider the need for checks and balances within the parliamentary system before casting his vote. This is effortful, hard work and time consuming for most people.
Such conduct of Chan amounts to dog-whistling, targeting half-truths during the election in the hope of instigating a section of the electorate to vote irrationally based on their indoctrinated prejudice and fear of losing the perceived natural party of government.
In a democracy, such deliberate electioneering malpractice is an abuse of the electoral process. It has the same effect as bookies deliberately placing odds in favour of the opposition victory for purpose of instigating voters to rally for the incumbents.
As a senior member of the Singapore cabinet, Chan’s dog-whistling is more than just mischievous. It is an affront to democracy. What the PAP is afraid of is losing its rubber-stamp parliament and the supermajority. Having more opposition parliamentarians in an elected dictatorship would mean tighter scrutiny over the legislative programs and work of the government. Losing its supermajority would curtail the PAP ability to repeat similar constitutional trickery as they did not long ago with the installation of a puppet president.
The average Singapore electorate might not have noticed that the words democracy, justice and equality, key values on the Singapore flag, are not mentioned in the PAP 2020 Manifesto. The slick PAP 2020 Manifesto resembles the marketing tool of a high-end corporate estate agent.
The PAP Manifesto makes the following claim “Our mission is for all to progress together, leaving no one behind.”
To test the truth, I revisited the speech of Professor Tommy Koh, made on the l October 2019. The veteran diplomat is a rare establishment voice advocating minimum wage and closing the income gap.
In that speech, Tommy Koh questioned whether a cleaner in Singapore could live a life with dignity if he had to compete with the one million foreign workers from the region for a wage of $700 a month.
To achieve a more equal Singapore, Tommy Koh argued that it would require the government to abandon a social pyramid where the median wage of a bus driver is $3000 per month, while the CEO is paid between $1.2 million to $2 million a year. The job of a CEO in a bus company “is not rocket science” he argued. Tommy Koh attributed this income disparity to the government “blind imitation” of the “wicked American way”.
Voters should consider whether they can continue to rely on the PAP leaders who are the architects and beneficiaries of the “wicked” American style-pyramid to reinvent Singapore so that no one in future will be left behind as Singapore progresses.
Another credible witness I will call upon is Lee Hsien Yang (LHY), the estranged brother of the Prime Minister.
48 hours before nomination day, LHL released a broadcast calling for the end of the status quo which handsomely “rewards the few and the eunuchs around the emperor, but dishes out crumbs to those who are not natural aristocrats, scholars, generals and the privilege.”
If throwing crumbs behind the gravy train is the PAP way to ensure no one is left behind Singapore’s glitzy progress, habitual voters for the PAP may need to reconsider whether PAP is any longer the natural party of government.
They may need to heed the call of Tommy Koh to reinvent Singapore. For that, we need “builders and fighters” .
Who amongst the 93 PAP candidates at this GE are fighters?
If “eunuch disease” has infected the heart of the Singapore establishment, and according to LHY, “there are no leaders, only paper shufflers who exist to keep the emperor happy”, should voters continue to rest their blind trust on the PAP?
Besides, fighters required to rebuild and reinvent Singapore do not come cheap if you engage PAP Inc. Goh Chok Tong, the former Prime Minister had forewarned some time back that “ministers are not paid enough, and down the road, we are going to get a problem with getting people to join the government because civil servants now earn more than ministers” “ Are you aware of that?” he asked.
So, before voting for the natural aristocrat from PAP Inc, ask him “how much?”
Finally, make sure that he is immune from eunuch disease, and the crumbs come with the same gravy.
