By Ng E-Jay
As a casual political observer, I find Malaysian politics interesting for two reasons.
Firstly, the Malaysians have shown us what can happen in the context of Singapore politics if the opposition parties here unite and put up a credible fight against the incumbent PAP. For those who believe, like me, that the gradual democratization of Singapore’s political landscape is inevitable as voters mature and become better informed global citizens, Malaysia shows us the potential for change that can occur here.
Secondly, the ruling Barisan Nasional has, in the wake of their spectacular drop in popularity during the most recent 2008 general elections, resorted once again to strong arm tactics like the use of the Internal Security Act (ISA) against journalists and political dissidents. They have shown us how rashly and unthinkingly a government can act if it feels cornered by growing discontent and feels its grip on power on the verge of being threatened.
Throughout the contemporary history of both Singapore and Malaysia, our politics has been inextricably intertwined. In some sense, Malaysia is now a few steps ahead of us in terms of the inevitable democratization which I spoke of earlier. Malaysia shows us, in a nutshell, our potential future path. If we can study the current course of politics in Malaysia, we can learn to avoid the potential pitfalls. We are fortunate to have a time machine located just across the causeway.
The main message of my short article is that if Singapore’s opposition parties can take a leaf out of Malaysia’s Pakatan Rakyat and at the same time learn from their shortcomings, a credible and substantial fight can be put up against the incumbent PAP, and I believe that we will have the ability to deny the PAP their 2/3 majority in Parliament.
The Pakatan Rakyat, or People’s Alliance, is an informal opposition coalition formed in the wake of the March 2008 general elections. They comprise the PKR, DAP and PAS, and contested the 2008 elections under the banner of Barisan Rakyat, or People’s Front, which also included other opposition parties at that time.
The enormous success of the component parties of Pakatan Raykat during the 2008 elections can be traced to the fact that despite sometimes daunting difference in ideology, they were willing to set all these aside and create a united, credible campaign that spoke to the hearts and minds of voters. They made full use of the internet and information technology to transmit their message. They were not willing to be silenced or ostracized by the Malaysian mainstream media which is blatantly biased against the opposition. They created their own print and electronic media channels, and engaged in the debate vigorously using all available tools at their disposal. And most importantly, they had very strong and capable leaders helming the entire operation, chief among them was Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim.
What does Singapore’s opposition need to do in order to become another Pakatan Rakyat that will once and for all shake the PAP from its undeserving dominance?
Firstly, opposition parties have to be willing to put aside their differences and recognize that the common enemy is not each other. Sadly, some opposition members or supporters have not been able to do that. The time for that to change is now. Opposition in Singapore must be seen to be mature enough to act collectively for the greater good rather than be dragged down by lesser concerns.
Secondly, opposition parties have to encourage strong and capable leaders to rise up through the ranks and take charge of the situation. Like Anwar Ibrahim, opposition leaders in Singapore must be conversant in both bread and butter issues as well as fundamental issues like democracy, social justice, and the rule of law. They should have not just a credible domestic presence, but also a strong visible international presence, just like Anwar has. They must have charisma and the ability to mobilize both activists and well as the grassroots. And finally, they should be men and women of outstanding character.
Thirdly, opposition parties in Singapore must be both able and willing to create their own print and electronic media channels to break the dominance of our mainstream media.
To conclude my article, I would like to again emphasize my belief in the wisdom of Singaporeans, as well as my belief in the inevitable democratization of Singapore society. What is the basis of my conviction? Well, to put it simply, a house built on a foundation of sand will never stand the test of time.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
What we need in our opposition leaders are 1.CHARISMA 2.HUMBLENESS 3.ABILITY TO THINK ON THEIR FEET.
These are the assets of the Malaysian PR leaders namely ANUAR-TOK GURU-LIM KIT SIANG/KAPAL SINGH
Missed out possibly most impt factor: someone who can appeal to the followers of other opposition parties over the heads of their leaders.
