For a while there was hope—ministerial salaries were cut, there was a cabinet reshuffle that saw unpopular ministers who had aggravated and alienated voters sidelined, senior politicians started Facebook pages in an attempt to ‘get with it’, and we got a ‘caring’ budget that generously addressed the concerns of Singaporeans across society.

In the socio-political sphere, diverse liberal voices were going strong in social media, civil society was seeing a lot of activity, and opposition parties were stronger than they’ve been since the 1960s. For a while it appeared as though Singapore was riding a wave of change—the phrase ‘new normal’ arose to describe this fresh feeling in the air, and it even looked—momentarily—that the PAP might succeed in silencing its critics by delivering to them what they had been campaigning for, thus leaving them with less or very little to complain about.

Then the honeymoon ended.

And we are seeing the notorious ways of the PAP return with an old, familiar clang. Two defamation suits have appeared in the last few weeks, levelled against blogger Alex Au and SDP’s Vincent Wijeysingha; migrant workers who dared to stand up against exploitative employers and went on strike were deported; a threat of imposing a ‘code of conduct’ on the internet has been looming (and, one suspects, not implemented only because it’s an impossibility); and in a year rocked by a soap opera of scandals—the use of state-controlled media to smoothen out or explain away the ones that made the party look bad, such as the Michael Palmer affair and now the AIM debacle, stood out in stark contrast to the way every other scandal was inflamed and milked for every shred of dignity it tried to cling on to.

And still we hear cries for the PAP to change.

But why would they? Just like a spouse one has been married to for decades is never going to change, the PAP that Singapore has been married to for 50 years is never going to change. They believe in their way of doing things, and their position of power remains unassailable. If we stay with them, we have to take them for who they are and make the relationship work. Staying with them and complaining just spreads the unhappiness. Staying with them and tuning out, becoming apathetic, leaves life too stale and vacuous. If we can’t (or feel we shouldn’t) accept them for who they are, then it’s time to move on.

So we need something to move on to. For a number of Singaporeans that has meant packing up and moving to a foreign land. For those of us who have chosen or who have no choice but to stay, we need to continue to build real alternatives to the PAP and stop viewing them as the only party that can ever govern Singapore.

We need to keep strengthening the opposition, so that one day, one of them can actually run the country. Not be a co-driver, a check and balance, a gratuitous NMP, or a rebel that takes the PAP down a peg or two—but a real government.

Because that’s the only way we’ll find a different path from the one we have now.

Even Lee Kuan Yew said that the only way for politicians to change things in Singapore is to get into Parliament. Outside that, they might have some influence, but they have little power.

With a by-election likely in Punggol East, and several opposition parties eyeing the seat, a chance lies before us to fortify the opposition one bit more. And its good to see that the opposition parties are starting to differentiate themselves, so that they are not just a blanket non-PAP force, but entities in their own right. So voters aren’t just voting for a kneejerk grass-is-greener change, but a more informed change in a specific direction.

And we need to stop feeling surprised or disappointed when the PAP does things their same old way. They have little reason to change, and, just like the rest of us, aren’t going to give up their views just because some of us disagree with them, however justified we may be.

A strong Singapore government that is not the PAP might seem like a long way off. But we need to believe it is possible first and then we can work to make it happen.

------------

Cartoons from : My Sketchbook.

I am not a lawyer but I assume that most rational people understand that laws governing sexual behavior are based on the principle of ‘consent.’ Hence as long as an act is performed by two ‘consenting’ adults (usually anyone considered 18-years old and above) it is legal. However, if the law deems one of the parties unable to provide consent it is illegal, hence the prohibitions against sex with children and the mentally disabled.

However, this does not seem to be the case in Singapore. As Professor Thio Li-Ann so famously said in 2007, during the debate on the repeal of 377A, “We must reject the argument from consent.” She argued that the argument ‘from consent’ was ‘morally bankrupt’.

Say what you like about Professor Thio’s position on 377A, but it seems that the laws in Singapore agree with her. If you look at the difference between 377A (illegal for two consenting adults to have sex in the privacy of the bedroom) and the immunity from marital rape (legal for one adult to rape another as long as he’s the husband of the woman he’s raping), consent is clearly not applied as the founding principle of the law. We also need to ask if our laws governing sexual behavior are relevant to modern life.

The best place to answer these questions might be to look at a list of countries that have made marital or spousal rape a criminal offense and compare it with a list of countries that permit same-sex sexual activity.

The first thing that is clear is that the principle of ‘consent’ applies in the major economies of the world (US and Europe). In these countries, same-sex sexual activity is legal and marital rape is a criminal offense.

The argument that many so called “conservatives” have used is that Singapore is an “Asian” society and Western standards are not necessarily applicable. So, we look closer to home. Hong Kong, which is the closest rival to Singapore in terms of its economic development, permits same-sex sexual activity and outlaws spousal rape.

There are of course countries in the region that either don’t permit same-sex, sexual activity or make marital rape a crime. India’s Supreme Court famously declared same-sex sexual activity  unconstitutional. However, the Indian Penal Code does not prosecute marital rape (though in light of the recent national outrage against rape, things may change).

Malaysia famously prosecuted a former deputy prime minister for ‘illegal’ homosexual activity.

In this case, Malaysia argues that it is predominantly an ‘Islamic’ society with strict prohibitions against homosexuality; hence same-sex sexual activity is illegal in Malaysia. This appears to be true in the majority of Islamic nations.

In the ASEAN Region, Singapore and Brunei stand out as the two countries that ban same-sex sexual activity and do not recognize marital rape as a crime. Once again, Brunei argues that it is an Islamic society and Sharia principles are the foundation of its legal code. Singapore by contrast is a secular state and does not have religion as its founding principles.

The key argument against the repeal of 377A has always been that Singapore is a conservative society and it is against public morality. However, the question of what or whose “public morality” our laws are based on has never been discussed. The situation with marital rape in Singapore is a curious one. In many ways, Singapore is like the major economies around the world. Like women in these regions, women in Singapore enjoy a high degree of legal rights, especially when it comes to the ownership of property. However, if you look at the laws governing marital rape, it seems that the one property a woman has to surrender is her body.

Singapore, as we’ve often heard, is no longer a third-world backwater. Surely it’s time we brought our legal code up to that fact?

The SDP itself too bungled the invitation to the WP right from the start – first, in declaring publicly its intention to contest the ward, only to later seek a discussion with WP over it; second, to publish what should have been private and confidential emails between the two sides; third, to propose the “unity candidate” idea, at a press conference, no less; and fourth, to then say that it "knew all along" that its proposal to the WP would be rebuffed. [The SDP has since clarified the reported remark. See here.]

In short, it was a disaster in diplomacy.

One can’t fault the WP for ignoring the SDP.

Having said that, the WP too is not faultless for this sad state of affairs, of the opposition failing at even the simple task of speaking to each other. The WP too was approached by the Reform Party (RP) chief, Kenneth Jeyaretnam, who made a similar proposal – as the SDP’s – to the WP. The WP has obviously also rejected the proposal. It is unclear if the two sides had met to discuss the matter.

The Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) had attempted to persuade WP not to contest the ward in the last general election, so as to avoid a three-cornered fight with the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) Michael Palmer. The SDA’s secretary-general, Desmond Lim, “broke down talking about the pressure he faced to give up the fight for the single-seat”. Two days later, at a rally, his wife too broke down and accused Lee – who was also the WP candidate then – of “parachuting” into the ward.

Lim had been canvassing the Pasir Ris-Punggol area for several years leading up to the 2011 general elections, when Punggol East was carved out as a single-seat constituency.

The WP’s rebuff of the proposal by the SDP, the RP and previously by the SDA is seen by some as an emerging sense of confidence within the WP leadership (and indeed among its supporters too) that it can – and should – go it alone.

There is no doubt that the WP’s brand name is leaps and bounds ahead of the other parties’. Its GE 2011 performance has created an almost mythological aura around Low, Sylvia and its “star catch” Chen Show Mao among some sectors of the public – and that the WP can do no wrong. (A visit to Chen’s Facebook page, for example, might make one cringe upon seeing the hero-worship going on there.)

