The Straits Times, 1 Nov 2014
ON NOV 21, the People's Action Party will mark its 60th anniversary, after a record 55 years in power.
The Men in White - as the party is sometimes known, after adopting the white-on-white uniform to signal its corruption-free emphasis - has ruled continuously since Independence, transforming the country into a modern metropolis. Only one other democratically elected political party, Mexico's Institutional Revolutionary Party, has been able to maintain a longer unbroken reign, of 71 years.
But the last General Election in 2011, when the PAP garnered its lowest winning vote share since Independence - 60.1 per cent - still looms large. As the PAP prepares to celebrate its 60th birthday, the big question is: Will it remain the dominant party?
The Singapore of today faces quite different challenges, compared with the issues of independence from colonial rule and sheer day-to-day survival that were paramount concerns when the PAP was formed back in 1954.
Some 1,500 men and women, locals chafing under post-war British rule, packed the Victoria Concert Hall on that momentous day to choose leaders for their fledgling party - one that went on to form the government in 1955 and that would guide the country through a series of crises in those early years. In 1965 came the greatest of these - Singapore was booted out of Malaysia. It had become a country, and the PAP rose to the challenge of this landmark event - it has been in charge ever since, and confounded the doubters who thought that Singapore could not stand on its own two feet.
However, even though Singapore is now a financial powerhouse, and Singaporeans enjoy one of the highest GDP per capita rates in the world, it is not a time for the PAP to rest on its laurels.
A recent lecture on governance and politics by public intellectual Ho Kwon Ping had him pointing to historical trends elsewhere that suggest a potential election loss for the PAP. This, he predicted, would not happen in the next three elections, but could occur sometime well after that.
He sketched out three ways that the party could lose power: through an accidental or freak election that throws out the PAP; a split within the PAP because of internal differences; or an anticipated, outright loss, because of the loss of legitimacy and trust, for example, due to corruption.
Insight examines three factors that will determine the party's hold on power - the changing electorate, the need for it to remain dynamic, and the state of the opposition.
Voters: Is a freak election likely?
By Tham Yuen-C, The Straits Times, 1 Nov 2014
By Tham Yuen-C, The Straits Times, 1 Nov 2014
AMONG the scenarios Mr Ho Kwon Ping sketched for Singapore in the longer term - meaning sometime after three more elections - is the possibility of the ruling party being booted out because of a freak result.
This idea first reared its head 30 years ago, when founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew warned of the possibility that Singaporeans could get more than they wished for if they assumed the People's Action Party (PAP) would win, and so threw in a vote to the other side instead.
The party had just suffered a 12-percentage-point swing against it in the 1984 election - the biggest since it assumed power - and protest votes were thought to be the cause.
This was amid a confluence of unpopular policies, such as the raising of the Central Provident Fund (CPF) withdrawal age and a scheme that favoured graduate mothers having more children.
For years afterwards, the spectre of the PAP unwittingly being dumped by protest votes would be invoked.
It was to mitigate against such a possibility that the Elected Presidency was passed into law in 1991, to safeguard the country's reserves and the integrity of the public service.
But three decades on, the phrase "freak election" has surfaced among politicos, and voters are being cautioned against ignoring the possibility.
In sketching how the PAP might lose its dominance, Mr Ho singled this out as the most likely of three scenarios. The others: an internal party split; and a massive loss of confidence in the PAP, due perhaps to corruption, among other things.
He said Singapore's first-past- the-post Westminster system, where a party could control the House by winning just a simple majority of the votes cast, could lull PAP supporters into a false sense of security. If enough of them voted against the PAP to protest against the party or to check its power, it could result in an unintended loss of power.
Past voting patterns may be instructive: vote swings, both against and for the party, have averaged about 6 percentage points in the seven general elections since 1984.
Former Nominated MP and consultancy boss Viswa Sadasivan says: "If it was the case that a freak election could happen, then a lot more wards would have fallen in the last GE, because the ground sentiment leading up to it was extremely low and antipathy towards the PAP was extremely high. But contrary to predictions of many GRCs falling, they didn't."
