An alliance between Singapore opposition parties: a dream too far?
November 3, 2009 by Kelvin Teo
Filed under Opinion
By Kelvin Teo, Guest Columnist
When Mr Chiam See Tong explored the possibility of an alliance with Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam from the Reform Party to contest in a GRC, it represented an interesting development.
The GRC concept of electoral contest is a uniquely Singapore phenomenon per se, whose outcome is based on the British first-past-the-post system, whereby the party with the majority of votes will be the winner-who-takes-all. The scenario of an alliance* of opposition parties contesting multiple seats at a GRC has never happened before, whilst the alliance of PAP with another party is an impossibility.
Mr Chiam See Tong himself is the leader of Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA), an alliance* of political parties comprising the Singapore Malay National Organization, Singapore People’s Party and Singapore Justice Party under one umbrella. The event of SDA allying with the Reform Party is essentially the alliance of an alliance with another opposition party.
One may ask: Is an alliance between opposition parties even tenable? A good starting point will be to explore the political ideologies of the parties using the examples of the Singapore Democratic Alliance and the Reform Party. To begin, both parties are supporters of democratic ideologies in celebration of diversity and inclusiveness.
Chiam believes that a multi-party system is needed for democracy to exist in Singapore. He said during the General Elections 2006 that “a vibrant and cosmopolitan Singapore needs creativity of the mind” and that “these can only flourish in an atmosphere of freedom and an environment where there is no fear.” He is supportive of a free Singapore that allows for the expression of multiplicity of views “necessary for the social, cultural and political well-being of the people”.
The Reform Party has similar beliefs. Its ideals as can be found on its Wikipedia page include “a people-oriented diverse and inclusive community with full participation and freedom of expression”. Hence, both parties complement each other in terms of political ideologies.
It goes without saying that an alliance of political parties with similar ideologies will allow the latter to expound on their ideals during the elections, as compared to those that differ.
An alliance can be a double-edged sword in a certain sense. A political party may choose to pursue defense and education issues as part of its main agenda for the elections. Its counterpart, however, may choose to focus on healthcare and housing issues as their electoral agenda.
An alliance between the two can be advantageous owing to their ability to portray a diverse take on the issues. In a certain sense, a wide net can be casted to reach out to a wide range of voters who accord different priorities to main issues.
Parents wishing to register their kids in Primary schools for instance may be interested to hear any interesting proposals that will improve the registration process, whilst the senior citizens may place high priority on healthcare policies proposals concerning elderly care.
On the other hand, cognitive dissonance forms another major obstacle especially where political ideologies and approaches to different policies are concerned.
A party that leans especially to the right may encounter difficulties aligning with parties to the left without portraying a sort of cognitive dissonance among supporters of each faction. Even when it comes to perspectives on specific policies, different positions may pose a disconcerting barrier to an alliance. For instance, Mr Justin Ong from the Central Executive Committee of the Reform Party supports the reduction of our defense budget.
On the other hand, Miss Sylvia Lim in an earlier interview with myself was of the standpoint that the government should stick to its current fiscal discipline. Sylvia felt that defense and homeland security are criticial, and advocated an increase in investment of resources for local policing, which have been depleted for counter-terrorism efforts. Thus, in the event of a hypothetical alliance, reconsciliation between such differing viewpoints may prove tricky.
An alliance comprising a good mix of personalities may be able to improve on the extent of its outreach. Different voters warm up to different political personalities. It is not difficult for Teochew-speaking voters to warm up to a teochew-speaking candidate like Mr Low Thia Khiang.
If there is another candidate who can speak fluent hokkien, it may not be difficult for hokkien-speaking voters to warm up to him. A hypothetical alliance involving Mr Low and the hokkien-speaking candidate would maximize the degree of outreach among the different dialect groups.
The option of an alliance can also be explored as a solution to prevent a three-cornered (or more) fight. In the past, multiple- (three or more) cornered fights have drastically affected the votes of the competing opposition parties. However, it is interesting to note (according to the elections.gov.sg website) that ever since the GRC was introduced in 1988, there have been no multiple-cornered fights for a GRC, which is an encouraging sight from the opposition’s perspective.
However, different opposition parties may have set their sights on the same GRC prior to the next elections judging by the patterns of their walkabout. If the parties are keen on contesting the targeted GRC, the alliance option should be considered seriously.
IF (and a BIG IF) an alliance is able to capture a GRC, it will signal the beginning of a close collaboration between the candidates. The team members will eventually have to come up with a system of managing GRC funds, and allocate the appropriate resources to areas within the GRC that are in need of upgrading, refurbishment and other forms of amenities. Such a long-term collaboration will present another set of challenges, which at this point is overly premature to elaborate on.
The topic of a potential alliance between opposition parties in a GRC fight is an interesting one to contemplate on. Not all parties will have a similar enough platform to form an alliance, but that does not mean the stakeholders will not be able to work anything out.
The obstacles to the formation of an alliance cannot be ignored, and careful planning must be invested to maximize the advantages and minimize the pitfalls. That being said, the fact remains that if an alliance of opposition parties (possibly in future) in a GRC fight is able to produce good results, such will be a clear demonstration of the opposition’s ability to work together effectively as a unified front.
