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…

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

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.

A new networking group targeting professionals in the business and corporate sectors has been launched by the Young PAP, youth wing of the ruling People’s Action Party, so sang a Sunday Times report two days ago on 20 September 2009.

Certainly, this recruitment advertisement for the YP is not only free-of-charge unlike most paid advertisements in ST’s Classified section, who fork out at least $35 for a four-liner advertisement, but a lot bigger too.

This comes after nearly three weekends and a few weekdays of reporting on the newly launched PAP-related book “Men in White” were still in digestion.

Due coverage – back to the drawing board

The nation’s mainstream media can hardly be remembered to have carried a similar manner of advertising for any Singapore opposition party, despite the fact that all of them need more (voluntary) human resources than the ruling party or its youth wing.

To be mildly fair, it had recently given one opposition party – namely the Workers’ Party – a small amount of news coverage pertaining to its internet strategy and National Day message, whereas other opposition parties with counterpart initiatives were not even mentioned.

Not that it is a good thing – neither WP’s (or opposition’s combined) news exposure lagging behind that of PAP’s nor all other parties’ lagging behind that of WP’s (and conclusively the PAP’s) is an acceptable or ideal scenario, even if it is an improvement from the past.

In other words, given the monopoly of the MSM due to the PAP’s government laws, the buck doesn’t stop until all political parties are given due coverage, whether we agree with each of them or not, as they field candidates in an election (which is a very important event) and the people need to know them better, for better or worse.

And this, needs to be drilled into the MSM for full understandability.

A business network?

According to the particular report, YP chairman Teo Ser Luck said that the “professional network” was started in order to “retain the interest of its members, many of whom have established themselves in their jobs and careers”.

He added that many “are corporate executives” and “this group will enable them to network and also bring forth more members to join”.

I had thought that, based on my observations, impressions and interactions with some of its members, the entire YP, as well as the PAP and the “national” grassroots, that professionals dominate its ranks and it is already, in effective, a business network.

Many who join YP of these entities do so to get business contacts or tend to be more self-employed oriented.

Several past and present business partners and clients of mine joined and declared, with no apologies, that they did so to establish a business network and know more fellow businessmen at gatherings and meetings.

During the last general election in 2006, I met several PAP members who acted as campaigners, polling and counting agents, most of whom introduced themselves as executives or self-employed directors.

Whether the above are representative of most or all of the active members in the YP, they predominantly make up the profile of its members I happen to be acquainted with or encountered.

If the experience is indeed representative, the purpose of this “professional network” comes into question because “professionals” may not wholly mean those who are self-employed but may be employed in the sales and marketing portfolios of the companies they are in service to.

To me, joining a political party means believing in it, being sensibly loyal to it, aiding it towards its cause, rather than building an unhealthy trend of gunning for the “network” and, perhaps, some not even appearing at the polls outside this intention.

What would be more laudable is the YP’s attempt to reach out to rank-and-file workers, although I wonder why this is the “next goal” after and not “goal” before professionals, if the latter was even necessary.

Mr Teo was also candid about the challenges faced in recruiting them, stating that they had “different set of interests, to do with finances and economic survival”, showing that he is at least, to an extent, in touch with ground sentiments and not all is well as the PAP government often claims.

Nevertheless, I wonder if rank-and-file workers who have difficulty coping with living costs would join the party-in-government that had contributed to the present state of affairs.

Is Singapore’s population too small for more than one dominant political party in the country? The PAP argues so. But their argument does not hold water.

“We should not really be surprised that the ruling party has such a large share of seats. Unlike other larger countries with rural and urban populations, poor and rich areas, and separate ethnic enclaves, we are small and have relatively similar constituencies… Singapore is, therefore, like one big constituency. Hence, in a first-past-the-post Westminster system of democracy, it must be that any party that wins, wins big.”

When Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong uttered the above words on 26 July 2008 at a pro-PAP grassroots-organised National Day dinner in the opposition Workers’ Party ward of Hougang, it was not the first time that a PAP leader had tried to justify the dominance of one-party rule in Singapore by attributing it to our small physical size and small electorate. Nor would it be the last, as many expected.

On 15 November 2008, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong told a conference of PAP cadre members that:

“Change must take place within the PAP [because] while the US is a big country with a big pool from which to find political talent, there is no such guarantee in smaller countries… It’s hard enough to find one team to look after the country. How can you find two? As a small country, we must have a first division team, an outstanding group of people who can make up for our many limitations.”

More recently, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said at an NUS Society forum on 20 March 2009:

“Can we arrange a two-party system so the alternative is as good as the PAP? We have to scour the whole country to find the quality we now have. We are drawing our talent from 3.2 million people. Every year, let’s say we produce, out of our 30,000 babies born, 1,000 outstanding people. Are all of them going to make good?”

The senior Lee had also echoed the same perspective as then-Prime Minister on several occasions, including once in an interview with the local press when he said:

“If we were 30 million people and not three million… the number of people available to form a Cabinet would multiply by 10… It is still possible somebody outside there, some maverick, can get together a comparable group and can challenge you. But when you’re dealing with three million people and the talent pool is so small, I think really competent people to be in government… would not number more than 100. So where is the alternative?”

The PAP’s bottom line is clear – Singapore’s “unique” feature of one political party winning all – or nearly all – seats in Parliament is because of its small population. Hence, it would have to serve as its own check-and-balance and Singaporeans are assured that they do not need to have an opposition presence in parliament.

This is one of the most repetitive arguments against having a viable opposition in Singapore that has been used by the PAP, probably because the PAP clearly believes that the message, if repeated frequently enough, will stick to people’s minds and be accepted.

However, the reasoning offered by the PAP is flawed.

Firstly, Singapore did not start out as a one-party dominant state in its earlier days. Before the PAP, there was the Labour Front government, which won power in 1955 with only 40% out of 25 elected seats. When the PAP took over in 1959, at least 15% out of the 51 seats went to the opposition. And in 1963, upon a party split that cumulated the Barisan Sosialis, the latter won one-quarter of the seats.

In all three cases cited above, the electorate in Singapore was even smaller, and the number of Parliamentary seats was even fewer, than they are now.

Contrast this with the 3% opposition presence in Parliament that Singapore has today and one can immediately tell that the PAP’s argument does not hold water.

The PAP has been quick to dismiss these past opposition legislators as not being “talent”. But, using the PAP’s own reasoning, these opposition members would not have been elected into Parliament if they were not credible in the first place.

Secondly, PAP’s reasoning does not hold water as well on the international stage. We do not have to look further than over the causeway where Malaysia, our closest neighbour, was at one point one-party dominated but produced a strong alternative after its general elections in 2008, albeit with some teething problems. Never mind that Malaysia’s population of 28 million is 7 times that of Singapore’s; it is still a relatively small country compared to the rest of the world.

For argument’s sake, however, let us discount the level of its Federal Parliament. Malaysia has a state assembly within each of its 11 states and apart from Selangor, the population sizes in the remaining states are all smaller than Singapore’s.

Yet in 5 out of the 11 states, the opposition holds between 7% and 18% of the seats in their state assemblies and in the other six states, the opposition occupies between 22% and 45% of the seats. This shows that there is no correlation between size and political plurality.

Again, compare these to the 3% of seats held by the opposition in Singapore’s Parliament.

So then what is so special about Singapore? New Zealand, Ireland and Norway are examples of countries with a decent economy, a healthy democracy and a strong opposition functioning all at the same time and whose population sizes are close to that of Singapore.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we have a one-party dominance in Singapore not because of our small land area, small population, nor the shortage of talent, but because of political constrains and a mindset that opposition is not good for Singapore. As a result, many capable people who disagree with the PAP are not stepping forward to join the opposition.

