The four seasons of Singapore's Politics

Atobe SG

The four seasons of Singapore's Politics

Youth Wing of the Singapore Democratic Party
June 23, 2003
Singapore

By the Young Democrats

OVER the weekend, some SDP members have received calls from friends over a Sunday Times feature on the opposition in Singapore. In a rare two-page spread, the government-controlled SPH publication profiled five opposition members - three from the Workers' Party, and one each from NSP and SPP.
"Why no SDP?" friends asked. Indeed, even in Susan Long's long commentary on the state of opposition politics today, there was not a single mention of SDP. They could not have forgotten us obviously because just three days earlier the same paper ran a story on how our website have been hacked by pornographers and the incident happened months ago!

As to why Sunday Times neglected to feature us in their report, we can only say we are proud that a paper that prides itself as a government mouthpiece chose not to feature us. We must be doing something right!

Sour grapes? Well, not really. Any intelligent observer of the Singapore politics will tell you that the crackdown and subsequent consolidation of the media under two Government-controlled conglomerates happened for a reason. Journalists look for signals from the PAP's political elite on what and who are allowed to be featured on their pages.

To illustrate: on the very same week that DPM Lee Hsien Loong lauded JB Jeyeretnam in parliament as a Singaporean fighter, TODAY weekend ran a front page interview with the veteran opposition leader where normally no local newspaper would publish any of his press statements (they still don't).

Another case was Bertha Henson attacking Dr Chee Soon Juan for his May Day act of civil disobedience last year as a publicity stunt and labeling the SDP secretary-general as loony and unscrupulous. Less than a year later she did an inexplicable U-turn, commenting on the arrest of six Singaporeans outside the US Embassy while en-route to an anti-war protest: allow them at least an outlet for a peaceful demonstration of what they feel in the public sphere. Nobody quite believes that there would be social chaos resulting from a public candlelight vigil. Or a peaceful protest outside the US Embassy. The difference, you see, is that Dr Chee is the number one enemy of the PAP and SDP is its most hated opposition party and local journalists know better than to write anything complimentary about us, unless of course they want their bread to be de-buttered.

Then there is the ever-dependable Ms Chua Lee Hoong. In an article (April 2, 3003) on the Substation Arts Centre's staging of a peace concert, she heaped scorn on the event, calling it a "recreation for the bourgeoisie" and even likening "such misguided political fervour" to the jailed "dissidents" in Operation Cold Store and Operation Spectrum. Yet, in her latest piece, "Use your brain!" she expressed certainty that the Remaking Singapore effort will result in a "higher decibel level of national debate", and that "deterministic hierarchy will probably be the first casualty of Remaking Singapore." Whoa! What gives, Ms Chua?

Considering that the media here often takes its cue from the PAP vis-à-vis OB markers, it is hardly surprising that these contradictions become glaring every time the markers shift. The Bertha Hensons and Chua Lee Hoongs may be championing civil society in June, but by December when the political climate changes, they will bark a different tune.

This brings us to the subject of political seasons that exists in Singapore. Undoubtedly, there is precious little political debate in this country. But there are certain periods during which more discussions are allowed, and they occur in cycles. These cycles can be likened to the four seasons. The only difference is that the cycles stretch over four-to-five year periods between general elections.

Spring full of promise

This is the year immediately following a general election. All shades of political talk in during this season comes mostly from the PAP. After the defamation suits against opposition candidates have been filed, the PAP leaders will launch into major self-congratulatory rhetoric.

This is the opportune time to announce programs such as Remaking Singapore and Economic Restructing Committees, and garnishing it with promises to "leave no stone unturned" and slaughter "sacred cows". After all, citizens are now weary and even fearful of engaging in any political talk.

It is also the season when the Government becomes boldest. The last elections saw 16 people arrested after an SDA rally. Shortly after, opposition supporter Robert Ho was charged in court for posting "inflammatory" messages on the Internet. This is also the season where upbeat news hog the local media headlines as journalists scramble to talk up the economy and job market in the wake of another PAP landslide victory.

