Low expectations
In Singapore winning 7% of parliamentary seats is tantamount to an opposition triumph
May 12th 2011 | from the print edition
THE People’s Action Party, or PAP, has enjoyed almost untrammeled dominance of politics in Singapore for half a century. Last month, as the country geared up for an election, the PAP’s Lee Hsien Loong, Singapore’s prime minister, revealed that the party had given hard thought to whether one-party rule was entirely a good thing. Yes, it had concluded. Singapore lacked the talent to produce the two “A” teams needed in a two-party system. However, the PAP had taken the idea so seriously it had even contemplated splitting itself in two—only to reject the idea.
As it turned out, on May 7th Singapore’s voters decided they did not need an opposition chosen for them. They elected one of their own. It is still tiny, holding just six out of 87 contested parliamentary seats. But this was the PAP’s worst result since separation from Malaysia in 1965. The most seats it had ever lost before was four, in 1991. The PAP won 60.1% of the overall vote, down from 66.6% in the previous election in 2006, and 75.3% in 2001.
The PAP has learnt that two-fifths of Singaporean voters are disgruntled with it, despite Singapore’s successes as a city that is rich, clean, law-abiding and pleasant, with a still-booming economy. A common perception is that PAP ministers, who pay themselves handsomely, have lost touch with the concerns of the less well-off—about rising prices, especially of housing, and about the rapid influx of immigrants, notably from China. Of the population of just over 5m, about a quarter are immigrants.
Related topics
Election campaigns
People's Action Party
Singapore
Politicians from the PAP can also come across as smug, arrogant and high-handed. In the past, voters have been deterred from electing non-PAP candidates by threats of discrimination against opposition-held constituencies in upgrading public housing. And it was never easy to find good candidates to run against the PAP. Anybody who had done well under its rule might be deterred by the fate of some opposition politicians in the past—variously ridiculed, sued for defamation, exposed in their peccadillos, disbarred from legal practice, bankrupted, or in exile.
Yet, besides the PAP, six small parties contested this poll. The electoral system is tilted against them. In 1988 Singapore introduced “Group Representation Constituencies” (GRCs), into which some single-member constituencies were merged. The enlarged areas are contested by slates of candidates, elected as a block. This is supposedly to ensure some MPs are from ethnic minorities, which must be represented on the slate.
But GRCs also make it hard for small parties to find the resources or strong enough candidates to compete. In this election, all but 12 of the seats were subsumed by four-, five- or six-member GRCs. The opposition had never won a GRC, and usually contested fewer than half the seats. This time it co-ordinated and fielded candidates in all but one constituency, a GRC where the PAP slate was led by Singapore’s founding prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, father of Lee Hsien Loong. Moreover, two veteran opposition MPs, including Low Thia Khiang of the Workers’ Party, took risks by abandoning single-member seats to contest GRCs.
In the past, compulsory voting, warnings of a “freak” result (the opposition might win!), hardball politics and the exposure of the failings of some opposition candidates have been enough to ensure huge government landslides without electoral fraud or physical intimidation. At first, the short, nine-day campaign seemed to follow scripts from these previous quinquennial poundings of the opposition. The elder Mr Lee, now 87, warned voters in Mr Low’s target GRC, Aljunied, that they would have five years to “repent” if they voted him in. The PAP asked why one impressive Workers’ Party candidate had spent so long outside Singapore. A PAP minister drew attention to a video showing an opposing candidate taking part in a discussion on gay rights. His sexuality, said the minister, was his own business, but voters should know whether his party would pursue the “gay agenda” (male homosexual acts are illegal in Singapore). But the New Paper, a tabloid, splashed on its front page: “Is S’pore ready for a Gay MP?” Social-networking sites filled up with the rebukes of Singaporeans disgusted at the PAP tactic.
Under the ferociously modern PAP, Singapore has become one of the world’s most wired societies, and the new media transformed the election campaign. They offered the opposition an unfiltered channel to reach voters. Even the docile mainstream media were forced to devote more coverage to the opposition, lest readers forsake them. Opposition campaign rallies were raucous and well-attended, especially in Aljunied. Mr Low’s gamble paid off. He and the Workers’ Party triumphed, both in his former seat and in Aljunied constituency, where they toppled Singapore’s foreign minister, George Yeo.
Loyalty bonus
Mr Yeo and his slate aside, both opposition and government can claim some sort of satisfaction from the election result, as can voters. Singaporeans seem still to trust the PAP to do an efficient job, and mostly want not an alternative government but a stronger opposition. They have got one. They also seem to want a humbler government, and the prime minister is offering that too. Not only, during the campaign, did he actually apologise for some missteps. In acknowledging the landslide victory he also promised some PAP “soul-searching”.
Lasting change, however, is not inevitable for a phenomenally successful party used to seeing opposition as at best a tiresome distraction and at worst a dangerous threat. The elder Mr Lee, for one, the government’s “Minister Mentor”, still seems to have doubts about the concept of a loyal opposition. “You believe the Workers’ Party is in parliament to help the good of Singaporeans or to oppose the PAP?” he asked after the result. Incredible as it may seem to Mr Lee, many voters seem to think it can do both.