Among the 84 seats in Parliament today, the PAP can still form a stable government by holding, say, 55 seats, while the opposition holds the other 29 seats in order to provide a credible check-and-balance.

But this can only happen if Singaporeans want it and are prepared to have it. Singaporeans – not the PAP or the Workers’ Party – are the ones to decide.

PAP MP who seconded NMP Viswa Sadasivan’s motion should be ruling party’s internal catalyst for change

During the Parliament sitting on 18 August 2009, new Nominated Member of Parliament Viswa Sadasivan delivered his maiden speech for the purpose of moving a motion to hold the government to reaffirm “its commitment to the nation building tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge when debating national policies, especially economic policies”.

The speech and the aftermath scenes became a discussion topic within the confines of the political cyberspace arena for various reasons, foremost being the attraction of a counter response by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, who rarely spoke in Parliament, but paid enough attention to move an amendment to the motion.

Much has been talked about and speculated this far about the roles of MM Lee, Workers’ Party MP Low Thia Khiang and other PAP MPs in the entire debate, even that of Mr Viswa himself, but one final “factor” has gone nearly unnoticed and yet to be examined – the PAP MP whom Mr Viswa had approached to second his original motion, with the latter’s consent.

The PAP MP is none other than Mr Michael Palmer, MP for Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC.

Considering the fact that several parts of Mr Viswa’s speech, primarily in the areas of paragraph 36 and 39, called upon the PAP government not to inhibit the growth of opposition parties and to encourage equal space to be accorded to the opposition, it certainly must raise eyebrows that Mr Palmer consented to seconding the Bill.

One may now wonder if Mr Palmer agreed with the following extracts of the speech.

From paragraph 36, they are:

“Accountability requires the government to go beyond lip-service in addressing the call for greater democracy, civil liberties and choices.”

Does Mr Palmer agree that the government has being paying “lip-service” in terms of greater democracy, civil liberties and choices?

“In the Political arena – a more level playing field especially in the management of elections and media coverage. What is increasingly demanded is fairness and justice, not just in form but substance.”

Does Mr Palmer agree that the political arena is lopsided and is fair and just only in form?

“But what is asked for is that the government desist from making it difficult in an unfair and undemocratic manner for the opposition to gain success – through last minute changes in electoral boundaries, or a lack of media coverage or what can sometimes be seen as biased coverage.”

Does Mr Palmer agree that the playing field creates disadvantages for the opposition in an unfair and undemocratic in the aspects described?

And from paragraph 39:

“Examples would be the ground sentiment about the string of libel suits filed by PAP leaders against various opposition party leaders”

Does Mr Palmer agree that defamation suits against opposition personalities created negative sentiments?

Should the PAP MP not concur with all of the above, why would he agree to second the motion?

To clarify, this is not to say that Mr Palmer represents or should represent the official governance methodology of the PAP government or the position of the ruling party.

Although he is a PAP MP, it is only fair to him to state this as he neither holds a cabinet post nor is a member of the PAP’s central executive committee.

Nevertheless, it is generally clear that the PAP has never been open to the idea of fair political space where the opposition is concerned but prefers to maintain the unbalanced status quo and if Mr Palmer agrees with Mr Viswa, he should bring forth these points relating to a more even electoral playing field to his party leaders behind closed doors.

Otherwise, it surely wouldn’t be delightful for PAP candidates to emerge victorious under electoral rules they are aware are favourable to them.

That the Straits Times publishes some of the strangest letters in its Forum section and affixes its own creative but mismatching headlines is a fact known to many and needs no further elaboration.

Another came on 21 July 2009, not surprisingly from the Young PAP (People’s Action Party youth wing) this time, by one of its officials, Ms Elaina Olivia Chong (“Nominated MP wrong to knock Young PAP”).

For starters, the title given to the letter was disconnected with the text; Ms Chong criticised one of the new Nominated Members of Parliament, Mr Calvin Cheng, a former YP member himself, for what was thought to be returning the latter’s criticism against the YP.

