Mildly different or credibly different?

Differences between the Workers’ Party of over various eras may be more imagined that real

Amid an indefinitely long hiatus from roving within the socio-political cyberspace, an Ex-Co Member of the WP Youth Wing alerted me to an interview with the WPYW’s President and Vice President by The Online Citizen.

A hiatus is often a good thing – it allows one to get his mind off his pet interest, not be immersed in intensive pondering to the extent that one’s focus is affected, like an addiction, and develop clearer thoughts.

The only drawback is that the current mediocre literacy level feels to have regressed further.

Back to the article in mention, entitled “Milder but more credible“, and another in response to it, brought a question into my mind.

Is there really a significant difference between the Workers’ Party under J. B. Jeyaretnam and the Workers’ Party under Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim?

The wide range of diverse comments was fairly distributed but, in my view, whether netizens who were supportive or critical of the WP had all barked up the wrong tree.

While it is true that the late Mr Jeyaretnam had a total of two defamation suits and two legal proceedings under his belt, that was out of an estimated 200 speeches he made or activities he participated in his life.

I do not wish to disrespect the respectable opposition veteran by thinking that he was acquiescent to the PAP during the other 196 times, just as I do not think the zero legal record of the WP meant it was acquiescent during all times.

Even if critics were to throw in the “good” or “bad” things PAP leaders say about various WP and opposition leaders – as if we should care, strangely speaking – this is also moot.

The only three or four occasions opposition MPs, including Chiam See Tong, were lauded by the PAP for being constructive pales in comparison to the hundreds of times they were accused of being inapt to run the country and scoring political points.

Similarly, while having been tagged by the PAP with several derogatory labels such as being dishonest, Mr Jeyaretnam had also been lauded at least once for his tenacity and not being a quitter.

Finally, the last bastion of arguments – also the most subjective and unsustainable of all – is that one had brought up more and more important issues or was more passionate or aggressive in disposition than the other.

The major difference is actually not inclined in any era of any opposition party – but in the PAP.

The PAP of the past had the tendency to ensnare the opposition based on all sorts of legal technicalities that even lawyers are confused about.

Not that this treatment is justifiable but this may be due to having exited shortly from the nightmares of grave political fights in the yesteryears.

Today, it presumably sensed that this hard approach would not go down well with the new generation of Singaporeans, who are unlike their survival-worried ancestors – never mind that it was the PAP who lifted them out in the first place.

Like the typical impressionable human, the TOC interviewer is probably under the paradigm that the WP today is mild but more credible and less of both in the past, and conducted the interviewed in this manner and direction.

He, along with WPYW leaders and WP supporters – if applicable – cannot be faulted as even WP’s critics themselves had fallen into this.

And, with due respect, even Mr Jeyaretnam himself has shown.

In reality, apart from the lack of difference in approach as pointed out above, election results over the years also revealed no significant difference, at least to date.

Nevertheless, credibility remains an important factor and not a “PAP-originated concept” as some affiliates of a particular opposition party have alleged it to be and, in the process, dismissed it.

Several renowned books on success, whose authors hail from countries like America, also denote that credibility plays a crucial role and has to be guarded with utmost priority.

In definition, it amounts to “believability” and “trustworthiness”.

Voters all around the world would vote for what they believe in and trust more – although these do not merely infer to the credibility of a candidate or party but also the credibility of the outcome, which ideally should be one of plurality.

The credibility of the PAP may exist – but a one-party Parliament is certainly not credible.

This is because the historical purpose of any legislature was to reflect different voices in the first place.

On this day before Christmas eve, I wish all readers a Merry X’mas!

In the meantime, the hiatus shall continue…

A lost sense of Parliamentary democracy

Under the People’s Action Party, in power since 1959, the entire government has gradually become clueless about the spirit of Parliamentary democracy, despite having been the first political party to inherit it from the British

“This speaks so much of the respect of the ruling party for the will of the people expressed at General Elections and how mature we are as a democracy.”
- Low Thia Khiang, Hougang’s Member of Parliament and Workers’ Party Secretary-General, in a letter to The Straits Times on 10 October 2009 pertaining to the lift upgrading issue

“This shows the respect the Government has for the people’s choice of MP, who is vested with the constitutional mandate to represent the constituency.”
- Sylvia Lim, Non-Constituency MP and Workers’ Party Chairman, reiterating the point in another ST letter on 15 October 2009

Once again, the People’s Action Party’s inability to work beyond party demarcation and on the national platform has surfaced.

This was evident when the HDB accorded the privilege of “fronting” the Lift Upgrading Programme in Hougang and Potong Pasir to the two grassroots advisors, who were concurrently defeated PAP candidates in two consectutive General Elections.