He thinks past voting behaviour has shown that Singaporeans are rational, pragmatic voters who will pick a party that can best preserve their interests.
While there are protest votes, National University of Singapore (NUS) sociologist Tan Ern Ser observes that voters are discerning of the quality of opposition candidates they go for, and will cast their votes for those they see as credible.
Nevertheless, this is something the PAP worries about, says NUS political scientist Reuben Wong, adding that it is mathematically not that unimaginable.
Election results consistently show that a third of voters are staunch PAP supporters, another third are opposition supporters, and the last third are swing voters. So the PAP can lose its dominance with just 18 per cent of the undecided group voting against the party, says Dr Wong.
With the PAP winning by lower vote margins, such freak results also become easier to achieve, he adds.
As well as at the 1984 GE, there have been other exceptions to the small swings: In 2001, the PAP enjoyed a swing of 10.3 percentage points in its favour. This was attributed to a flight to quality, where people wanted security in the aftermath of the Sept 11 terror attacks in the United States and a consequent global economic slowdown.
Says NUS sociologist and former NMP Paulin Straughan: "If there's uncertainty, especially in the realm we have very little control over, Singaporeans will take less risk, and will lean on PAP for stability. It's like their security blanket."
In the 2011 election, the PAP had 60.1 per cent of the valid votes, down from 66.6 per cent.
GRC votes generally reflect the overall vote margin.
All things being equal, in the next general election, a slide of just 6.5 percentage points could potentially tip East Coast and Marine Parade Group Representation Constituencies - the two worst-performing PAP-held GRCs in 2011 - into opposition hands.
Ten parliamentary seats could change hands as a result.
But theoretically for this to happen, the electorate would have to be as unhappy as it was in 2011.
This could happen if the PAP fumbles and gets policies wrong, or loses touch with the ground, or becomes indifferent or insensitive to the demands of voters.
PAP on its toes
A STRAITS Times survey earlier this year, however, showed that the ruling party's shifts in social policy have boosted Singaporeans' confidence in its handling of housing, ageing, the poor and health-care issues.
Analysts agree that 2011 gave the party a wake-up call, and, in the past few years, it has gone on a "correction course", addressing woes in property prices and public transport services. So, the party is on its toes, and more prepared now than before.
Says Dr Tan: "The PAP will do whatever it can and adopt policies which it considers sustainable to stay in power, and hopes Singaporeans understand the trade-offs."
Analysts agree that 2011 gave the party a wake-up call, and, in the past few years, it has gone on a "correction course", addressing woes in property prices and public transport services. So, the party is on its toes, and more prepared now than before.
Says Dr Tan: "The PAP will do whatever it can and adopt policies which it considers sustainable to stay in power, and hopes Singaporeans understand the trade-offs."
The ground today is a lot sweeter, adds Mr Sadasivan.
The question is whether the lesson learnt is permanent.
Says Mr Sadasivan: "There's a difference between making the change because they see the light, or because of survival."
So can a 1984 outcome happen again? Pundits generally agree that it is not likely in the next 10 to 15 years.
Dr Tan reckons that with issues such as an ageing population on the horizon, voters will also choose the PAP, which is a "known quality", by default.
Also, the 2011 election may also have awakened complacent PAP supporters from their slumber.
"It may have shocked the ones who were riding on the security that the PAP would always win. So I don't think elections in future will necessarily keep going in the direction of 2011," says Dr Straughan.
She adds that if the PAP keeps up with the momentum gained since 2011, and keeps its communication channels open, the next election "will not be such a big shock".
Freak or trend?
FOR the protest-vote factor to come into play, the PAP would have to come up with a spectacularly unpopular policy. Or, as Mr Ho said in his speech, corruption becomes rife and the party loses legitimacy.
Even if the PAP loses power because of such a result, it might be viewed as a freak result for the party, but not for voters, who would have voiced their unhappiness in different ways to the ruling party well ahead.
