As Gecko lay there, inconsequentially, in TTSH, Peesai awaits a more urgent departure.
http://theonlinecitizen.wordpress.com/2008/05/06/waiting-for-godot/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_for_Godot
http://chiam-see-tong.blogspot.com
<a href="http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r19/theonlinecitizen/Pictures%20Posted%20on%20TOC/TOC%20Team/Farquhar2new.jpg"><img src="http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r19/theonlinecitizen/Pictures%20Posted%20on%20TOC/TOC%20Team/Farquhar2new.jpg"></a>
Farquhar
Waiting for Godot
Farquhar comes earlier this week and takes a look at the state of the opposition parties on the second anniversary of Polling Day – May 6 2006.
The Opposition is in danger of missing the chance to build on its gains of 2006
Both Acts of Beckett’s play “Waiting for Godot” end in the same lamentable fashion. The two protagonists, having wasted an entire day in a series of pointless diversions (one of which was a laughable attempt to commit suicide) while waiting for an acquaintance that never shows, finally agree to depart the scene. But then they put that off as well and remain where they are at the close of the Act, consigned to repeating the same routine in perpetuity.
The absurdist nature of the play, the protagonists’ lethargy as well as their tragic obliviousness is somewhat reminiscent of the dilapidated state of Singapore’s political Opposition. Each time the Opposition was ascendant, such as from 1984 to 1991, it subsequently blew its chances to consolidate its gains because of futile infighting and a deficiency in political imagination, even as the incumbent People’s Action Party (PAP) devised ever more ways to hem it in and maintain its own political hegemony. It risks doing so again, despite the hopes raised in 2006.
What was different about 2006 was that the Opposition seemed to have finally come of age. Heralded by a new generation of voters that was growing weary of the government’s paternalistic approach and the public’s budding receptiveness to the need for a stronger Opposition, it rode on the expected anti-government swing, and the Workers’ Party (WP) – which had been quietly rebuilt under the astute leadership of Low Thia Khiang – was the chief beneficiary amongst the main Opposition parties (the others being Chiam See Tong’s Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) and Chee Soon Juan’s Singapore Democratic Party (SDP)).
More importantly, the Opposition – and WP in particular – seemed to have captured the popular imagination. WP chairperson Sylvia Lim, leading a crop of fresh faces with professional backgrounds, came to epitomise a rejuvenated WP. In a post-election survey by the Institute of Policy Studies, 61% of respondents either “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that the WP was a “credible” party, putting it some distance ahead of the SDA (49%) and SDP (18%). (PAP scored 87%) Basking in the afterglow of the elections, the WP enjoyed good turnouts at its open houses and relatively favourable media coverage. All this suggested that the ingredients were there for a sustainable Opposition movement that might finally begin rolling back the PAP behemoth.
Nothing to be done
Two years on, the Opposition seems to have lost momentum. Media coverage of the Opposition remains low, and the parties are more often than not missing when it comes to commenting on issues of the day. The Opposition remains divided, with the cautious and low-key approach of the WP and SDA contrasting with an activist SDP. High profile desertions dog the WP. Opposition MPs raise parliamentary questions but lack follow-through, and they seem nowhere near proposing policies of their own.
To be fair, this state of affairs is partly due to the normal cycle of elections and the institutional obstacles that the Opposition has to contend with. Public interest tends to slip away after the hue and excitement of campaigning has receded. Opposition activity is also unlikely to make the government-controlled mainstream newspapers, making it difficult for the Opposition to get its message out. And it is hampered by the shortage of political talent or volunteers to draw on, given the largely depoliticised nature of the citizenry.
<a href="http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r19/theonlinecitizen/Pictures%20Posted%20on%20TOC/Opposition%20Civil%20Society/cst2.jpg"><img src="http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r19/theonlinecitizen/Pictures%20Posted%20on%20TOC/Opposition%20Civil%20Society/cst2.jpg"></a>
But party leadership is also to blame for failing to take advantage of the more favourable post-2006 conditions. The Opposition’s leading lights – its two full-time MPs – cling to an ineffectual conservatism. WP and SDA seem uncomfortably straddled between old-school incrementalism and the imperative to adapt to a rapidly changing and more demanding electorate.
It has warily stuck to the former, a cautious attitude bred by bitter memories of the government’s relentless persecution in the past. WP and SDA remain cagey about engaging the media (one reporter complained that WP appeared perpetually unreachable for comments while PAP MPs were always a phone call away) and have been slow to build an online presence. The WP lacks follow-up on issues that it brings up in Parliament. From rising costs to escaped terrorists, the party seems content to bring up an issue, initiate a short debate (usually taking the form of a condescending rebuttal by the government), and let matters lie. WP and SDA have also hardly organised any events to engage the public beside their usual door-to-door exercises.
Inherent divisions within the Opposition also continue to hold it back. WP, SDA and SDP remain inherently suspicious of each other due to their differences in approach and beliefs, which hinder cooperation. The WP and SDA lack coordination in Parliament and do not support each other much. The possible vacating of the Potong Pasir seat (long held by Mr Chiam, but who is now said to be ill-health) could also bring out the worst in Opposition squabbles over who should fill the seat.
The light gleams an instant, then it’s night once more
<a href="http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r19/theonlinecitizen/Pictures%20Posted%20on%20TOC/Opposition%20Civil%20Society/Picture1.jpg"><img src="http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r19/theonlinecitizen/Pictures%20Posted%20on%20TOC/Opposition%20Civil%20Society/Picture1.jpg"></a>
All these don’t raise hopes that the Opposition is capable of anything more than simply repeating the cycle that it is trapped in. WP seemed to have confirmed this when Mr Low recently told the press that it was not the job of the Opposition to come up with alternative policies. Mr Low wanted the WP to stay focused as a good watchdog, which is evocative of the role of “loyal opposition” that the SDA’s Mr Chiam has carved out for himself over the past decades.
