GE2020 - PAP-lite.

Is PAP-lite what the people in general want?

This is quite ironic because just last week, PM Lee remarked that the WP’s Manifesto was “PAP-lite”. He was repeating what one of his ministers said in a recent televised debate, when Jamus’ “blank cheque” statement became the recursive back-masking message on the ground. 

“As Vivian said in the TV debate a few days ago, this is PAP-lite. But I tell you - why do you want to settle for PAP-lite? The real thing is much better.”

PM Lee added: “They take the PAP’s plan, they say very good, here are a few holes, please patch the holes, here are a few places where you can add more money, make it cheaper, work harder. I also can!”

Mm....has he thought about it? Maybe that is what the people want. Maybe, people want the few holes patched up. However, it is not about throwing more money, but allowing more diversity and debate in Parliament. And against the talk about “the real thing is much better”, the voters and PM Lee may just have different definitions of what the real thing really is. 

For me, the writing is on the wall about this. For that is why WP won another GRC and kept their SMC ward with a better margin. That is also why West Coast nearly lost to a political party set up only I.5 years ago against a party that has dominated politics for the last 55 years. That is why HSK won only narrowly with his East Coast plan. That is why SDP’s two doctors got a better showing of popular votes as compared to the last election 2015. And that is why overall, it was a drop of vote count across the board for PAP from 69.9% in the last election, they managed to garner 61.24%. 

Han Fook Kwang in today’s ST wrote: “The PAP has not changed its fundamental approach, which is top down and technocratic.”

“Over the last few years, it has made several unpopular decisions that reinforce this perception, including the reserved presidency, the impending increase in the goods and services tax, new laws in fake news, and its uncompromising stance on critics and dissenters.” 

On its uncompromising stance and the intolerance of Pofma, maybe the PAP can consider patching this hole up by following what her own party member had done. This may not be publicised much, but amid the CB quasi-shutdown, Josephine Teo waived the $1000 donation she demanded from one of two men who accused her and her husband of corruption. 

At that time, Donald Liew pleaded with Josephine to waive the sum due to “his personal circumstances.” Liew’s lawyer, Eugene, said: “The minister had considered his circumstances and kindly agreed to his request for which he is grateful.”

Josephine in fact went further. She even offered to assist Liew with his personal circumstances. I believe by that act, she broke rank and did what the “real thing” that is PAP is not known for or perceived to be. She forgave, forgo and had shown forbearance. 

In the article, Fook Kwang mentioned that the people “want a PAP-lite, minus the hard edges that are part of the party’s DNA.” And Sengkang voters last Friday have somehow made that quite clear. In general, this particular demographic is in the new estates, they are mainly middle income, and well educated. And what is going for them is that they are young, just starting their family. 

Opinion editor Chua Mui Hoong had foreseen how the electoral landscape will change as early as 2013 when she made this observation just at the time WP’s Lee Li Lian won the seat: -

“Is Punggol East an aberration or the harbinger of things to come?” I think it is the latter. Punggol East has a demographic profile of the future: Voters are younger and better off than the national average. It is solidly middle class. Future elections will be full of people who think and vote like those at Pungel East.” (Over the years, Punggol East was absorded into the new Sengkang GRC). 

And you want to know something ironic. The headline of PM Lee’s statement - “Why settle for PAP-lite? Real thing is much better” - was taken with the PAP Sengkang team, helmed by NTUC chief Ng Chee Meng. 

Alas, the one thing about democracy is that you can’t expect all voters to give as much thought as they should to the vote they cast. My mother recently told me that in her West Coast market, she met one of the old folks who reminded her to vote for PAP because they give money. 

Well, intention notwithstanding, I guess we all fall into the cognitive trap known as heuristic availability. It is a “mental shortfall that relies on immediate examples that come to a given person’s mind when evaluating a specific topic or decision.” 

So, in an election, for some voters, one of the immediate examples that comes to mind is the financial handout, and that may very well determine the direction of their vote (For Trump’s America, it may just be the affliction of parousiamania (the second coming) - just saying). 

But for a functioning and mature democracy like ours, there is more to it than jobs and economic security. The drop to 61.24% invariably registers a cognitive dissonance amongst a rising influential segment of the electorate, that is, the swinging votes of the more left-leaning, educated younger voters. 

They are definitely looking for more than just bread and butter issues. They are in fact looking for more credible hands to butter the bread that PAP hands out. 

And on top of that, they are looking for a different kind of bread, not plain white, but multigrain made up of oats, barley and flax, which also represents more diversity and creativity in the home kitchen where policies that impact society in the long run are kneaded, baked and rolled out.

Professor Alan Chong (of S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies) said: “They might have thought, “The Government has promised a whole load of things to take us out of the Covid-19 storm, why not vote in the WP to ensure that they deliver?””

In any event, let me end by saying that the PAP may have entered the GE2020 fray riding on the high horse of what is PAP-concentrated. But, they are nevertheless disembarking from the same horse with what is PAP-humbled. 

First thing first, PM Lee’s gesture to offer Pritam the appointment of the Official Opposition Leader in Parliament is a historical first. And on WP’s good showing, he said: “I look forward to them participating in and contributing to the debate in Parliament, and to the national debate, as we deal with the urgent issues before us...I will use this mandate responsibly to deal with Covid-19 and the economic downturn, and to take us safely through the crisis, and beyond.”

ESM Goh said that the outcome is as “good for Singapore and our parliamentary democracy.”

Even our stoicLaw Minister Shanmugam said this: “In all these things are clearly messages that voters are sending us. It will be wrong if we don’t understand the messages. And I think it requires a lot of soul-searching and reflection.”

Well, that about sums it up. For “PAP-lite” is not about copycats, counterfeits or fakes. From the results of this GE2020, PAP-lite is less of what the voters do not want and more of what they want. It is less of paternalism as in “we know better” and more of humility as in “we know better, together”. It is also less of a flight to safety in familiarity and more of building strength and resilience in diversity. 

And it is less of rooting our security in the tangibles, the readily identifiable, and more of a future that is fair, more open and inclusive, led by leaders who not just work the ground, but also inspire confidence and hope, even if they are not from a certain stratified tier of society.