*Footnotes: Thanks to commentator Btan, I will perhaps make clear the definition of “alliance” in the context of this article. The Singapore Democratic Alliance in my opinion is a coalition party comprising opposition parties that come under one umbrella. The word “alliance” in the context of this article refers to the partnership of opposition parties that do not come under an umbrella. For instance, in the example of an “alliance” between the Singapore Democratic Alliance and the Reform Party, both entities do not come under one umbrella, but will ally with each other to contest a GRC assuming if both sides agree to a partnership.
About the Author:
Kelvin is a Life Sciences graduate who considers himself fortunate enough to enjoy a liberal-arts style education, which includes graduate-level training in the field of policy studies. He loves to deal with a wide range of topics ranging from the Life Sciences, sociopolitical issues to the realm of arts and literature. A prominent blogger in Singapore on local politics, Kelvin had conducted interviews with many politicians including Dr Chee Soon Juan, Kenneth Jeyaretnam and Sylvia Lim.
Loading ...
cy on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 2:06 pm
united we stand,divided we fall
opposition must be realistic,differences should be put aside.
when they don’t even have a foot inside the door, they can’t be seen fighting for the spoils.
fair and square on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 2:38 pm
@cy
i concur fully!
opposition needs to be the voice,not voices.for the people.
if you want to garner support from local singaporeans,you need be that long-awaited ONE-VOICE for the people of Singapore.
People who want to lead Nations must be for the nation!
Dn’t waste your energy into murmurings of diluted voices.less the people can hear clearly your STATEMENT/S.
Be one-though easier said-but if you fight as one,you have already won half teh battle!
deoxin on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 3:08 pm
kevin,
despite some examples you mention, i still don’t quite fully get it. talk in the big picture:
- what exactly opposition brings to the table?
- what can the opposition offer?
- what can they do that PAP cannot?
everyparty has their own role, just play it well then they’ll have a chance to get into bigger role.
imho, opposition has not even been able to perform well as opposition; why should they be involved as government?!
the opposition, so far, fails to offer an alternative, logical, sensical policies.
- what’s their proposal for grey-ing population? how’s it funded?
- what’s their proposal for low birth-rate? how’s it funded?
- what’s their view about globalisation? what’s s’pore role? how’s it funded?
opposition, so far, has only been slamming unpopular policies, boasting populist policies ..without any convincing indication that they, not only protect but also be able to, grow our reserves – the only CERTAIN guarantee of our grandchildren survival.
wat? on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 3:33 pm
deoxin, I think you will get your answers from whichever party forms the government/cabinet. If someday parties other than the PAP forms the governnment. you will get the answer from them. The “opposition” cannot give you those answers, cos they are not in control.
We all need to denounce the line of questioning. Its just like “do they have a track record to prove they can do a good job?”
nothing but rubbish logic.
Robox on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 3:44 pm
Re: “The Reform Party has similar beliefs [to the SPP/SDA]:”
If that’s the case, then any respect that I might have had reserved for the RP is gone down the drain. The SPP/SDA is a decidedly conservative alliance while the RP has declared itself – with no substantiation so far – that it is liberal.
But the truth is, when I first read about a possible tie up between the SDA and the RP, my respect for the claimed liberal RP went down the drain.
Why didn’t the RP approach the SDP instead – the most obvious ally to its own claimed but unproven liberal leanings? Giving in to their PAP masters’ intended reviling and isolation of the SDP?
I don’t see how the two – RP and SDA can match, especially in the long term.
Solo Bear on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 3:52 pm
The opposition cannot even stay together as it is. What more about merging?
Here is a real life account where it is shown that Chiam, as nice as he appears, cannot share power. In a way, he is like LKY. To him, “power-sharing” is not in his vocab.
btan on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 4:09 pm
Wow TR, now I understand why you put your money on Kelvin Teo. The quality of his article speaks for itself and you have chose well. You should hold onto him tight.
Great article from Kelvin and I must say he captured all the thoughts I have about an opposition alliance. That aside, I have a few comments.
1. “The scenario of an alliance of opposition parties contesting multiple seats at a GRC has never happened before”. This statement is not exactly true. SDA, as an alliance, has contested in GRCs where the component members come from a few parties. An example is here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampines_Group_Representation_Constituency
2. “Is an alliance between opposition parties even tenable?”
Of course. Look north to Malaysia where Pakatan Rakyat are made up of 3 very different major opposition parties. The ultra conservative PAS, the moderate PKR and the Chinese-based DAP) Their ideologies are much, much more different from our opposition parties.
3. “Even when it comes to perspectives on specific policies, different positions may pose a disconcerting barrier to an alliance.”
We should not expect a party, let alone an alliance to be monolithic, nor should we want it to be. We should embrace the diversity that comes with alliance, much like our racial and religious diversity. Look at PAP, even the casino debate, there are MPs within PAP who are staunchly against it but have no choice but to vote against their conscience. A little bit of disagreement is healthy as long as it does not degenerate into a feud.
It is precisely PAP is so monolithic with no internal dissenting voices that we need opposition MPs to provide that. If an alliance can have multitude of voices, then by itself, there will be robustly-debated instead of rubber-stamping laws.
One thing not mentioned is that an alliance of opposition party will bring about a common brand name that is easily recognised by voters and also unite the already fragmented voters of opposition parties.