Says Dr Wong: "We've been fed with so much propaganda about freak elections, so to speak, that we tend to think of the PAP losing a constituency as a freak. But a lot of outside observers might consider it a trend, and not a freak."
NUS political scientist Bilveer Singh agrees. Noting that the people have consistently voted for the Workers' Party in Hougang since 1991, for example, he says this shows people do want a WP MP.
"I think this logic (of the freak election) no longer applies as it insults the electorate of today and tomorrow," he says.
The bottom line: Freak elections may well happen. But most observers concur that they are unlikely, going by past precedents, even in this changed climate.
The PAP will, in all likelihood, have to grapple with a slide in popularity over several terms, such that if it does come to pass that it loses, it will not be an entirely wildly unexpected scenario.
By Rachel Au-Yong, The Straits Times, 1 Nov 2014
A KEY question facing the PAP is whether it can avoid the fate of all dominant parties and stay in power for the next 30 years, never mind another 60.
Some say it is impossible. Even one of its own founders, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, has said it is an irrelevant question because it is about whether Singapore - not the PAP - survives. Yet, the two are so tethered, people find it hard to imagine one without the other.
One possibility that could unravel the PAP's dominance is any emergence of corruption and nepotism. The PAP has long prided itself on its zero tolerance for corruption - its first landslide victory in 1959 came on the promise of clean government, with Mr Lee asking his comrades to come dressed in the now signature all-white to represent cleanliness.
Just last year, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong reiterated his father's high standards at an annual planning seminar for public servants: "The Government must have a culture that doesn't tolerate any wrongdoing or dishonesty." That's because one major factor that will determine whether the Government succeeds in rolling out its policies is whether it has the trust of the citizens, he said.
But while it may demand the highest standards of its ranks, it has not been spared slip-ups. The case of the late national development minister Teh Cheang Wan who was found to have been corrupt, is one dark example. More recently, former Speaker Michael Palmer's peccadilloes forced him to resign from office. In both instances, the party had to go out of its way to show opprobrium.
Another potential weak spot: If the PAP is unable to adjust to changing times and the ever- evolving demands of the electorate - such as being able to connect with voters at a more empathetic level.
Noting its previous perception of being paternalistic, Moulmein- Kallang GRC MP Denise Phua says "the party's DNA has slowly but surely been modified", and points to the year-long Our Singapore Conversations and increasingly frequent public consultations as evidence of a more communicative style.
But this might not be enough.
"The middle class will become more vocal: they don't get as much help as their lower-class colleagues, but they are also feeling the pinch of rising costs of living," argues National University of Singapore (NUS) sociologist and former Nominated MP Paulin Straughan. And while their needs are more aspirational, such as owning a car rather than, say, just having enough food, "the party cannot dismiss them and say, 'Live with it, go take public transportation'."
Problem Three: The PAP may have to trade off some of its long-term thinking for short- term immediate gains; its time horizon has to change.
But three-term MP Cedric Foo (Pioneer) hopes this will not come at too high a cost for the country.
"One might feel there are too many immigrants competing for ... jobs and schools, but Singapore is resource-poor, we need them to be health-care workers, expand our tax base, for our continued economic viability," he says.
"But when you talk about short-term personal sacrifices for the long-term good of the country, that can be a bit esoteric for the average family."
Fourth potential weak spot: If PAP fails to attract the right kind of talent that can connect with voters. The party must recruit and retain political candidates beyond its traditional base of the public service, argues Ms Phua, to rally supporters from a broader base.
NUS sociologist Tan Ern Ser says the PAP can expect to fight in the margins, and it can secure a win only by establishing more personal relationships with the electorate.
To do so, it must keep an eye out for people who can respond to the next generation of voters, or risk short-circuiting its existence, says political scientist Bilveer Singh. "If you look at the current fourth generation of PAP leaders, it says a lot: there are those who like to dance, sing, don't wear the all-white PAP uniform. That's one clear way the party is responding to the new voters," he says.