Upon further reading, Mr Cheng had merely portrayed the impression of someone who did not take his YP membership seriously after joining, based on his interview with the ST on 4 July 2009.

Here, the “fas paux” of the ST ends but leaves one wondering how not taking a membership seriously could dent the credibility an organisation and implied that it was not worthy.

Many people who join volunteer organisations do it out of spur or to contribute but realise later that they are unable to commit or that it may not suit them like it did for other people.

Surely, Ms Cheong can’t be of the view that the organisation she so serves faithfully in is that vulnerable in reputation as to be discredited by just this incident.

Also, the YP would have a lot more than just one person who joined and stuck to it all the way to date, and with that, Mr Cheng’s move would reflect more badly on himself than the YP.

Next, it was rather odd for Ms Cheong to state that the NMP would be her voice in Parliament; her premise was that both were entrepreneurs and she appeared to be strengthening her justification in criticising Mr Cheng.

One would have thought that she, presumably a full-fledged PAP member as well, would see the PAP voices as the ones representing her.

Several PAP MPs, one example being Inderjit Singh, are also entrepreneurs.

With more PAP voices than others, is it still necessary for its members to expect NMPs of the same profession to represent them?

Or since Workers’ Party MP and chief Low Thia Khiang also happens to be an entrepreneur, would she see him as a voice for her?

In the end, when statements that had not been criticisms are taken to be, it would highlight the narrow-mindedness of an entity and discredit it more than a number of other possible factors.

THE STRAITS TIMES
Forum
Tuesday, July 21 2009

Elaina Olivia Chong (Ms)
Young PAP Exco Member

When even the office of the chief of the United Nations is not respected, it shows the length of audacity displayed by a country.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, who was seen to be the last bastion of liberation for Myanmar politician Aung San Suu Kyi, was turned away from his request to meet her, crushing immediate hopes of those who had otherwise held dimmed anticipation of this.

Here, the term “opposition leader” is refrained because she would be more aptly be “prime minister-elect” since as far as nearly 20 years ago when her party, the National League for Democracy, won the election.

When it involves a country where a party that won an election with a landslide became outlawed but another – backed by the military – that lost became a dominant, hegemonic ruling party instead, the grain of logic is opposed and Myanmar’s defence of “non-interference” should no longer apply.

Therefore, the UN chief did not act in an inappropriate manner, for the person he had requested to meet was the supposed prime minister.

In my view, Myanmar, or formerly Burma, may have acted with impudence as such because it believes it is a member of ASEAN and has the latter’s backing.

Any ounce of economic benefit would be foremost enjoyed by members of the military government, which is the root cause of the problem in the first place.

To ASEAN nations, of which Singapore is one, inclusion rather than exclusion would increase the accessibility of engagement with Myanmar.

This approach is agreeable in principle.

However, when nothing can be achieved by way of inclusion, there is no longer any difference between inclusion and exclusion.

And Myanmar, along with Laos, has being a member of ASEAN since 1997.

For 12 years, the eight fellow ASEAN countries have not been able to change a single thing in Myanmar and have not proven to their citizens and the world that co-opting it into ASEAN brought about any positive outcome, except positive embarrassment.

Meanwhile, the dateline of the renegade country’s “Roadmap to Democracy” is expected to be as enduring as the endurance shown by its ASEAN partners.

In lieu of this, it may high time for them to contemplate the expulsion of Myanmar from ASEAN.

Smaller GRCs.

More SMCs.

More NCMPs.

Permanent NMPs.

When it comes to tinkering with the political system and civil laws, the PAP has mastered the craft and, once again, does it with finesse and par excellence – and without obstruction.

Given its Parliamentary majority, this was given.

After all, it would not be where it is without this, among other aspects.

In other words, the longer the PAP stays in power, the longer they may stay longer, oxymoronically speaking.

When Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong related in Parliament on 27 May 2009 the history of electoral changes, a realisation of how far the Singapore political system has come and how many times it has evolved in the PAP’s hands, especially since the 80s, creeps in.