But that, in fact, is truly a myth indeed.

The WP has to remember that it can only win more seats if it avoided multi-cornered fights with other opposition parties. Its brand name and candidates, unlike the PAP, are not yet able to win outright majority votes in such multi-cornered contests.

And this is where diplomacy comes in. Diplomacy is indeed an integral – and vital - part of politics, especially opposition politics in Singapore’s context. To not even entertain suggestions or proposals by other parties, or be seen not to, is unnecessary. To then make subtle and disparaging references to these proposals or the ones making these proposals is to project a certain sense of arrogance.

There is nothing wrong with being confident in one’s own achievements or ambitions, but to do so in such a way without realising that it will do damage to one’s own long term goals is to risk the big picture for short term superficial ego trips. The WP, being where it is and with momentum on its side, risks losing more than the other parties.

The other parties may be more willing to scupper the WP’s plans if the WP is seen by them as not only being arrogant but also if it is seen as just another version of the PAP. This, lately, has been a point raised in some quarters, primarily because of the WP’s perceived failures in Parliament in raising certain issues of concerns, and voting with the PAP on matters or issues which the WP itself had, in fact, criticised. An example are the changes to ministerial salaries which the WP criticised but then voted for.

The expected multi-cornered contest in Punggol East reveals this growing disenchantment by some opposition parties of the WP’s perceived similarities to the PAP, and an unwillingness by these parties to lay down and make way simply because it is the WP coming to the neighbourhood.

For the WP and its leadership, they must realise that its ambitions and plans to make the constituencies in the eastern part of S’pore its own will require straight fights with the PAP – a prospect which will only happen if it is able to negotiate to avoid multi-cornered fights with the other opposition parties.

And in order for this to happen, the WP needs to work on its diplomatic skills, even if it does not at all agree with any of the other parties’ position on things.

The WP has more to lose than other parties, by virtue of the success it has had so far. Expectations of the party have grown too. And one would argue that besides the vote count, Singaporeans would much prefer a party which is not also seen to be arrogant. This in fact is one of the reasons why the PAP is so much disdained presently.

WP should not fall into that same trap.

Its failure to negotiate a straight fight in Punggol East reveals the WP’s inability in navigating the other aspects of Singapore politics – political diplomacy.

The multi-cornered fight WP faces in Punggol East perhaps has nothing to do with whether one has the right to contest in the ward but more about why other opposition parties are unwilling to cede the ground to the WP.

It is something which the WP should ponder on, if it wants to avoid similar situations come the next general elections.

The other opposition parties, while smaller with brand names not as recognisable as the WP’s, nonetheless still can put a spoke in the wheel of WP’s long term goals.

It would be a pity, especially for opposition supporters who yearn for a more democratic and representative Parliament with more opposition voices.

So, being the best-supported opposition party in S’pore, the WP, besides making sure that its candidates, when elected, “are prepared to work and can connect to [sic] the people”, should also perhaps make sure that it too can connect with other opposition parties – for the sake of its long term goals.

What national interest are these people talking about? Is it in the national interest to deny voters the choice of good candidates and a good platform just because we want to show how angry we are with the PAP and want to kick them out? If this is the case, isn’t it better for voters to be given a choice so that they could choose, from amongst the many, the candidate most able to express their feelings in Parliament and have the intellect to debate the PAP on policies?

Alas when people call for opposition unity, it is not really about calling for a united front to fight the PAP or asking for the best candidate to be fielded. The idea appears to be for everyone to get out of the fray and leave it to WP to do the battle. This is ironic as the WP has not made overtures to other parties to stay out of the by-election. The claim that only the WP can win in a 1-to-1 fight and that the PAP would win in a multi-cornered fight made the rest feel as spoilers if they were to continue to contest.

Thus when the SDP asked the WP to negotiate, many people were furious. Why should this be so? If there is a genuine interest in opposition unity, why didn’t the supporters of opposition unity push the parties to come to the negotiation table instead of asking one of the parties to stay out without listening what each has to say?

I know what unity or disunity is about. One year before the 2011 general election, I made some attempts to get the opposition parties together for some kind of unity talks. The idea was not to discuss arrangements to avoid multi-cornered fights in the next general election but to get the opposition parties to feel comfortable with each other. It was hoped that through such a meeting that the parties could see their common area of agreement and forge a common platform to offer to Singaporeans as an alternative. The first meeting was attended by the chiefs of the Singapore People’s Party, the National Solidarity Party, the Singapore Democratic Party and the United Singapore Democratic Party.

Subsequent meetings did not materialise because some participants felt that without the WP’s active participation, opposition unity is meaningless.

Politics in Singapore will not mature if political parties continue to shun the idea of coalitions.

All political parties are made up of coalitions of different interest groups or factions, even parties like the Conservatives, the Labour Party and the Liberal-Democratic Party in the United Kingdom. So are many governments, including the government of China. If the opposition parties want to be a serious alternative to the PAP in 2016, then they have to stop behaving like tribal chiefs happy with their tiny fiefdoms and come together. If Singaporeans want to see a united opposition force then they should come together and speak up to force such co-operation with genuine give and take from all sides instead of just supporting one tribal chief.

When the SDP proposed to the WP to work together to find a unity candidate, it was severely criticised. Many observers called the idea “laughable”, “ridiculous”, “hare-brained”, etc. Some even labelled, very unfairly I think, Dr Chee Soon Juan as delusional, mad, bi-polar etc.

Such exaggerated labels and personal attacks merely play into the propaganda of the mainstream media and prevent people from taking an objective and rational look at the proposal. The proposal of a unity candidate may not be as ridiculous as people think.

Each opposition party has its strengths and weakness. If a united front is to be formidable, the strengths must complement each other.

All of us know that the SDP and WP have distinct beliefs and focus. But they share a common belief that the PAP is not doing right by Singapore. With the support of pro-opposition supporters, surely the two parties can find common grounds and explore how they can work together despite their differences. They should, because to all pro-opposition Singaporeans there is only one common foe.

In the world of political governance, coalitions abound. In Germany, for example, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) runs a coalition government with the Free Democrat Party (FDP). Both parties have different ideologies and policies – the CDU is conservative while the FDP is liberal in its orientation – but have found common ground to work for the country's greater good. Even in Malaysia, the Pakatan Rakyat brings together the liberal DAP and the very conservative PAS.

It may well turn out that in the not-too-distant future, Singapore will have to turn to a coalition of parties to form the government where power and responsibilities are shared. If parties cannot work to serve the residents despite their differences, what do we do if an election results in no party garnering more than 50 percent of the seats in Parliament?

Thus I would see SDP’s proposal as an idea to get the opposition parties to learn how to work together. It may have been an idea which was difficult to grasp and easily misunderstood but the principle was that everything should be on the table. Opposition unity should not merely mean meeting once in five years just before an election to parcel out constituencies for contest.

The idea of a unity candidate may be novel and untried, but that does not mean it cannot work. It should be examined rather than ridiculed and dismissed out-of-hand.

If the WP had agreed to meet the SDP and negotiated with an open mind, who knows what the final proposal might look like. But one thing is for sure, it would be one big baby step to true opposition unity for a more accountable government and a better Singapore.

Jiang Li Qiang (蒋立强)

What happened when you were taken into custody?

There were about five to six procedures to complete. They first revoked our work permits and got us to sign some documents. Then we were told we had violated some rules and laws and would be repatriated.

Who talked to you?

Some government department officers. I don’t know who they were. They just wanted me to confess that on the 27th, I went on strike. I argued with them and said that you could say that I went on strike on the 26th, but I would never confess that I went on strike on the 27th.

Did anyone else talk to you?

Yes. The officer at the prison mentioned that they understood that we were feeling unhappy. But the whole thing has already been decided and there is nothing much we can do. Then the representative from the Chinese Embassy showed up. We felt it was unnecessary [for them to come] because nothing was going to change. At 1am, we went to the airport and at 6am we arrived China.