Another possibility that could weaken the PAP: an internal split brought on by fundamental clashes over religiously influenced issues, such as the casino debate or homosexuality or even the right trajectory for economic growth and distribution. Splits could also come about through the rise of mavericks wanting to carve out their own base.
But first-term PAP MP Vikram Nair (Sembawang GRC) points out: "The PAP has continued, but the people change quite a bit. They consciously retire. I think that's why we don't have power- hungry politicians in here - we know we're just custodians, and someone younger and more energetic will one day take over."
Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan Toa-Payoh GRC), no stranger to contrarian views in Parliament on issues like Section 377A of the law which criminalises sex between men, does not think that differing viewpoints weaken the party.
"They show that PAP MPs express honest positions on issues, particularly the difficult ones," he says. "That should give you confidence. In contrast, opposition parties have, by and large, stayed away from difficult subjects. And the problem with that is that you will not know what you are getting until it is too late."
PAP as banyan tree
THE PAP might also lose dominance if it over-manages civil society, which could be an unexpected ally. Singaporeans are pragmatic enough to know that the check on a political party can come from civil society, argues former Nominated MP and consultancy boss Viswa Sadasivan. The problem is that it has not been allowed to flourish for a long time.
"When you have a huge banyan tree, it provides ample shade and everyone is very comfortable. But the canopy blocks out sunlight, and nothing can grow under it. The banyan tree has to be dismantled to let some light in," he says. "The PAP must be more willing to stand up and defend itself, instead of suppressing contrary views."
Lastly, the party could also come undone by holding on to unrealistic expectations that dominance must mean a near-unfettered hold of Parliament.
While before, party leaders may have lamented openly about the distractions an opposition can pose to the serious business of governing, such discourse has petered out post-2011, note observers. The PAP now has to coexist alongside nine opposition members in Parliament - the biggest number since the Barisan walkout of 1966 - and must adjust to this new reality of more competitive politics.
So the question is whether the PAP can continue its proven track record of leadership in managing the country with a clear eye on the long term, even as it tackles the day-to-day political challenges that arise in a democracy with an active, growing opposition.
Opposition: Are they ready?
By Tham Yuen-C, The Straits Times, 1 Nov 2014
By Tham Yuen-C, The Straits Times, 1 Nov 2014
THE ground is certainly fertile for the opposition to grow: The People's Action Party (PAP) suffered its biggest voter setback in the 2011 General Election (GE2011), and lost two subsequent by-elections.
Disgruntlement on the ground had been brewing before that, and calls to challenge the status quo have become louder.
But pundits say the opposition camp's lack of talent, unity and experience in management continues to render it too weak to unseat the PAP and take on the job of governing a nation.
Indeed, opposition figure Goh Meng Seng, 44 - a former secretary-general of the National Solidarity Party (NSP) who contested on the party's ticket in 2011, and on a Workers' Party (WP) ticket in the 2006 election - declares there is no one opposition party that can take the helm any time soon. "Although WP can be a very strong opponent, I do not think in five to 10 years' time, it can become the dominant party," he says.
It is a fact not lost on the party itself.
The WP is opposition top dog, with seven elected MPs and two Non-Constituency MPs in Parliament - none of the other six opposition parties that contested in the last election even have elected MPs. But, as it puts it, it cannot form a government yet, though it can be the PAP's "co-driver".
A problem that plagues the opposition camp is one the PAP itself is also facing: the difficulty in attracting and keeping talent.
Several newcomers who made a splash in the last election have either left their parties or gone quiet.
Several newcomers who made a splash in the last election have either left their parties or gone quiet.
Most recently, GE2011 darling Nicole Seah quit the NSP. But the WP's showing in GE2011 has at least eased the situation. With an opposition ticket now seen as a viable way to win, such parties may be able to attract better-quality candidates, says Mr Goh.
However, when it comes to running the country, opposition parties have an uphill task proving they have the sheer administerial experience and know-how to do so.
