~by: Dr Tan Chong Kee~

Some quick notes on the strategic options of a Singaporean politics in transition:

Setting the Scene

For a very long time, PAP maintained its absolute dominance using a divide and rule strategy, ensuring that opposition parties are numerous and small while nipping in the bud any sign of growth whenever possible (think Tang Liang Hong, Jeyaratnam, Chee Soon Juan, etc). This divide and conquer strategy had served to maintain the PAP’s dominance well, but is now starting to break down.

Meanwhile, the Worker’s Party has learned how to grow in this environment. If the WP plays its cards right, it is no longer unthinkable for Singaporean politics to become a two-party contest.

A two-party political contest is great for pluralism but also comes with its own problems. The most critical one being the danger that it could degenerate into a prisoner’s dilemma game. This is a game in which collaboration would produce the best outcome, but the players cannot help but choose to undermine each other instead.

Let’s suppose that we have a two-party landscape where both PAP and WP are equally matched. They face a daily choice of whether to prioritise national interests or party interests. Prioritizing party interest means the willingness to jeopardize the country to score point against one’s political opponent. A clear  example is how the Republican Party in the US blocked a routine raising of debt limit to score points against President Obama, bringing the country to the brink of default.

On the other hand, an example of prioritising national interests is the willingness to suffer apparent “loss of face” by modifying existing policies based on sensible feedback.

If both parties prioritize national interest, neither will “score point” over the other but Singapore will prosper. However, if one is too focused on “fixing the opposition”, there is a strong temptation to prioritize party interest instead. This will lead one party to always discredit the other party’s ideas, regardless of the idea’s merit or potential benefits for the country. Sooner or later, both parties will be at war and effective governance goes out the window.

How can Singapore enjoy greater democracy and accountability without our politics becoming like the current deadlock between Democrats and Republicans in the US?

What Would PAP Do?

To answer this question, let’s consider three things that could happen with the PAP now: Business as usual, Reform, or Split.

Business as usual is where the PAP hardliners retain leadership of the party despite lessons from GE2011 and PE2011. Fact is, the PAP could well continue to rule for the next 10-20 years using this strategy. It will just mean a continuation of current trend, where opposition parties grow and gain more seats at each election. If the oppositions merge to create a single party, or if say the WP grows rapidly ahead of the others, it will take perhaps 3-4 elections for this large opposition party to topple the PAP from power. If they don’t, it will take longer.

Besides being very difficult and costly to pull off, “business-as-usual” will entrench “fixing the opposition” as the default behaviour and prematurely lock Singaporean politics into a prisoner’s dilemma game. This option locks in long-term pain in exchange for short-term gain. Not a wise move unless all you care about is your remaining few years of dominance.

Reform is when the PAP liberals gains leadership of the party. It will likely mean things like tackling income disparity, playing fair, openness to alternatives, etc. Doing so does not mean one must become xenophobic, a welfare state, or resorting to the pork barrel. But it does mean greater wisdom, empathy, and imagination.

A successful reform could take the wind out of opposition parties’ growth. If done expertly the PAP may even be able to, for a considerable length of time, prevent any opposition party from becoming an equal rival.

The sweet spot for a stronger opposition in this case would probably be one that holds 20 – 35 per cent of parliamentary seats. This will give the PAP sufficient room to government effectively, but not so much room that it can ignore legitimate concerns and weather a national backlash. Similarly, such an opposition will be much more committed to prioritize national interest because it needs to convince at least 15 per cent more voters of its ability to govern well. In case of emergency, they will have a manageable learning curve and can take power without too much hiccups.

Although optimal, reform will be hard for the PAP to pull off. PM Lee’s apology during GE2011 could be interpreted as a ship-burning signal that he is fully committed to reform. But it remains to be seen how much opposition he will face from within the party and how far he is prepared to go.

Gazing into the Crystal Ball

The third scenario is for the hardliners and liberals to go their separate ways, i.e., a PAP split. A PAP split will result in a three-party system, with a right-wing hardliner PAP being the largest party, a liberal PAP party, and a left-wing opposition party. In this situation, the hardliner PAP may be able to continue with divide and rule by playing one of the smaller parties against the other, split the opposition support, and thus maintain dominance. We had a taste of this in the recent presidential election.

A three-party political landscape would shift our politics more towards Western Europe model (Germany, Austria, etc.) where three-party contests between the right-wing, centrist and left-wing parties are the norm. Extrapolating from the PE2011, a right-wing PAP would get about 35% vote, a centrist liberal PAP about 35-40 per cent vote, and a left-wing opposition about 25 – 30 per cent vote. All parties must thus shift more towards the center in order to win more than 50%. Centrist politics are generally more unifying, although that benefit would be balanced against the risk of instability from having to form coalition government.