Were you told what laws you violated?

They only told us that no protests are allowed in Singapore. We had violated this law but the fact is that we did not [deliberately] get involved in the strike. If we had known of other ways to reflect our condition, we would not have gone on a strike. If the company enquired about our situation on a regular basis, there would not be an incident like this. If they had held a meeting on wages, I don’t think things would have become so serious. I think it is because of a lack of communication and proper management [that the strike happened].

He Zhi Yi (贺志义)

I was on the morning shift on November 30.  A colleague told me not to go work because the company had something for me. I waited in the dorm. In the afternoon, the company called me and said that the police needed to clarify some things. I boarded a company bus. The bus route did not seem to be heading to the police station but I had no idea where it was heading. I knew it was very far out from the main road. I had never been on that road. On turning into a smaller road, I began to realize that I was at a prison.

We went in, and an officer told us that we would be repatriated. I stood up and asked what offence I had committed and why I was asked to leave. The officer said that it was due to the strike. I said it was not a strike – it was to defend our own rights. The officer smiled, he told us this was not up to him, it was [a decision] from management. There was no room for reasoning – he was just going through the process. We then dealt with our bank accounts, immigration and other government agencies and finally, my work pass was cancelled. Then we were taken to another room.

After my work pass was cancelled, I felt like another person. I was no longer a respectable bus driver but a prisoner. Maybe the way the police treated us as we moved from room to room made me feel that way. There were quite a number of them holding guns and pointing their guns at me as they instructed me to move forward and directed me to the rooms. At the first room I did my medical check and in the next room I was asked to take a shower. I told them I showered before coming.   They were very forceful and forced me to shower. After that our civilian clothes were taken and sealed in a big bag. We were given prison uniforms to change into. The shirt and pants were way too big for me. Then we were sent into a prison cell.

Wang Yong (王勇)

When we arrived at the prison, they didn’t tell us anything. They told us we could not use our phone and could not say a thing. Then we realized the seriousness of our situation. We were brought into a room with many special police. Some investigation bureau chief told us we will be repatriated and all our personal belongings would be collected for us.

Many people there were very angry and lost control of their emotions. They cried that they were innocent, that this came so suddenly, and that we were not prepared.

Later we were asked one by one to go to different desks. The police bureau chief let us sign some documents and gave us a warning, but mentioned that no one will be charged. Then we went through the immigration desk and finally got our work permits and driving licenses cancelled. There was a desk to deal with our bank accounts. The staff told me that the money in our bank accounts would be sent to us and asked for our addresses in China. They said the whole process would be very fast. However, after one month, I still haven’t received my money.

When were you sent to the airport?

I was sent to the airport on 1 December with two other drivers from Chengdu. We didn’t know each other until we were sent to the airport – we didn’t live in the same hostel. But we have stayed in contact since returning to China.

Before we got to the airport, they kept saying they would allow us to call home but they never did. Their attitude was so rude – one of the officers shouted at us, saying, “We just won’t let you call!”

Although we were angry, all of us decided to bear with it.

What about all your belongings?

We told them that all our personal belongings were still in our hostel, so we asked for permission to go back to pack up. They said this was impossible and didn’t allow us to go back. They promised that all our belongings would be brought to us. However, there were still some things that were left in the hostel, though they weren’t worth much. They just transferred everything to the prison and before we were called to go to the airport, they let us pick our things from the pool of items and then immediately sent us to the airport, as though they were afraid we would run away.

How were you treated while in prison?

They told us that whatever we were going to say would be futile. All documents were in English and there was no translator. Some of us wanted to call our families, but they didn’t allow us to and spoke to us in a rude manner. Later, we were sent to a prison cell, about three persons to a cell. We were told to strip off our clothes and change into prison clothes.

Were you interrogated?

We were not interrogated. They also never told us what offence we committed such that they had to repatriate us. They just told us, “It’s been decided.”

People's Action Party = Kronenbourg Blanc

As white as a (colorectal) surgeon's coat, the Kronenbourg Blanc is usually found in more upmarket premises and often accused of being somewhat elitist and pretentious. But something as easy drinking as this is always regarded as a safe choice for most.

Worker's Party = Tiger Beer

A common sight in any Singapore kopitiam, Tiger Beer is, beyond any doubt, the working class' choice of tipple. Too many of these "lau-hors" and you can get somewhat hammered. We hear some Ah-Lians like this too.

Reform Party = Fuller's London Pride

You can't get any more English than Fuller's London Pride, which in this case, comes complete with a stiff upper lip like Reform Party's Kenneth Jeyaretnam. Just too bad it's relatively hard to find around town.

Singapore Democratic Alliance = ABC Stout

Stout is defined in the dictionary as a dark beer made with roasted malts, as well as appropriately describing the rotund figure of SDA's nominated candidate Desmond Lim. ABC Stout is, of course, the choice of some – ok, a very few – kopitiam uncles.

Singapore Democratic Party = Hoegaarden

Hoegaarden is a witbier, a style of beer that's unfiltered and hence, hazy – like some people’s attitudes towards the party. It's also spicy and zesty, but has an incredibly short finish – you either love it or hate it. Aspirational but ultimately none too inspiring.

Zeng Guoyan = Stone Arrogant Bastard Ale

Loud, vulgar and cocky – these are just some of the hallmarks of an arrogant attitude that disdains any kind of authority. Also, mostly unlikeable and shunned by all… and we actually mean the parrot. Its owner Zeng, on the other hand, is just plain weird and wacky.

Ooi Boon Ewe = Jolly Shandy

Tries oh-so-hard to be a beer, but really isn't one. Fruity, fizzy and makes all kinds of weird noises. But when life (on Nomination Day) hands you lemons...

If you want a detailed analysis of all candidates, you’ll have to visit The Good Beer Company yourself and talk to Daniel. He’ll be happy to oblige – under the influence of some great beers, of course!

What PM Lee could have done

The problem with defamation suits is that they represent asymmetrical power at its worst: the monetary and personal costs of fighting the case in court are disproportional given that the government has close to unlimited resources. In that sense, the mere threat of a lawsuit is a sufficiently large deterrent to shut down most commentators regardless of the merit of their statements, because people individually have much less to gain and much more to lose in court. Defamation suits are far from the only means by which the government can engage and reason with dissent. PM Lee could have had his press secretary publish a letter to clarify the facts publicly, and let the facts do the work. He could have spoken up against claims he perceived to be untrue in an interview or a speech. He could have easily drawn attention to the accounts themselves to prove the accusations wrong, if they are indeed so. Any of these responses would have lent his attempt to facilitate a ‘national conversation’ more credibility; instead he chose to do what would only convince the public promises of reform and engagement are, once again, mere gestural political tactics.

Some habits die hard

To understand this uniquely-PAP habit of suing for defamation, it is instructive to go back to an interview between Lee Hsien Loong and Charlie Rose in 2010:

LEE HSIEN LOONG:  We are very sensitive.    

CHARLIE ROSE: Tell me about the sensitivity.    

LEE HSIEN LOONG: The whole of our system is founded on a basic concept of meritocracy.  You are where you are because you are the best man for the job and not because of your connections or your parents or your relatives. And if anybody doubts that I as prime minister is here not because I am the best man for the job but because my father fixed it or my wife runs Temasek because I put her there and not because she’s the best woman for the job, then my entire credibility and moral authority is destroyed.  I’m not fit to be where I am. And it’s a fundamental issue of fitness to govern.  First you must have the moral right, then you can make the right decisions.  It’s a basic Confucian precept.    

CHARLIE ROSE: Only when you have to moral right can you make --  

LEE HSIEN LOONG: Then can you govern and make the country right. And in Singapore people expect that.  So if there’s any doubt that this is so, and people believe that I’m there because my father fixed it or the whole system is just make-believe, then the system will come down.   It’s not tenable. If it’s true, it better be proven and I better be kicked out.  If it’s not true, it better also be proven to be not true and the matter put to rest.    

