Rilek1Corner

Tag: Lee Kuan Yew

  • 8 Reasons For Surge Of Support For PAP

    8 Reasons For Surge Of Support For PAP

    On Sept 11, 2.3 million voters inGE2015 returned thePAPto power, giving it 83 out of 89 seats and 69.9 per cent of the popular vote – a swing of almost 10 percentage points from GE2011.

    Why did this happen? Jeremy Au Yong and Tham Yuen-C find out.

    1 The SG50 factor

    Observers had expected Singapore’s Golden Jubilee to weigh heavily in the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) favour.

    And it looks like the all-year-round SG50 festivities, with the biggest National Day Parade on Aug 9, did have a feel-good effect on voters.

    But, more than that, celebrating Singapore’s 50th year of independence and harking back to the country’s early, more turbulent days, could also have reminded Singaporeans of just how unique their country is – a little red dot that not only existed, but also thrived against all odds.

    During the nine days of campaigning, PAP leaders had attributed this exceptionalism to voters themselves, calling on Singaporeans to “keep Singapore special”.

    In the end, it could have been a message too seductive to ignore.

    FAITH IN THE SYSTEM

    I think many people can feel and associate with how Singapore has moved forward over the past 50 years, and are willing to put their stake in this Government to bring them forward for the next 50 years. ” MR EUGENE CHEW, 49, travel industry manager.

    2 The LKY effect

    The death of founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew in March reminded Singaporeans of his key role in the country’s progress.

    While it evoked a sense of gratitude and sympathy, some pundits were unsure if it would translate into votes for his PAP.

    But what is certain, though, is howthe week of mourning galvanised Singaporeans, especially the silent majority, who turned up in the hundreds of thousands to pay respects outside Parliament House, at tribute sites around the country, and on the streets as his hearse passed by on the day of his funeral.

    The sense of solidarity and patriotism could have swung votes the PAP’s way. And the story of how he and his pioneer generation of leaders built Singapore could have driven home the importance of a good leadership, which was a key plank of the PAP’s campaign this election.

    PATRIOTISM IN ACTION

    We should see it as a tribute to the late Mr Lee and all that he has done for Singapore.” PAP MOULMEIN BRANCH VOLUNTEER, VICTOR ANG, 50, self-employed.

    3 Policy changes

    The Workers’ Party (WP) had campaigned on it, telling voters that the Government’s policy “U-turns” over the past four years were the result of a stronger opposition presence in Parliament.

    It turns out though, that voters could have given the PAP credit for the policy changes instead.

    In areas such as immigration and property prices, the Government took quick, decisive actions to tighten the tap on foreigners and bring down property prices.

    These policy changes have, possibly, defused a number of hot button issues that turned up the heat in the 2011 elections and given voters fewer reasons for protest.

    Over the past four years, the leftward shift that the party had taken had also become more obvious, drawing praise from opposition parties and activists alike.

    GOOD TRACK RECORD

    The PAP has effectively responded to many of the complaints people had over the last decade. There has been a significant restriction on foreign immigration in recent years, a massive campaign to build BTO flats,and cooling measures have also brought down the resale prices of HDB flats by 10 per cent from the peak in 2013; and the economic record is objectively quite good… I think the electorate seems to have agreed. ” SENIOR LECTURER AT UNISIM COLLEGE, WALTER THESEIRA.

    4 The AHPETC controversy

    The issue of the WP’s Aljunied- Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) dominated the first half of this election’s campaign for both the opposition party and the PAP.

    On the one side, the PAP had attacked the WP for lapses at its town council, saying it exposed a deeper integrity problem at the party.

    On the other side, the WP had painted itself as a victim of the ruling party’s bullying, saying the PAP was using the town council system to hobble opposition parties.

    But, in the second part of its campaign, the WP had moved away from the issue, seemingly confident that voters would not care.

    As it turns out, voters may not have bought the opposition party’s story – that the whole issue was just being stirred up unnecessarily by the PAP.

    Perhaps the surest sign of this is the party’s results in Aljunied GRC, most associated with the town council issue. The party barely clung onto the constituency, polling just 50.95 per cent of valid votes.