Take the WP. Its track record on the ground managing the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council has been hit-and- miss, observes consultancy boss and former Nominated MP (NMP) Viswa Sadasivan.
It has had problems with submitting its town council reports on time, and has also been embroiled in skirmishes with the National Environment Agency over hawker-centre cleaning and the running of an allegedly unauthorised fair.
No viable alternative
WHETHER or not one sides with the opposition or PAP over the long-drawn saga on who was responsible, some voters will still be upset at having to suffer the consequences of such mix-ups, Mr Sadasivan notes.
This leads to another factor weighing on the opposition's ability to challenge the PAP's dominance: While the former typically gains when the latter fumbles, how can it grow on its own merits, especially when the two sides are ideologically not so different?
No opposition party has presented an alternative way to run the country, notes National University of Singapore (NUS) sociologist and former NMP Paulin Straughan.
While various parties such as the NSP and the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) have come up with alternative policy papers on areas such as education, health and the Central Provident Fund to rival the PAP's, no party has yet set itself up as a diametric one with a different, but viable, way to manage the country.
Their task is complicated by the fact that the PAP's sheer success, hinged on its successful delivery of economic promises, has made it hard for other parties to come up with alternatives that are still attractive to the majority.
Given that Singaporeans are already used to certain levels of comfort and stability, a vastly different tack by the opposition would scare off voters. Mr Sadasivan notes that the SDP's proposal of zero growth, for example, has not gained traction.
Even so, with Singapore facing problems that governments around the world are struggling with - such as an ageing population and slower economic growth - there will be a strong enough menu of issues to continue to stoke the desire for a viable opposition, says NUS sociologist Tan Ern Ser.
NUS political scientist Bilveer Singh reckons that the opposition will improve its standing over time, but will not be able to dislodge the PAP from its political dominance just yet.
"All the advantages that the PAP had for 60 years continue to favour it, and all the disadvantages the opposition has continue to curse it. This is likely to continue for another 15 to 20 years," he says.
Instead, opposition gains are likely to be incremental and the parties will need time to prove themselves before they can make further inroads.
It took several opposition parties four challenges over a period of 20 years before the WP prised Aljunied GRC from PAP's grip. And even in the opposition stronghold of Hougang, under the WP since 1991, the party's vote share has changed an average of 5 percentage points each election.
But a question mark over the future is whether the opposition parties can avoid past fragmentation. Several opposition parties have hit headlines with unhappy break-ups, key members quitting politics or leaving to form their own parties.
Mr Benjamin Pwee left the Singapore People's Party to join the Democratic Progressive Party, and former civil servant Tan Jee Say left the SDP to run for president, then founded the Singaporeans First Party.
So, PAP dominance may well stay - but of a kind it has not experienced before, if the opposition grows in strength. With a smaller majority, the PAP will no longer have unquestioning obedience from Singaporeans. Politics will become messier, unpredictable, more "normal".
By the decades
1950s
1954: The PAP is formed.
1955: In the Legislative Assembly elections, it wins three of the four seats it contests, with an 8.7 per cent vote share, to become an opposition party, with the Labour Front forming the government.
1959: The PAP wins 43 of 51 seats it contests, and a 54.1 per cent vote share. Leads Singapore in full internal self-government.
1960s
1963: Just days after Singapore merges with Malaysia - causing tension within the PAP - a snap election sees the PAP just holding power with 46.9 per cent of the vote share. It loses 14 seats it contests, mostly to leftist Barisan Sosialis, but holds on to 37.
1968: First election after Independence. PAP wins all 58 seats; vote share is 86.7 per cent.
1970s
1972: It wins all 65 seats, with 70.4 per cent of the vote share.
1976: Again, all 69 seats, with 74.1 per cent of the vote share.
1980s
1980: All 75 seats, 77.7 per cent of vote share.
1984: Loses two seats to the opposition, retaining 77. Its vote share drops almost 13 percentage points to 64.8 per cent.