However, realistically, I do not expect an alliance of opposition parties although I hope to be surprised closer to election day. (SDA was announced pretty close to election day) Most opposition parties are pretty much parties of personalities (much like PAP is LKY’s party). And for them to unite means these personalities have to unite. What is lacking now is a strong opposition leader to do so. Unfortunately, people like JBJ has already passed away and CST is too old.
No single current generation leader has the charisma to let the rest of the parties fall behind his or her banner.
wat? on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 4:20 pm
there is no such thing as power-sharing in politics. only concessions given to parties in an alliance. Its just whether the opposition can overcome their rivalry and differing ideologues.
One mountain cannot have 2 Tigers. is KJ willing to take a supporting role? is Chiam willing to become Opposition “Mentor”.
who knows. but.. at least its a good start.
anticipating on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 4:30 pm
=> deoxin
what you are saying is akin to someone going in for a job interview and the potential employer asked the candidate “How can I know that you are up to the job, do you have any past experience to carry your ability to perform this job?”
And I promise you, our reserves do not, and will not, guarantee the survival of our grandchildren. I am certain you are educated enough to know that.
=> Solo Bear
I see it this way. There can only be one reigning tiger chief in the mountain. More than one chief will only create havoc. Likewise, there can only have a chief in the opposition alliance. When two companies merged, there can only be a single CEO. So claiming that Chiam nis ot willing to share power is an unfair statement.
The equation that works when they allied themselves shuold be left to their autonomy but only one chief decide. Whether he take the view of the majority of his team is left entirely to him. If it works, well and good. If it doesn’t, then they will not stay for long since they have to be accountable to the public at large.
Personally, I cannot appreciate all the things that SDP chief did in the past, some were outright stupid. That does not mean that every thing he said or do is wrong. Look at him, he has done so much that he disqualified himself to stand in election and this irresponsible act deprived us of another candidate to represent the people in parliament. Whatever claims he made that this is good for Singapore and that is good for the citizens can only be said in Hong Lim (legally) and other places (’illegally’). Whether he is unfairly disadvantaged by court cases is another issue altogether.
btan on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 4:33 pm
@deoxin on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 3:08 pm
[[- what exactly opposition brings to the table?]]
They will serve as the checking mechanism to PAP’s policies and laws.
[[- what can the opposition offer?]]
[[- what can they do that PAP cannot?]]
They can check on PAP. PAP cannot check themselves. It is like asking police to police themselves. That is why we have anti-corruption bureau to check on police, for example.
[[imho, opposition has not even been able to perform well as opposition; why should they be involved as government?!]]
In what way have they not performed well as opposition? They have managed the estates far better than PAP MPs have done. They have installed new lifts FOR FREE out of the money they collected, despite obstacles placed in front of them here and there.
[[the opposition, so far, fails to offer an alternative, logical, sensical policies.]]
You are the one who failed to read their alternative policies. The youtube are full of their alternative ideas, along with their own websites and publications. This is a common excuse by people who do not read their alternative ideas.
That said, it is not the job of opposition to come up with alternative ideas. It is the job of the government to do so. Else what justifications do they have to receive multi million dollar salary??
[[- what’s their proposal for grey-ing population? how’s it funded?
- what’s their proposal for low birth-rate? how’s it funded?]]
Again, do you bother to read them? Whatever proposal they have is definitely better than the current policy of PAP.
[[- what’s their view about globalisation? what’s s’pore role? how’s it funded?]]
Personally, I think your questions are just smoke to hide the fact that PAP’s currently policies are shits.
[[opposition, so far, has only been slamming unpopular policies, boasting populist policies ..without any convincing indication that they, not only protect but also be able to, grow our reserves – the only CERTAIN guarantee of our grandchildren survival.]]
And where is our reserve? Have you seen it? Without accountability, we have no idea if we indeed still have reserve all have these already been squandered away. We totally are in the dark now.
With an opposition in parliament, and I meant a SIGNIFICANT number like 30-40, we have enough to check on the government.
It is a common trick for PAP stooges to ask “what can the opposition do” when the real question is, “where is the check on the government”.
When you manufacture a product, do you need Quality Assurance or Quality Control to check the product to ensure it is safe and correct? Do you ask the QA or QC : what products have you produced?
Currently, our country is like a manufacturing plant with no QA or QC. Laws and policies are being passed without proper vetting and debate by a THIRD PARTY other than PAP members. NMP don’t count as they can only talk but not vote. Anyone who cannot vote can talk till the cows come home and their effect would be ZERO.
Stop throwing smoke about why we need opposition parties. Instead ask yourselves why are we NOT having opposition parties. Are we a communist country or dictatorship?
deoxin on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 4:47 pm
wat? , questioning the track record of opposition is not rubbish, as long as the matter in the questions are of proportional.
for example:
1. given that no government support for opposition’s town council, have they ever come out with any ingenious idea to improve the livelihood of their constituent?
2. apple-to-apple, rookie-to-rookie ..compare PAP’s candidates profiles to those of opposition. in all honesty, cross ur heart , swear to god, without any prejudice, ..which one u hv more confidence in being able to run the town council better?
questioning track record is not rubbish.
the logic that ..bcoz opposition has never governed, so that with any opposition’s profile/background, he/she can be as good as (if not better) than those with long background and solid track record ..IS the real rubbish.
i am not saying only track record in government. it’s the entirety of candidates’ profile/background.
hoping that someone with mediocre achievements in so-so challenges, would do excellent if only given trust with much bigger role … IS the real rubbish.