    SEEDS OF DOUBT

    The AHPETC issue played into the PAP’s hands and this affected the WP. The ground also shifted away from the opposition due to the saga. ” DR NOR SHAHRIL SAAT, fellow at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute.

    5 Fear of the ‘what-ifs’

    At the final Workers’ Party (WP) rally of the campaign period, Hougang MP Png Eng Huat made a call for sweeping change.

    He said a fundamental overhaul of Singapore’s political landscape was needed and that it could only be realised with a wave of support for the WP. Singapore needed “big change” at the polls, he said, or “nothing else will change at all”.

    Those comments – taken in the context of this campaign and opposition leaders openly talking about the need for at least 20 opposition MPs – may have presented undecided voters with too much of a change all at once.

    While it was unlikely that anyone seriously bought into the PAP warning that it might fail to form the government, the opposition might have offered a vision of the future they were not yet ready to embrace.

    LIKE A BIG AND SMALL BET

    I think when they start to see such a great response to opposition rallies on the Internet, all the rah-rah about voting against the PAP, people got worried. People that sit on the fence say, better don’t play-play. It’s like a big and small bet.We want to make sure there’s always checks and balances.Then I think, what if people start to think like me and we have more opposition in Parliament and things don’t get done efficiently any more? ” PUNGGOL EAST RESIDENT TAN YEE KEONG,47, a regional sales manager.

    6 Quality of the opposition

    While the 2011 General Election was marked by excitement over a series of “star-catches” by opposition parties, there was a comparatively muted response to this year’s slate.

    Part of it was simply because the voters had seen it all before.

    Highly qualified former government scholar with stellar academic credentials? There were four in 2011, not including WP’s Chen Show Mao. Young, fresh-faced, articulate female candidate? There was National Solidarity Party’s Nicole Seah.

    It is unclear if these star catches made all that much difference. PMLee’s criticism that the opposition was a “mouse in the House” may have found agreement with some voters.

    Opposition parties seemed less prepared for battle in 2015 than four years ago,when they presented a more thought-out strategy.

    The NSP was hurt by its constant flip-flopping on its decision to contest MacPherson SMC;the Singapore People’s Party and Democratic Progressive Party could not agree on a joint team until the 11th hour; and the Internet had a field day with two separate Reform Party candidates who accidentally called on voters to support other parties.

    NEED TO MEET STANDARDS

    Voters want more checks and balances but were not willing to have opposition for opposition’s sake. They do expect opposition MPs to be of a certain minimum standard. ” SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY LAW DON, EUGENE TAN.

    7 PM Lee’s likeability

    Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong may be one of the PAP’s most popular politicians, but many observers still felt that his decision to place himself at the heart of the campaign was a risk.

    Posters of his smiling face were everywhere during this campaign, much to the chagrin of the opposition candidates.PM Lee also made campaign stops in various constituencies and sent e-mail to voters that was signed by him.

    The results are evidence that the gamble paid off. The PAP made gains across the board and PM Lee ended up with one of the best-performing wards in the election. Voters also rewarded him with the strongest mandate of his tenure.

    GIVING PM THE SUPPORT

    The PM is seeking a strong mandate and support. People are responding to that call, for him to take Singapore to the next stage of development.We worked very hard. At the national level, people vote PAP because they want that direction, they want to givePM the support. ” HOLLAND-BUKIT TIMAH GRC MP, LIANG ENG HWA.

    8 External environment

    In a departure from recent years, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong spent a significant chunk of this year’s National Day Rally talking about global issues.

    “We have to be alive to our external environment, that’s a fundamental reality for a ‘little red dot’,” he said, as he explained how instability in Singapore’s neighbourhood could affect the nation.

    For voters who had kept up with global affairs, they might have seen that all is not well with the world at the moment.

    Even as Singapore’s election campaign was picking up steam, its closest neighbour, Malaysia, was contending with growing unrest over corruption allegations involving the prime minister and China’s massive stock market crash captured headlines around the world.