CHARLIE ROSE: So if some journalist writes about nepotism and you think it’s not true --  

LEE HSIEN LOONG:  Well, then we sue him!   (LAUGHTER)  

CHARLIE ROSE:  Yes, you do.

What we can distil from the above conversation are many long-held assumptions held by the establishment, for whom PM Lee happens to be the spokesperson in this interview.

The contradictions of meritocracy as the basis for political legitimacy

The first among these is the assumption that political legitimacy comes from “being the best man for the job”. When PM Lee speaks of the “moral right” to govern, he is referring to the moral authority of a government that confers it political legitimacy. In the case of Singapore, the basis for this moral authority and political legitimacy is meritocracy, a principle that has been enshrined as the only viable principle of governance, repeatedly justified on the grounds of our “unique” vulnerability and resource scarcity.

Appealing as it is as a principle, meritocracy is, to quote Amartya Sen, “essentially underdefined”. It is nothing more than “the preferred view of a society” at a given point in time. The merit of actions, and derivatively that of persons performing those actions, cannot be judged independent of the way we understand the nature of a good society. To the extent that the incumbents maintain ideological hegemony over what constitutes “merit”, or hamper public deliberation on what constitutes good society (by means of petty defamation lawsuits, for instance), the internal contradictions of meritocracy as a principle of governance will persist to engender instability to that very idea.

In democratic elections, the people are given the power to decide what counts as “merit” and who possesses it. Insofar as the PAP’s claim to meritocracy is not reflected in its approach to inter-party competition and competitive electoral processes, any claim that its elected leader is “the best man for the job” opens itself to questions and skepticism from the public. Such double standards further weaken the justifiability of meritocracy as a principle of governance.

The upshot is this: assumption that political legitimacy can rest almost entirely on the principle of meritocracy is a questionable one. More than that, it has inspired among our political leaders a sort of hypersensitivity to dissent that is quite uncalled for. This acute sensitivity is perhaps best expressed by PM Lee himself in the interview: “…if anybody doubts that I as prime minister is here not because I am the best man for the job… then my entire credibility and moral authority is destroyed.” From the establishment’s point of view, it follows that any doubt of the incumbent’s political legitimacy, especially those that question the incumbent’s personal “moral right” to govern, cannot be tolerated.

The tenuous nature of PAP’s political legitimacy

When it comes to defending its political legitimacy, the PAP appears to be guided by a simple, in fact simplistic, political calculus: If limiting freedom of expression is what it takes to keep its legitimacy secure, it is that which must be done. If it can prove an attack on its moral reputation is untrue, it would go to the courts to make that point. In doing so the government loses as it wins.

As Cherian George pointed out in a recent article, defamation law was never a convincing test of truth. When a defendant loses a defamation suit, it merely implies a failure to substantiate allegations to the satisfaction of the court, not necessarily that what was asserted were untruths. Discerning Singaporeans will not be convinced, solely on the result of a defamation suit, of the falsity of Alex Au’s claims against the official account. On the contrary, in trying to defend its legitimacy through such blunt weapons as defamation suits, it has demonstrated an intolerance that reminds Singaporeans once more that nothing has changed post May-2011.

If the accusations were untrue, this government has also lost the opportunity to demonstrate a clearer perception of truth produced by “collision with error” [1] within the space of public deliberation. To wield the defamation law against unsubstantiated attacks each time it arises betrays insecurities that draw our attention only to the tenuous nature of the PAP’s political legitimacy.

What the PAP needs: an immunity to taking offence

What the establishment should come to realize is that political legitimacy comes not just from the moral reputation of political leaders, a meritocratic system, and consent expressed through regular elections. Political legitimacy comes from public reason and democratic approval, the latter of which will be granted only if the public believes that the establishment earns its electoral mandate under conditions of genuine, unfettered discourse. Trust and social capital do not come from government-led “national conversations”, much less from the reactive wielding of the defamation law.

Without a more tolerant stance on what constitutes permissible speech, this society’s ability to direct its own future through meaningful contention with itself is unnecessarily stymied. It is time the establishment realizes that control of the media, restriction of political discussion to political parties, cooptation of civil society, and uneven access to information and resources between political parties… are all inimical to the long-term political legitimacy it is trying to secure.

Discursive participation and deliberation must proceed on the basis that no one should be penalized or excluded for expressing views that might challenge or even offend the establishment. To this end, the least that our political leaders can do is this: develop an immunity to taking offence. In Rowan Atkinson’s (our dear old Mr Bean) words:

We need to develop our immunity to taking offence, so that we can deal with the issues that perfectly justified criticism can raise. Our priority should be to deal with the message, not the messenger… If we want a robust society, we need more robust dialogue that must include the right to insult or offend… the freedom to be inoffensive is no freedom at all.

And if this is too much to ask of the PAP, the day will come when people stop asking for change – which, by the way, is precisely what we are starting to see.

-----------

[1]: “… the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” – JS Mill, On Liberty (1869).

The SDP itself too bungled the invitation to the WP right from the start – first, in declaring publicly its intention to contest the ward, only to later seek a discussion with WP over it; second, to publish what should have been private and confidential emails between the two sides; third, to propose the “unity candidate” idea, at a press conference, no less; and fourth, to then say that it "knew all along" that its proposal to the WP would be rebuffed. [The SDP has since clarified the reported remark. See here.]

In short, it was a disaster in diplomacy.

One can’t fault the WP for ignoring the SDP.

Having said that, the WP too is not faultless for this sad state of affairs, of the opposition failing at even the simple task of speaking to each other. The WP too was approached by the Reform Party (RP) chief, Kenneth Jeyaretnam, who made a similar proposal – as the SDP’s – to the WP. The WP has obviously also rejected the proposal. It is unclear if the two sides had met to discuss the matter.

The Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) had attempted to persuade WP not to contest the ward in the last general election, so as to avoid a three-cornered fight with the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) Michael Palmer. The SDA’s secretary-general, Desmond Lim, “broke down talking about the pressure he faced to give up the fight for the single-seat”. Two days later, at a rally, his wife too broke down and accused Lee – who was also the WP candidate then – of “parachuting” into the ward.

Lim had been canvassing the Pasir Ris-Punggol area for several years leading up to the 2011 general elections, when Punggol East was carved out as a single-seat constituency.

The WP’s rebuff of the proposal by the SDP, the RP and previously by the SDA is seen by some as an emerging sense of confidence within the WP leadership (and indeed among its supporters too) that it can – and should – go it alone.

There is no doubt that the WP’s brand name is leaps and bounds ahead of the other parties’. Its GE 2011 performance has created an almost mythological aura around Low, Sylvia and its “star catch” Chen Show Mao among some sectors of the public – and that the WP can do no wrong. (A visit to Chen’s Facebook page, for example, might make one cringe upon seeing the hero-worship going on there.)

But that, in fact, is truly a myth indeed.

The WP has to remember that it can only win more seats if it avoided multi-cornered fights with other opposition parties. Its brand name and candidates, unlike the PAP, are not yet able to win outright majority votes in such multi-cornered contests.

And this is where diplomacy comes in. Diplomacy is indeed an integral – and vital - part of politics, especially opposition politics in Singapore’s context. To not even entertain suggestions or proposals by other parties, or be seen not to, is unnecessary. To then make subtle and disparaging references to these proposals or the ones making these proposals is to project a certain sense of arrogance.

There is nothing wrong with being confident in one’s own achievements or ambitions, but to do so in such a way without realising that it will do damage to one’s own long term goals is to risk the big picture for short term superficial ego trips. The WP, being where it is and with momentum on its side, risks losing more than the other parties.

The other parties may be more willing to scupper the WP’s plans if the WP is seen by them as not only being arrogant but also if it is seen as just another version of the PAP. This, lately, has been a point raised in some quarters, primarily because of the WP’s perceived failures in Parliament in raising certain issues of concerns, and voting with the PAP on matters or issues which the WP itself had, in fact, criticised. An example are the changes to ministerial salaries which the WP criticised but then voted for.