1988: Wins 80 out of 81 seats, but vote share, at 63.2 per cent, continues to dip.
1990s
1991: Mr Goh Chok Tong's first election as Prime Minister. Seeking a fresh mandate, he calls a snap election, but PAP loses an unprecedented four seats, retaining 77. Vote share drops to record low of 61 per cent.
1997: PAP takes back a few seats, after the main opposition then, the Singapore Democratic Party, faces internal strife. It wins 81 of 83 seats, with a 65 per cent vote share.
1950s
1954: The PAP is formed.
1955: In the Legislative Assembly elections, it wins three of the four seats it contests, with an 8.7 per cent vote share, to become an opposition party, with the Labour Front forming the government.
1959: The PAP wins 43 of 51 seats it contests, and a 54.1 per cent vote share. Leads Singapore in full internal self-government.
1960s
1963: Just days after Singapore merges with Malaysia - causing tension within the PAP - a snap election sees the PAP just holding power with 46.9 per cent of the vote share. It loses 14 seats it contests, mostly to leftist Barisan Sosialis, but holds on to 37.
1968: First election after Independence. PAP wins all 58 seats; vote share is 86.7 per cent.
1970s
1972: It wins all 65 seats, with 70.4 per cent of the vote share.
1976: Again, all 69 seats, with 74.1 per cent of the vote share.
1980s
1980: All 75 seats, 77.7 per cent of vote share.
1984: Loses two seats to the opposition, retaining 77. Its vote share drops almost 13 percentage points to 64.8 per cent.
1988: Wins 80 out of 81 seats, but vote share, at 63.2 per cent, continues to dip.
1990s
1991: Mr Goh Chok Tong's first election as Prime Minister. Seeking a fresh mandate, he calls a snap election, but PAP loses an unprecedented four seats, retaining 77. Vote share drops to record low of 61 per cent.
1997: PAP takes back a few seats, after the main opposition then, the Singapore Democratic Party, faces internal strife. It wins 81 of 83 seats, with a 65 per cent vote share.
2000s
2001: Scores 75.3 per cent of the vote share, its third-highest result since 1959. Wins 82 out of 84 seats, amid terrorism and recession fears after 9/11.
2001: Scores 75.3 per cent of the vote share, its third-highest result since 1959. Wins 82 out of 84 seats, amid terrorism and recession fears after 9/11.
2006: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong leads his first election. The PAP's vote majorities are reduced islandwide, and it fails to regain the two non-PAP constituencies. It wins 82 seats out of 84. Vote share is 66.6 per cent.
2010s
2011: A watershed - the PAP loses a GRC, one anchored by popular minister George Yeo. It has 81 seats out of 87. Vote share, at 60.1 per cent, is the lowest since Independence.
2013: Punggol East by-election, after the PAP's Michael Palmer resigns following an extramarital affair. PAP gets only 43.7 per cent of the vote, with the Workers' Party's Lee Li Lian scoring 54.5 per cent, and the seat.
PAP in decline? But what if...
By Han Fook Kwang Editor At Large, The Sunday Times, 9 Nov 2014
By Han Fook Kwang Editor At Large, The Sunday Times, 9 Nov 2014
There was another round of crystal ball gazing recently over this evergreen question.
To be fair, the subject of Mr Ho Kwon Ping's talk at the Institute of Policy Studies was on politics in the next 50 years, so he couldn't avoid the subject.
He spoke a few days after former foreign minister George Yeo related how social media and the information revolution had overturned traditional hierarchies, making governance more difficult, including in Singapore.
These talks have refuelled the question of how long the People's Action Party (PAP) can remain in power.
Mr Ho sketched several scenarios on how the party's dominance would be challenged, and he thought it possible a two-party system could emerge in 15 years' time.
These discussions might seem odd to external observers when there isn't a successor to the ruling party in sight.
The closest, the Workers' Party, has openly declared it isn't ready to form the next government, though it might not be so diffident the next time it makes further electoral gains.