    FEELING SECURE

    Economy uncertainty, global security concerns – these problems have always been there. It’s just that this year, voters have opened their eyes, able to dissect further to say, OK,why didn’t these things happen to us? They’re asking the right questions now. I’m happy as a Singaporean that they’re thinking that way because it makes me feel secure. ”

     

    Source: http://news.asiaone.com

  • PPP’s Goh Meng Seng Says Lee Kuan Yew’s Death Part Of Reason For Forming Party

    PPP’s Goh Meng Seng Says Lee Kuan Yew’s Death Part Of Reason For Forming Party

    The People’s Power Party (PPP) is a newcomer for the General Election, but the man behind its inception is no stranger to politics in Singapore.

    Founder and secretary-general Goh Meng Seng has 15 years of political experience and contested in the last two general elections under two different parties.

    On Sept 11, Mr Goh will lead a PPP team to contest Choa Chu Kang GRC. His rival will be Health Minister Gan Kim Yong’s People’s Action Party (PAP) team.

    Yesterday, Mr Goh, 45, the managing director of a group of market research and linguistics companies, told The New Paper in a phone interview that he does not see the switching of parties as a weakness.

    “I’ve learnt a lot during my time in Workers’ Party (WP), which I joined in 2001, and helped contribute in the rebranding for the 2006 GE,” he said.

    Mr Goh was a member of the WP’s Central Executive Council and the party’s “A” Team, which stood and lost in Aljunied GRC in 2006, with 43.9 per cent of votes.

    Saying “my job was done”, he left the party later that year and joined the National Solidarity Party (NSP) in 2007. He said he used his knowledge to build NSP up for the 2011 GE.

    “We helped increase the profile of NSP after four years. But I felt that we needed more opposition to give rise to more political discourse,” he said.

    In July this year, the PPP was officially registered, with Mr Goh as its secretary-general.

    Mr Goh said the death of founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew this year was another reason behind the setting up of the new party.

    “The current system, where there is a strong concentration of power, is only viable when you have a strong philosopher behind it.

    “Now that Mr Lee is gone, there’s no one else who has such a strong political morality who can control everyone. Things can go wrong.

    “The only way to provide sustainability is when power is separated into different parties that can act as checks and balances,” he said.

    PROFILE

    WHO:
    Goh Meng Seng

    WHAT:
    Managing director of a group of market research and linguistics companies

    FAMILY:
    Married with a daughter

    POLITICAL CAREER SO FAR:
    2001: Joined Workers’ Party (WP)
    May 2006: Contested Aljunied GRC with WP
    November 2006: Quit WP
    March 2007: Joined National Solidarity Party (NSP)
    May 2011: Contested Tampines GRC with NSP
    November 2011: Quit NSP
    July 2015: Registered People’s Power Party (PPP)

    MR GOH MENG SENG ON….

    WHAT VOTERS ARE LOOKING FOR TODAY

    Gone are the bread and butter issues of the early days of Singapore’s independence.

    Instead, voters today are looking for people who can represent them, are articulate and provide intellectual political discourse.

    “I have always challenged the PAP ministers on policy debates, and they always siam (Hokkien for dodge). The only way that I can bring this debate to them is to be elected into Parliament,” he said.

    The PPP is looking to champion key issues of population growth, national identity, housing, healthcare and the Central Provident Fund (CPF), he said.

    HOW HIS PARTY WILL ATTRACT VOTERS

    As the PPP is new, Mr Goh said the party will have to rely on personalities, such as his own, to reach out to voters.

    “My party is new, but I’m not. My Facebook page, my blog and everything I’ve done, is out there on the Internet,” he said.

    So a strong online presence is essential, he said.

    “People have come up to me to tell me that they watched an online video of me speaking at the National University of Singapore Society dialogue,” he said.

    WHAT KEEPS 
HIM GOING

    Standing as an opposition candidate is a public service, Mr Goh said.

    This will give voters viable choices when they are at the polling stations and allow them to think carefully about who they wish to elect.

    “That, in turn, will create a national level of consciousness for society and the country,” he said.

    “Whether we win, or not, it is a public service,” he said.

    He is also grateful for his supporters and helpers who have stood by him over the past 15 years.

    HOW THE POLITICAL SCENE HAS CHANGED

    The 2006 General Election was a turning point in Singapore’s politics, Mr Goh said, adding: “We (then Workers’ Party) opened up space, created a wow effect and showed to everyone that there was nothing wrong with the opposition.”