The expected multi-cornered contest in Punggol East reveals this growing disenchantment by some opposition parties of the WP’s perceived similarities to the PAP, and an unwillingness by these parties to lay down and make way simply because it is the WP coming to the neighbourhood.

For the WP and its leadership, they must realise that its ambitions and plans to make the constituencies in the eastern part of S’pore its own will require straight fights with the PAP – a prospect which will only happen if it is able to negotiate to avoid multi-cornered fights with the other opposition parties.

And in order for this to happen, the WP needs to work on its diplomatic skills, even if it does not at all agree with any of the other parties’ position on things.

The WP has more to lose than other parties, by virtue of the success it has had so far. Expectations of the party have grown too. And one would argue that besides the vote count, Singaporeans would much prefer a party which is not also seen to be arrogant. This in fact is one of the reasons why the PAP is so much disdained presently.

WP should not fall into that same trap.

Its failure to negotiate a straight fight in Punggol East reveals the WP’s inability in navigating the other aspects of Singapore politics – political diplomacy.

The multi-cornered fight WP faces in Punggol East perhaps has nothing to do with whether one has the right to contest in the ward but more about why other opposition parties are unwilling to cede the ground to the WP.

It is something which the WP should ponder on, if it wants to avoid similar situations come the next general elections.

The other opposition parties, while smaller with brand names not as recognisable as the WP’s, nonetheless still can put a spoke in the wheel of WP’s long term goals.

It would be a pity, especially for opposition supporters who yearn for a more democratic and representative Parliament with more opposition voices.

So, being the best-supported opposition party in S’pore, the WP, besides making sure that its candidates, when elected, “are prepared to work and can connect to [sic] the people”, should also perhaps make sure that it too can connect with other opposition parties – for the sake of its long term goals.

"The Workers' Party walks its own road -- albeit one that is heavily criticised -- not out of disrespect for other members of the opposition,” he explained, “but because we do not want history to repeat itself."

Mr Low is presumably referring to the past instances of opposition parties going at each others’ throats – at times publicly – or generally giving the opposition a bad name, as in this incident with the PKMS members in 2009.

While the WP has the right to go it alone, as far as the opposition cause is concerned, it must also keep in mind that politics is not just about numbers – the number of seats one has in Parliament. If it were, the ruling party would not be facing the problems it is facing today. It is also about diplomacy, about negotiation, about recognising that others too have contributed – even indirectly – to the WP’s ascendency of late.

Mr Low, being the shrewd and experienced politician that he is, must also know that the WP, although enjoying wider support than all the other opposition parties presently, is at a fragile and even vulnerable position. Mr Low’s remarks or dismissal of any opposition unity ideas have sparked some talk that other parties should impede its growth by not acceding grounds to it in potential 3-cornered contests in future elections. While the WP may boast of, attract and field credible  candidates in future elections, its ambition to win more seats by banking on its brand name alone will not be enough.

The WP will have to negotiate with other parties to avoid multi-cornered fights – unless the WP, and Low, feels that the WP’s brand is now strong enough to stand on its own. However, even if the WP wins Punggol East, one hesitates to see this as a sign that the WP’s brand alone will win it more seats in future – if it were involved in multi-cornered contests, especially in GRC constituencies. The WP’s opponents in the Punggol East by-election are, with respect, not exactly tough competition.

Mr Low says the WP’s unbelief in opposition unity is not because of arrogance but because the party does not want to let Singaporeans down. But surely a discussion to avoid a multi-cornered fight, or even about the Singapore Democratic Party’s (SDP) suggestion of a joint-campaign, is something which the WP can do. The WP’s short and terse response to the SDP, the Reform Party and even to media queries about these show an apparently different side to the matter - that it was the WP which had chosen to adopt an unnecessarily snobbish and arrogant attitude towards other parties, which is contrary to what Mr Low said.

Be that as it may, the WP’s decision to go it alone is good for the opposition as a whole over the long term.

Any opposition party which is serious about winning seats in Parliament and in bringing progress to Singapore’s democracy will now have to contend not just with the PAP but also with a WP which will not hesitate to step into other parties’ turf if it feels necessary. This means the other parties will have to buck-up, else they will be easily pushed over by the big boys, as it were. So, it is good that Mr Low has put paid to the idea of any opposition unity.

In the end, it is Singaporeans who will gain.

Having said that, Singaporeans also do not want another party which is seen to be as arrogant as the PAP. In fact, this is one reason why the PAP is more unpopular now than in any time in its history. At slightly more than 60 per cent of the popular vote from the last general elections, the PAP’s popularity is at its lowest since Singapore’s independence.

The WP leaders’ snub of other parties may have the trickle-down effect of unconsciously encouraging its rank-and-file to behave the same. And indeed, several incidents during the Punggol East by-election may be signs of this. Supporters in the WP’s side at the nomination centre on Nomination Day were heard to shout the word “pig” at the candidate from the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA), Mr Desmond Lim. A WP candidate in GE 2011 made a post on his Facebook page seemingly mocking Mr Lim’s online rally videos. And even the WP MP for Hougang made fun of the name of the PAP candidate, Mr Koh Poh Koon, during a rally speech in Punggol East. And online, some comments, presumably posted by WP supporters, bordered on the distasteful.

While one would not expect emotions not to run high and certain unkind remarks to be made during the hustings by the rank and file, one would expect that senior members of the party would rise above petty, derisory and personal comments targeted at their opponents.

And this is what the WP must be careful and be aware of – that it might attract criticisms (and even lose support) not because Singaporeans do not trust it, but because of its perceived arrogant attitude, even as WP leaders may deny this exists.

A little humility will go a long way – especially for a party which, despite being on the ascendency, had managed to win only 12.8 per cent of the popular vote in the last general elections.

"They often feel pained by the disparity between and disunity of the parties here,” Mr Low said, referring to Singaporeans’ disappointment with the opposition over the years, “and the state of the political opposition in Singapore. I understand their disappointment and hopes.”

Mr Low would also do well to keep an eye on the potentially destructive attitude among his growing flock as well. For that may be an even bigger disappointment to Singaporeans if allowed to come to the fore and to rear its ugly head.

Such behaviour in fact would not befit a party which aspires or claims to be a rational, responsible, respectable and a credible one.

In GE 2011, WP was still largely considered one of the underdogs and part of an "opposition collective" many seem to root for. Post GE 2011 however, the Worker's Party, given bigger shoes to fill, has in their purported lack of resonance in parliament, outright dismissal of an opposition collaboration and with rumoured arrogance toward online sentiments, taken on what I consider to be the place of the new popular kid in the playground, so much so that they have been unceremoniously deemed a potential "PAP in the making". There is a glimmer of truth in these accusations. For the liberal minded Singaporean, who have transcended the bounds of racism, homophobia and classism, decisions are easy to make on what is right and what is wrong. Why is progress taking so long? Why has 377A not yet been repealed? Why were foreign workers who went on strike dealt with so harshly when their grievances were in fact sound? Why have the government not apologized for the wrongful ISA arrests in the past?

And why? Why is the currently largest group of opposition MPs in parliament not speaking up passionately on any of these issues?

But in case we forget, though their Aljunid win was perceived as a monumental victory in the opposition camp, in parliament, WP remains grossly outnumbered. And while it is always awesome to see an opposition MP take the incumbent down a notch in parliament, it is also a sure bet that in a system which requires a vote, there is no speech, no personality that can yield results from sentiments alone. We have enough instances of fiery debates in parliament, it was entertaining, but it did nothing but disempower the majority at the lack of results and worse of all witness some of the most brutal incidences of bullying in parliament.

So unless we trust that the PAP majority now are neutral in parliament, to believe that 6 people can voice out and exact radical changes to our social fabric is asking for the moon to me. WP remains very much to me, as one of the underdogs, one that is slightly more ahead than the others, one that is not obligated to yield to any other gameplan by their own in this precarious venture as an opposition party in Singapore. It is a strategy that has not let them down.