People in M’sia tell me that Anwar’s charisma forced leaders of DAP and PAS to team up with his party. Their members wanted their leaders to work with him.
singaporeans are just united bunch of people. the only reason why PAP chaps can glue together is because of the incentive of high salary and power. in opposition you have neither high salary nor power. also PAP MPs dont come in to make reforms. they come in to get a higher salary and power. its like a career advancement only. whereas in opposition the candidates come in to make changes. obviously putting this latter group of Singaporeans together to work together is impossible. if only singaporeans were united, PAP will have vanished long ago.
sorry i mistyped… i meant “singaporeans are just disunited bunch of people.”
In Malaysia, election is fair, but in Singapore, they can campaign hard and then square off at polls. In SG, there is so much fear, they bankrupt you right after election.
On the second part, Malaysians are more straight and honest, they arent as calculating as Singaporeans. They would support the party with a cause. In Singapore, every one complains and complains. When come to ballot boxes, they start to think of upgrading, gst credits, slumps etc. Their balls suddenly become smaller. And then they resume the complaints after election about higher hdb, gst prices.
Strangely, nothing is free in SG, but they would think upgrading and gst credits are free. he he he
Singaporeans got inflatable balls, cannot produce babies but Malaysians got big strong ones.
@Ben
Through my experiences I have came to realise the startling differences between Malaysians and Singaporeans. Though we both shared similar historical/cultural roots, the differing social changes over the past 40+ years have modelled each differently.
Malaysians in general, adapt well (some even excel) in fluid+ad-hoc conditions. This could be attributed to their unstable society and incompetent government/s. It is common for the average Malaysian to fend for themselves with minimal/no aid from either the society and government bodies. As that Malaysians had a rather low baseline to begin with – most would choose to take a gamble and throw their support whole-heartily to the Oppositions (i.e. One will be willing to go “All In” when he/she has only a few chips on the poker table).
Singaporeans on the other hand, are the “unfortunate” victims of their own success – they then to thrive in stability and organization. Through the efforts/successes of the first generation Singapore leaders (I’m not a fan of LKY, but I do give him credits for pulling Singapore out of a fluid “democratic” social+economical mess – though there’s questionable doubts on the methods used), Singapore has progressed into a wealthy, law and order society. Modern Singaporeans, unlike their northern brethrens – are not comfortable in unstable situations and generally prefer to stick to old, tested and proven methods — in short, very “risk-averse”.
You cannot blame Singaporeans for being overly cautious – its common human nature for one to evaluate more, especially when there are more things at stake. Correcting your analogy – “Singaporeans do not have inflatable balls……” – We just have larger “penile+balls” than Malaysians, hence we carry them with better care and caution.
As stated in the article, we would rather observe how the whole episode in Malaysia would unfold – before taking the plunge ourselves (and avoiding all this mishaps happening now in Malaysia).
*Patience is a virtue and some things are better not rushed*
Divided, you will be Conquered.
Well travelled does not mean worldly wise.
Surrounded and still oblivous. Helpless and Do nothing about it.
Definite conquest.
The Malaysian Political landscape began to change with the breaking up of UMNO during the internal political contests for the UMNO Presidency in 1987 – that was iniated by Tengku Razaleigh, who challenged then PM Mahathir for the post.
The UMNO rivalry went up to the High Court, which then ruled that UMNO was found to be an illegal political party – as it was not properly registered !!!
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/administration_of_justice/crisis_in_the_judiciary.html
The fissures opened up by Tengku Razaleigh resulted in the breaking up of UMNO into two camps.
New UMNO was formed under Mahathir, and Semangat46 was formed by Tengku Razaleigh in his continued quest to oust Mahathir.
This political rivalry to represent the Malay Community opened up new opportunities for other Malay leaning political parties to surface.
When internal PAP policking should rise to the surface, or Singaporeans get to see the defection of PAP Ministers from the Party – to either form new political parties, or join the existing political parties – then the politics in Singapore will have a good chance to see the political field opening up as in Malaysia.
Politics of Malaysia
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=103776389&blogId=192184427
@Tony – You cannot blame Singaporeans for being overly cautious – its common human nature for one to evaluate more, especially when there are more things at stake. Correcting your analogy – “Singaporeans do not have inflatable balls……” – We just have larger “penile+balls” than Malaysians, hence we carry them with better care and caution.