Kelvin Teo on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 4:59 pm
Dear Btan:
You have a point there. I do think that SDA sounds more like coalition party to me. Actually, I guess alliance in this sense is not a formal in which one or more party comes under one umbrella like the SDA, but rather two or more opposition parties partnering together to contest the elections, instead of coming together under an umbrella.
Thanks for the technicality. I will put this as a footnote
deoxin on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 5:07 pm
@anticipating on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 4:30 pm
“And I promise you, our reserves do not, and will not, guarantee the survival of our grandchildren. I am certain you are educated enough to know that.”
=> i know it’s not gonna be foolproof guarantee, but it’s the best shot we’ve got. otherwise, what else? indian-style democracy? ..or taiwan-style democracy can guarantee our survival as a country with no natural resources?
@btan on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 4:33 pm
look, imho, i think .. our opposition sucks (apology for the language).
as for alternative view, am not sure about youtube, etc. if u really really,genuinely,sincerely ..in all honesty .. wants a democracy ..u’ll work within a ‘model’ with a system. not just sporadic campaign like that. heck, if there’s a youtube campaign asking for lower electricity then gahmen should lower it?? if that’s ur idea of democracy then u r misled.
if u feel that there’s no check to gahmen, shouldnt u be angry to opposition?
u did mention it’s opposition job to be “checking mechanism”, have they dont their job well?
given they are only 3 people, have they really come out with the loudest voice possible for 3 people in parliament?
these 3 people are lousy, n the solution is?? ..add another 30-40 their lousy friends in parliament?
“That said, it is not the job of opposition to come up with alternative ideas. It is the job of the government to do so. Else what justifications do they have to receive multi million dollar salary??”
=> they have been coming out with alternative ideas. but of coz, the ideas r not called alternative bcoz they come from ruling party. so … ruling party , alternative ideas. hehehe, confusing erh.
Neil Bishop on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 6:13 pm
How can an alliance be formed? If the PAP feels threatened they will drag the opposition members off to court after they have first been charged with an unlawful assembly because they didn’t have a police permit for the meeting where they agreed to the terms of the alliance. Perhaps I am guilty of hyperbole… but in the Lee Family’s Singapore, perhaps not.
citizenofSG on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 6:21 pm
@deoxin – Before Obama became the president of the United States of America, did he has any track record as a president before? In fact he was considered extremely inexperience to run a great nation like America. If you were to set a bench mark on him, he would have not made it to the first round.
As an MP, his work is to take care of the people. The estate management is done by the Town Council where a different set of people is needed. I can still be a MP without any knowledge of running an estate. I take advice from those that I employ.
Much as an opp MP wish to do more for his constituency, he is handicapped. They are deprived of the vast resources that PAP wards enjoyed. For details please check with CST and LTK.
Anyway for change to happen in Singapore, we do not necessary need to depend on the opposition alone. If you and I show to Singapore that we are willing to cast our vote for change soon PAP MP will catch the drift. It is because you and I are not making the first move to show our sincerity towards change then talent will not join the opposition even if they oppose PAP.
The power is in our hand and not in the hand of PAP or opposition. We are the distributor of power in Singapore and we are to be wise. Once power is shifted the right people will come to take their place.
fair and square on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 6:52 pm
All siad,you don’t need to be a rocket scientists to be good nation’s leaders;no dobut you do need brains.
that,i am sure ,all of us to a varying degree!
what makes a good leader or good leaders are people with a heart for their people.
Wasn’t Saddam Hussein a brilliant man in his own right?
question is,was he a good leader?
Now,look at som eof the world’s truly great leaders and you would have your answers!!!
Anonymous on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 7:48 pm
deoxin on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 5:07 pm
…”taiwan-style democracy can guarantee our survival as a country with no natural resources?”
MY ANSWER IS – HOW DO YOU KNOW IT WON’T OTHER THAN YOUR FICTION AND PRESUMPTION?
..” u’ll work within a ‘model’ with a system…”???
MY ANSWER IS – THE SYSTEM AS IT IS NOW IS AWEFULLY DYSFUNCTIONAL – WHAT A MESS OF THE ECONOMY, IMMIGRATION AND MANAGEMENT OF OUR EXTERNAL RESERVES. If you don’t change the system, you imprisoned change from eventuating and the crisis carry on its own momentum to self-destruct this nation.
…” angry with opposition..”
MY ANSWER IS A FIRM NO – displaced blame. Remove the GRC and pplication of high profile means of harassment of opposition of election campaigning first, then I will discus YOUR anger with opposition. I have no reason to be angry with them for all their oppressed resilience in the circumstances.
..”lousy friends in Parliament…”
MY ANSWER IS – who are these lousy friends in Parliament? The economy lost its direction, housing crisis, migration disrupting social and economic stability etc etc – how did all these happens if the friends in Parliament isn’t too cosy and convivial??
…”but of coz, the ideas r not called alternative bcoz they come from ruling party. so ….”
MY ANSWER – Is yes of course, if the opposition members are paid multi-million and the country in a mess, I would be the first one to kick them real hard in the right place.
Now who is bending over to get MY ANGRY HARD KICK NOW????
