Double standards a paradox for PAP
Voters expect less of the opposition, due to security in PAP govt
By Peh Shing Huei
HEAVYWEIGHTS from the People's Action Party (PAP) have been urging voters to scrutinise the opposition parties' candidates and suggestions.
Apply the same standards to both the ruling party and the opposition, they stressed repeatedly.
'Don't have double standards,' said Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean last week, especially when assessing serious candidates from the more credible opposition parties.
Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng said last month: 'If they (the voters) were to compare the candidates of the two sides, I hope that they will closely scrutinise all the candidates.'
Workers' Party (WP) chief Low Thia Khiang has even turned the double standards into electoral advantage, arguing earlier this week that if his party made a 'wrong judgment' with candidates, the consequences would be less serious than if the PAP did the same.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said on Thursday that such a 'cavalier' attitude shocked him: 'How can you have a Parliament where it's all right for the opposition to be not quite so up to scratch and that, well, the PAP, we hold you to higher standards?'
The PAP leaders' calls are sound. And the pressure will be on the opposition to scrutinise their candidates more carefully. But for a significant segment of the voting population, these calls are likely to fall on deaf ears.
In a political system where asymmetry is the overwhelming feature, these voters are not prepared to view the PAP and the opposition through the same lenses.
They are unlikely to change their mindset anytime soon, unless the political landscape goes through a major upheaval to put the ruling party and the opposition on more or less the same level.
In terms of parliamentary representation, the Singapore political scene is lopsided - 82 PAP MPs to two opposition MPs. And the ratio hasn't changed much since 1966. In terms of votes, however, the gap is smaller: 66.6 per cent for the PAP and 33.4 per cent for the opposition.
But it is the 82-2 result that leads some to think it an insult to tag the battle between the PAP and the opposition as one between Goliath and David, since that would give the impression the opposition David has a chance against the giant. Instead, they would cast it as a 100m race between a Ferrari and a one-litre car.
The PAP also has the advantage of an enviable track record as the ruling party, delivering five decades of steady, even spectacular, growth. It has also been proactive in addressing voters' concerns throughout its terms in office.
As the incumbent, it has other advantages during election time. It decides the timing of the polls; is able to give out hongbao from fiscal surpluses like the Grow and Share Package close to the elections; and can make or change rules such as the size of the GRCs and the Cooling- off Day. It can also announce programmes to improve constituents' estates close to election time.
In addition, the PAP has built up strong institutional links, such as its 'symbiotic ties' with the unions. As the government of the day, it controls grassroots organisations under the People's Association.
In such a political terrain, voters very often place the PAP and the opposition on different scales. When it comes to candidates, a degree is expected of someone from the PAP. Degrees from brand-name foreign universities are commonplace.
In the opposition, every candidate with a bachelor's degree is a notch up for the party. Much was made of the WP slate in 2006 which had 10 graduates.
Double standards were evident way back in the 1984 General Election. Then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew told voters that the PAP candidate in Potong Pasir, Mr Mah Bow Tan, had scored six distinctions and two credits at the O levels. In contrast, said Mr Lee, opposition candidate Chiam See Tong managed just seven credits and a pass in English.
Mr Chiam won that contest and has held on to Potong Pasir since.
Similarly, in the current GE, it is likely the WP's star catch Chen Show Mao would not have attracted as much attention if he had donned PAP whites. The top lawyer's solid resume both at work and in school would be just what Singaporeans have come to expect from the PAP.
Unfortunately, the PAP has to live with such higher expectations. Voters demand more from the party simply because it is almost certain to win the elections and form the next government.
Since most PAP candidates will win their seats, voters will have to live with them as their MPs, who will take care of their estates and represent them in Parliament. Some among them will become ministers with power to make important decisions. Quite naturally, voters feel they must demand more from those to whom much will be given.
Until the political scene changes, with an opposition emerging as a plausible threat to the ruling party's dominance, the double standards will persist.
Singapore politics will continue to have a handicap-like system, where the voters cut the opposition more slack.
This is not to say that Singaporeans will put up with second-class MPs. Once MPs are elected, voters here have been known to hold opposition ones to similar standards as those of the ruling party. They voted out the Singapore Democratic Party's Ling How Doong and Cheo Chai Chen in 1997, after just one term.
The double standards of Singapore politics are thus a rather nuanced feature of the system. It can lead to some opposition wins, but it is not a blank cheque.
Looked at from another perspective, the double standards paradox stems from an implicit acknowledgment from the people that the ruling party is the most well-equipped to run the country.
It is because people are secure in the knowledge that the PAP will form the government that they can afford to cut some slack for the opposition who will, at the very most, form a small fraction of the Parliament.
Double standards may be vexing to the ruling party, but are in some ways a back-handed compliment to the PAP. In any case, they are something the PAP will have to live with.
