GE2002 - No Country fields two teams for World Cup.

I recall PM Lee once said that “no country fields two teams for the World Cup. You have one National soccer team, you have reserve players, you have coaches, you can change players, and if need be, you can even change the coach.”

Here is the cruncher. “But you concentrate all your talent, make one team, and give it your best shot whether it is Johannesburg or Rio de Janeiro. I think that is what we should do.”

“We are not so successful in soccer but we are not doing badly in government and I think that we should keep up our winning streak and stay in the championship league in the international contest of nations.” (Speech at Kent Ridge Ministerial Form, 5 April 2011). 

That was the speech before the GE2011 (May) that saw PAP’s vote share fell to its lowest in history, that is, only 60.1%. And for the first time, losing Aljunied GRC to WP. 

If you also recall, that was also the GE where our founding father LKY warned the people that they will pay the price, the hard way, if they should vote for WP (however, according to George Yeo, LKY later emailed to Aljunied GRC and apologised for his remarks). 

That’s not all. 

SM Goh also threw his lot into the electoral ring. He commented on the impact on Singapore should the PAP team in Aljunied GRC be voted out. 

SM Goh said that based on merit, the PAP ended up with a politically balanced, beautiful picture of an Indian as President, a Chinese as Prime Minister and a Malay (Mr Zainal Abidin Rasheed) as potential Speaker of Parliament. 

“You knock out George Yeo and Zainul Abidin. Well, you’ll have to look for another Speaker on the basis of merit...”

He added: “These are the fine points of politics which we in PAP understand, which we try to manage quietly. But the opposition says never mind, George Yeo can be a diplomat. Come off it, that’s not the way you build up a first rate government.”

So, in summary, I believe that “keeping our winning streak” speech, that “you pay a hard price” warning and that “fine points of politics only PAP understands” comment are the old normal of the past era in Singapore politics. 

I also believe the new normal in future election is one where the convergence of variant superbugs, a world in groaning due to climate abuses, and a more media-connected, informed and restless, left-leaning young (and middle income) electoral will more often than not keep (if not compel) our leaders on the narrow path of humility, integrity and soul-searching-self-awareness. 

In any event, the issue with a mature and functioning democracy like ours with a relatively educated electoral is that you give one man and one woman, one vote each, and you can be sure that they, as a collective, will use it to register their dissent and swing the votes to an alternative political team, even if it risks replacing a Speaker of the House or a seasoned MP in the likes of George Yeo, both forming part of what SM Goh so confidently asserts then was a first rate government.

In respect of first rate government, it is true to some extent that, as Lawrence Wong said, PAP still have a solid majority (83 out of 93 seats - that’s super-duper majority). He said that is because “the base kept faith with the PAP, knowing that the PAP kept faith with its base.” And according to Lawrence, that base are “the working class, the middle class, the heartland of Singapore.”

I believe that the base support will still be there even as PM Lee hands over the reins to the 4G leaders with HSK leading the charge. But in a functioning democracy, one should never take anything for granted or be too presumptuous about one’s achievement in government. 

Save for a polarised state like the US led by a narcissist demagogue blindly whipping up populist sentiments to a frenzy or an oppressive regime like North Korea where democracy is just a circus show, our democracy is still sufficiently active, discerning and involved to make a swinging difference should we detect an air of superiority, a trace of hubris or a show of pretension by the ruling superduper majority. 

Mind you, it is signature human nature for the electoral to give short shrift to the dominant status quo, especially when they only get one chance in 5 years to make their vote count. 

But, thankfully, as things turn out, PAP is not a political leviathan that looks at its own reflection through the St James’ mirror and then walks away forgetting how he looks like. On this, Lawrence admitted that “the desire for diversity in Parliament, for checks and balances, is permanent. It is here to stay, and we must be prepared for this new reality.”

In addition, he also assured the people that “the party will conduct a thorough review of the general election, identifying two areas that the party will have to work on. It must better connect with younger voters and address the “real economic pain” that a substantial segment of older voters are feeling.””

Well, we should give credit where credit is due. And that admission and promise to review are the first step to good and humble governance. But words will have to be put into action, and I trust, with its track record, there is hope in the new normal of Singapore politics. 

So, let me end with what I started, that is, PM Lee’s one national soccer team. Then, he said you cannot field two teams for the World Cup. 

Well, maybe in Singapore’s most recent political context, it is still one team of government that is for the people, by the people, and of the people. And the ideal of democracy remains uncompromised with this one team. 

However, like Singapore’s multiculturalism, it is one team culled from different political parties, which for the moment is only WP, and with each working together with humility and maturity for the same timeless goal, that is, for the nation, for their welfare, for the common good. 

This is how Pritam Singh puts it: “Whatever the expectations the PAP has of the WP, the WP’s purpose and approach in Parliament is to advance and achieve better outcomes for Singapore, and to champion the welfare of Singaporeans. We will remain steadfast and fully committed to that cause.”

And here is where WP’s goal overlaps with PAP’s when Lawrence concluded with this: -

“Our policies must always tilt in favour of the less fortunate and vulnerable. This is in the PAP’s roots and DNA. We must never waver in our commitment to social justice, to preserve social mobility for all Singaporeans, and to build a more fair and just society.”

So it is not about fielding two soccer teams for the World Cup, but one united team with each and every player, whether as a striker, midfielder, defender or goalkeeper, contributing their part, and training together, notwithstanding their different personalities, political backgrounds and banners, in order to get the ball into its opponent’s goal post. 

That is the enduring goal of democracy, and this little red dot may just set a new aspiring standard for politics that is fair, transparent, robust, and always people-centred, with diversity working in favour of, and not against, the future of her people.

 

 

 

 

 

GE202 - The Morning After.

Good morning. It’s the day after. And the people have spoken. It was a good feverish turnout of 2.5m notwithstanding the pandemic - quite unprecedented actually. 

So, PAP got their mandate, that is, 83 seats out of 93. WP won another GRC, taking them to 10 seats in Parliament from the previous 6. And PSP, registered only in March last year, was in 3rd place with 253,459 of the popular votes. WP was in 2nd place with 279,245. Mm...very close.

Indeed TCB had pulled his hefty weight and although PSP didn’t win, West Coast GRC nevertheless showed the best performance and is qualified for 2 NCMP seats (I can only hope TCB considers it. I mean, how rare is it to see the current PAP debate in Parliament with the former PAP). 

Even the little “Red Dot United” formed less than a month ago garnered a respectable 25.38% of the popular votes against the Goliath of PAP‘s GRC, Tharman and his Jurong team. They may have missed with the 5 stones in hand, but they still made a political splash. 

Mind you, Tharman got the best showing in GE2020 with 74.62%, not his first time ace-ing it. On the other hand, his outgoing boss in AMK recorded a count of 71.91% while his incoming boss in East Coast managed just to make the cut at 53.41%. 

Alas, PAP may have come to the conclusion that the nation is not ready for a non-Chinese PM, but the people on the ground seems to differ going solely on the results. 

In any event, overall, PAP’s performance could have been better. They were riding on the theme of this GE being a “crisis election”, compelling people to hide behind the cottails of the status quo. Not to forget that this is a GE where the government had given out nearly $100b, and one would have thought that it should have deepened the appeal, right? What’s more, this is PM Lee’s final GE run for he is passing the leadership baton to the charismatically-challenged HSK. 

Perhaps this GE didn’t really match up to the last one (69.9% vs 61.24%) because GE2015 came right after a nation was in mourning while this GE came after a nation had masked up against a formidable global foe? In other words, one tugged on the people’s heartstring, while the other played on the people’s fear? 

If this is so, it seems like when it comes to fear provoked by a crisis, the powers-that-be need to treat it with more caution and less presumption. For the people don’t want just safe, they want hope and change. 

Let me just say that PAP’s manifesto for GE2020 was this: “Our Lives, Our Jobs, Our Future.” And PM Lee explained: “Therefore this manifesto also sets out the PAP’s longer-term plans to build a better Singapore, because our aim is not just to survive the storm but also to maintain the long-term direction for the country, and keep on building and improving Singapore.”

Honestly, the manifesto is all good for the PAP we know for so long. Over the past decades up to now, they have successfully steered and navigated Singapore in uncharted waters, through unexpected storms and even over this unprecedented global pandemic. 

However, if the election results have alluded to anything, it is that the issue may go deeper than “Our lives, Our Jobs and Our Future.” 

Maybe WP’s Chairman Ms Sylvia Lim’s last political broadcast can shed some light here. This is what she said: -

“Singaporeans are proud of our country’s tangible achievements. Even as an opposition party, we give credit to PAP’s founders for our physical infrastructure and efficient systems.”

“But what about the intangible aspects? Can positive changes happen in Singapore so that we embrace openness to other views, culture and creativity, transparency, kindness, fairness and happiness.”

She added: “Imagine a Singapore where the huge power imbalance that now exists with the Government dominating and controlling the people is changed - and power shifts back towards our citizens.”

Does she have a point? Is the GE result our nation’s Freudian slip inadvertently revealing something that is more than just improving our lives, protecting our jobs and securing our future?

The questions are: What life are we talking about when we have one of the highest inequality rates, when depression is prevalent among the young, and when hope is narrowly defined as what is readily tangible and material? 

And what jobs are we talking about when the cost of living is rising, when most of our young are expected to spend almost all of their working life paying off debts just to find out that their property they had thought would tide them over in their old age is fast falling in value? 

I know the intention cannot be faulted and it is to preserve jobs and work with employers to help the employees during this urgent and pressing time. But, what’s next after the vaccine is found? What’s next after we are inoculated against Covid? 

Will we be going back to the pre-covid normal where business is as usual, where the rich gets richer with others lagging far behind, where economic growth is the nation’s first priority pursued at all costs, and where the poor and struggling in society remains largely invisible, that is, an inconvenient truth or reality? 

And this brings me to our future. You can bet that a future under the firm hand of PAP is one that is rather secure, stable and resilient to a large extent. We have overcome much odds together to rise to international reknown and recognition. 

But yet, there is still something amiss, not quite right. Alas, something is just not as plain sailing as the PAP has put it out to be. 

Yes, they talk about the social mobility escalator for everyone to hop on, but you nevertheless wonder, looking at how uneven the distribution of the fruit of society’s labour, is there another out-of-sight, out-of-mind escalator reserved not for everyone, but for the somebodys of society who is just not the everybodys?

How about the bouncing trampoline? Our government assures us that they want to help us bounce to greater heights, be it in our education, our career or in our old age. 

But again, you wonder, while intention and sincerity cannot be faulted, are the spring in the trampoline working as they should? How high can one go as compared to others who are born to privilege, wealth and exclusive personal estates? Are many jumping on the same trampoline adding greater stress to the spring while there is a trampoline elsewhere that has enough spring and space for a good, effortless jump one at a time? 

Truly, what are the intangible that Sylvia is talking about? Between economic success and personal contentment, is our government more obsessed with the former? 

Between growth and equality or inclusiveness, is our government still struggling to make the trade off because old habits die hard? And between control with strict OB markers and responsible freedom without fear, is our government still paranoid about making bolder adjustments, because it is still being held back by the ghosts of past hauntings? 

Let me end with what Chan Chun Sing recently said. Addressing the opposition’s call for checks and balances in Parliament, he said: “Has the Government done well? If the Government has done well, should we affirm the Government or should we punish the Government by giving the (PAP) Government even fewer seats?” 

“If the opposition has not done well, should we reward the opposition with more seats just on the slogan that they will provide more checks on the Government?”

I guess that is the issue with the government. They look at the tangibles, the measurables, and they have trouble seeing beyond that. Their shiny achievements in schools and in government/civil service clouded their sight. 

No doubt the stats clearly shows the government has done well. But with a little more self-reflection, one ought to realise too that you are as good as the limitation of what your ruler measures. If it falls short a few cm, the length of your measurement would fall short too.

So, I guess CCS has got his answer this morning about whether the opposition has done well this GE2020. However you look at it, even amid the handouts and covid, the overall result is more positive for them than the ruling party. And as CCS puts it, they are thus rewarded with more seats in Parliament. 

But he is however wrong about the seats being just a “slogan that they will provide more checks on the Government”. If anything, their reward for the people is to make sure the dominant party occasionally do some self-reflection for their own good. Cheerz.

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.

GE2020 - Raeesah. Khan's controversy.

Amos Yee was prosecuted for making vicious statements about Christians and Muslim. Claiming trial, he served four weeks. 

Bryan Lim, 37, likewise was charged for making this statement against the LGBT community: “I am a Singaporean citizen. I am an NSman. I am a father. And I swore to protect my nation. Give me permission to open fire. I would like to see these (people) die for their causes.” He was remorseful and paid a fine of $3,500.

A 19-year-old Poly student recently did similar acts claiming that he “had dreamt about shooting and killing Muslims.” He said he derived great satisfaction “gunning down anyone that’s relatively brown and non-Chinese looking.” 

And who can forget Anton Casey, then 39, who five years ago, posted this on his FB: “Daddy where is your car (apparently a silver Porsche) and who are all these poor people (in the MRT)?” This was followed by this comment in other post: “Normal service can resume, once I have washed the stench of public transport of me...”