It had me asking, amidst appeals for our politicians to connect with the ground, how many of us are connected to how the ground thinks and the psychology behind their bias and prejudice? How many of us are completely absolved from some form of conflict of fundamental beliefs between us and our families and friends and in turn some form of hypocrisy from trying to keep the peace. No one will fault me if I keep quiet to an elderly relative's racism, or an ex classmate's outright homophobia at a class gathering to avoid a dispute that will yield neither a convert nor an ally, yet we ask of such impartiality from an outnumbered group in parliament, where a wrong move will cause them more than just a bad time.

Perhaps some will find my correlation a little too extreme, but who we are ultimately shapes the future of our parliament. We vote in the representatives most suited to our set of beliefs, much as we hope that the politicians, our representatives in the house will think more like us, we too should have to think more like the politician and connect to the realities of society.

And the reality is that civil society with all its concerns is as outnumbered in real life as WP is in parliament. And picking a fight brazenly yields only in conflict, empty calories in the race toward a more involved society. The ideal, for me anyway, is a parliament representing all factions of society, MPs from various parties who differ in their concerns, but given an equal and unequivocal right to speak and be considered.

That won't happen with 6 MPs, or with the Worker's Party alone. It will require much more effort, persuasion and time by everyone who dreams of a better tomorrow.

People's Action Party = Kronenbourg Blanc

As white as a (colorectal) surgeon's coat, the Kronenbourg Blanc is usually found in more upmarket premises and often accused of being somewhat elitist and pretentious. But something as easy drinking as this is always regarded as a safe choice for most.

Worker's Party = Tiger Beer

A common sight in any Singapore kopitiam, Tiger Beer is, beyond any doubt, the working class' choice of tipple. Too many of these "lau-hors" and you can get somewhat hammered. We hear some Ah-Lians like this too.

Reform Party = Fuller's London Pride

You can't get any more English than Fuller's London Pride, which in this case, comes complete with a stiff upper lip like Reform Party's Kenneth Jeyaretnam. Just too bad it's relatively hard to find around town.

Singapore Democratic Alliance = ABC Stout

Stout is defined in the dictionary as a dark beer made with roasted malts, as well as appropriately describing the rotund figure of SDA's nominated candidate Desmond Lim. ABC Stout is, of course, the choice of some – ok, a very few – kopitiam uncles.

Singapore Democratic Party = Hoegaarden

Hoegaarden is a witbier, a style of beer that's unfiltered and hence, hazy – like some people’s attitudes towards the party. It's also spicy and zesty, but has an incredibly short finish – you either love it or hate it. Aspirational but ultimately none too inspiring.

Zeng Guoyan = Stone Arrogant Bastard Ale

Loud, vulgar and cocky – these are just some of the hallmarks of an arrogant attitude that disdains any kind of authority. Also, mostly unlikeable and shunned by all… and we actually mean the parrot. Its owner Zeng, on the other hand, is just plain weird and wacky.

Ooi Boon Ewe = Jolly Shandy

Tries oh-so-hard to be a beer, but really isn't one. Fruity, fizzy and makes all kinds of weird noises. But when life (on Nomination Day) hands you lemons...

If you want a detailed analysis of all candidates, you’ll have to visit The Good Beer Company yourself and talk to Daniel. He’ll be happy to oblige – under the influence of some great beers, of course!

We surprised Jason with a birthday cake during the visit. I noticed that he took a deliberate and longer pause to make a wish before he blew out the candle. Later he asked, if I thought he could continue to be useful in the Navy. He was still young and did not want to waste his life. I reassured him that we would find a vocation that matched his abilities. MINDEF would support him on his road to full recovery.

Many caring Singaporeans have also asked about the long term support to help servicemen like Jason with permanent disabilities get back to independent living. In fact, a question was asked in Parliament and I replied that MINDEF’s compensation and welfare schemes provided significantly higher amounts than what civilians got for the same injury.

But I decided we can and should do more. We must try our best to avoid injuries and death but no one can guarantee that our soldiers will always be safe. In protecting us, the SAF conducts many operations each year, both at home and abroad. Indeed, we send our men and women in uniform regularly to high-risk areas like Afghanistan and off the coast of Somalia. We pray that it will never happen but we must prepare for incidents where many may be injured. The harsh reality is that risks come with every soldier’s duties. MINDEF has therefore decided to start an SAF Care Fund for severely disabled servicemen. MINDEF will build up this fund. Members of the public can also contribute to show their support. This SAF Care fund will be over and above MINDEF’s existing compensation and welfare schemes.

I have personally contributed to the SAF Care Fund. It’s not a huge amount but one that I hope will encourage others to do the same. I wrote to the Lee Foundation for their support. Dr Lee Seng Tee, one of their directors, has a firm belief in a strong defence, having himself lived through the Japanese Occupation. Dr Lee, even though in his 80s, visited our Army Open House last year with his wife as they wanted to see first-hand what our capabilities were. The Lee Foundation has donated $950,000 into this Fund. We now have $1 million in public contributions to the Fund. It’s a good start and a strong show of support for our servicemen who risk life and injury to defend Singapore.

- Ng Eng Hen

[Photo published with the permission of ME2 Jason Chee.]

Jiang Li Qiang (蒋立强)

What happened when you were taken into custody?

There were about five to six procedures to complete. They first revoked our work permits and got us to sign some documents. Then we were told we had violated some rules and laws and would be repatriated.

Who talked to you?

Some government department officers. I don’t know who they were. They just wanted me to confess that on the 27th, I went on strike. I argued with them and said that you could say that I went on strike on the 26th, but I would never confess that I went on strike on the 27th.

Did anyone else talk to you?

Yes. The officer at the prison mentioned that they understood that we were feeling unhappy. But the whole thing has already been decided and there is nothing much we can do. Then the representative from the Chinese Embassy showed up. We felt it was unnecessary [for them to come] because nothing was going to change. At 1am, we went to the airport and at 6am we arrived China.

Were you told what laws you violated?

They only told us that no protests are allowed in Singapore. We had violated this law but the fact is that we did not [deliberately] get involved in the strike. If we had known of other ways to reflect our condition, we would not have gone on a strike. If the company enquired about our situation on a regular basis, there would not be an incident like this. If they had held a meeting on wages, I don’t think things would have become so serious. I think it is because of a lack of communication and proper management [that the strike happened].

He Zhi Yi (贺志义)

I was on the morning shift on November 30.  A colleague told me not to go work because the company had something for me. I waited in the dorm. In the afternoon, the company called me and said that the police needed to clarify some things. I boarded a company bus. The bus route did not seem to be heading to the police station but I had no idea where it was heading. I knew it was very far out from the main road. I had never been on that road. On turning into a smaller road, I began to realize that I was at a prison.

We went in, and an officer told us that we would be repatriated. I stood up and asked what offence I had committed and why I was asked to leave. The officer said that it was due to the strike. I said it was not a strike – it was to defend our own rights. The officer smiled, he told us this was not up to him, it was [a decision] from management. There was no room for reasoning – he was just going through the process. We then dealt with our bank accounts, immigration and other government agencies and finally, my work pass was cancelled. Then we were taken to another room.

After my work pass was cancelled, I felt like another person. I was no longer a respectable bus driver but a prisoner. Maybe the way the police treated us as we moved from room to room made me feel that way. There were quite a number of them holding guns and pointing their guns at me as they instructed me to move forward and directed me to the rooms. At the first room I did my medical check and in the next room I was asked to take a shower. I told them I showered before coming.   They were very forceful and forced me to shower. After that our civilian clothes were taken and sealed in a big bag. We were given prison uniforms to change into. The shirt and pants were way too big for me. Then we were sent into a prison cell.

Wang Yong (王勇)

When we arrived at the prison, they didn’t tell us anything. They told us we could not use our phone and could not say a thing. Then we realized the seriousness of our situation. We were brought into a room with many special police. Some investigation bureau chief told us we will be repatriated and all our personal belongings would be collected for us.

