By Howard Lee
It would take a very hard heart not to admit that the
results of GE2015 point to something that is very different in
Singapore. The real question is, what specifically? This question
should keep Singaporeans up for many more nights, even years, to
come.
Personally, nothing disappointed me more than the
results for Lina Chiam in Potong Pasir and the Singapore Democratic
Party team in Holland Bukit Timah GRC. Potong Pasir had been a
pillar of what it means to hold firm to values and fighting
stoically against incredible odds. And I felt the tremendous waste
that SDP’s policy proposals, painstakingly crafted since GE2011,
would not have the air time it deserves in Parliament.
It
is not that I do not sympathise with WP’s supporters. I was camped
out with Workers’ Party supporters at Hougang Stadium on polling
night, and I could feel their anguish as WP lost its footing, first
in Punggol East, then every other new SMC and GRC it contested in.
But in truth, WP did not lose that much. The ceding of one seat and
the drop in vote count would have been considered negligible in any
other democracy. In addition, WP would likely retain its total
presence in Parliament given the Non-Constituency MP scheme.
But these individual party victories and losses are
something that they will have to mull over and plan for their
future. More should be said about the massive vote swing of nearly
10% in favour of the People’s Action Party, which would have
stunned even seasoned analysts. If the PAP has gained a few
percentage points, that would have been expected. But this massive
vote swing far outweighs any gradual progression that we might
expect, particularly since GE2011 showed downward movement for the
PAP.
What happened?
The easy way is to think that the PAP has clawed back
its vote share in the past few years, but that would simply
discount the fact that the PAP has made just as many policy
blunders in that time. What, then, was on the mind of voters when
we gave the PAP such a resounding mandate for its series of policy
tweaks; election goodies; reluctance to directly address issues
like jobs and immigration; lack of a clear and resounding vision
for the future; and constant battering of opposition party
leaders?
Singaporeans are not stupid. We are not likely to be
hoodwinked by the PAP’s attempts at character assassination, and
would have seen through the hype of SG50 and the PAP’s attempt to
play up the death of former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. GE2015
must be seen as a conscientious decision by the collective of
voters to give the PAP a mandate. If so, what exactly is this
mandate for?
We need to look at GE2015 in the light of the watershed
GE2011. In 2011, most Singaporeans got a taste of the power of
their vote, and this continued even in the Presidential election
and two by-elections since then. The ability for them to express
their dissatisfaction with the incumbent suddenly became very real
at the ballot boxes, and the PAP felt this humiliating defeat round
after round.
Some, like me, were eagerly expectant that this taste
of democracy would continue, not necessarily in the sense of more
votes for the opposition, but a greater interest in our democratic
process, public policy and the dedication-vs-capability among
leaders to govern. I have hoped that we have finally taken the
first step through the door into a brave new world of politics,
where citizens would finally be mature enough to seriously consider
which other party is fit to run Singapore, and stand ready to vote
them in should the PAP fail. It should have been a vote for an
alternative party, rather than a vote against the incumbent.
That
did not happen. The massive vote swing did not indicate so. It
suggests that, collectively, Singaporeans have decided that PAP has
been punished enough since GE2011, and that they can be given a
massive reward for grovelling with a slew of goodies.
In essence, this is Singapore practicing democracy in
its crudest form. Or as mrbrown’s Kim Huat would put it, we
“suka-suka
vote”, vote for whoever we feel the best about. There is
nothing fundamentally wrong with this approach, except that we do
not have any feels for the opposition since they do not give us any
goodies to feel good about. All they have are proposals and dream
to take us forward to where the PAP has thus far failed to dream
for us.
This is the carrot-and-stick way of voting, only
ironically the carrot and stick are being held by the voters. The
unfortunate thing about this method of voting is that the
relationship is always between the incumbent and the people.
We reward or punish the PAP based on how we evaluate
their performance, but this means that we always want them to be
around to perform better the next time. We do not give ourselves
the wider liberty of considering other possibilities, alternative
parties with new ideas that we can call upon when the PAP fails to
deliver.
We vote to short-change ourselves, because we do not
dare to take the risk that there is someone out there that can be
better than the PAP.
That adversity to risk-taking, unfortunately, is the
fault of Singaporeans, born of a culture of indoctrination through
the education system, media propaganda and plain political
rhetoric. But nowhere has this entrenched mindset been better
exhibited than on 11 September 2015.
That in itself is ironic. If we are really that
risk-adverse, the kiasu Singaporean in us should be hedging our
bets, making sure that we have a balanced Parliament in the
eventuality that the PAP fails. And mind you, at some point it
will, if it has not already. No party lasts forever.
GE2015’s vote tally reflects the choice of the majority
of Singaporeans, but it does not mean that this collective choice
is right or cannot be challenged. Perhaps the words of Dr Chee Soon
Juan ring the truest:
“I do worry. I worry if we continue on in this fashion the
future of Singapore is not going to be where we all want. So what
we are going to do is… continue to be honest with Singapore and
conduct our politics with integrity and continue to get the message
out, and hope that there is something better than what we have
right now.”
GE2015 is done, and it would seemed we have regressed
to the days before GE2011. But if we need to pick it up again and
rebuild what we have so painfully lost in the last few years, do so
we must.
A democratic Singapore depends on the men and women who
have seen a vision beyond the carrot-and-stick way of choosing our
leaders. If they are determined to help us reach a shore that makes
us stronger and more discerning as citizens, why wouldn’t we help
them?