Generally, this is a season of renewing a new rhetoric to position Singapore for more overseas investment. Whether or not the rhetoric translates to any real political openness for Singaporeans is beside the point.

Summer time to relax

This is holiday time for the PAP government. With 4 to 5 years away from the next general elections, this is the time to encourage Singaporeans to "make adjustments", "make sacrifices", "make contributions" and "speak up" for the "good of the nation. The Straits Times will pound away on this new "freedom" and launch into a campaign to encourage civil society to be more active. Interviews with opposition and civil society members are given the green light by editors and outspoken youths are also given their say. Political discussions groups, websites on political matters and student conferences are usually formed at this time.

Most Singaporeans not familiar with the political seasonal cycles will think there is a genuine opening-up of political space. Of course, the charade is good for the PAP for it gives this facade of democracy taking place in Singapore when in reality nothing has changed. Anyone who takes the Government at face value and oversteps the OB markers will find themselves quickly put back in line.

In the summer of 1986, 22 young professionals responded to this call to contribute to civil society were arrested under the ISA for being "Marxist conspirators a charge that till today has remained unproven. Similarly, author Dr Catherine Lim thought in 1994 that the PAP was actually serious about opening up society and publicly criticised PM Goh Chok Tong's governing style. Ouch! The PM publicly humiliated the writer by giving a dressing down, adding that criticisms of the Government must not be by "writers on the fringe." Needless to say, Dr Lim heeded the PMs warning. Then in 2000, the PAP government launched the Speaker's Corner at Hong Lim Park. Barely six months after its creation, police called up two activists for questioning in connection to an event organized by Think Centre and Open Singapore Centre to commemorate International Human Rights Day on 10 December.

To the casual observer, political summer in Singapore always seems like the beginning of greater relaxation in the sphere of politics. But in the heat, mirages are commonplace.

Atobe SG

Autumn lest you fall

This is the period immediately preceding a general election. All talk of political openness turns yellow and falls off the PAP tree. The darkness gets longer and the chilly winds of new legislation that inhibit civil society and opposition parties begin to blow. In April of 2001, seven months before the GE, Parliament introduced a law to punish foreign broadcasters from interfering in domestic politics. Three months later in July, the Singapore Broadcasting Authority put pressure on internet political forum Sintercom to register as a political website. Sintercom folded shortly thereafter. In August, Parliament passed a new bill to restrict political campaigning on the internet and the barring of opinion polls during a general election. In his National Day message, Mr Goh Chok Tong coldly warned that the Think Centre was openly critical of the Governmentthe Government cannot ignore this."

The true face of authoritarian PAP surfaces in this season. Suddenly, opposition members and civil activists find their feet getting cold. The Bertha Hensons and Chua Lee Hoongs who were speaking up for political openness before now begin to march to the tempo of winter.

Winter cold, short and ugly

This season is the shortest of all it lasts for only nine days. Avenues for political discourse, especially that for civil society, are clamped down. In the 2001 elections, the Think Centre were not allowed to run any election reports on their websites. The Workers Party were also told to take down a public donations advertisement on their website. There was even a law to regulate political content in SMS messages! Meanwhile the propaganda from the PAP is cranked up by several decibels. Anything and everything is done to ensure that the PAP not only wins the elections but that it iron-grip on the house is remains. Every GE also throws up a lightning rod for the PAP and the media to flex their muscles. In 1988, it was Francis Seow; 1991, Mohd Jufrie; 1997, Tang Liang Hong and J.B. Jeyaretnam; 2001, Chee Soon Juan.

This is also open season on democracy. All semblance of democratic principles goes out the window - voters who favour opposition are threatened with HDB upgrading, enticed by shares, and the attorney-general says that it is alright for the PAP leaders to be inside polling stations (where they are clearly not authorized to do so). And, of course, medias partisanship and bias is demonstrated in full glory.