-> Singaporeans are not overly cautious, just plain selfish, kiasi and kiasu. And you are just one of them.
->We have penile balls, they look big, but inside no sperm, cannot produce babies.
->I think you get your facts wrong. We, Singaporeans did not receive much aid from government. Malaysians have a lot of aid from government and healthcare/housing is low. Our fuel, electricity, transport, housing blah blah amongst highest in Asia/World.
-> Housing half a million and growing… few can afford, but you dont care. You have patience to wait till it grows to a million.
-> We have a lot of patience, the government has lost 1/4 of our reserves, almost 100s of billions and still losing through various investments. And we still have Mdm Ho in place, part of the nepotism but no one can say much.
Of course Singaporeans have a lot of patience, lost so much of our resrve, cannot afford decent housing and healthcare but we still continue to support the current team. he he he
Have to disagree with you E-Jay.
1.”the gradual democratization of Singapore’s political landscape is inevitable as voters mature and become better informed global citizens” – introducing NMPs,NCMPs,Gerrymandering,Defamation Suits is not gradual democratization.The voter demographic is changing.Newly Converted Citizens are growing at a far more alarming rate than new Singaporean born voters.Singaporean voters are not educated about the constitution or the basic tenets of politics.They are ill informed about the consequences of policy changes.What is the daily hit of alternative media on the net?The Mass Media controls everything.
2.”Barisan Nasional has, in the wake of their spectacular drop in popularity during the most recent 2008 general elections, resorted once again to strong arm tactics like the use of the Internal Security Act (ISA) against journalists and political dissidents.”-
PAP will not use the ISA for political purposes.The demographic is different in Malaysia.The marginalised minority are a significant percentage.The Chinese are a far bigger majority in Malaysia than the Singapore minorities.The Singapore Chinese majority are Confucianist.Democracy is not possible in a majority Confucianist state.Period.
I share similar ideals of a united opposition.It’s all about the numbers.It’s that simple.But the Opposition camp will not understand it.
The Singapore Opposition Parties think that they are national but are in reality, local parties.The biggest Oppo Party and the Alliance represent just 40,000 voters in Parliament.Only 22,000 voted opposition in the two SMC wards in GE 2006.The Opposition Party membership numbers are paltry.The PAP alone has more than 40,000 card carrying members.And we have not included the PAP supporters,volunteers and affliate numbers yet(NTUC,PA,Grassroots,etc).
There will never be a Pakatan Rakyat, or People’s Alliance in Singapore.The SDA never included the WP.And the WP is not interested in an Alliance.The SDA is a sham Alliance.Has it ever held talks with WP or SDP?So forget about an Alliance or Opposition Unity.The PAP has made sure that it will never happen.
The leaders and members of all Opposition Parties are not willing to put aside their egos for the good of Singapore.It’s a fact.They have huge ego problems, the lot of them.It’s about and will always be about personalities.And not difference in ideologies.
Opposition leaders?Non existent.They bicker in public.A new twist is the RP and its relations with other Opposition Parties.Further fragmentation and disenchantment of the already small pool of Opposition members and supporters.If there is talent, it is spread very very thinly.Any leader who is Minister capacity?
The PAP has more talent and organisational skills in a Branch than an all star Opposition team.It’s a fact.So forget about change.
And there is no such thing as renewal in the Opposition camp.Chiam,Chee and Low have been there for more than 20 years.They do not have proteges and succession teams in place.Power corrupts,absolute power corrupts absolutely.They are no different from the PAP.
The Opposition house is built on a foundation of sand that will never stand the test of time.They failed their elementary mathematics.
Whether PKR or whatever, we need to ask if we need oppositions in parliament.
# Ben
Good point.
I think the previous election was a good one for the PAP. They did win and did not build on it. I am sure the next election Singaporeans will strike back.
The opposition are untied in Sg to an extend, eg like which party stands in which area and GRC. They do co-operate on that matter. All of them in fact.
PKMS, albeit Malay gets them togather. The problem with opposition is that the leaders, do not want to trust the others, for fear.
Fear of being dragged down by any 1 silly politician, who makes a mistake out of haste.That will be costly for those who are in now, like Chiam & Low and also their party members who are standing.