Remember, the ghosts of lies comes in different camouflage of seeming truths but completely false virtue.
deoxin on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 8:17 pm
@citizenofSG on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 6:21 pm
yes, in politics, a person goes up for many reason.. not necessarily experience per se. but am making points that experience counts.
if no experience, then the person has to convince that they can do the job. in s’pore, the way i see it ..people vote opposition bcoz they dowan to vote PAP, sentimental reason; not about ability, not about anything else. it’s not about check n balance either, or rather … not so much of it. if it’s about check n balance, tell me then.. how have the 3 oppositions perform?
yes, we hv the power for change. but the opposition offers change to what? better? ..or worse?
since u talk abt obama, let’s dig further abt US. every US president since normalisation (i.e. since Reagen) campaign to be tough on china. but every single one of them, eventually .. a lot more friendly that what they campaigned for.
look at obama, he campaigned on ending the war, let’s look n see if he can fulfill the promise. so far, obama’s plan is to enlarge the war in Afgan.
the diff between campaigned promise n implementation lies in …experience!! the challenger has nothing to lose, little insider knowledge .. might as well promise the sky.
rc on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 9:11 pm
i certainly hope that the opposition will get their act together. WP in the last election has showed some promise. Sylvia Lim has been a breath of fresh air.
i’m not optimistic that the opposition will take a whole GRC in the next GE… sometime in the future, perhaps. but the next GE may be a bit too soon… nevertheless, if the opposition can get more people like Sylvia Lim, then the PAP will really have to work a helluva lot harder. that alone would be a good ‘check and balance’… or at least a good reminder to the PAP that they have to do better for the people of Singapore.
Political SalesMaN on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 9:16 pm
deoxin:What oppoosition cannot offer on the table, it rubbish.
I’m going to tell U from the start PaP have no direction to rule Singapore with no policy. They are very good at copycat other policy.
Example: Build better Housing for the people, Build a forest Garden Clean & Beautiful. Lately about Town Council, JBJ is the one who introduce Town Coucil to our Society. When PAP use intimidation force on the opposition.P/s check it up for other policy which belong to the opposition.The PAP is just a destroyer. U ask LKY where is our National Heritage (National Theatre)should have been preserve. When ever he seen it, he has Nightmare.
Time for Change on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 10:38 pm
deoxin on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 3:08 pm
- what can the opposition offer?
- what can they do that PAP cannot?
=========================================
The opposition will put Singaporeans above foreigners. Currently, Singaporeans feel like 3rd class citizens.
It is as simple as that.
The other results will follow from this.
Time for Change. Vote for Change.
PS. How much are they paying you for posting here? Is it worth it to put monetary gains ahead of your fellow Singaporeans. I doubt you sleep peacefully at night.
Time for Change on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 10:43 pm
If PAS and DAP can do it in Malaysia, I don’t see why our opposition parties can’t get together to oust the MIW.
wat? on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 10:48 pm
Tharman’s track record is : he commited a white collar crime.
From your logic, he should not be there. So why is he there with his track record?
Did LTK have a “track record”… then by your logic, he should not be there. then why did ppl vote for him and him running Hougang quite well?
then.. I ask you. all those New PAP leaders. they had NO TRACK RECORDs.. then why are they there? oh.. now you say its not about track record…. its about profile and blah blah..achievements.. blah blah. how can any new politician have ANY political track record if they never served in a politician’s capacity.
me wonders where does it start….
Reality Check on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 10:52 pm
I’m sorry if I’m a wet blanket, but I find the discussion doesn’t deal much with the fundamental problems plaguing our “CITY” (re: Law Min, Shamugam)
I think many people, except perhaps Anonymouse, and Steve Wu although he has not participated in this thread, still don’t realise the extent of the fundamental problems facing us as a nation………how long could we continue with the current policies and failures.
Rather than talking about alliance, I would suggest that people, especially the lead article contributors, should devote time to analyse the contributions, if any, and the strength or weakness of each non-ruling party figures.
I must rather reluctantly agree with deoxin in his views here.
To me, Chiam has contributed meagerly to the politics and success of Singapore, and for that matter the WP under Low.
Also to me, Chiam’s desire to form an alliance with RP, in particular Kenneth J is just riding on the latter’s academic credentials.
Bodoh on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 10:54 pm
I know the dirty trick of the opposition bloggers.
Singapore’s BEST.
No one will fall into the trap of SINK a POUR.
Travel frens and get to see the real world out there.
We a so tyiny and without any resources.
My home, frens and families are here.
Why pray . . pray . . . with my livelihood and goog passport?
Stupid erh?
Reality Check on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 10:58 pm
By the way, I agree with Robox about RP & the SDP.
fair and square on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 11:08 pm
Dear leaders of opposition parties
as simple as it is,this still holds waters;-
the sum of the part(IES)is greater than all of its’(oppostion)
part(ies).
pls think seriously about it!!!
this is really an opportune time for the opposition…
like some guy sang:”IT’S NOW OR NEVER…”
btan on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 12:38 am
@Kelvin Teo on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 4:59 pm
Coalition, alliance, co-operation, whatever term is used, let’s put that aside for the moment. The more important thing is for opposition parties to work together.
We know it’s tough, but based on RP’s 1st anniversary, it is not impossible. We roughly have 2nd generation leaders now, with the 1st generation leaders mostly old, retired, passed away or fled the country.