Conclusion

Singaporeans must realise that all the talk of political openness in Singapore is really much ado about nothing. In fact, they are injurious to efforts pushing for democracy because they create a false impression that we are becoming an open society when the opposite is true. The sooner we realize this the sooner we can embark on genuine democratic reform.

http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/030623sd.htm

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Gee, it took so long for the SDP to figure out that the cards are stacked against them?

Another thing for them to figure out is "Who cares about them."

Apaty dude, apaty.

Viper52 SG

[quote]Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Gee, it took so long for the SDP to figure out that the cards are stacked against them?

And is that a good thing? To have a government do as it pleases practically unchecked, always trusting that they'll do things in Singapore's (as opposed to their own) future in the present and future?

Another thing for them to figure out is "Who cares about them."

Apaty dude, apaty.

Again, is that a good thing?

I'm not supporter of CSJ or his tactics, to me hes too much of a politician and his personal desire to feed his ego destroys whatever credibility his ideas have, but if you look beyond the man's character you'll realise a lot (NOT ALL) of what he and the SDP says makes sense.

Most Singaporeans will never know, but the fact is that a lot of the "recommendations" made by the wayang committees have be advocated by the SDP since the mid-1990s. Suggestions like revamping the education system, more creativity and enterpreneurship etc have appeared in their websites and publications for years now.

And no, I'm not a card-carrying member of any political party here or anywhere else, just someone whos never really believed in reading just the official news, even when I believed in the government's line when I was younger.

Viper52 SG

Atobe, thanks for posting the article, just read it a few days ago myself, unfortunately it hits a lot closer to the state of affairs in Singapore than I like it to be.

Sad indeed

Stevenson101 SG

I've read the speech made by Tan Liang Hong regarding Chinese Christians, frankly i found it the reasons for the speech very questionable and the topics he touched on dubious. His action like a hooligan during the elections doesn't sit well with me as well.

Perhaps the government is a little too harsh with its treatment of political opposition but quite frankly i would have never want Tan Liang Hong or Chee Soon Juan anywhere near a position of power.
My brief conversation with Mr Jeyaratnam also gave me the opinion that he was not a person i would have liked to be in the government. It didn't matter if they were sued out of their pants or not, even if they weren't they would probably still be unpopular.

My opinion however, stands. Once LKY kicks the bucket, the ruling party(Copying Atobe!) would either break up or weaken enough to allow another political party to wrestle power. PM Goh and LHL, in my humble opinion just don't have the ability and the raw will to hold it all together.

As long as LKY still lives, any chance of an opposition party arising and being strong enough to challenge the ruling party is an unlikely event. Let alone the ruling party breaking up.

I also do not believe that the above mentioned opposition party would be any of the existing opposition parties but would most likely be a new one led by the younger generation.

Atobe SG

Many thanks for the response and valuable views posted up this day.

It is sad to see the knee-jerk attempts to always run down the Opposition irregardless of the person(s) who have been able to write a fine article on the true situation of Politics as it is found in Singapore today.

If one is to attend any of the indoor meetings of any Singapore Opposition Parties, one can see a new breed of young, intelligent, and well-qualified (educationally) persons taking to the floor.

Perhaps in these economic hard times, we have the opportunity to see the true color of the Government from the Ruling Political Party, and if they truly believe in what they preach to the Private Sectors - in holding on to the valuable workers instead of retrenchment, or will the Government Leaders actually follow hard-nosed business practices of cutting the losses of GLCs and resort to the ever easy option of retrenchment.

As matters stand, we have seen the inaction of the Government Leaders, who are the Leading Members of the Ruling Political Party, with symbiotic relations to the NTUC, all advocating the necessity for Singapore Airlines to act to stop the bleeding of S$6 million a day.

What about the private businesses and industries that also need to stop their own bleeding ?

What about the private individuals, and family nucleus, who are bleeding daily without any jobs after being retrenched ?

