Tan Cheng Bock's Progress Singapore Party.

Will Tan Cheng Bock’s Progress Singapore Party (with a possible alliance with other opposition parties) win that most coveted one-third in parliament in the coming GE? That is the golden buzzer aim that TCB is trying his most earnest to strike.

He said that “his aim for now is to work with other opposition parties to get one-third of the seats in Parliament and block constitutional changes.” 

At 79, TCB doesn’t have much time. He added with this ominous strain: “If in this General Election, we still fail to win one-third of the seat...I don’t see much change can happen.”

Well, I guess with one-third, the opposition will be able to forge a more robust check-and-balance system in parliament. It would also increase its effectiveness to counter such constitutional changes like the Elected Presidency, which had turned very much on a twist-of-phrases concerning who was the First Elected President in Singapore, that is, is it OTC or WKW? 

Or maybe with that coveted one-third, the opposition’s voice in parliament can more effectively check the seemingly whitewashing exercise that went on two years ago when PM Lee called upon ministers of the party, for which he is the leader, to vindicate him as their PM in office in a televised media concerning what was essentially an issue of sibling rivalry in the infamous Oxley saga. 

TCB said: “Parliament is to set laws and rules for the country, and make changes for the country, but when you use Parliament as a place where you debate your family issues, to me, that is not correct.”

TCB also raised the thorny issue of family connections. Today’s ST reported this: -

“Soon after Ms Ho became executive director in 2002, then Temasek chairman S. Dhanabalan said she was appointed on merit and not family connections. He also said PM Lee, who was then Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, agreed to the appointment after Mr Dhanabalan ensured Ms Ho would not report directly to the Finance Ministry.”

For me, it seems like an argument that resembled the metaphor of trying to squeeze the political elephant into the conflict of interests fridge. 

Here you have a situation where the head of Temasek, with $313 billion in net portfolio value, sharing the same matrimonial bed on most nights of the year with the head of the Finance Ministry at that time (and heralded to be the coming head of a one-party dominant state). 

On this unnerving state of political and matrimonial affairs, TCB observed: “(it) left many wondering why, (alluding to a lack of transparency)...as you know, Temasek is part of our reserves. We want to know how that selection process was made.”

To be fair, while I know that Ms Ho’s appointment had to be based on merit of some sort, but in the play of politics, what is also equally important for the public to know to set their wagging tongue at ease is that it is also a case of transparency and accountability. 

Having said all that, yes, our government has issues, like all governments in this world, most of whom had it worse. 

If you want a taste of that, you don’t need to go far; just peer out of the window if you are facing north and look across the causeway. Mind you, this is not a case of comparing political woes, but about understanding how one nation can be so different from the other when they are so close to each other. 

Alas, the raw reality for TCB and his opposition alliance, if they are able to put their personality politics aside to forge a united core in the coming GE, is best described in the words of the financial maestro and PM-that-was-not-meant-to-be Tharman Shanmugaratnam. 

Tharman noted that “people are much more engaged and civil society is more active.” He then said: “Part of a healthy political system is one with a decent opposition presence in Parliament and outside, and a responsible opposition.”

Underscore the words “decent” and “responsible”. 

The late S. Rajaratnam puts it in another way when he said: “What should therefore worry us at the moment is not the durability of the PAP but the durability of a credible Opposition during the Twenty-First century.” 

With Singapore celebrating her 54th year of Independence under the steely hands of a one-party dominant state, I feel that the burden of proof, so to speak, now rests on a decent and responsible opposition, and TCB, at 79, doesn’t have much time to marshal up the talent needed to make that dream of one-third seat a reality. 

His party’s uphill climb would not so much be competing with PAP on alternative (better) policies, but convincing the entrenched views of the silent 69% and their faith on the 4G leaders helmed by the perennially-smiling HSK. 

Related to that, OYK in fact cheekily posed this question: “If the people of a country wish for a multi-party system, it will be so.” 

That seems to be a resounding bugle call from PAP, equivalent to a team of cheerleaders provoking their competitors to “Bring it On!” to roarious cheer from the less-than-silent majority sitting on the bleachers. 

And like it or not, that seems to be the enigmatic PAP brand at the moment, and it would take more than just some insinuations of nepotism, constitutional underhandedness and parliamentary whitewashing to cause the party to come undone. 

Ultimately, it is still a bread-and-butter issue that will win the day. And PAP has thus far being spreading the butter on the right side of the bread. 

No doubt, some parts of the bread may be spread thinner than the other parts, (with inequality and elitism rearing its ugly head), but will that be enough for the opposition alliance to hit that golden buzzer of securing the coveted one-third? Only time will tell...

So, let me end with the late LKY’s words still echoing from the political otherworld. 

“There will come a time when eventually the public will say, look, let’s try the other side, either because the PAP has declined in quality or the opposition has put up a team which is equal to the PAP and they say, let’s try the other side. That day will come...No system lasts forever, that’s for sure. In the next 10 years to 20 years, I don’t think it’ll happen. Beyond that, I cannot tell.”

Alas, it has been nearly ten years since LKY made that statement (in 2011). He did say in ten to twenty years, it might not happen, right? 

Well, if TCB could persuade a good portion of that silent majority to come to a general consensus converging at what he had observed, as captured in these words, “I have spent a great deal of my life in public office. But as I sat back and watched what has been going on in Parliament and in our political system, I am concerned. I believe the processes of good governance have gone astray. I worry because I see the foundations of good governance eroding,” then maybe that political forecast of ten to twenty years might be fast-tracked into political reality at the next GE. 

Source: “Is the People’s Action Party here to stay?” by Bilveer Singh.