I think the new generation leaders should understand they cannot work individually again. While some parties may think they can have a go by themselves, with the very limited talent pool to spread around, they will just starve themselves over quality candidates.
What we supporters of the idea of opposition alliance should do is to start a writing campaign to the various opposition parties to unite under one banner and brand. We will leave it up to them to work out the details of co-operation.
If we were to vote them in, at the very least they should listen to us voters (unlike PAP who has already gone deaf). And they will listen to us if there are sufficient number of voters clamouring for an opposition alliance.
Perhaps in your next interview with the head of an opposition party, you can ask him or her what obstacles they are facing when it comes to opposition unity.
fres on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 1:38 am
Solo Bear said: “Here is a real life account where it is shown that Chiam, as nice as he appears, cannot share power. In a way, he is like LKY. To him, “power-sharing” is not in his vocab.”
I agree completely.
And anyway, what makes one think that even SDA or RP can carry their own weight? They have not shown any significant progress in their own right. WP and SDP however have shown some results and progression (electorally or otherwise).
citizenofSG on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 3:23 am
@deoxin – going through some of your posts, the impression that I have of you is that given the current political scene, the best option Singapore has is to reform the PAP and we should continue to give them majority power.
Most people from our generation has never experience a multi party government in action where there is an alternative to the ruling party. Our guts feeling say we should have one. What can a multi party government do for Singapore?
A multi party government is the best security to the people of Singapore. It ensures us of an alternative government in the waiting. We should have it while we are enjoying peace. We should not wait till the time when we are force to do so. It may just be too late.
For the purpose of illustration, if we were to opt out of democracy and have LKY installed as the Emperor of Singapore, we are likely to enjoy the same prosperity. For all you know more prosperity may even come to Singapore. The only thing is that it will not benefit you and me. We will be sacrificed and in our place will be foreigners that are the best of the best coming from the whole wide world. All those Singaporean who were born deformed will be send to the dungeon and systematically dispose of. The rest you need to imagine.
Do you want that? No.
Though we have yet to come to that stage but if all the power is being concentrated on one political party who is going stop them when someone crazy enough try to do that. May be it’s not LKY or his son, but someone that just emerged down the road.
If we don’t do something now, it’s a disservice to our children and our children’s children.
Democracy is the best protection we can give to our children. To achieve true democracy we must have alternative power that have the ability to stop those in power from doing crazy things. With true democracy we can avert disaster in a civilized manner not resorting to war or unrest.
How can we ever do that if all the power is only in the hand of the PAP?
I do not love the opposition more than I love the PAP but one thing for sure, I love my children more so I must act.
If we do it right, the PAP may split from within and power can be dispersed and we the people of Singapore will benefit from it.
Is Singapore a goner if the PAP’s power is being dispersed, PAP no longer the sole party governing Singapore and we have a multi political parties’ government? If we look at the west, the norm is a multi party government, they are not a goner.
Sorry that you have the impression that we do not like PAP and side only with the opposition. That is a half truth and not the whole truth.
Geez. on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 10:24 am
Since LKY has stolen Singaporeans credit to feed foreigners, we should no longer grant the same credit for LKY. His success on Singapore is not alone, Singaporeans built this country and not PAP. As long as we remember these points and stay united as we vs PAP, we will have no problems bringing in alternative parties into our lives. Frankly, we need alterantive parties in parliament, the more the merrier to strongly dilute the arrogance of the existing ruling party and hopefully dig out some dirty worms in it for too long.
Irony on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 11:52 am
The irony of politics if there ACTUALLY exists in Singapore, is that the Opposition – whatever that is taken to mean – serves the ruling party more than the lesser mortals.
As should be well known by now, the “Opposition” (Chiam & Low) have been cited by the Ministers as eg of democracy in Singapore when from the horse’s mouth, (genuine/capable) Opposition is being FIXED.
Did our supposedly “respected” Opposition even raise the issue as to what being “FIXED” mean?
As for unity mentioned by people – I suspect of a certain “respected” Opposition – how do these people explain their call for UNITY in the context of the Oppositon MP calling the other leader of another party, a “MAD DOG”?
By the way, why did our Ministers got worked up about Reporters without Borders ranking of the govt controlled msm & justice system in Singapore? (As stated, our Ministers quoted eg of our “respected Opposition” as their shield to prove otherwise)
Excuse me, what is Opposition, anyway? Care to enlighten?
deoxin on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 12:17 pm
@citizenofSG
u n i r not much different, we both tie our future to s’pore, hence we want the best, including in political scene. but while u focus on the parties, i focus on the candidates. u would even suggest to, as far as, doesnt matter if the persons r the same ..as long as they r from different parties, so split the PAP. haiz!
the discussion on the need for opposition has been focused on the need for check & balance, alternative views. i have been asking the people here to give their assessment on the 3 opposition MPs’s performance. have they performed to the best 3 persons can achieve? imho, their performance is mediocre. the tough questions in parliament more often come from NMP and, surprisingly, PAP MPs themselves.
am not need to wory that PAP will be in power forever, they will be out when they perform badly and ..either opposition can field bonafide candidates, or they r so bad that any TomDickHarry cannot do worse. in my opinion, the key for change is education. it doesnt matter the anti-defamation law, doesnt matter the heavy handed.. throughout the world, changes eventually happened because people can ‘think better’ n the ruler doesnt change mindset.