1984 came the NCMP scheme and 1988 the NMP and GRC schemes.

NMPs started from 2 and was increased to 9 in 1992.

GRCs started with 3 members, were expanded to 4 in 1991, 4 to 6 in 1997 and 5 to 6 in 2001 and 2006.

SMCs had also shrunk from 43 in 1988 to 21 in 1991, then 9 for subsequent general elections.

It now appears that the GRCs would be along the lines of the 1997 model in the next election.

Coincidentally, they were all implemented after the Workers’ Party’s late J. B. Jeyaretnam won a by-election in Anson, breaking the PAP’s monopoly since 1966.

And now, these latest amendments came three days just as the PAP is about to complete 50 years of rule over Singapore.

On 30 May 1959, the PAP won the general election to become the government for the first time.

Established less than five years prior to that election, what was remarkable about the PAP’s victory, apart from capturing power in such a short time, was the landslide win in 43 out of 51 seats and finding enough candidates to field in all the available 51 seats.

To date, the feat has never been repeated, with equal intensity, by any other political party.

With that, the PAP unseated the beleaguered Labour Front government, which had morphed into the Singapore People’s Alliance.

The magnitude of the PAP’s win may not have been so huge had it not been for the disarray of its political opponents.

The Liberal Socialists, the largest party formed about via a merger of two biggest parties – the Progressives and the Democratic Party (not to be confused with the Singapore Democratic Party) – had a large faction spill out and leave for SPA, resulting in both the Lib-Soc and the SPA fielding less than 40 candidates each.

Even as an opposition with 4 seats from 1955 to 1959, the PAP has always been clever to back different parties over others, firstly, the LF over the Lib-Soc, then the UMNO-MCA-MIC alliance over the LF, creating discord until the end-receivers realised it too late.

The PAP was largely successful, as it had built up a level of credibility and following in a short time.

At election rallies, it had crowds far superior to the Workers’ Party today.

When the SPA, Lib-Soc, UMNO, MCA, MIC and every other existing party finally came together under the Singapore Alliance in 1963, which was backed by Malaysia’s Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman, it hardly made a dent in the PAP’s armour.

The latter was to face a bigger adversary – one that came from within itself and had lent it the weight it needed.

One-third of its legislators (formerly known as Assemblymen) broke ranks to form the Barisan Sosialis in 1962.

About 70% of the PAP’s grassroots were lost by defection to the Barisan – with some branch offices even seized – precipitating it to form the People’s Association under government instead of party control.

In the end, the PAP defeated the Barisan in 1963 by a wider-than-expected margin.

The reason for this was not solely due to the government’s rapid economic track record – it also incarcerated the pillars of its main political opponent under the Internal Security Act – a dual deadly tactical combination that would put any political party where the PAP is – if only they could model after it.

The ISA remains today – but those days are too far back to recollect for today’s generation and given the chaotic times, people were less sympathetic.

The darker and probably darkest hour of the ISA – an issue that remains the biggest blemish in the PAP’s rule and the ISD’s name – could be the 1987 “Marxists” arrests of Catholic church members who had been volunteers of the Workers’ Party.

This is manifested recently, on the 22nd anniversary of the incident, when the issue was revived by activists and bloggers.

To date, the PAP government has refused to acknowledge that the entire episode was a harebrained idea of of its one-time Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and therefore, is expected to be its continued embarrassment and a thorn on its flesh in the years to come, as even three new generation ministers have expressed doubts over the validity of the arrests.

On another note, the SMCs, which the PAP rode into power on, are feeble in existence today.

Most of the constituencies are grouped under GRCs, with only 9 outside them. This would be increased to 12 by the next general election – but is still a far cry from the 51 single wards Singapore used to have.

At the point of 50 years of the PAP government, it is now allowing more opposition members in Parliament by increasing NCMPs seats for opposition parties’ defeated candidates from 3 to 9.

