Welcome back, my avid fans. Today I will be doing exclusive coverage of the Singapore General Elections, and my personal reflections.
The past ten days saw a islandwide frenzy of emotion-stirring rallies, with political competitors and opponents both gunning for political points. Opposition parties have clashed ferociously with the People's Action Party (PAP) in Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) and Single Member Constituencies (SMCs) all over the pandemonic political battlefield, and both sides have tried their hardest for political victory. Yesterday saw the final respite after months of hard work by both candidates and voters.
As a supporter of the PAP, my natural first reaction when I had heard that Aljunied GRC had gone to the WP was of course distaste and disappointment. However, my mother chided me for not supporting the WP, saying that they deserved the win. Even though we lived in Tanjong Pagar GRC, it was apparent that the WP's passionate rally speeches and gestures of endearment had swayed my ever-headstrong mother as well. How did they do it? And what lessons can we learn?
This election marked a historic watershed for Singapore's electoral landscape. Many new feelings were instilled in the next generation of young voters, and many old rivalries were once again inflamed by the impassioned speeches of both the opposition and the PAP. However, the PAP defeated all parties and retained all their seats, with only one exception of Aljunied GRC. However, it is this one exception that will send the General Elections (GE) 2011 down into the Singaporean history.
The WP's "A"-team, comprising its secretary-general Low Thia Kiang and its chairwoman Sylvia Lim, defeated long-time defending champion George Yeo, the minister of Finance. How did they wrest the laurel of success from the PAP's team?
There are indeed a multitude of reasons. Firstly, they showed empathy towards the common man, and focused their shots on the weaknesses of the PAP's policies, such as housing affordability and healthcare. These were the biggest grouses of the man on the street, and still are today. They consistently rallied around the need for citizens to have a greater say and a greater influence in shaping the policies of the Singapore Government. The PAP had long been far too arrogant, deluded by sucess into thinking their throne on the parliamentary seats was impregnable. The WP gave the people the promise of a voice for reform, and the promise of a more citizen-oriented government. By showing empathy in their rallying speeches, and using the approval of the audience to their advantage, charismatic speakers like Pritam Singh and Low Thia Kiang were able to win the hearts and votes of many in Aljunied GRC.
Secondly, they appealed to the huge surge of young voters in this year's elections. The younger generation had mostly been born after 1975 and as such had not seen the miracles that the PAP had worked in the early years of Singapore. Appealing to the technologically-savvy generation of youth, they utilised social media like Facebook and Twitter to their maximum advantage. They used the interactivity and low cost of the Internet to set up a powerful campaign starting from their small budget. By contrast, the PAP did not manage to effectively harness the power of the Internet. Many residents were not impressed by the routine vans with loudspeakers and grassroots leaders handing out leaflets that were deployed by the PAP. Feisty "Boo"s were heard when one such van made its rounds. Also, grassroots leaders were told to "shove off" by an irate resident when they were promoting the PAP.
However, what was the real distinguishing factor? The PAP unrelentingly pounded the WP's arguments, calling for them to reveal plans of their own. They attempted to appeal to people's common sense and logic. However, the WP refused to wage war on a battlefield unfavourable to them. They instead drew the focus onto the need for reform, and for a "co-driver to slap the driver awake when he is asleeep" as Mr Low Thia Kiang put it. The WP's mandate proved to be far more effective than the PAP's in garnering votes for themselves. The PAP was like a well armoured fighter throwing punches at thin air, while the WP was like a distant sniper, aiming with impeccable precision at the flaws and chinks in the PAP's armour. With their powerful speeches and forceful arguments, they were able to use emotion and passion to overcome the obstacles that the PAP flung in their path.
The PAP, which had long become oblivious to change in the Singaporean landscape and blinded by their prolonged success in the general elections through the years, had grown far too obstinate. They simply refused to listen to the needs of the citizens, writing them off as everyday or inevitable occurrences. Mr Mah Bow Tan, the minister for National Development, kept insisting that housing prices were affordable for the Singaporean masses, despite insistent claims that housing was too highly-priced. This was the major mistake that the PAP made. In most of the GRCs and SMCs that were contested, the PAP only won by razor-thin margins of hundreds of votes. Mrs Lina Chiam of the Singapore People's Party lost by only 114 votes, or just a meagre 0.4%. The general sentiment of those who voted for opposition parties said that the main motivation had been to give the PAP a wake-up call, rather than to display support for those parties. As the proverb goes, "Pride comes before a fall." The PAP, blinded by pride, were not able to see how their seats were threatened by the soaring aspirations of the opposition parties. This ultimately led to their stunning loss in Aljunied GRC to the WP.
If we are complacent ourselves, we will never be able to achieve greater results. As the Chinese saying goes, "There is always a taller mountain." Whenever we think we have climbed to the peak of our achievement, there is always a higher peak for us to scale. It is when we think our achievements are the pinnacle that we stop growing. Other people, by contrast, treat it as the foundation for their own greater achievements. Complacency is like a huge rock blocking our path. It is when we shake the complacent mindset and shift into a different paradigm that the rock will become a stepping stone instead to climb to greater glory.
Likewise, if we have noble aspirations and a persevering heart, the WP has shown that even the most deeply ingrained of conventions can be overcome by diligence and perseverance in pursuing one's dream. When we are constantly chasing after our objectives, there will come a day when we finally catch up to them. As the CHinese saying goes, "There is nothing difficult in the world, only lazy people." If we have the due diligence, we can always find a way to break down obstacles in our path to success
Although I do not approve of the WP's victory in Aljunied, I concede that this may cause the PAP to realise their arrogant mistakes and revamp their policies. With the WP in parliament, there will also be a greater cause for the PAP to stop being apathetic and negligent towards the citizens. Nobody can improve without rigorous competition and testing, and this applies to the field of politics as well. Hopefully, this will prove as a wake-up call to the PAP and keep Singapore's government on their toes.