i have a talk with a friend about the hot issue now, housing. he complained that he, like many complaints, can only get the “unwanted flats”. the “wanted flats” are out of his reach, so he’s not happy n curse n curse the gahmen ..n he said he’ll vote for opposition. my question to him was ..”the HDB requirment was only 5yr stay before u can upgrade, yet u r not willing to settle for any flat as long as u hv a house, ..but why, for 5 years, would u settle to any MP as long as he’s opposition?”
for me,
(1) i refuse to settle for any MP, it’s not so much about which party, but i’ll look at his CV. PAP MP was not born as PAP; he doesnt need to join PAP, if he doesnt like PAP .., even not joining opposition, he can be outside politic. so, it’s not only unfair, but also foolish to ignore their entire CV and only focus on their party affiliation.
(2) i refuse the notion that CHANGE to opposition means CHANGE for the BETTER. look at Taiwan, changed from “authoritarian” KMT to DPP; what did they get? ChenSuiBian!! better? haiz!
btan on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 12:51 pm
@Irony on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 11:52 am
By believing PAP that they have “endorsed” certain opposition, you are falling into their trick of divide-and-conquer.
Opposition voters fighting among themselves can only benefit PAP.
This is why opposition unity is so important. Not only for just the parties themselves, but also voters and supporters of opposition.
Choosing one party over another will just benefit PAP.
Instead, we should adopt the mantra that any opposition candidate is a good candidate to be voted into parliament, as long as they are not PAP.
btan on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 5:56 pm
@deoxin on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 12:17 pm
Funny you should talk about opposition performance.
Let’s see. The opposition did not :
1.) Lost a well known terrorist mastermind and claim they do not know where he is.
2.) Lost $50 billion of our sovereign wealth fund when playing with the market and got their hands burn, in the form of Temasek Holdings.
3.) Caused a massive influx of foreigners into our country driving wages down and prices up, causing social tension.
4.) Caused the prices of HDB flats rise and rise, even though they are a monopoly of all low to high costs housing and still claim they are affordable.
5.) Ask the population to stop at two births and refuse to reverse it until it is too late, now lamenting that we are not reproducing ourselves.
6.) Drive the economy to get high GDP at all costs, ignoring our poor, our old and our downtrodden.
7.) Locked a portion of our money claiming it is our retirement fund and yet adding more and more laws to prevent us from taking out when it is our time to do so.
8.) Lost lots of money in Suzhou China, basically being played out by the very shrewd Chinese government
9.) Linked a correction in design flaws of the HDB flats in the form of Lift Upgrading to pork barrel politics and deny a faction of taxpayers their right to upgrading, which is essential for those who are old or have small children.
10.) Jailed and harass innocent people just because they have opposing views. Denying some of them basic human rights to live a normal live, through use of draconian ISA law.
Yeah, based on performance record, the opposition did not do all the above and that makes them the best choice from PAP!
deoxin on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 7:34 pm
@btan
1. i am talking the opposition’s performance AS OPPOSITION. not as government. have they done a good job AS OPPOSITION?
2. given all government failures u listed , what guarantee that opposition will do a better job if they r trusted as government??
gahmen’s bad policies are NOT proofs that opposition will produce better ones. opposition may well do WORSE if they take over.
for me, the only acceptable line of argument to justify voting for opposition is
“opposition has done excellent in their job AS OPPOSITION. they have consistently voiced out viable alternatives policies, and their critics of gahmen policies have time n again proven to be true”.
again, how has the opposition perform AS OPPOSITION??
Tan Ah Kow on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 9:42 pm
Kelvin,
Er why is an alliance between the opposition parties consider a dream scenario?
The oppositions have already been operating in the form of alliance as you have defined in your footnote for many years since the implementation of the “by-election” strategy. So they have already been in a alliance for oh at least 20 years now. So clearly not a dream!
The real problem is not whether they work as an alliance or not. The real problem is whether people want to vote for them!
Given the kind of attitude that exists the title of your blog should be: “Will the people vote for all the election parties standing this time: a dream to far!”
Hate to say this but I think you need to do more research. Argument seemed very weak.
Cuckoo on Thu, 5th Nov 2009 1:49 pm
@ btan on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 12:51 pm
Perhaps u shld just address the ISSUES & QUESTIONS raised, examples given in that post u are replying, instead of regurgitating the well worn excuses and avoiding/side skirting……not really a DEBATE, is it, just like the wayang in Parliament.
Time for Change on Thu, 5th Nov 2009 3:01 pm
It is imperative for the opposition to form an alliance as the people are waiting for vote for them and don’t want to see any 3-way fights.
The time for the opposition has come. Please unite and take your place in parliament.
Tan Ah Kow on Thu, 5th Nov 2009 5:20 pm
Time for Change on Thu, 5th Nov 2009 3:01 pm:
Er, do you not realise that the oppositions, like I said in my last reply to Kelvin, that an alliance as defined by Kelvin has already been in place since the agreement on “the bye-election” strategy. Ever since, the opposition has avoid a three-cornered fight. So the real problem is the electorate (you and me).