But, for now, we are left with speculating the longevity of the PAP in a political vacuum.
Perhaps it's more useful to turn the question on its head and ask: Under what circumstances can the PAP remain as dominant in the next 50 years as it has been in the past?
Critics of the government might recoil in horror at such a prospect.
But, seriously, it's a question worth asking. And since we are into speculative scenarios, I can think of at least three where the ruling party might continue to reign supreme.
Scenario 1: All change at the party
Most commentators, including Mr Ho, who doubt the PAP's long-term ability to continue in power, have rightly identified the many challenges it faces.
One of the most difficult for the party is its loss of control of information because of the proliferation of social media.
Singapore society is also much more diverse and fragmented today.
Many divisions have grown - liberal versus conservative, gay versus straight, local versus foreign - making it difficult for any party to represent the broad middle ground.
On the economic front, the fruits of growth are not as evenly distributed as before, and even the growth itself isn't a given.
But, ultimately, it is the party's response to these challenges that will determine if it will be able to continue winning the mandate to govern.
Its ability to meet these challenges is increasingly being questioned as it grapples with complex issues on many policy fronts.
From the feedback I get, there is a sizeable group of Singaporeans who say they supported the PAP in the early years but now feel it isn't the party they knew.
Their criticisms: It has become elitist, is no longer in touch with the lives of ordinary people, and its market-driven policies have departed too much from its socialist roots.
Which raises the intriguing question: Can the party change and win over these one-time supporters?
Is it possible for it to again be the party it was in the 1960s and 1970s, trusted by the people to overcome the odds that must have seemed even more insurmountable than today's challenges?
If it is able to make the changes - whatever these might be - and transform itself, who is to say it will not regain its past dominance?
But can it?
More pertinently, can change come from within, or will it have to be from without?
Political parties elsewhere have had to face this same question whenever their survival has been at stake.
In the 1990s, Britain's Labour Party, which had spent almost 20 years in opposition, transformed itself into New Labour under Mr Tony Blair, shifting to the centre and discarding many of its left-wing tendencies.
It won the 1997 elections by a landslide.
Earlier in the 1970s, the Conservative Party was rejuvenated by a leader who went on to become Britain's longest-serving prime minister of the 20th century and the only woman to hold office, Margaret Thatcher.
These parties found new impetus to change and they did so successfully.
To be fair, the PAP has responded to many of the issues that caused it to lose ground in the 2011 General Election.
But whether the changes have been far-reaching enough for it to retain its dominance remains to be seen.
Scenario 2: Out and back again
The second scenario starts with the PAP unable to make the changes needed to stem its decline.
It loses a general election, and perhaps the next one as well.
But the opposition party in power lacks the experience and wherewithal to govern well, fumbles badly, and loses the support of the people.
The PAP is voted back in.
Another 50 years?
That will require the PAP to be so chastened by its years in opposition, it renews itself in heroic fashion to recapture the people's trust.
This comeback scenario isn't unique and has been replayed elsewhere, most recently with the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan.
Don't rule out it happening here.
Scenario 3: A near-death experience
Many people attribute the PAP's long hold on power to the trauma that Singaporeans experienced when the country was expelled from Malaysia in 1965.
That separation was so life-threatening, the people rallied behind the Government to make a superhuman effort to succeed.
Might another near-death experience for Singapore result in a similar outcome?
A long, deep and paralysing global recession? Conflicts in the region? A war between the major powers in Asia?
Faced with impending danger, Singaporeans are more likely to want to unite than divide, possibly behind the party they know.
Without this external threat to their survival, it is likely the opposition tide of recent years will continue, and erode the PAP's dominance.
Which of these three scenarios is the most likely?
The big unknown is the electorate.
A sea change in the people's attitudes and outlook has taken place, especially in their relationship with the Government.
It has ushered in a period of electoral uncertainty, and where it will lead to eventually is hard to say.
As someone once said, prediction is very difficult, especially if it is about the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment