Whither the new normal in politics?
After a historic election and an eventful year, voters, the ruling People's Action Party and the opposition are figuring out new political norms
By Lydia Lim, The Straits Times, 5 May 2012
ONE young man says 'the myth of the apathetic Singaporean has been blown apart'.
Another says Singaporeans have become vocal to the point of being 'querulous'.
Ambassador Chan Heng Chee, who wrote a seminal piece in 1975 entitled 'Singapore the Administrative State: Where has all the politics gone?', recently said she now sees its return.
In the past year, Singapore has seen the toppling of the first group representation constituency (GRC) to an opposition party, the retirement from Cabinet of its founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew after 52 years in government, and a review of high ministerial salaries once considered sacrosanct.
The elder Mr Lee, in explaining his decision to step down, said that after last May's polls in which the People's Action Party (PAP) won 60.1 per cent of votes, its worst showing since Independence, it 'cannot be government as usual'.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong promised in his traditional pre-dawn, post-results press conference that the ruling party - which has governed Singapore continuously since 1959 - would embark on some 'soul-searching' to find a formula to take Singapore forward.
These were some of the signs that suggested the ground had shifted since GE 2011, and led pundits to proclaim a new normal in Singapore politics.
But commentators are unclear about what exactly the much bandied-about term entails. How different is the situation that emerged after last May's general election from other post-polls periods of adjustment? Have any new political norms fallen into place since then which might have a longer-term impact on the way Singapore is governed?
The return of politics
FORMER Nominated MP (NMP) Zulkifli Baharudin sees the new normal as the re-emergence of party politics - dormant for many years. In a way, this makes Singapore a more 'normal' country.
'We've not been very ideological before about how the country should be governed because it's been about delivering progress and quality of life.'
But, he adds, in recent times, voters have become 'more ideological' in their thinking, especially with regard to having more alternative voices in Parliament.
'Aljunied is an example. Talented ministers lost because ideologically, people just want an opposition,' he says.
In her 1975 essay, Ambassador Chan, a political scientist, wrote that democratic politics is about groups of people uniting behind different leaderships to compete, bargain and negotiate in the shaping and sharing of political power and to influence or control policy directions.
She sees in the new normal a more active citizenry, which is more demanding of elected government and MPs' performance.
She also notes that too much politicisation is 'not necessarily a good thing'. 'It may mean the system is not delivering at all,' she says.
The degree to which a society becomes politicised therefore is a measure not just of the quality of alternatives but the ability of the incumbent to deliver.
Mr Sudhir Vadaketh, a senior editor at the Economist Intelligence Unit, who spoke of the myth of the apathetic Singaporean, says that the real change in political attitudes arose in part from policy missteps which pushed people to find their voice and speak up.
'People have just had to take more of an interest,' he says.
Workers' Party (WP) Non-Constituency MP Yee Jenn Jong sees the new normal in terms of two changes.
The first is that more Singaporeans are coming forward and making their voices heard through whatever channels are available to them.
The second is that 'professionals, civil servants and business people are coming forward to help in the opposition movement. The fear element is diminishing', he says.
He also addresses the issue of leadership, saying: 'Singapore does have enough talents for more than one team and it will augur well for Singapore to have alternative voices to provide healthy competition to the ruling party.'
Opposition parties like the WP have to believe there is enough talent here for two or more teams capable of forming the government. Otherwise, they would have little reason to exist.
But the PAP government has for so much of Singapore's history been such an overwhelmingly dominant and effective force of leadership and transformation that an alternative political leadership did not seem a necessity, and was certainly not a priority for many voters.
PAP leaders themselves constructed a case for Singapore's exceptionalism, arguing that with such a small talent pool, the country's best and brightest should make up one A-team to lead the nation to compete against the rest of the world, not amongst themselves.
As for the political opposition, they essentially passed up their chance to offer an alternative leadership for the decade that spanned 1991 to 2001.
During those three general elections, former Potong Pasir MP Chiam See Tong got the various parties to agree to his by-election strategy as the best means to win votes. It meant the opposition contested fewer than half the parliamentary seats up for grabs so the PAP could be returned to power on Nomination Day.
Voters would then feel more comfortable about electing a small number of opposition MPs to be alternative voices in Parliament.