Quite often the electorate will be saying they want to punish the PAP but when it comes to the vote, they will then vote for the status quo. Then the usual excuse oh, this party is too radical, that party is not credible, so on and so on.
btan on Fri, 6th Nov 2009 2:02 pm
Let’s not be ambiguous here. The “alliance” that opposition need is exactly like the Pakatan Rakyat alliance. Recently, they have started to formalised their alliance by adopting common symbols and so on.
In Singapore context, it can be done under the umbrella of existing SDA, which is an alliance of 4 small parties. Unfortunately for SDA, one party has quit (NSP), one party has been absorbed (SJP) and one party is now in political limbo (PKMS). So really SDA is no different from the main party SPP.
Either SDA start getting WP, SDP and RP to join it and NSP to re-join, or these 5 big parties to form a new alliance, for lack of better term, let’s call it ABC alliance.
ABC alliance then should contest in the upcoming alliance with :-
1.) One alliance platform (culled from the common items of each party’s manifesto)
2.) One alliance resource (candidates of each party can mix and match to form a GRC team, as done in SDA before)
3.) One alliance brand.
This way, opposition voters cannot be choosy. They either have to vote for PAP or the opposition alliance. Most will likely vote for the alliance as they hate PAP.
Some fence sitter or even former PAP voters will also vote for such an alliance as it will be seemed to be more credible and organised. Not many people want to support the small guy but they will definitely look up when the small guys banded up to become a big guy.
We have to take it one step at a time. First get the votes and get more opposition MPs into parliament first. The rest will attend to itself.
All you need to do is to look north to see how PR did it. Malaysia has not descend into chaos yet and in fact it is getting better.
If we fail to do this, then one day, we truly will be begging to admit back to the Malaysian federation (it may not even be a bad thing).
btan on Fri, 6th Nov 2009 2:18 pm
@deoxin on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 7:34 pm
[[1. i am talking the opposition’s performance AS OPPOSITION. not as government. have they done a good job AS OPPOSITION?]]
My answer to that is absolutely, 100%, YES!
You must have missed the tons of parliamentary speeches made by opposition MPs, the myriad of alternative policies proposed by various opposition parties. Not to mention the exposure of government failings and dirty tricks by the opposition.
[[2. given all government failures u listed , what guarantee that opposition will do a better job if they r trusted as government??]]
The guarantee is by the 2- or multi-party system. In the commercial world as in the political world, if there is a monopoly, the incumbent has no incentive to work hard for us the consumers. Once there is PROPER competition, the competitors will work hard for us. Thus ensuring that they do not make bad judgements, knowing that if they do, they will be voted out. Currently, there is no system to vote PAP. So let’s not kid ourselves about opposition forming the next government. I am happy if they can capture one or two GRCs. Forming the next government can slowly happen over the next one or two GEs.
[[gahmen’s bad policies are NOT proofs that opposition will produce better ones. opposition may well do WORSE if they take over.]]
But you don’t know that. The Japanese people has the guts to vote out the LDP due to its bad management, with ZERO ideas of DPJ. Are we so afraid of the unknown?
Anyway, as I said, opposition forming next government is a red herring. Once we have a genuine opposition (about 30% to 40% of MPs in parliament), I am sure PAP will wake up to serve us instead of ourselves. Despite my criticism of PAP, I do not believe they are pure evil. Well, if they are, they will be eventually voted out anyway.
[[for me, the only acceptable line of argument to justify voting for opposition is
“opposition has done excellent in their job AS OPPOSITION. they have consistently voiced out viable alternatives policies, and their critics of gahmen policies have time n again proven to be true”.
again, how has the opposition perform AS OPPOSITION??]]
Well, isn’t that true now?
I guess my question to you should be : in what way has the opposition (given their current resource and numbers) not done their job? Have you gone to the estates of Hougang and PP to take a look? Have you ever watch any of the parliamentary debates conducted by opposition?
Imagine a product being developed that does not go through safety and quality checks. Do you think that is good? Currently, that is what is happening. Then you blame the QC people they are doing a bad job when you should have staffed 20-30 QC guys there instead of only 2-3 and blamed them for doing a bad job.
Think about it.
June lee on Fri, 6th Nov 2009 2:20 pm
This is such a crucial election….the opposition MUST work swiftly towards an alliance, and present a unified vision that touches on ALL aspects of a new singapore…it is a necessity, not a choice…
Tan Ah Kow on Fri, 6th Nov 2009 5:27 pm
June lee on Fri, 6th Nov 2009 2:20 pm:
I strongly believe that the oppositions have done all that can. An alliance is NOT going to help if you have a bunch of pathetic electorate (you and me) who only know how to complain. Hey you could have a alliance comprising of “God”, “Allah” and “Buddha” and it will still not win, if all you get is an electorate that do nothing but complain.
The electorate should stop being pathetic and get off their backside and start SUPPORTING opposition party. Stop expecting the oppositions (JBJ, Chee, etc) to make personal sacrifices, whiles the electorate do nothing but complaining.
btan on Fri, 6th Nov 2009 5:42 pm
@June lee on Fri, 6th Nov 2009 2:20 pm
Yes, I agree 100%. I have been an advocate of opposition alliance (not just merely opposition co-operation) for a while now.
What we need to do now as opposition supporters is to launch a writing campaign to write to all the opposition leaders urging them to unite under one banner.
When opposition leaders see their supporters urging them to unite, maybe this will spur them to do something.