Is this a contest between sons or siblings? Between LHL and LHY? Where was LHY before the Oxley Saga? And how is he relevant after the Oxley Saga?
Whatever the answers to that, Lee Hsien Yang has thrown his political gauntlet into the coming GE ring. He has come out openly to support the founder of Progress Singapore Party, Tan Cheng Bock, a veteran in PAP politics, and a more than an equal challenger to any of the 4G leaders, in particular, Heng Swee Keat.
He said that “Today’s PAP is no longer the PAP of my father.” He added that PAP has lost its way. You have to ask, what does he mean by that? How has PAP lost his way? Has the party lost his way after his brother took over in 2004 or after the last GE 2015, when it won a comfortable majority?
And if the Oxley saga was the main cause of the downward slide of PAP under LHL, because the latter had used Parliament for self-vindication against his siblings, and one also has to consider the amendments to the Constitution concerning the EP in ways that has caused much dissent and resent, can PAP still be accused by him to have lost its way if his brother steps down in due course to make way for the newly minted 4G leaders?
Ultimately, his timing may be seen by some as too convenient and they may construe it as more of a blood feud than a bona fide political move.
Whatever it is, HSK will not sit still or lie down in calm pigeon-style yoga pose amidst the political challenge posed by TCB. He has come out in ST papers today to assert that “a more adversarial political system will not be good for Singapore.”
That was in response to a question asked by John Teo (of Malaysian newspaper New Straits Times). John asked if “Singapore’s political system needs to evolve into a more adversarial one, with more team rivalry even within the same party.”
HSK said “he prefers to be a constructive solver.” He said that “worldwide, systems that have done well and delivered a better life for their people are those that are prepared to deal with differences, but not in an adversarial way.”
And “at the end of the day, country cannot be going in 10 different directions because then we go nowhere.”
In fact, regarding “more team rivalry even within the same party”, PM Lee had preempted that by saying, “the most important reason, why a two party system is not workable is because we do not have enough talent in Singapore to form two A-teams, to form two really first class teams to govern Singapore really well.”
He said that “the most effective way to get a two party system, if you really want to do it, is to split the PAP in two.”
Or as I would term it bluntly, ”political inbreeding”, because PAP has since independence asserted control over every aspect of the society, from education, civil service and mass media to the trade union, grassroots organisations and economy. You can’t expect talent to be groomed elsewhere without it first being singled out by the searching political tenticles of PAP
The party practically have the full advantage and privilege of the pioneering status quo for the last 53 years, whose foundation was cast in masonry stones by the ironclad leader, their father, LKY.
Now, most ironically, it is not his party he cofounded that is splitting up, at least not in the near future, but his own family that his wife and him had spent all their married life guarding in love in their own unique ways.
But, getting back on track about the PAP and the opposition, the throbbing question is this, is HSK right to say that “a more adversarial political system will not be good for Singapore?” Is it true that a country cannot be going in 10 different directions because then we go nowhere?
I guess that is the question only a talent-filled, reliable and worthy opposition can effectively answer.
While LHY did praise TCB by saying that he is the leader Singapore deserves, that will not be enough as a launchpad for Progress Singapore Party to win the coveted one-third seat.
Of all the shrewd politicians Singapore has nurtured, TCB (as an insider once) should know of PAP’s performance legitimacy over the decades, and it has its historical roots from decolonisation, to merger with Malaya and split, to Independence, to 1973 oil crisis, to Asian Financial Crisis, to 9/11 and to Sars.
Indeed, for every storm thrown at PAP, they have shown to be able to turn it into wind turbine generators to power the society, economy and her people.
And mind you, that is quite a remarkable historical summit to scale for the opposition. As one commentator said, PAP is the “epoch political party” (Maurice Duverger).
While I wish TCB and his party all the best, I have to say that the silent majority is a pragmatic, discerning and highly-cautious group that endorses not political fanfare but results, not cult of personality, but bread and butter issues, and not so much political diversity but political certainty.
In a nutshell, the silent majority are risk-averse when it comes to political leadership and governance, and as Tharman said, “People see results...Singaporeans are not fools at all. They know what’s what, they know whether things are working and whether they are not. And they will have to judge.”
Let’s see how the opposition parties, the new and established ones, will be judged by the silent majority in the coming GE.
No comments:
Post a Comment