I hope boundries alone are not discussed, in this next opposition election meeting, assitance and sharing of whatever matter, they are going to bring up and how it can be shared and improved will be discussed.
There must be a concerted effort among each other, and respect for one another.
I hope they do meet earlier and never make a mistake like the SDP & RP episode.
@Ben 17 June 2010
//Whether PKR or whatever, we need to ask if we need oppositions in parliament.//
.
Would you prefer to eat the same meat, vegetable and rice everyday without any change in the menu ?
Can NTUC Fairprice be depended on fair pricing, if Cold Storage did not respond by setting up Shop-N-Save ?
Without an open market of free competition, will Singaporeans get to know about better deals if GIANT and Shing Siong did not appear ?
Obviously, the same competition in politics will bring out the best ideas and politics for Singaporeans.
Will you doubt the “wisdom” of LKY, who had said:-
“Let us get down to fundamentals. Is this an open, or is this a closed society? Is it a society where men can preach ideas – novel, unorthodox, heresies, to established churches and established governments – where there is a constant contest for men’s hearts and minds on the basis of what is right, of what is just, of what is in the national interests, or is it a closed society where the mass media – the newspapaers, the journals, publications, TV, radio – either bound by sound or by sight, or both sound and sight, men’s minds are fed with a constant drone of sycophantic support for a particular orthodox political philosophy? That is the first question we asked ourselves. I would like to see minds stimulated and debate provoked, and truth refined and crystallized out of the conflict of different evidence and views. I, therefore, welcome every and any opportunity of a chance to agree, or to dissent, in order that out of thesis comes synthesis – thesis, anti-major premise, anti-premise, synthesis, so we progress… I welcome every opportunity to meet members of the opposition, and so do members of my party, over the radio, over the television, university forums, public rallies. We never run away from the open encounter. If your ideas, your views cannot stand the challenge of criticism then they are too fragile and not sturdy enough to last. I am talking of the principle of the open society, the open debate, ideas, not intimidation, persuasion not coercion… Sir, the basic fundamentals we asked ourselves…is whether the duties of the Minister of Information and Broadcasting are to produce closed minds or open minds, because these instruments – the mass media, the TV, the radio – can produce either the open minds receptive to ideas and ideals, a democratic system of life, or closed and limited. But I know that the open debate is a painful process for closed minds…But let me make this point: that 5 million adult minds in Malaysia cannot be closed – definitely not in the lifetime of the people in authority. It is not possible because whatever the faults of the colonial system, and there are many…they generated the open mind, the inquiring mind.” – Lee Kuan Yew Dec 18, 1964 Malaysian Parliamentary Debates
@Atobe – you too long winded.
Yes we need oppositions now that we already 1/4 of our reserve and still losing and cost of living beyond each of ordinary citizens.
Nepotism growing fast, wife… classmates all in politics.
Rewards are outrageous – millions for losing billions.
I am a Malaysian, but apolitical. There was a time when I was pro-BN, but my view changed when Badawi came to power. The apparent corruption during his tenure made me look at the opposition, not because I favoured them, but just to punish the Badawi-run BN.
In the 2008 March elections, I still voted for a BN candidate because he was good and I didn’t want to penalize him for his boss’ sake. But deep down I wanted the opposition to leave a mark, and they did.
In these three years, the opposition has shown in many instances that they are equally as bad as the corrupt and inefficient BN guys. On the other hand, Najib seems to be more proactive in presenting a more people-friendly government. The performance of the public sector has improved tremendously. One example is it used to take a week to get a passport but now it takes just 2 hours. My vote in the next GE is for BN.
When comparing the politics of Singapore and Malaysia, one has to remember that the dynamics are different. Singapore is a 100% urban population, unlike Malaysia. Throughout the history of the Malaysian elections, the opposition has never managed to win big time in urban areas. The ‘charisma’ that politicians rely on can attract the uneducated and lower income groups, who are more emotionally driven to vote for candidates who can ‘entertain’ them with rhetorics and cheap humour.
It would only be wise for Singapore to device its own formula if it wishes to oust the PAP. The Pakatan formula, which also uses religion may not go well with the Singaporean demography.