     

    Source: www.tnp.sg

  • Separation 1965: The Tunku’s ‘Agonised Decision’

    Separation 1965: The Tunku’s ‘Agonised Decision’

    Did Singapore ask to leave Malaysia of its own accord or was it forced out against its will?

    Fifty years after Singapore’s separation from Malaysia, the question is still moot. This review of the events leading to the separation seeks to throw light on the conundrum.

    Singapore separated from Malaysia on Aug 9, 1965, by a constitutional fiat that formalised an agreed settlement between the state of Singapore and the federal government.

    The act of separation was effected by the Malaysian Parliament adopting an Amendment to the Malaysian Constitution and ratifying an Agreement on Separation signed by the governments of Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. It was put into action by a Proclamation of Independence of Singapore by then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew that was read over Radio Singapore.

    That agreement was negotiated by leading members of the two governments to bring about an amicable solution to an increasingly bitter and intractable conflict between their ruling parties.

    However, it was then Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman who initiated the move to “hive off” Singapore from Malaysia.

    As he explained at a press conference after the passage of the Separation Act: “It was my idea that Singapore should leave the federation and be independent. The differences between the state government of Singapore and the central government of Malaysia had become so acrimonious that I decided that it was best that Singapore went its own way. Otherwise, there was no hope for peace.”

    This confirms that Singapore was forced to leave Malaysia at the Tunku’s behest. It was not Singapore that sought to secede or initiated the negotiation to separate from Malaysia, as some scholars seek to argue.

    Indeed, in the months leading to its constitutional eviction, Singapore had been warned by Malaysian leaders against seeking secession or a partition of Malaysia between the former states of Malaya and the new states – Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah, as well as Penang.

    That partition had been proposed by Singapore as an alternative constitutional arrangement for a looser confederation. The proposal had developed from the call made by political parties grouped in the Malaysian Solidarity Convention for a “Malaysian Malaysia” that would ensure equality among all the states and ethnic groups in the country.

    This dual demand infuriated the ruling Alliance in Malaysia, especially the dominant Umno. Sections of the ruling parties called for strong retaliation against Singapore’s ruling People’s Action Party (PAP), which they accused of treason for seeking secession. Some “ultra nationalists” called for the arrest of Mr Lee and even imposing direct central rule on Singapore.

    As the conflict of words raged and Malay passions were roused, Malaysia’s senior leaders feared that violence might break out, leading to racial clashes across the whole country.

    Tunku’s surgical solution

    It was against this deteriorating political situation that the Tunku began to consider a surgical solution to this intractable problem, to cut the Gordian knot, as it were.

    The Tunku had left for London in mid-June for a Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference.

    I interviewed him on behalf of Radio Television Singapore (RTS) before his departure at the Paya Lebar International Airport, but he declined to say anything about the altercations between Malaysian politicians and Singapore leaders.

    In London, the Tunku was hospitalised with shingles and he thought long and hard about the problems with Singapore. His conclusion: “There would be no end to the bickering with Singapore except perhaps if Mr Lee Kuan Yew is made prime minister in the real sense of the word.”

    Indeed, the Tunku asked Minister Lim Kim San, who had gone to London with him, to tell Mr Lee (“your PM”) that “he can attend the next Prime Ministers’ Conference on his own”.

    That was the first indication by the Tunku that he would give Singapore independence, Mr Lim later said, although he missed the implication of the Tunku’s cryptic remark at the time.

    The Tunku wrote to his deputy, Tun Abdul Razak, telling him how he felt about the relations with Singapore and to talk things over with Mr Lee. Tun Razak met Mr Lee on June 29, but found it impossible to reach any meeting of minds. In Mr Lee’s recounting of the meeting in his memoirs The Singapore Story, Tun Razak went back on his previous agreement to consider a looser arrangement for Singapore and insisted on total capitulation in political activity, defence, foreign affairs, security and finance.

    However, as recounted by Dr Goh Keng Swee, when he met Tun Razak and Dr Ismail (Abdul Rahman), the Home Affairs Minister, in Kuala Lumpur on July 13, Dr Goh proposed that Singapore leave Malaysia to become an independent state. This proposal jived with the Tunku’s idea for Singapore to leave the federation.