Perhaps it was sufficient public bewilderment that prompted National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan to stand out and clarify the matter, which he did so in an ST interview published on 9 October 2009:

“I don’t expect the MP who is not a government MP or PAP MP to go and front it, and explain why the Lift Upgrading Programme is like that…”

While the mainstream media would not have the tendency to portray a PAP minister in a bad light, the above statement itself was enough for Mr Mah to shine it on himself.

He mentioned “MPs” – but are the two PAP representatives “MPs” in the first place?

Under the PAP, in power since 1959, the entire government has gradually become clueless about the spirit of Parliamentary democracy, especially when comes to dealing with Parliamentary Opposition.

How Parliamentary democracy works

If the PAP believes in holding elections for and making decisions through Parliament, it should rehash the origins of Parliamentary democracy and understand its workings all over again.

When legislators in a country are elected, they are expected to uphold all laws passed by the legislature, regardless of being on the opposition side where the ruling party or coalition side occupies the majority.

In this spirit, it is probably why Mr Low sits in the Nominated MP selection committee despite the fact that the WP, which he leads as Secretary-General, opposes the scheme, or why opposition town councils join the government, along with PAP town councils, to campaign against dengue and SARS.

Any inconsistency is but a myth, and “working within a system it is supposed to oppose” is a lack of exposure to the true meaning of Parliamentary democracy.

There is a difference between a party stand and a national duty.

To use an analogy, citizens who oppose fare hikes are not expected to travel to their workplaces, schools or other destinations on foot to prove their point.

Nevertheless, the perception that a “national duty” is a “PAP duty” in lieu of the PAP’s dominance in the country cannot be faulted, as it is a product of a PAP system – a party that has shown to share such a mindset as well.

This does not mean raising an objection is merely “talk”.

It is communicating a stand to the electorate such that if the people feel strongly against the NMP scheme and because of that – and any other reason – vote the WP into power in a GE, the party will proceed to abolish the scheme with not a least bit of compunction.

However, if the people could live with the PAP, the WP would likewise live with the people’s decision and work in consideration of the NMP and other state tenets.

Obviously, the WP adheres to the principle of Parliamentary democracy more than the PAP, which surprising still needs “Democracy 101″ lessons despite being the first political party to inherit it from the British.

Politicking the real reason?

The MND, through its Press Secretary Lim Yuin Chien in two letters dated 13 and 17 October 2009, expressed that opposition MPs were not “obliged to carry out and explain the Government’s policies” and it had to “implement government programmes through persons and agencies answerable to the Government”.

An attempt is made to paint the picture that opposition MPs may not adhere to directions of the government if they were put in charge of the LUP – a “concern” that appears to be a fantasy and mere figment of imagination.

In his interview, Mr Mah had said that “both MPs have been cooperative” and the grassroots advisors have been in talks with them.

By acknowledging this, the concern is moot and the responses by the MND’s minister and press secretary become contradictory to each other.

As mentioned by Mr Low and Ms Lim, they and the WP are prepared to work with the government for the benefit of constituents.

Naturally, ideal MPs go for options that benefit the people – even if their political opponents score points along the way.

If the government is genuinely worried over the possibility of not being able to work with the opposition, why did it decree the power of town councils to the opposition MPs in 1984?

Had the opposition-held town councils fulfilled the prospect that the government pretends to be anxious about, many things would have long gone awry over the last decade.

Moreover, the government ought to be aware that the two town councils would still be involved in the LUP in a way, unless the HDB does not plan to get them to co-pay for it.

And unlike in PAP wards where the grassroots advisor may be involved in the operation of a town council, the grassroots advisors in opposition wards do not have town council resources.

Since this is the case – and both the town council chairman and the grassroots advisor have to be tapped upon – what is intriguing was the choice of who was selected to announce it.

To date, there is still no strong reason as to why the grassroots advisor was chosen, so it elementarily has to be politics at play because it facilitates free publicity.

But the most ludicrous common line in the two letters by MND has to be “Opposition MPs are not answerable to the Government”.

If that is so, why are opposition town councils made accountable to the government?

Why are opposition MPs answerable to Parliament?

Why does the PAP, also desiring to be known as the government, bring opposition candidates to court for defamation?

Might as well have the opposition to be above the law since they do not answer to the government.

Ironically, the PAP keeps promoting a chaotic scenario in the event where political diversity sets in, when it is the one that has more potential for causing it.

People’s Association unconstitutional?

Has it always been the practice of having the grassroots advisor, instead of the town council chairman, oversee the LUP?