All three scenarios or any combination of hybrids could happen at the same time, e.g.: hardliners and liberals with the PAP could share power, while a very small number leaves to join the opposition. What will happen in reality depends on how various factions within the party play out. I have provided three pure conceptual scenarios so that we have the tools to recognize and analyze real-life scenarios.

To conclude, three things (or their hybrids) could happen within the PAP during the next 10-20 years. All of them will likely lead to greater political plurality. While some of them will likely lead to a “political soft-landing” where national interest trumps, others have significant risks of a “hard-landing” to a divisive politics of mutual undermining and deadlock. A discerning electorate can help to ensure the better outcomes in future elections by supporting PAP reformers when possible and voting for the opposition when they run against the hardliners.


Dr Tan Chong Kee is the founder of Sintercom.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

盛港医院护士遭邻居辱骂 院方称认真看待此事

日前,一名男护士在社交媒体“Instagram”分享,自从冠状病毒19疫情爆发、加上邻居得知他的职业身份,就开始出现不当举止,男护士回家时,邻居会在门口喷洒消毒液,还语出不逊,骂男护士粗口和“病毒”。 对此,男护士任职的盛港综合医院表示,他们得知网络上流传有关视频,院方认真看待此事。 “我们的医护人员努力工作照护病人,特别是在冠病疫情期间。不论是在工作场所或住所,他们理应得到体谅、尊重和安全的环境。在此艰难时刻我们目前已为有关职员提供支持。” 院方也要求民众理应尊重医护人员,在当前时刻团结一致。再者,这类针对医护人员的语言或身体暴力行为,都会交由警方处理。

政府引防假消息法 反对党人毕博渊成“被纠正”第一人

相信新加坡前进党党员毕博渊(Brad Bowyer),成为首位被政府《防止网络假信息和防止网络操纵法案》(POFMA),要求更正网络贴文的人士。 根据政府官网Factually在今日(25日),发文指毕博渊的贴文含有“误导内容”,包括指政府参与淡马锡和政府投资公司(GIC)的投资决策、以及近期印度安得拉邦阿玛拉瓦提项目告吹,存有不实的数据。 对此,上述官网则指淡马锡和GIC的决策由个别管理团队负责,政府没有干预或影响;澄清声明也指淡马锡还获得了穆迪投资者服务公司(Moody’s Investors Service)的Aaa评级和标普全球评级(S&P Global Ratings)的AAA级;每年都有公布财报,仍审慎处理投资事务。 至于毕博渊也在今日发文解释,自己已尽力根据公开的事实,自己所能取得的资料,去作出公允的评论;对于被要求更正消息自己也不认为有问题,因为他认为当涉及公共利益,厘清事实是有必要的。 他表示,尽管自己曾对防假消息法提出质疑,不过大家都被现今政府保证该法不会被滥用,且未来的附例也能填补漏洞,不过他仍认为经过更广泛的辩论和评估,可以推出更周全的立法。 不过,毕博渊表示自己不受有关纠正要求影响,且坚称“负责任”和发声公民,对于民主国家以及负责任和懂得倾听的政府,同样重要。 至于毕博渊被要求更正的贴文,必须附加注明:此贴文含有不实消息,更正消息请点击 www.gov.sg/…/clarifications-on-falsehoods-posted-by-mr-brad…

“乐于助人”邀政治人物体验拾荒者生活 惟无法透过募捐平台筹资

非营利组织“乐于助人基金”(Happy People Helping People)为了协助拾荒老人筹款,将邀请政治人物参加体验活动“穿上他的鞋走一英里” (A Mile In Their Shoes),让他们体验5小时的拾荒老人的生活,从中了解这些老人所面临的困难。 其中受邀政治人物包括人民行动党以及各党派人士,而答应出席有新加坡民主党三人、革新党二人、以及前进党和人民力量党各一人。人民之声两人则表示可能参与,“乐于助人基金“也邀请了非政治人物参与。 为了能够在活动期间筹集资金,乐于助人基金也计划使用募捐平台Give.Asia进行筹资,最终所获得的资金将平均分配给约150名老人。然而,在筹资这条路上可说是困难重重,由于Give.Asia不能透过募捐平台进行“政治活动”,迫使乐于助人基金只能再寻觅替代的筹款方式。 本社也针对此事向Give.Asia询问,但尚待回复。…