Report
Five of the nine speakers belonged to the old school. Their speeches shared a certain quality -– basically stump speeches delivered to a non-election crowd. Comprising well-worn rhetorical questions that sought to drive home the point about how awful the People's Action Party government was, it mostly left the audience cold.
Referring to the parliamentary seat in Jurong Group Representation Constituency left vacant after the death of the incumbent, Ng Teck Siong, chair of the Reform Party, complained that it was "very arbitrary" for the prime minister to be the one deciding whether there'd be a by-election.
Gandhi Ambalan, chair of the Singapore Democratic Party, tried to work up the audience by reminding them that "Singapore happened to be the first country in this region to get into a recession... that tells you a lot." He also accused the government of "cooking up figures, manipulating statistics... so they can use GDP as a marker to increase ministers' salaries."
Wong Wee Nam, an opposition candidate in 1997, put this to the audience: "Is it good for the country to have one party that can do what it wants?"
What ideas did these panellists have for opposition parties making progress?
"People need to realise that this is no time to squabble," said Ng Teck Siong. He suggested that the various parties should "come forward and co-operate" on a common agenda and manifesto.
"Opposition must discuss more ideas and put the platform right," he said. Unfortunately, it wasn't clear what specific new ideas might be available to put it right.
Sin Kek Tong suggested that "in this kind of extremely harsh situation, opposition, civil society, blogging community, media and the man in the street must work together to change and improve the political situation in Singapore." He then went on to blast the GRC system which he called the Group Representation Conspiracy.
But Jufrie Mahmood was of the view that "the GRC system -- we can't change that. It's here to stay. No way the PAP will change that." Instead, he wanted more joint activities organised There should be a common website, and "we should hold regular meetings." (It wasn't clear to Yawning Bread who the "we" was.) The aim, he hoped, was to "work together [and] go beyond an electoral pact."
Wong Wee Nam said: "Various alternative parties must get their act together." His diagnosis of the current state of affairs was that "many are just a collection of people who can get along... but there's no voice loud enough" when they are fragmented.
Three of the nine speakers were from the second group: the new opposition activists. They offered more focussed proposals.
Graduate student Ng E-jay analysed the current difficulties faced by the opposition, particularly government control over the mainstream media. The solution, he thought, was for bloggers and civil society to "have greater opportunity to play a role in the political process".
"We need citizen journalists to come out and make [opposition] news accessible to mainstream public."
Ng referred to the situation in Malaysia where a combination of civil society and the Pakatan Rakyat coalition of parties gave the Barisan Nasional government a good thumping last March.
Civil and political activist Seelan Palay spoke about the personal sacrifices he has made and is prepared to make in the future. He has faced many obstacles, including arrest and "I expect many more in the years ahead, but I am prepared." Just a few weeks ago, he was arrested (again) for a small protest at the Ministry of Manpower over the plight of Burmese in Singapore.
What keeps him going, he said, was that he had "no doubt, if we keep pushing the wall, one day, the wall will fall."
Chia Ti Lik, who stood in the 2006 general election, stressed that it was important to conceptualise what a good opposition should look like. In his view, it must be active and provide leadership. It would be "irresponsible for any party to seek election when one has not done any work to challenge the ruling party."
"All opposition parties must realise that they exist to challenge the ruling party... for there are always two sides to every coin." Yet in Singapore, "policies get bulldozed through." Without a challenge, they may not be right policies. "If policies are correct, they would not need to be changed every few years." But they are, he said, giving the example of the education system.
An opposition party must also push for causes it believes to be right, not just those that are practical. This is particularly true for civil society, Chia pointed out. "Civil society is not looking for votes, and don't have to conform to political correctness," yet as no man is an island, an active civil society will aid an active opposition on the same path. "It will put formerly unawakened Singaporeans on the path to do more."
"I would also encourage opposition diversity," he said, explaining that the Singapore political scene now is dominated by one party. This stifles creativity and leads to poor policies. But diversity should not mean an unwillingness among opposition parties to engage with each other, he cautioned. However, even if parties don't entirely agree, it's better for opposition parties to do things in diverse ways than to do nothing. "Collective inactivity will do the opposition worse."
I'm not sure how to categorise Tan Kin Lian, who shot to fame last October speaking up for those who suffered from the unethical selling of minibonds, but he probably gave the most thoughtful speech. He pointed out that "alternative parties" -– he wanted to avoid the term "opposition parties" for reasons Yawning Bread didn't understand -– could not rely on protest votes alone. It was necessary to attract the middle ground where people ask the following:
* can we see a higher calibre of candidates?
* what do the parties stand for?
* can they play an effective role in Parliament?
* can they form an alternative government?
Currently, "alternative parties face a big challenge in answering these questions." The reason for this is obvious: "What can a party do without sufficient people and financial resources?"
Therefore, alternative parties should focus on an education campaign, particularly about their values and goals and what they can do for Singapore and the people. Parties must communicate more than two or three times a year, he said.
The internet is one effective means. It is "low cost and pervasive," said Tan. "Some people say the internet only reaches out to the internet-savvy, but in turn, through word of mouth, [the message] reaches out to other people." Giving the example of people who turned up at the minibond rallies Tan organised a few months ago, "more than half the people who came ... were not internet-savvy."
Tan suggested four values which would resonate with people, values which would not scare people off for being too political:
* honesty and accountability;
* justice and fairness;
* working for the good of others;
* remaining positive and constructive.
"People are united when they share common values," was his take.
Chee Soon Juan, the Secretary-general of the Singapore Democratic Party, did the summing up. He identified four common threads, with various speakers calling for
* a common manifesto;
* common activities;
* common values;
* a common website.
He noted the talk about involving civil society and the references to the "political tsunami" in Malaysia (March 2008), but cautioned that it had taken Malaysian politicians and civil society activists many years of working together before that happened.
He also touched on Chia's point about diversity of opposition parties, but stressed that parties must adopt a "prosper thy neighbour" attitude, not "beggar they neighbour".
Coming back to his signature theme, Chee pointed out that "in the lead up to what we want to do, we have to depend on the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly."
"I challenge you to find a situation where the opposition and civil society has not had to come together and exercise these freedoms" before they got to their objectives, he said.
"That is why, over and above taking part in elections, we have always advocated that we must claim back our freedom of speech and assembly."