    At a second meeting on July 20, Dr Goh told Tun Razak and Dr Ismail that Mr Lee was in favour of secession of Singapore and it should be done quickly, by Aug 9 when Parliament was to reconvene.

    On his return from London on Aug 5, the Tunku was asked by pressmen at the airport, including me, if he would be meeting Mr Lee to discuss the political differences raging between the two sides.

    His reply was non-committal, almost nonchalant, saying he would meet Mr Lee if there was anything to discuss. Little did we know that serious talks between Tun Razak, Dr Ismail and Dr Goh were going on in Kuala Lumpur, with Mr Lee in the Cameron Highlands consulted, on the total hiving off of Singapore from Malaysia.

    Tun Razak gave a full report to the Tunku on his return home. After Tun Razak and Dr Ismail had negotiated the terms of separation with Dr Goh and Mr E.W. Barker, the Tunku held an emergency meeting of his core Cabinet members on Aug 6, and approved the draft Bills to amend the Constitution and get Singapore to withdraw from the federation.

    On Aug 7, the Tunku said, the “big shots” of the PAP (meaning Mr Lee), called at his residency and signed the Separation Agreement, while other members of the Singapore Cabinet signed it in Singapore or at Singapore House in KL.

    Even at the last minute, Mr Lee asked the Tunku if he really wanted to break up Malaysia, which they had spent years to bring about. Would it not be wiser to go back to their original plan for a looser federation or confederation?

    But the Tunku demurred. “There is no other way out. I have made up my mind. You go your way and we go our own way,” Mr Lee recalled him saying.

    Secrecy had to be of the essence on both sides of the Causeway for fear of opponents of the separation reacting with violence to the agreement.

    Special Parliament session

    The first inkling we in RTS had that something was happening was the departure of several ministers from Singapore to KL on Aug 7. I was instructed to fly to KL on Aug 8 to cover the special session of Parliament on Aug 9, a Monday.

    I was joined in KL by fellow reporters Lim Kit Siang and Fuad Salim. In Parliament, we found only Mr Devan Nair, PAP MP for Bungsar, present. Some of the Singapore MPs were at Singapore House. Mr Nair and I listened to the Tunku’s speech moving the Separation of Singapore Bill on a certificate of urgency, via the in-house sound system in his office.

    When the session was adjourned, we learnt the Bill had been passed without opposition, although Umno Secretary-General Syed Jaafar Albar had left the chamber before the vote and expressed his disagreement with the separation. He, like the other ultras, wanted to maintain Malay rule over Singapore, forcibly if need be.

    When Separation was announced by the Tunku over Radio Television Malaya and the Proclamation of Singapore’s Independence read over Radio Singapore at 10am, Singaporeans received the news with a mixture of relief, regret and foreboding, although some quarters in Chinatown let off firecrackers in celebration.

    And when Mr Lee went on Radio Television Singapore to explain the circumstances leading to the separation, it was clear that he had been forced to accept Singapore’s eviction from Malaysia.

    It was, he said, a moment of anguish for him, having devoted his whole life to bringing about a united Malaysia, whose people were bound by ties of kinship, geography and history.

    He and Dr Goh had negotiated the terms of Separation to ensure that Singapore would be truly independent while continuing to have access to the water supply from Johor for its survival.

    And Singapore would be on its own for all its multiracial population, living in peaceful amity with the rest of Malaysia. Thus did Singapore achieve independence while avoiding a forcible integration in a Malaysia riven by interracial tension and hostility from a communal political system.

    That is the “coup” that Mr Lee and his PAP colleagues carried out for the people of Singapore, to achieve an independent and sovereign Singapore.

    However, it was the Tunku who played the decisive role in this saga.

    It was his agonised decision to let Singapore go that tipped the scales in favour of separation. Otherwise, the fracas between the state and central governments could well have become more intense and impossible to resolve, with no way out but an inevitable forceful denouement, that is, the arrest of Mr Lee and his senior lieutenants and the imposition of direct federal rule by the central government on Singapore.

    The Tunku was magnanimous in telling Mr Lee to leave Malaysia. If there is one person that Singapore should thank for its independence, it is Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, the first prime minister of Malaysia.