In Singapore winning 7% of parliamentary seats is tantamount to an opposition triumph
May 12th 2011 | from the print edition
THE People’s Action Party, or PAP, has enjoyed almost untrammeled dominance of politics in Singapore for half a century. Last month, as the country geared up for an election, the PAP’s Lee Hsien Loong, Singapore’s prime minister, revealed that the party had given hard thought to whether one-party rule was entirely a good thing. Yes, it had concluded. Singapore lacked the talent to produce the two “A” teams needed in a two-party system. However, the PAP had taken the idea so seriously it had even contemplated splitting itself in two—only to reject the idea.
As it turned out, on May 7th Singapore’s voters decided they did not need an opposition chosen for them. They elected one of their own. It is still tiny, holding just six out of 87 contested parliamentary seats. But this was the PAP’s worst result since separation from Malaysia in 1965. The most seats it had ever lost before was four, in 1991. The PAP won 60.1% of the overall vote, down from 66.6% in the previous election in 2006, and 75.3% in 2001.
The PAP has learnt that two-fifths of Singaporean voters are disgruntled with it, despite Singapore’s successes as a city that is rich, clean, law-abiding and pleasant, with a still-booming economy. A common perception is that PAP ministers, who pay themselves handsomely, have lost touch with the concerns of the less well-off—about rising prices, especially of housing, and about the rapid influx of immigrants, notably from China. Of the population of just over 5m, about a quarter are immigrants.
Related topics
Election campaigns
People's Action Party
Singapore
Politicians from the PAP can also come across as smug, arrogant and high-handed. In the past, voters have been deterred from electing non-PAP candidates by threats of discrimination against opposition-held constituencies in upgrading public housing. And it was never easy to find good candidates to run against the PAP. Anybody who had done well under its rule might be deterred by the fate of some opposition politicians in the past—variously ridiculed, sued for defamation, exposed in their peccadillos, disbarred from legal practice, bankrupted, or in exile.
Yet, besides the PAP, six small parties contested this poll. The electoral system is tilted against them. In 1988 Singapore introduced “Group Representation Constituencies” (GRCs), into which some single-member constituencies were merged. The enlarged areas are contested by slates of candidates, elected as a block. This is supposedly to ensure some MPs are from ethnic minorities, which must be represented on the slate.
But GRCs also make it hard for small parties to find the resources or strong enough candidates to compete. In this election, all but 12 of the seats were subsumed by four-, five- or six-member GRCs. The opposition had never won a GRC, and usually contested fewer than half the seats. This time it co-ordinated and fielded candidates in all but one constituency, a GRC where the PAP slate was led by Singapore’s founding prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, father of Lee Hsien Loong. Moreover, two veteran opposition MPs, including Low Thia Khiang of the Workers’ Party, took risks by abandoning single-member seats to contest GRCs.
In the past, compulsory voting, warnings of a “freak” result (the opposition might win!), hardball politics and the exposure of the failings of some opposition candidates have been enough to ensure huge government landslides without electoral fraud or physical intimidation. At first, the short, nine-day campaign seemed to follow scripts from these previous quinquennial poundings of the opposition. The elder Mr Lee, now 87, warned voters in Mr Low’s target GRC, Aljunied, that they would have five years to “repent” if they voted him in. The PAP asked why one impressive Workers’ Party candidate had spent so long outside Singapore. A PAP minister drew attention to a video showing an opposing candidate taking part in a discussion on gay rights. His sexuality, said the minister, was his own business, but voters should know whether his party would pursue the “gay agenda” (male homosexual acts are illegal in Singapore). But the New Paper, a tabloid, splashed on its front page: “Is S’pore ready for a Gay MP?” Social-networking sites filled up with the rebukes of Singaporeans disgusted at the PAP tactic.
Under the ferociously modern PAP, Singapore has become one of the world’s most wired societies, and the new media transformed the election campaign. They offered the opposition an unfiltered channel to reach voters. Even the docile mainstream media were forced to devote more coverage to the opposition, lest readers forsake them. Opposition campaign rallies were raucous and well-attended, especially in Aljunied. Mr Low’s gamble paid off. He and the Workers’ Party triumphed, both in his former seat and in Aljunied constituency, where they toppled Singapore’s foreign minister, George Yeo.
Loyalty bonus
Mr Yeo and his slate aside, both opposition and government can claim some sort of satisfaction from the election result, as can voters. Singaporeans seem still to trust the PAP to do an efficient job, and mostly want not an alternative government but a stronger opposition. They have got one. They also seem to want a humbler government, and the prime minister is offering that too. Not only, during the campaign, did he actually apologise for some missteps. In acknowledging the landslide victory he also promised some PAP “soul-searching”.
Lasting change, however, is not inevitable for a phenomenally successful party used to seeing opposition as at best a tiresome distraction and at worst a dangerous threat. The elder Mr Lee, for one, the government’s “Minister Mentor”, still seems to have doubts about the concept of a loyal opposition. “You believe the Workers’ Party is in parliament to help the good of Singaporeans or to oppose the PAP?” he asked after the result. Incredible as it may seem to Mr Lee, many voters seem to think it can do both.