Anton had apologised. He said: “I wish for nothing more than to be forgiven for my poor judgment and given a second chance to rebuild the trust people have had in me as a resident of this wonderful country.”

Now, we have Ms Raeesah Khan, 26, WP candidate for Sengkang GRC. She too apologised. 

“My remarks were insensitive, and I regret making them. I feel really passionate about minority issues regardless of race, and in my passion I made improper remarks, and I have to be accountable for them. I will fully cooperate in any police investigation.”

What did she do or write? 

Well, in Feb 2018, she wrote this in her FB: “Singapore jails minorities mercilessly, harasses mosque leaders but lets corrupt church leaders who stole $50 million walk free. Who did they pay?”

That is hate speech at three inflammatory levels: race, religion and the administration of justice.

Well, that was two years ago. She was 24. She was not a WP candidate. She was young, unthinking, immature, right?

But there is another incident, more up to date. In another post on May 17 this year, she commented about 7 foreigners who were “caught on camera ignoring safe distancing rules during circuit breaker period.”

This was her post: “Do you see police officers here? Imagine if this was a neighbourhood hawker centre. There would be policemen swarming the area and enforcing the law within minutes.”

She added: “Why is the law different for these people? Is it because they’re rich Chinese or white people? Do you think expats will be treated with the same disdain as migrant workers who broke the law?”

Similarly, that is hate speech at three inflammatory levels: race, discrimination by socioeconomic status and the administration of justice.

Yes, Raeesah has apologised, though not entirely on point, but yes, she said sorry and would render her fullest cooperation to the police investigation. 

It is therefore unfortunate, (or maybe fortunate?) that she is singled out during such time, when she is not just a keyboard warrior, commenting from the comfort of her home or office, but one who is running as a candidate for the opposition party, apologising to the public at large. 

To me, Pritam’s stand/defence was rather curious. At first, he said he had not known about the FB posts beforehand. Not even her May FB post. He then said this in her defence: -

“And for me, I would be actually a bit disappointed if our candidates try to sanitise their past. And I think they should be upfront and authentic to the public. This is who they are. And in the event there are certain posts or certain comments that they may have made which are untoward, then I would expect them to explain themselves.”

Mm...”sanitise their past”? Be upfront and authentic to the public?

I think this is a case that goes beyond sanitisation. She was caught in the open when two police reports lodged yesterday, and she was called to explain herself, and she did. 

However, it should be noted that her posts were apparently put out there to rile readers up. And mind you, her most recent post was only less than 2 months ago. What was she thinking? Is this who she was or, god forbid, is or has always been? 

The issue here is that Raeesah was not being “not authentic”. She was in fact quite upfront or authentic about how she felt about certain status quo in our country, including race, religion and justice administration, at the time of the posts. 

So, the question is, did she really feel that way when she wrote those posts at that time, or was it just to garner some attention, “Likes” and followers? 

Mind you, the former is about authenticity (which is problematic) and the other is about being disingenuous about it, unthinking, immature (which is understandable to some extent). 

In other words, it is not her pretenses, if any, that concern me. It is her authenticity or forthrightness (without filter) that gives me cause for pause. 

And another related question is whether she is a rebel with a cause or one without a cause. I can sympathise with the MLK kind, but not the Amos Yee kind (and I put on record that I am not comparing her to Yee, just stretching examples for illustration). 

So, Pritam’s concern ought to be directed more at how strongly she felt the so-called injustice and discrimination when she made those posts, notwithstanding how problematic and inappropriate they are, and not so much that she was trying to sanitise her past, which, if she was not uncovered, her constituency, should she be elected, would not be fully aware of her stand. 

Now, to be fair, I know she had apologised, and made a 20-sec public statement about it that went some way to clarify her stand and intention. But apart from accountability and cooperation with the police, I truly hope that she will receive the proper counselling and advice because she is no keyboard warrior like me, but may just be voted in as an MP for her constituency, and thereby wield considerable social and political influence.

At times, it is not how you feel about an issue that is wrong per se. I believe Raeesah has her heart in the right place, and her standing up for public office is what is most redeeming about her intention and passion for the people. Alas, we all make mistakes, and acknowledging it is the first step - paying for it is the second.

However, in the long run in politics, it is about how you represent the issue and fight for it that counts. And as she said, she has a heart for the minority, the disenfranchised, and the left behind, so to speak. And that is admirable. 

But that is just half the narrative. The other half that brings you home is to win hearts over, even that of your opponents’, with a heart that is responsible, accountable and humble. All the best this Friday.