Who will be the mouth piece for these people ?

Can we get a fair representation from the very same leaders who defend the action of a GLC in retrenching their workers, instead of making alternatives in retraining and re-allocation as they have advocated so persuasively to the multi-nationals when they were making decisions of their own in retrenchment in 2001 and 2002.

While the public display of emotions of the leading Opposition figures are to be lamented, I wonder if their display had as much to do with their own frustrations then with it being their true personality.

Even in the early public political life of LKY, he was not well received by major sectors of the local population, who viewed him as an arrogant Western educated Asian with a pompous superiority complex.

I am a little perplex as to how Stevenson101 came to his view that the speech by Tang Liang Hong regarding Chinese Christians, . foundthe reasons for the speech very questionable, and the topics he touched on dubious.

There are many speeches that are made with good intent, but can easily be distorted by the listener who may have his own political or personal agenda to destroy the speaker - as had happened here, when the Ruling Party prefer to distort the speech made by Tang.

Tang Liang Hongs speech was made at a gathering of Chinese Academics, and his speech was basically made with statistics taken from the Government Statistic Department, that confirm the preference of many in the different Singapore Communities in moving from their own ethnic religion towards Christianity; and with many leaders in Government service also being Christians.

The speech was made in 1994, in the Mandarin language, and not heard by the English speaking Singaporeans; while those who attended hardly mattered in Singapore Politics.

Yet this speech was dragged up as a political weapon to nail down the character of Tang Liang Hong as a Chinese Chauvinist.

One has to be careful to say that many in the Government service are from the Raffles Institution while many who are successful in Business are mostly from ACS; as one can easily be nailed as a Chauvinist in support of a Missionary School.

For a read of the speech by Tang Liang Hong, perhaps reading the speech from an independent interpretation made by someone not from Singapore will perhaps throw a different angle of view.

On religious harmony and the steady development of society
Speech by Mr Tang Liang Hong at Zeng Yi Associations National Day Dinner August 1994

http://www.singapore-window.org/tlh0894.htm

A translation of the document produced for translation in Serial No 2197 by a:
Wong An Ying
Certified Interpreter / Translator
Federal Court Malaysia
Kuala Lumpur

I am not sure if I can subscribe to your view that when LKY make his journey to "Pearly Gate", the Opposition Party can become stronger, or that the Ruling Party will disintegrate.

The Opposition Party is becoming stronger with every economic crisis that show up the weakness of the leaders from the Government / Ruling Party, in their own speeches.

There is a conflict of interests in the public policies of the Government, with that of themselves as "Directors" managing the GLCs.

It is like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, depending on the circumstance of the situation, the true side will show.

Or should I refer to the more current characters of Bruce Banner and the Hulk ?

Viper52 SG

Stevenson 101,

TLH and JBJ are dinosaurs of another era (although I don't neccessarily disagree with EVERYTHING they say), and if Singaporeans swallow the propaganda they are fed and continue associating them with the Opposition in Singapore, all I can say is that I feel very sad

I'm afraid I don't share your optimism with regards to the political system here with LKY's passing, the ruling party (thats what they are aren't they?) have become so entrenched in everyday political life here, and for the other parties to wrestle power here (or make significant inroads enough to get their voices heard), the political playing field has to be leveled first. And that can't happen without getting enough votes in parliament to vote for that amendment. See a cycle developing here?

As for a split in ruling party, sure that might happen. But whether that will bring about changes would depend on whether the camp supporting the old guard has control of the mechanisms of the media, law enforcement and other parts of the state machinery.

I'm not that optimistic.

Viper52 SG

[quote]Originally posted by Atobe:
Many thanks for the response and valuable views posted up this day.

It is sad to see the knee-jerk attempts to always run down the Opposition irregardless of the person(s) who have been able to write a fine article on the true situation of Politics as it is found in Singapore today.