[email protected]
Voters expect less of the opposition, due to security in PAP govt
By Peh Shing Huei
HEAVYWEIGHTS from the People's Action Party (PAP) have been urging voters to scrutinise the opposition parties' candidates and suggestions.
Apply the same standards to both the ruling party and the opposition, they stressed repeatedly.
'Don't have double standards,' said Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean last week, especially when assessing serious candidates from the more credible opposition parties.
Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng said last month: 'If they (the voters) were to compare the candidates of the two sides, I hope that they will closely scrutinise all the candidates.'
Workers' Party (WP) chief Low Thia Khiang has even turned the double standards into electoral advantage, arguing earlier this week that if his party made a 'wrong judgment' with candidates, the consequences would be less serious than if the PAP did the same.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said on Thursday that such a 'cavalier' attitude shocked him: 'How can you have a Parliament where it's all right for the opposition to be not quite so up to scratch and that, well, the PAP, we hold you to higher standards?'
The PAP leaders' calls are sound. And the pressure will be on the opposition to scrutinise their candidates more carefully. But for a significant segment of the voting population, these calls are likely to fall on deaf ears.
In a political system where asymmetry is the overwhelming feature, these voters are not prepared to view the PAP and the opposition through the same lenses.
They are unlikely to change their mindset anytime soon, unless the political landscape goes through a major upheaval to put the ruling party and the opposition on more or less the same level.
In terms of parliamentary representation, the Singapore political scene is lopsided - 82 PAP MPs to two opposition MPs. And the ratio hasn't changed much since 1966. In terms of votes, however, the gap is smaller: 66.6 per cent for the PAP and 33.4 per cent for the opposition.
But it is the 82-2 result that leads some to think it an insult to tag the battle between the PAP and the opposition as one between Goliath and David, since that would give the impression the opposition David has a chance against the giant. Instead, they would cast it as a 100m race between a Ferrari and a one-litre car.
The PAP also has the advantage of an enviable track record as the ruling party, delivering five decades of steady, even spectacular, growth. It has also been proactive in addressing voters' concerns throughout its terms in office.
As the incumbent, it has other advantages during election time. It decides the timing of the polls; is able to give out hongbao from fiscal surpluses like the Grow and Share Package close to the elections; and can make or change rules such as the size of the GRCs and the Cooling- off Day. It can also announce programmes to improve constituents' estates close to election time.
In addition, the PAP has built up strong institutional links, such as its 'symbiotic ties' with the unions. As the government of the day, it controls grassroots organisations under the People's Association.
In such a political terrain, voters very often place the PAP and the opposition on different scales. When it comes to candidates, a degree is expected of someone from the PAP. Degrees from brand-name foreign universities are commonplace.
In the opposition, every candidate with a bachelor's degree is a notch up for the party. Much was made of the WP slate in 2006 which had 10 graduates.
Double standards were evident way back in the 1984 General Election. Then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew told voters that the PAP candidate in Potong Pasir, Mr Mah Bow Tan, had scored six distinctions and two credits at the O levels. In contrast, said Mr Lee, opposition candidate Chiam See Tong managed just seven credits and a pass in English.
Mr Chiam won that contest and has held on to Potong Pasir since.
Similarly, in the current GE, it is likely the WP's star catch Chen Show Mao would not have attracted as much attention if he had donned PAP whites. The top lawyer's solid resume both at work and in school would be just what Singaporeans have come to expect from the PAP.
Unfortunately, the PAP has to live with such higher expectations. Voters demand more from the party simply because it is almost certain to win the elections and form the next government.
Since most PAP candidates will win their seats, voters will have to live with them as their MPs, who will take care of their estates and represent them in Parliament. Some among them will become ministers with power to make important decisions. Quite naturally, voters feel they must demand more from those to whom much will be given.
Until the political scene changes, with an opposition emerging as a plausible threat to the ruling party's dominance, the double standards will persist.
Singapore politics will continue to have a handicap-like system, where the voters cut the opposition more slack.
This is not to say that Singaporeans will put up with second-class MPs. Once MPs are elected, voters here have been known to hold opposition ones to similar standards as those of the ruling party. They voted out the Singapore Democratic Party's Ling How Doong and Cheo Chai Chen in 1997, after just one term.
The double standards of Singapore politics are thus a rather nuanced feature of the system. It can lead to some opposition wins, but it is not a blank cheque.
Looked at from another perspective, the double standards paradox stems from an implicit acknowledgment from the people that the ruling party is the most well-equipped to run the country.
It is because people are secure in the knowledge that the PAP will form the government that they can afford to cut some slack for the opposition who will, at the very most, form a small fraction of the Parliament.
Double standards may be vexing to the ruling party, but are in some ways a back-handed compliment to the PAP. In any case, they are something the PAP will have to live with.
[email protected]