Many people there were very angry and lost control of their emotions. They cried that they were innocent, that this came so suddenly, and that we were not prepared.

Later we were asked one by one to go to different desks. The police bureau chief let us sign some documents and gave us a warning, but mentioned that no one will be charged. Then we went through the immigration desk and finally got our work permits and driving licenses cancelled. There was a desk to deal with our bank accounts. The staff told me that the money in our bank accounts would be sent to us and asked for our addresses in China. They said the whole process would be very fast. However, after one month, I still haven’t received my money.

When were you sent to the airport?

I was sent to the airport on 1 December with two other drivers from Chengdu. We didn’t know each other until we were sent to the airport – we didn’t live in the same hostel. But we have stayed in contact since returning to China.

Before we got to the airport, they kept saying they would allow us to call home but they never did. Their attitude was so rude – one of the officers shouted at us, saying, “We just won’t let you call!”

Although we were angry, all of us decided to bear with it.

What about all your belongings?

We told them that all our personal belongings were still in our hostel, so we asked for permission to go back to pack up. They said this was impossible and didn’t allow us to go back. They promised that all our belongings would be brought to us. However, there were still some things that were left in the hostel, though they weren’t worth much. They just transferred everything to the prison and before we were called to go to the airport, they let us pick our things from the pool of items and then immediately sent us to the airport, as though they were afraid we would run away.

How were you treated while in prison?

They told us that whatever we were going to say would be futile. All documents were in English and there was no translator. Some of us wanted to call our families, but they didn’t allow us to and spoke to us in a rude manner. Later, we were sent to a prison cell, about three persons to a cell. We were told to strip off our clothes and change into prison clothes.

Were you interrogated?

We were not interrogated. They also never told us what offence we committed such that they had to repatriate us. They just told us, “It’s been decided.”

"The Workers' Party walks its own road -- albeit one that is heavily criticised -- not out of disrespect for other members of the opposition,” he explained, “but because we do not want history to repeat itself."

Mr Low is presumably referring to the past instances of opposition parties going at each others’ throats – at times publicly – or generally giving the opposition a bad name, as in this incident with the PKMS members in 2009.

While the WP has the right to go it alone, as far as the opposition cause is concerned, it must also keep in mind that politics is not just about numbers – the number of seats one has in Parliament. If it were, the ruling party would not be facing the problems it is facing today. It is also about diplomacy, about negotiation, about recognising that others too have contributed – even indirectly – to the WP’s ascendency of late.

Mr Low, being the shrewd and experienced politician that he is, must also know that the WP, although enjoying wider support than all the other opposition parties presently, is at a fragile and even vulnerable position. Mr Low’s remarks or dismissal of any opposition unity ideas have sparked some talk that other parties should impede its growth by not acceding grounds to it in potential 3-cornered contests in future elections. While the WP may boast of, attract and field credible  candidates in future elections, its ambition to win more seats by banking on its brand name alone will not be enough.

The WP will have to negotiate with other parties to avoid multi-cornered fights – unless the WP, and Low, feels that the WP’s brand is now strong enough to stand on its own. However, even if the WP wins Punggol East, one hesitates to see this as a sign that the WP’s brand alone will win it more seats in future – if it were involved in multi-cornered contests, especially in GRC constituencies. The WP’s opponents in the Punggol East by-election are, with respect, not exactly tough competition.

Mr Low says the WP’s unbelief in opposition unity is not because of arrogance but because the party does not want to let Singaporeans down. But surely a discussion to avoid a multi-cornered fight, or even about the Singapore Democratic Party’s (SDP) suggestion of a joint-campaign, is something which the WP can do. The WP’s short and terse response to the SDP, the Reform Party and even to media queries about these show an apparently different side to the matter - that it was the WP which had chosen to adopt an unnecessarily snobbish and arrogant attitude towards other parties, which is contrary to what Mr Low said.

Be that as it may, the WP’s decision to go it alone is good for the opposition as a whole over the long term.

Any opposition party which is serious about winning seats in Parliament and in bringing progress to Singapore’s democracy will now have to contend not just with the PAP but also with a WP which will not hesitate to step into other parties’ turf if it feels necessary. This means the other parties will have to buck-up, else they will be easily pushed over by the big boys, as it were. So, it is good that Mr Low has put paid to the idea of any opposition unity.

In the end, it is Singaporeans who will gain.

Having said that, Singaporeans also do not want another party which is seen to be as arrogant as the PAP. In fact, this is one reason why the PAP is more unpopular now than in any time in its history. At slightly more than 60 per cent of the popular vote from the last general elections, the PAP’s popularity is at its lowest since Singapore’s independence.

The WP leaders’ snub of other parties may have the trickle-down effect of unconsciously encouraging its rank-and-file to behave the same. And indeed, several incidents during the Punggol East by-election may be signs of this. Supporters in the WP’s side at the nomination centre on Nomination Day were heard to shout the word “pig” at the candidate from the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA), Mr Desmond Lim. A WP candidate in GE 2011 made a post on his Facebook page seemingly mocking Mr Lim’s online rally videos. And even the WP MP for Hougang made fun of the name of the PAP candidate, Mr Koh Poh Koon, during a rally speech in Punggol East. And online, some comments, presumably posted by WP supporters, bordered on the distasteful.

While one would not expect emotions not to run high and certain unkind remarks to be made during the hustings by the rank and file, one would expect that senior members of the party would rise above petty, derisory and personal comments targeted at their opponents.

And this is what the WP must be careful and be aware of – that it might attract criticisms (and even lose support) not because Singaporeans do not trust it, but because of its perceived arrogant attitude, even as WP leaders may deny this exists.

A little humility will go a long way – especially for a party which, despite being on the ascendency, had managed to win only 12.8 per cent of the popular vote in the last general elections.

"They often feel pained by the disparity between and disunity of the parties here,” Mr Low said, referring to Singaporeans’ disappointment with the opposition over the years, “and the state of the political opposition in Singapore. I understand their disappointment and hopes.”

Mr Low would also do well to keep an eye on the potentially destructive attitude among his growing flock as well. For that may be an even bigger disappointment to Singaporeans if allowed to come to the fore and to rear its ugly head.

Such behaviour in fact would not befit a party which aspires or claims to be a rational, responsible, respectable and a credible one.

In the past, winning an election was straightforward.  It was always Lee Kuan Yew’s philosophy that the PAP should pick highly educated professionals, ex civil servants, generals – people whom he thought was the elite - people that the PAP believed the electorate would look up to. Never mind if he never served in the grassroots, or had any presence in the constituency. If the PAP said he was the elite and the best person for the job, the electorate believed them. Now ‘elite’ is a bad word.

In the past, one would never have imagined that a PAP candidate, a surgeon that the Prime Minister himself promised is destined for higher office, would lose an election to what the older generation would have thought of as a ‘less qualified’ candidate. In the past, one would never have imagined that the Prime Minister could turn up for an election rally, give it his all, and STILL lose the election.

That has all changed.

Everything that the PAP thought worked must now be fundamentally re-considered.

First, it must stop seeing itself as first and foremost policy makers and then a political party. Its experience in the last 4 decades of dominance was abnormal, partly made possible by a gargantuan of a man, Lee Kuan Yew. Such a figure that can lead a nation by his sheer singular vision, make an entire people bend to his will, is an occurrence that happens rarely in the annals of human history. The PAP cannot rely on all of this now. They have to first start winning elections the normal way, AND THEN start thinking of implementing policies. This is what any other political party in a functioning democracy takes for granted. The electoral dominance that its founder granted to the PAP has caused it to get things the other way round, which increasingly looks like the wrong way round. The PAP is singularly unprepared for a post-LKY era, and is paying the price for it. It must remember that it is a political party first and foremost and the party has to win election; its MPs have to be politicians as well as technocrats.

Secondly, it election formula must change. It cannot anymore parachute in someone it endorses, push out goodies during the election period, threaten the electorate of the consequences if they don’t vote for the PAP, and hope to win. This is 3rd world electioneering. As Singapore matures as a country, our electorate matures with it. The Singapore electorate is now a highly educated, highly demanding and plural one. The problem is that whilst the electorate has grown up, the PAP has not. It is still campaigning like it did in the 80’s, the 90’s and it simply does not work. In a mature democracy, campaigning is highly sophisticated work. It is an art. It is a science. Just look at the US, the UK, Australia and even Japan. There are media advisors, spin doctors, campaign strategists, sophisticated research going into each and every election and careful planning. The PAP has none. It still believes doing simply rolling up its sleeves and doing good work will win it elections. This is just naïve. The electorate has moved on; it is time for the PAP to catch up.

Thirdly, the PAP needs to re-discover the skill of pushing through unpopular policies it thinks is good for the good of the nation, and still win elections. This is very hard. Lee Kuan Yew could do it, but can the new generation of leaders? If it can’t then it needs to be popular rather than right. This is the bargain with the devil all politicians in popular democracies must make. The PAP may have to do the same.

The tragedy of all this is that nothing that is happening is new under the sun. We are following in exactly the same path as Western democracies. When political parties have to be popular to win elections, then technocratic policy making has to take a back seat. Politicians have to spend more time politicking then governing, always with one eye on the next election. We have inherited the Westminster system and we should expect very little different to arise from it. There will be 2 parties, one centre-right where the PAP has comfortably sat for 4 decades, and one centre-left, which the WP is moving inexorably into. With multi-cornered fights, people will vote tactically and the 3rd,4th, and other parties will be pushed into the political wilderness. In the end, 2 parties will take turns to govern, with one eye on making sure it wins the next election.

But where will this lead us? Can we end up any different from the countries which have the same fundamental political system as us? Or are we destined to the same fate, whether good or bad?

One can never know the future, but if there is one lesson the PAP will learn from the debacle of Punggol East on the night of 26th January 2013, it is a lesson that all politicians from developed democracies already know in their bones.

It is more important to be popular than to be right.

---------

The writer is a former Nominated Member of Parliament.

So, now with seven full Members of Parliament and two Non-constituency Member of Parliament, the onus is on the Workers’ Party to live up to these hopes.

“But we remain a small party,” says WP Chairman Sylvia Lim, dismissing the claim that Singapore has a two party system, implying that, really, we have a one-and-a-bit party system.

“This shows that Singaporeans want the government to work harder,” says Low Thia Khiang, WP Secretary General.

Actually, Mr Low, if people vote for you, it’s because they want you to work harder, and better. If they had wanted the PAP to work harder, and better, they would have voted PAP. Your job is not to help the PAP do a better job; it’s to show that you can do a better job than them.

The WP is like a small business that has won a big account from a giant corporation and now has to figure how on earth to scale up in time and meet expectations—which are now sky high. This kind of rapid success is awesome—and the WP deserves it—but can also be challenging.

As long as the mood of voters remains in this revolutionary high, the WP, and other opposition, can strike while the iron is hot. But at some point, the fire will cool and reality will bite, and any opposition in parliament will have to show that they can deliver the goods.

Grace periods don’t last long. Already rumblings were beginning to be heard that the WP Aljunied team hasn’t been pulling enough weight. The exposure of the AIM saga helped save them, in that respect.

It’s not easy for the WP. It is a much smaller party than the PAP. But if you pitch for a job, and you win it, you have to find a way to make it work.

I want - more than anything - to see a fairer, more open political playing field; and am thrilled and impressed by Lee Li Lian’s win in Punggol East.

The WP has a golden opportunity on their hands. It is perfectly situated in this moment of change for Singapore, and is on a roll.

So WP, seize the day, show that you can improve the lives of your constituents, show that you can hold your own in parliament, contribute to policies, groom future MPs and even ministers (yes)—and not only will 2016 be sweet grounds for you, your success will outlive the heat of the moment.

We surprised Jason with a birthday cake during the visit. I noticed that he took a deliberate and longer pause to make a wish before he blew out the candle. Later he asked, if I thought he could continue to be useful in the Navy. He was still young and did not want to waste his life. I reassured him that we would find a vocation that matched his abilities. MINDEF would support him on his road to full recovery.

Many caring Singaporeans have also asked about the long term support to help servicemen like Jason with permanent disabilities get back to independent living. In fact, a question was asked in Parliament and I replied that MINDEF’s compensation and welfare schemes provided significantly higher amounts than what civilians got for the same injury.

But I decided we can and should do more. We must try our best to avoid injuries and death but no one can guarantee that our soldiers will always be safe. In protecting us, the SAF conducts many operations each year, both at home and abroad. Indeed, we send our men and women in uniform regularly to high-risk areas like Afghanistan and off the coast of Somalia. We pray that it will never happen but we must prepare for incidents where many may be injured. The harsh reality is that risks come with every soldier’s duties. MINDEF has therefore decided to start an SAF Care Fund for severely disabled servicemen. MINDEF will build up this fund. Members of the public can also contribute to show their support. This SAF Care fund will be over and above MINDEF’s existing compensation and welfare schemes.

I have personally contributed to the SAF Care Fund. It’s not a huge amount but one that I hope will encourage others to do the same. I wrote to the Lee Foundation for their support. Dr Lee Seng Tee, one of their directors, has a firm belief in a strong defence, having himself lived through the Japanese Occupation. Dr Lee, even though in his 80s, visited our Army Open House last year with his wife as they wanted to see first-hand what our capabilities were. The Lee Foundation has donated $950,000 into this Fund. We now have $1 million in public contributions to the Fund. It’s a good start and a strong show of support for our servicemen who risk life and injury to defend Singapore.

- Ng Eng Hen

[Photo published with the permission of ME2 Jason Chee.]

Mr Fernandez apparently must have missed the parade itself, or the truck which WP MPs – including Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Mohd Faisal – were on.

One therefore wonders if Mr Fernandez had taken the effort to ascertain what he believed before he wrote that letter.

Be that as it may, what is more unforgivable is the Straits Times publishing such a letter which clearly contains untrue assertions, and which – with a few click of the mouse – the Forum editor (Jack Hee) could have conducted his due diligence.

In the Straits Times’ own Through The Lens Facebook page, there was this picture which clearly showed Mr Faisal on the truck during the victory parade through Punggol East:

And on the Straits Times’ own Youtube channel, there was this video – “Workers' Party "thank you" parade at Rivervale Crescent” – which clearly again showed Mr Singh on the truck with the other WP MPs as well.

Here is a screenshot of it:

It is utterly appalling that the Straits Times would not only not ascertain facts – which it easily could have with its own reporters who were on the ground – but that it did not take special care before publishing an article which touched on what the Government has always viewed as a sensitive issue – the issue of race.

This is particularly unforgivable, given how the Straits Times itself has, over the past year or so, decried – in its editorials – the emerging ugly head of racism in Singapore. And this latest episode also comes not too long after the other incident involving the Straits Times online portal, STOMP, which deliberately reported a fake story about MRT doors not closing. Following that incident, Straits Times editor-in-chief, Mr Warren Fernandez, said:

“This is a very regrettable breach of our journalistic ethics. The credibility of our content is critical to our readers, and all of us in the newsroom. Upholding this is a duty of each and every member of the team. We will have to work to improve our print and online processes, to do right by our readers.”

[See here: STOMP - a cesspool of disgrace to citizen journalism.]

Singaporeans who value our cultural and ethnic diversity should condemn such unprofessional conduct by a national newspaper, and indeed some harsh words from the powers-that-be should be directed at the chief editor and the forum page editor.

The Straits Times owes the Workers’ Party a public and prominent apology for the publication of the letter by Mr Paul Anthony Fernandez.

That is the least it could do.

In the meantime, Singaporeans await the outcome of the police’s investigation into the Straits Times’ alledged illegal election poll published in its papers on 10 January.