The question was never raised as the LUP had only been carried out in PAP wards and PAP MPs traditionally occupy both positions.

However, the issue surfaced when the LUP went into the opposition wards – the roles of an opposition MP and a grassroots advisor is given to two different people.

Before we question why the grassroots advisor and not the MP or town council chairman get to head the LUP, we should first question the validity of grassroots advisor appointments.

“Civil servants under the constitution hold their allegiance to the president. The symbolism that is attached to that is we actually serve at the pleasure of a politically neutral institution. It is one of the values of the civil service that we are politically impartial.”
- Owi Beng Ki, Deputy Principal Senior State Counsel from the Attorney-General’s Chambers, at a People’s Association Youth Movement forum on 17 May 2009 on the integrity of the election process

Not everyone would bother to pore through the thick pages of documents that make up Singapore’s Constitution but most would agree, with commonsensical instinct, that any civil service should be impartial in dealing with different parties and outside political interests, with the rich or poor – and take it that such a practice is enshrined in the Constitution.

Grassroots advisor appointments of the People’s Association are an exception.

Never mind about PAP MPs being appointed – but it is the fact that only PAP members, with some being MPs and others not, that is disturbing.

The PA is a national government entity, established as a statutory board and employs civil servants to its full-time administration.

Hence, it should act like one.

At present, all PA-appointed grassroots advisors are members of the PAP with no other criteria and this is good enough to conclude that the PA is really a political body in national clothing.

Does this amount to the PA being unconstitutional and going against the grain of being a “politically neutral institution”?

The justification of the WP’s proposal in the 2006 GE to dismantle the PA – dubbed as one of the four “time bombs” – actually becomes stronger because the latter has clearly not acted in good faith.

What is crucial to note is that the PAP does not have a national mandate in all the elected constituencies but the MPs do – and since grassroots advisors are appointed along elected constituencies, MPs are more deserving of it or any national appointments than members of a particular party.

To be truly fair and impartial, the PA should either appoint MPs as grassroots advisors across the board – or none of them at all.

Alternatively, since the PAP is concerned about appointees not “answering to the government”, grassroots advisors should be appointed from real civil servants, who are typically not the politicians, party officials or election candidates.

View the exchange of letters in ST Forum between WP and MND here

Is ‘tripartism’ a myth?

No “tripartism” can truly exist in Singapore when all three components are within the “PAP conglomerate”

The ruling People’s Action Party has often hailed the tripartism model between the government, employers and trade unions for Singapore’s successful labour-management relations.

With this, it forwards the argument that consensus, rather than confrontation, is emphasised.

Ideally, going by literal definition, anyone would agree that consensus is preferred over confrontation?

But does Singapore’s model truly promote “consensus”?

Or is it “control”?

Upon closer examination, the dominant PAP has not only entered but takes key positions in all three components.

This arrangement appears to be more of being “in comfortable control” of matters rather than “consensus-building”, since it does not need to deal with external players that it has no jurisdiction over.

As the PAP occupies nearly all the seats in Parliament – a third more than necessary to form the government solely on its own – it has left no room for coalition partners or opposition parties to influence governance.

This makes any potential power shift appear to be more distant than in countries where the ruling party and opposition camp are within closer margins in their legislatures.

Among the large companies dominating Singapore’s economy, many are Government-Linked Companies or GLCs, which are mostly in industries where the government has gazette as monopolies or allowed limited entrants.

Many PAP Members of Parliament also sit in the board of directors of listed companies, with some even heading them.

The only recognised collective entity representing unions is the National Trades Union Congress, which is a de facto wing of the PAP and like it is dominant and represents almost all the unions in Singapore.

Ever since the Singapore Association of Trade Unions and its member unions – affiliated to the Barisan Sosialis – were dissolved in the 1960s, no other umbrella has emerged.

Throughout the years, a PAP minister has always headed the NTUC, effectively blurring the lines between the government and unions, as the Cabinet would also comprise a Labour or Manpower minister.

When members of the labour movement go into discussion and negotiation with the management, they would be effectively talking to their PAP entrepreneur colleagues in many cases.

If the PAP government steps in, it is as good as a third PAP colleague stepping in.

While this is not to say that each component has never acted independently – given that even the small opposition parties have squabbled in public – the fact that they are institutionally tied is inescapable.

Therefore, the process would not entirely be the same as one involving distinct components with no trusses to one another.

All in all, the ruling party is an adhesive but a too strong one.

Consensus and avoiding confrontation does not equate to control.

Similarly, truly independent components in a genuine tripartite model do not necessarily lead to confrontation or strikes.