Dear Daniel,
ReplyDeleteI once again comment on the issue using the same words which I have used to respond to your comment posted in my Language Arts (LA) blog.
I find it quite unfair to say that the Workers' Party (WP) should not have won in Aljunied Group Representative Constituency (GRC). For one, we have not seen what they can do. Maybe they can do better? However, they just have not received this opportunity to prove their capability. Shouldn't we give them this chance to prove themselves, then?
As a resident previously living in Aljunied GRC, I express much disappointment to the governance of the PAP team led by Foreign Minister George Yeo. It was all talk and no work.
Well, there was work. They built a platform, claiming that it was "for residents to get together". That was good. After a year or two, they revamp it, when it is all functional and alright. He promised to visit residents to find out more about their living conditions, but he did not - time and again.
Is there a need for this? Are we wasting our resources by having unnecessary renovations? Is the minister neglecting our needs and wants? The hard truth is "yes".
I believe all these have been neglected and not reported by the media, but this is the hard truth in the seamy underbelly of Singapore - a place governed by Foreign Minister, thought to be a nice little place, but in actual fact, nah...
Therefore, the WP should be given a chance to take over Aljunied GRC, and prove their worth and significance! :)
The PAP has exploited that the WP has no concrete plans for the residents of Aljunied, which they think is substantial to stop residents from voting from such a party.
However, they were up for a shock. The WP was able to counter this argument rather eloquently, by pointing out that they have no real revenue and have not seen the treasury of the government. Without knowing the financial status of the government, they would not make empty promises. This is in direct contrast with the PAP, who made many promises.
I take my personal experience as an example. Before the 2006 elections, my parents and I waited patiently for George Yeo, our Member of Parliament (MP) of Bedok Reservoir ward, who had planned to come to visit us to find out more from the residents about their living conditions, financial status, and other stuff. We waited and waited, but he did not come, due to "some unknown reasons".
As a resident of Aljunied, I was really very disappointed and thus, wanted fiercely for the Workers' Party to take this GRC so that the people would be treated better!
This time, they did it, and I am very proud of that! I might not be able to taste the fruit of their labour, but I am sure that the residents of Aljunied will.
Yet, another reason is that the PAP is not cohesive enough. Many internal conflicts like Lee Kuan Yew's comment that "losing Aljunied is not the end of the world" and Lee Hsien Loong's comment that "we have confidence we can retain Aljunied" contradict each other. Mah Bow Tan previously said that housing prices would stay high, and that the government was not to be held responsible for that, because it was a definite case for any other countries. Yet, Lee Hsien Loong apologised that day for the high prices. So many contradictions make the people unaware of who to believe and who not to.
The WP is much more cohesive, with everyone speaking of just one thing: "Towards a First Class Parliament". Would you choose one with internal conflict or one which is united as one? It's your choice.
It is just a matter of time before the opposition parties will get stronger. The PAP has only two paths to take: remain complacent and self-destruct, or accept the people's opinions and have a chance of survival.
Best Regards,
Nathan :)
Dear Nathan,
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned that in Aljunied GRC, there was "all talk and no work" by George Yeo and his team. Well, I also believe that the WP's mandate was all talk and no work. It is often too easy to be an armchair critic, sitting comfortably and criticising any point the opposition tries to come up with. However, the real challenge comes with making a plausible proposal to do something about all the problems one has listed out. If one cannot solve the problem, one should not criticise existing solutions based on their flaws. There are always flaws in solutions as no solution can be perfect. The WP did much unnecessary slamming which I think is unbecoming of an opposition party. There is a line between providing constructive feedback, as is the primary aim of opposition parties, and slamming for the sake of doing so.
Is talking about one's objectives and aspirations a difficult task? Is drawing out general guidelines such an impossible deed to the point that the WP cannot do so? It is fine not to make empty promises, but one must have a plan that the people can understand and appreciate.
I do concede the point that the PAP is not cohesive enough and that the WP was much more cohesive. However, the difference in mindset takes part of the blame. Lee Kuan Yew has always been accustomed to giving his own view, in no flowery language or polite terms. In fact, his view is often regarded as invaluable advice by the younger members of the PAP. People have always accepted the Minister Mentor's point of view as his own idiosyncrasy. When they have been accepting it all along, why do they suddenly complain now about different views within the PAP? It is the variety of viewpoints that can make a rally all the more enriching.
In your examples provided, you mentioned about Mr Mah Bow Tan's remarks and Mr Lee Hsien Loong's remarks appearing to contradict. However, I beg to differ. The main meaning of the two men was that there was not much the Government could do to lower property prices without hindering the economy in some way or another. However, it felt duly responsible to the people to keep property prices low and apologised as it was unable to fulfill its duty. This is only right, is it not? While their choice of words have been a little conflicting, when one reads between the lines, is there any contradiction in the actual meaning? I do not think so.
I also think you have made an exaggeration. There are not many contradictions I can find in the PAP's speeches, with the possible exception of Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong's remarks. While there are indeed contradictions, those are exceptions rather than the norm.
If one wants to vote for a party, the cohesiveness is not the main judging criterion. It is the party's concrete plan and actions that are the most important factor in deciding who to vote for. It does not matter which party has access to more information. It is still possible to roll out ideas and tentative plans for the future. As the proverb goes, "When you fail to plan, you plan to fail." I sincerely hope the WP can justify its election by rolling out a concrete plan within the next month at the very latest.