It was only in 2006 that the opposition ditched the by-election strategy and contested 47 out of 84 seats. That was also the year a resurgent WP first emerged as a force to be reckoned with, declaring in its manifesto that it aimed to form the government in the long term.
But 2011 was the watershed, when the number and quality of candidates
who came forward to fight under opposition banners rose to where some Singaporeans glimpsed in them - for the first time - the contours of an alternative leadership.
A combined opposition slate that included several former government scholarship holders and top corporate lawyer Chen Show Mao took on the PAP in all but five of the 87 electoral seats.
It made young voters like law graduate Tay Jie Ming, 25, sit up and take notice. But he is of the view that Singapore has not entered a new normal if, by that, people mean a new status quo. 'We have taken mere baby steps and, as a young democracy, we have some way to go before we can seriously consider if there is indeed a new normal.'
Acknowledging that the PAP government has, through its policies, contributed to the Singapore of today, he adds: 'I think we can do better but it is not about tearing everything we have down.'
Mixed reviews
A YEAR on, many are also relooking the changes that the election wrought, both at the constituency level and in Parliament, with the election of the first opposition GRC slate.
Assessments of the WP's performance in Parliament are mixed. Former NMP Siew Kum Hong describes its performance thus far as 'surprisingly disappointing'.
'The WP can do a lot more to drive the agenda in Parliament,' he says, 'instead of continuing to debate the issues that the PAP wants to debate.'
Undergraduate Koh Choon Hwee, 24, says that for all the talk about constructive politics, it seems to her that 'PAP members have displayed more antipathy and antagonism than the opposition members have in Parliament'.
WP chairman Sylvia Lim says she leaves it to Singaporeans to judge the party's specific contributions to parliamentary debates. But she maintains the party has already made a difference.
'WP's presence in Parliament is still less than 10 per cent, but it seems to me that the ruling party has already been more responsive and receptive of the need to make changes in policy areas in order not to pay a higher political price,' she says.
She cites as examples the review of ministers' pay and increased health-care spending over the middle to long term.
Critics, however, have lamented that the party's attempts to offer alternatives. such as during the debate on the revised ministerial pay formula, or measures to tighten foreign worker supply, were less than convincing, with the proposals coming under heavy fire from the PAP's big guns.
But perhaps most damaging for the party must be the expulsion of one of its sitting MPs, Mr Yaw Shin Leong, a protege of Mr Low, who won over the latter's seat in Hougang.
The PAP has hit home that the WP let Hougang voters down. Mr Yaw's decision to skip the country and abandon his seat gave rise to a need for a by-election barely a year after the general election.
Ms Sylvia Lim says the impact of the Yaw saga has been mixed, with some Hougang residents expressing disappointment while others believe the WP did the right thing in expelling the former MP. 'WP is no stranger to adversity. We have been working hard to retain Hougang but whatever the outcome, we will respect the decision of the Hougang voters,' she says.
The PAP adapts
THE physical distance between university campus and Cabinet room has not changed but some ministers now seem more eager to make the trek.
National University of Singapore (NUS) political science lecturer Reuben Wong is impressed by the amount of time Law and Foreign Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam has invested in closed-door discussions with students at several tertiary institutions.
'It used to be very difficult to get ministers to come to NUS,' says Dr Wong, who has taught there for eight years.
'Now, ministers are saying they want to come. They feel that there's no better way to engage than face to face. Meet-the-People Sessions are not enough,' he adds.
A political elite that has long prided itself on its technocratic expertise, rational decision-making and long-term planning is now reaching out to try and reconnect emotionally with its electorate.
These efforts have run the gamut from forays into social media to attempts to play down the VIP treatment accorded to ministers and PAP Members of Parliament at community events, and greater engagement with non-government and non-establishment groups.
There is but one goal though - to close the distance between the ruling party and people, and win back lost ground.
True to form, the PAP acted first and perhaps most effectively to remedy policies gone awry.
Three ministers who were linked to major missteps in housing, transport and security stepped down from Cabinet two weeks after the polls. Their successors stepped on the accelerator on changes to restore housing affordability and reduce public transport congestion.
The Prime Minister ordered an immediate review of high ministerial salaries, which led to a sizeable one-third reduction in pay. The cut may not have satisfied everyone but many Singaporeans welcomed the gesture, saying they were glad the Government had registered their unhappiness and acted.
As for the less tangible business of engagement, of persuading especially government critics that their views too are heard and taken aboard, the efforts are obvious, the results perhaps less so.
Mr Siew, the former NMP who is active in civil society, says he would like to see the Government create more institutionalised mechanisms for genuine engagement with all interested parties.
He is disappointed that apart from what he regards as isolated and specific examples, such as in the case of the Rail Corridor, 'government engagement is still largely limited for the most part to establishment groups that have been deemed 'acceptable''.
'Anything beyond that is really dependent on the individual politician's personal desire and tolerance for such things, which has generally seemed low,' he adds.
Dr Wong, however, wonders if 'Singaporeans are getting a bit too querulous'. In recent engagement exercises, such as the one that Minister of State Tan Chuan-Jin embarked on with civil society groups passionate about saving the Bukit Brown Cemetery, Dr Wong says a very vocal minority came out to speak.
'The policy decision still has to be made. Both sides have to give and take but Singaporeans are not so good at the giving part. If one side is very combative, it's not conducive to dialogue,' he adds.
In an e-mail reply to The Straits Times this week, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean gave his view of how the Government seeks to balance consultation with the need to be decisive and get things done.
Consultation can help improve policies, he says, but on some issues, it is hard to satisfy everyone, as in the case of Bukit Brown where the need to use the land for a road and housing cannot be easily reconciled with preserving it as a heritage cemetery.
'At some point, it falls to the Government to take a decision, and explain the reasons for it. The fact that a proposal was not adopted does not mean that it was not listened to or taken into account. Understanding and accepting that there are trade-offs to be made is part of the maturing of our society,' he says.
Mr Vadaketh is not surprised that expectations of the first few engagement attempts are high. These will moderate, he believes, as 'the electorate is mature enough to know the Government should not be reversing every policy'.
Like many, he reckons society has entered 'uncharted territory', with both the Government and citizens finding their way forward in the process of engagement. 'I think the Government is genuine in its desire for dialogue. I don't think the Government itself yet knows when and how dialogue should affect policy. That's part of the long process,' he says.
GOVERNING WILL NOT BE EASY
'The level of interest in politics will wax and wane depending on the circumstances, stronger in some groups than in others, but with an increasingly more educated population in the country, expectations will be high and governing will not be easy. This is so everywhere in the world especially with new information technology.'
Professor Chan Heng Chee, Singapore's Ambassador to the United States
IS CHANGE SUBSTANTIVE?
'The way the Budget was framed and explained to people was very different. But I am not sure much has actually changed in the substance of how things are run. My peers who are civil servants are frustrated at their own bosses' indifference to the 'new normal' - for them, it was just some change in the political culture of the electorate but didn't necessitate any change on their part.'
Ms Koh Choon Hwee, 24, NUS undergraduate and editor of The Kent Ridge Common news site
MORE CREDIBLE OPPOSITION
'There's been the emergence of more credible opposition politicians. In the old days, there was always an element of anti-Singaporeanism to it. People now feel they can embrace opposition views without being anti-Singaporean. There are also more credible views from non-government sources.'
Mr Sudhir Vadaketh, senior editor, Economist Intelligence Unit
UNDECIDED ON WHAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE LIKE
'People appreciate that they have more opportunities to be heard but it often seems that they have not decided for themselves what and how their Government should be like. Sometimes it even seems that people object to policies simply for the sake of being anti-PAP.'
Mr Tay Jie Ming, 25, a law graduate
NOT YET A FIRST WORLD PARLIAMENT
'To me, a first world Parliament means a credible opposition which is able to take power when the time arises. They should have a shadow Cabinet and shadow ministers with portfolios, party discipline and cohesion. For instance, if Chen Show Mao is in charge of Finance and Trade and Industry, I would expect him to comment on growth figures and other issues. But I don't see that yet.'
Assistant Professor Reuben Wong, National University of Singapore
STILL AN EXPERIMENT
'People are buying into the idea that you have a strong opposition to be a check and balance. It's still an experiment. If at the end of the day, it results in more bickering without anything really happening, then people may change their minds.'
Mr Zulkifli Baharudin, former Nominated MP
No comments:
Post a Comment