In addition to the 9 NMPs, there will be 18 non-PAP voices – the highest number ever – more than the 17 seats (out of 32) LF had enough to form the government in 1955, or the strongest ever 14 opposition voices the PAP ever had (13 Barisan + 1 United People’s Party).

However, the overall number of seats have increased nearly three-fold from 32 to 93 today and the 18 voices are not likely to drown out more than 80 voices the PAP has like in the past.

Would this also mean that the PAP government’s rule will continue if Singaporeans, who remain largely respectful and fearful of it, see no need to vote for non-PAP candidates, since they are guaranteed of non-PAP voices despite the fact that NCMPs and NMPs do not really have the same powers and resources as elected MPs?

And if so, would its rule perpetuate for another 50 years, with the end scenario that I (if I am still alive) or someone else be writing an essay akin to this on the anniversary of PAP’s 100-year rule?

Basically, Singapore has been pretty much ahead of most of the rest of the world, despite its sheer small territory.

When cars, refrigerators and telephones were invented, Singapore had them – and, to a large extent, the best of them.

When mobile phones were invented, it was one of the first to have them.

When the internet came about, it was, again, one of the first to have it.

On the whole, Singapore is neither perfect, nor is it disastrous.

The question – one that begs curiosity and has no known answer yet – is, do Singaporeans want another 50 years of PAP rule?

And that is a question they would answer in the next 10 to 12 general elections – and one that we, as mere fraction of the population, can only wait and see.

Prices in Singapore are like a launched rocket – they keep going up.

Over the years, GST has increased from 3% to 5% to 7%.

Public transport costs – buses, trains and taxis – are ever-increasing.

The same goes for household utilities charges.

Healthcare costs are exorbitant and with means testing, a sandwiched class may find themselves ineligible for “C” Class wards.

As markets are upgraded (forcefully or otherwise), corporate owners increase rents and hawkers have to raise food prices.

Even the salaries of ministers are ever-increasing and we are paying for a “premium” government.

In other words, everything here is getting expensive.

Basic services went from nationalised (SBS, PUB, Telecoms) to privatised (ComfortDelgro, Singapore Power, SingTel) and thereafter have to commit themselves to become profit-oriented, even listing on the Singapore Exchange.

The government that released these services to the private sector in turn invests in these private entities through GLCs.

On the other hand, the people’s pockets and wallets are not growing as fast.

For some, they have even shrunk.

A job vacancy for fresh university graduate with starting pay of $2,500 10 years ago is still advertised for the same rate today.

According to government statistics, employment has fallen.

But was this resolved by keeping wages – which have hardly gone up – low?

For what it used to pay 9 employees, an employer can now pay 10 employees.

Without a labour safety net, we began to hear some Singaporeans complain about being overworked and at the same time, others having difficulty finding a job.

Despite claims of being a first-world country, a car is out-of-reach or pay-through-the-nose for most people and public transport costs is not exactly maintained low.

Taxi fares are raised to help drivers get that little bit more by but no one up there thought about reducing cab rental charges or waiving ERP for them instead.

What about transportation for the elderly who can’t walk far yet need to see their doctors?

The popular theory is that all these go hand-in-hand with economic growth but this is disputable.

When the economy is positive, costs go up and wages don’t rise much.

Young couples who wish to buy a HDB flat may have to fork out a five-figure sum in cash when they can hardly save more than hundred dollars per month.

When the economy is negative, there are no price drops and people are either retrenched or have their wages cut.

The former have to upgrade before they can find jobs, which means additional costs in training courses even before they start on new work.

What about those who go for job interviews after interviews without success while his remaining dollars are “eaten” up by travelling expenses to attend these interviews, with a family to feed behind him?

Many Singaporeans in the middle-class have become what is termed as “The New Poor”.

As for the poor, they continue to be poor – or poorer.

No matter what the difficulties, these problems has to be addressed by those who have the power to do so – before it blows out of proportion.