Archives of editorial will be maintained separately from the main archive of the SP; it will only be accessible from this page. Editorial archives
The spectacle of Tory MPs and ministers losing their seats like falling dominos in the May elections in Britain was extraordinary, at least to a Singaporean who is accustomed to Singaporean politicians beating their chests over the gain and loss of one parliamentary seat. What happened in Britain changed the entire political landscape overnight. Politicians whom we grew to associate immediately to their cabinet posts over the years were thrown out of Parliament. In particular, some of the notable instances include the Secretary for Defence (Michael Portillo), Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Malcolm Rifkind), and President of the Board of Trade (Ian Lang). These are not junior ministerial posts and it is an astonishing experience to watch the machinations of democracy at work at its most dramatic moment.
One cannot help but to compare the British elections with the earlier elections in Singapore. The Singapore elections had its fair share of excitement. Certainly, we have had our own recipe of ingredients for a memorable election: In place of the spectre of a federalist Europe, we had suggestions of merger with Malaysia; the economy was spluttering due to a global depressed electronics market; in place of a pensions scare, the PAP was threatening opposition wards with the HDB upgrading scheme; the condominium- discount affair still leaves a bitter aftertaste and the GICís alleged involvement with Burmese (Myanmarese) less desirable denizens continues to be a potential embarrassment as various individuals and organizations continue to pursue the matter. On top of all that, that distinct Singapore flavour was further emphasized by a liberal dash of spice that came in the form of a perceived threat to racial and religious harmony.
What happened in Singapore was the British election in reverse. Chee Soon Juan was definitely not a Tony Blair and the main opposition party, the Singapore Democratic Party, was wiped out in the elections. The Singapore elections were as much preoccupied with the Tang affair as the British elections were about sleaze. The difference was that the mud stuck to the opposition in the former. If the British political commentators of the day were accurate, the dissatisfaction of the British electorate with the ruling party had built into an infectious and unstoppable clamour for change. It wasnít that the New Labour Party was very different from the Tory party. Indeed, it had gotten increasingly difficult to tell one apart from the other. The New Labour Party had as many policy reversals as the number of charge of weak leadership they were making against John Major. The Tory party had been in power for eighteen years and a good section of the electorate had not known any other party in government. But change was demanded and change the British electorate got. It was, by any measure, a gamble as the newly formed cabinet soon showed. Only a small handful of them had any junior cabinet experience. But the nationís mood was overwhelmingly jubilant and optimistic. In contrast, one of the most effective bogeyman in Singapore politics is the `threatí of a government formed by the opposition. Indeed, the opposition parties recognized this to the extent that they have formulated a uniquely Singaporean opposition tactic of fielding only a handful of candidates thus assuring the electorate that they could `safelyí vote for their candidates without `accidentallyí voting out the ruling party.
So, apart from owning a HDB flat that will lay the inevitable golden egg, a lifetime of savings in the CPF, and a cushy job in a foreign company lured to Singapore by high economic growth, how different an animal is the average Singaporean from a Briton as far as political leanings are concerned? Not much, one might say. Both want a well-paid job and expects the government to guarantee one for them from the day they leave school. Both profess to be socially conscious but expect the better off to pay for social services. Both want democracy and freedom and expect the government, and everyone else, to do exactly what they want and expect to be able to do exactly as they wish. The only difference is about S$400 000. That is the going price for an average HDB four room flat plus some savings in the CPF. That is stakeholding and weíve got it honed to an art.
Will we ever see a PAP defeat the scale witnessed in morning of 2nd May in Britain? Probably not for quite a few years yet. PAP did not deserve to lose, at least not in the last election, and the opposition definitely deserves to lose. To be fair, the opposition had had opportunities on various occasions to put forth their arguments and publicize their manifestos. The inquiry into cost of health care was disastrous for the SDP and especially for Chee Soon Juan personally. I suspect that the average Singaporean appreciate a more conscientious and well-organized representation for their interests. This might be a key lesson for the opposition: it pays far more to have a competent research team as having an entourage on `walk-aboutsí. What about the PAP? If I recall correctly, a PAP MP was reportedly to have criticized arm-chair critics and commentators for not being as productive as canvassing activists. It is a sad day for Singapore politics if mere enthusiasm is deemed as a better substitute for intellectual debate and analysis.
Return to The Speaker's Platform