    •The writer, Mushahid Ali, a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, was a reporter with Radio Television Singapore from 1963 to 1966 and later with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs from 1970 to 2001.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • Can Singapore Save Democracy?

    Can Singapore Save Democracy?

    Next Sunday, Singapore celebrates the 50th anniversary of its independence. There’s much to celebrate — for some at least. The city-state is indeed “exceptional” (as its leaders like to say) as a global hub for finance, trade, travel, and shipping. Its mix of languages, which include English and Mandarin, has made it the perfect gateway to an economically resurgent Asia.

    At the same time, inequality is rising. A Malay minority continues to lag behind Chinese and Indians. Antediluvian laws against gay sex and chewing gum remain in place.

    Most damagingly, Singapore has a democratic deficit. The same partyhas ruled it for 50 years. The media is compliant. Politicians have long used defamation suits to bully dissenters and even intimidate the foreign press.

    But it is complacent, and even dishonest, to judge the place without also asking what democracy really means today — and what it could mean for a small city-state like Singapore. The moral high ground should not be so easily accessible to citizens of present-day democracies.

    Democracy has not been much in evidence in the workings of the European Union’s technocrats, or indeed among the radicals of Syriza. Feckless wars, special-interest lobbyists, and political dysfunction have made the U.S. resemble late Byzantium rather than the small-town civic haven witnessed by Tocqueville. The runaway candidacy of Donald Trump exposes a growing constituency for demagogues in the world’s oldest democracy.

    India, routinely described as the world’s “largest democracy,” has been undergoing its own disturbing mutations. During the decades that Lee Kuan Yew pulled Singapore out of economic backwaters, many in the Indian middle class longed for a leader like him: an authoritarian technocrat who could make big decisions about economic development without going through parliamentary democracy’s messy and arduous processes of deliberation, debate and consensus.

    After flirting with one authoritarian prime minister (Indira Gandhi) and two technocrat-type successors (Rajiv Gandhi and Manmohan Singh), middle-class Indians may have found their ideal leader in Narendra Modi, who concentrates power at the top while shopping fantasies of squeaky-clean smart cities and bullet trains.

    Modi is unlikely to match Lee Kuan Yew’s achievements as an economic modernizer. In prosecuting his opponents, however, he has already surpassed the Singapore patriarch.

    Lee deployed stern libel laws against his detractors; he did not resort to large-scale subversion of Singapore’s genuinely meritocratic and honest bureaucracy. The ongoing campaign against Teesta Setalvad, one of Modi’s most resilient critics, has revealed yet again that the Hindu nationalist right won’t balk at undermining India’s very few sacrosanct institutions while settling political scores.

    Any criticism of Singapore’s democratic deficit should begin by acknowledging that there’s hardly any resemblance between the original idea of democracy and its current incarnations in India, Europe and the United States.

    In its classical Athenian form, democracy was a political regime where the equality of citizens was taken deeply seriously. The idea of citizenship itself was restrictive: It excluded women and slaves. But citizens in the Athenian city-state enjoyed a degree of control over their lives and protection from harm that their modern counterparts can only dream of.

    The demos, the people, held actual power in the absence of such mediating institutions as a professional bureaucracy, executive, and legislature. By contrast, today’s democratic states concentrate too much power in a few institutions and individuals.

    The “traditional” media, mostly owned by corporate interests allied with political elites, and prone to sensationalism, was always a poor substitute for the Athenian assembly of free citizens that facilitated open discussion and debate. Social media seems more suited to self-promotion and slander than democratic symposium. As for routine elections, they increasingly validate Rousseau’s sneer that the English were free once every seven years.

    Rule by and for the people seems to have been replaced in many formal democracies with rule by and for the rich and powerful. It’s clear now, after decades of rhetoric about democracy, that its original ideal — a community where human beings live together without holding power over another — can only be realized, imperfectly if at all, in small states.

    Here, Singapore has a huge advantage over centralized and dysfunctional democracies. It’s actually a functional city-state with a relatively small (5.5 million) and highly literate population, and it has no enemies.

    Astute management appears to have assured Singapore’s economic future. It can weather the shocks that make both haves and have-nots elsewhere crave the sweeping broom of authoritarianism.

    The conditions certainly exist for Singapore to move from being a showcase of efficient authoritarianism to an exemplar of that much-invoked but nearly extinct thing: democracy. Its insecure leaders may feel no sense of urgency to change the status quo. But it’s never too late for a 50-year-old nation-state to grow up.

    This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

    Source: www.bloombergview.com

  • 2011 Walkover ‘A Very Big Disadvantage’ For PAP Candidates

    2011 Walkover ‘A Very Big Disadvantage’ For PAP Candidates

    Only one constituency – Tanjong Pagar – went uncontested in the 2011 General Election. The lack of a contest there is “a very big disadvantage” for the incumbent Members of Parliament there, says Dr Chia Shi-Lu.

    The consultant orthopaedic surgeon was assured of a seat in Parliament on Nomination Day four years ago when a Singapore Democratic Alliance team intending to contest the Group Representation Constituency filed their nomination papers after the deadline.

    The People’s Action Party went on to win 60.1 per cent of the votes in the 26 other constituencies islandwide, following an intensive campaign period which ultimately saw it lose a GRC for the first time in history.

    This time round, the incumbents at Tanjong Pagar could have two things working against them, said Dr Chia: Not having been in the thick of the hustings, and the risk of complacency.

    “This is a very big challenge, a very big disadvantage for us,” said Dr Chia, speaking to Channel NewsAsia on the sidelines of the Global Youth Leaders’ Summit, held at Bishan Park Secondary School on Thursday (Jul 30). “Because of this we actually have to work harder.”

    WILL THE TEAM CHANGE?

    The MP in charge of the Queenstown ward said that their preparation for the upcoming General Election, which will have to be held by early 2017 but which observers expect to take place in the near future, started even before Polling Day, 2011.

    “We started working in Apr 2011. Even though we didn’t have an election at that time, we did our campaigning,” he said.

    Part of the reason was to keep themselves on their toes, to ensure the PAP team remained relevant to the electorate.

    “If the incumbent has been there for many years, sometimes it may not always work to their advantage because people are used to them and they keep on doing the same thing. It may have worked in the past but it may not work in the future,” he said.

    Change, therefore, is a necessary constant.

    In 2011, the Tanjong Pagar PAP team only had two candidates remaining from their 2006 campaign (also a walkover): Mr Lee Kuan Yew, a stalwart there since the pre-Independence 1955 Legislative Assembly General Elections, and Ms Indranee Rajah.

    This time round, a rumoured possibility is that Dr Lily Neo will move over from Tanjong Pagar to neighbouring Jalan Besar GRC, where she served as MP from 2001 to 2011.

    Dr Chia said of the MP of the Kreta Ayer-Kim Seng ward, which will sit in Jalan Besar GRC following recommendations from the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee: “The area she looks after hasn’t changed. In fact it has gone back to 2006 so I don’t think it’s that much of a change. I think there’s not much of a surprise there. Of course as colleagues we are sad to have her move to another GRC because we have done so many events together.”

    THE LEE KUAN YEW LEGACY

    One man’s shadow looms large in Tanjong Pagar – that of founding Prime Minister Lee, who passed away in March this year.

    Dr Chia Shi-Lu (centre) greets members of the public who came to pay respects to the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew at Tanjong Pagar Community Club on Mar 24, 2015. (File photo: TODAY)

    And Dr Chia – who was awarded the Lee Kuan Yew Postgraduate Scholarship in 2003, allowing him to pursue his doctoral degree in England – said the team there still acts with Mr Lee’s principles in mind.

    “When I first joined politics and was nominated and came into Tanjong Pagar, the first thing he told me is: Whatever you do, you just do your job well and look after the residents. Do what you are here to do and look after the residents to the best of your ability,” said Dr Chia.

    “It’s kind of direct and typical of his style.

    “We still go according to the principles of Mr Lee – we will do what we have always been doing.

    “He has always maintained that his greatest legacy is what continues after he’s gone, not when he’s around. Now that he’s not around, things should just go on; we should work as we have worked before. But when you look at what he has achieved with his team – everything should not be just maintained, but should be better than when he was here.”

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com