If one is to attend any of the indoor meetings of any Singapore Opposition Parties, one can see a new breed of young, intelligent, and well-qualified (educationally) persons taking to the floor.

Atobe, I have to agree here, unfortunately our exposure to the pervasive ruling party propaganda in the news media here have blinded a lot of people into failing to see deeper into the message put out by the opposition party and allowed the demonisation of certain individual (fair or otherwise) taint the constructive views of some the the parties. A sad state of affairs indeed.

This "4 legs good, 2 legs bad" perception of the local opposition parties by otherwise rational thinking people is the one of two things hindering true political development in the first place. The other thing of course, is the governments pervasive oversight and control of anything remotely political in Singapore to its own advantage (as opposed to a level playing field).

Perhaps in these economic hard times, we have the opportunity to see the true color of the Government from the Ruling Political Party, and if they truly believe in what they preach to the Private Sectors - in holding on to the valuable workers instead of retrenchment, or will the Government Leaders actually follow hard-nosed business practices of cutting the losses of GLCs and resort to the ever easy option of retrenchment.

As matters stand, we have seen the inaction of the Government Leaders, who are the Leading Members of the Ruling Political Party, with symbiotic relations to the NTUC, all advocating the necessity for Singapore Airlines to act to stop the bleeding of S$6 million a day.

What about the private businesses and industries that also need to stop their own bleeding ?

What about the private individuals, and family nucleus, who are bleeding daily without any jobs after being retrenched ?

Who will be the mouth piece for these people ?

Can we get a fair representation from the very same leaders who defend the action of a GLC in retrenching their workers, instead of making alternatives in retraining and re-allocation as they have advocated so persuasively to the multi-nationals when they were making decisions of their own in retrenchment in 2001 and 2002.

The same old question here: Is the government putting the interests of the populace that put them where they are first, or are they putting the interests of their own pockets and coffers first?

I shall let the evidence speak for itself.

Even in the early public political life of LKY, he was not well received by major sectors of the local population, who viewed him as an arrogant Western educated Asian with a pompous superiority complex.

Has anything changed? Rolling Eyes

Atobe SG

After more then 30 years, HDB is now retrenching 2300 plus workers; and doing so at the peak of an unemployment situation that is the worst since Singapore was independent.

The news was so graved that it was announced briefly during the nightly news on TV, but was not carried on teletext for anyone to be able to verify its correctness.

Are we seeing the true colors of the Ruling Party now ?

And the Ministers have the audacity to say that jobless Singaporeans are fussy.

Are the Ministers qualified to make such statements, when they have moved from high paying Executive Jobs, and recruited into the Ruling Party, to take over better paying positions as Ministers, and know nothing of the hardships of being JOBLESS ?

They will expect a Research Engineer to wash toilet, while an Expatriate Foreign Talent hold the post of a Hotel Housekeeper; as if the Singaporean Research Engineer will not have the I.Q. to learn a new trade to put him in a managerial position.

Salaries are spiralling downwards amongst the jobless Singaporeans, who will undercut each other for lower salaries, just to secure a job out of desperation.

Secretaries with 15 years experience, with a last drawn pay of $3000 per month, have to queue for job interviews, and scrambling for a $1100 per month clerical job; that others are prepared to take of $100 or $200 less.

This is where the protective embrace by the Government towards foreign talents have become skewered, when viewed from the perspective of the growing numbers of jobless Singaporeans, with most from the Higher Managerial Positions.

Now the Labor Ministry claim that there are 12,000 jobs begging for employees, one wonder where these jobs are occurring ?

Does the Labor Ministry expect secretaries and senior managers to be retrained as shipyard welders, panel beaters, piping artisans ?

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Too bad the production line robots now find that their paper qualifications are absolute….

nismoS132 SG

i think you mean obsolete.

the problem with statistics is that they're not detailed enough. and it seems as though the ministers can only see there are 12000 jobs available, instead of 12000 jobs for people with the wrong skills.