But an effective Opposition’s aim should be to provide a government-in-waiting as well as function as a watchdog – something that was stated by WP itself as a long-term goal in its 2006 manifesto. Just because the PAP has restricted the role of the Opposition to one of a somewhat harmless watchdog, doesn’t mean that the WP and SDA have to stay mentally confined in that straitjacket.
<a href="http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r19/theonlinecitizen/Pictures%20Posted%20on%20TOC/Opposition%20Civil%20Society/SDP/nussforum2.jpg"><img src="http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r19/theonlinecitizen/Pictures%20Posted%20on%20TOC/Opposition%20Civil%20Society/SDP/nussforum2.jpg"></a>
The SDP’s Dr Chee is a conspicuous exception to this, which only reinforces the suspicions of the WP and SDA. But while he comes closest to advocating an alternative vision, this is still a long way off from what is needed because the SDP focuses too much on the modalities of a liberal democracy. Dr Chee’s standing has also been fatally damaged after years of being discredited by the government. His campaigns of civil disobedience have not found much resonance amongst Singaporeans. That may be changing though. The SDP declared recently that their main focus will be on bread and butter issues, and took to the heartlands on Labour Day with their “Tak boleh tahan” (can’t stand it) campaign to prove it.
More needs to be done, but this is critically hindered by a shortage of talent. The lack of an obvious leader, one who can impose a clear vision and unite the Opposition’s disparate strands, is the decisive factor hampering the Opposition from making more of itself. WP’s star in the 2006 elections, Ms Lim, has so far not turned out to be the Opposition heavyweight that seemed to have been expected of her. She has turned in steady performances in Parliament, but appears content to let Mr Low take the lead. There have been no obvious new initiatives from her. The WP’s continuing conservatism shows that either her influence over the party is limited or that she shares Mr Low’s conservatism.
And so Singapore continues to wait for the Opposition to sort itself out. Some watchers have said that Singapore needs a Barack Obama to show the way. But Obama probably isn’t enough – the Opposition needs someone who combines the ruthlessness and iron-will of Margaret Thatcher and with the kind of clear, sweeping vision that Franklin Roosevelt brought to an America in crisis. Godot might arrive first before such a person is found.
http://theonlinecitizen.wordpress.com/2008/05/06/waiting-for-godot/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_for_Godot
http://chiam-see-tong.blogspot.com
<a href="http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r19/theonlinecitizen/Pictures%20Posted%20on%20TOC/TOC%20Team/Farquhar2new.jpg"><img src="http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r19/theonlinecitizen/Pictures%20Posted%20on%20TOC/TOC%20Team/Farquhar2new.jpg"></a>
Farquhar
Waiting for Godot
Farquhar comes earlier this week and takes a look at the state of the opposition parties on the second anniversary of Polling Day – May 6 2006.
The Opposition is in danger of missing the chance to build on its gains of 2006
Both Acts of Beckett’s play “Waiting for Godot” end in the same lamentable fashion. The two protagonists, having wasted an entire day in a series of pointless diversions (one of which was a laughable attempt to commit suicide) while waiting for an acquaintance that never shows, finally agree to depart the scene. But then they put that off as well and remain where they are at the close of the Act, consigned to repeating the same routine in perpetuity.
The absurdist nature of the play, the protagonists’ lethargy as well as their tragic obliviousness is somewhat reminiscent of the dilapidated state of Singapore’s political Opposition. Each time the Opposition was ascendant, such as from 1984 to 1991, it subsequently blew its chances to consolidate its gains because of futile infighting and a deficiency in political imagination, even as the incumbent People’s Action Party (PAP) devised ever more ways to hem it in and maintain its own political hegemony. It risks doing so again, despite the hopes raised in 2006.
What was different about 2006 was that the Opposition seemed to have finally come of age. Heralded by a new generation of voters that was growing weary of the government’s paternalistic approach and the public’s budding receptiveness to the need for a stronger Opposition, it rode on the expected anti-government swing, and the Workers’ Party (WP) – which had been quietly rebuilt under the astute leadership of Low Thia Khiang – was the chief beneficiary amongst the main Opposition parties (the others being Chiam See Tong’s Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) and Chee Soon Juan’s Singapore Democratic Party (SDP)).
More importantly, the Opposition – and WP in particular – seemed to have captured the popular imagination. WP chairperson Sylvia Lim, leading a crop of fresh faces with professional backgrounds, came to epitomise a rejuvenated WP. In a post-election survey by the Institute of Policy Studies, 61% of respondents either “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that the WP was a “credible” party, putting it some distance ahead of the SDA (49%) and SDP (18%). (PAP scored 87%) Basking in the afterglow of the elections, the WP enjoyed good turnouts at its open houses and relatively favourable media coverage. All this suggested that the ingredients were there for a sustainable Opposition movement that might finally begin rolling back the PAP behemoth.
Nothing to be done
Two years on, the Opposition seems to have lost momentum. Media coverage of the Opposition remains low, and the parties are more often than not missing when it comes to commenting on issues of the day. The Opposition remains divided, with the cautious and low-key approach of the WP and SDA contrasting with an activist SDP. High profile desertions dog the WP. Opposition MPs raise parliamentary questions but lack follow-through, and they seem nowhere near proposing policies of their own.
To be fair, this state of affairs is partly due to the normal cycle of elections and the institutional obstacles that the Opposition has to contend with. Public interest tends to slip away after the hue and excitement of campaigning has receded. Opposition activity is also unlikely to make the government-controlled mainstream newspapers, making it difficult for the Opposition to get its message out. And it is hampered by the shortage of political talent or volunteers to draw on, given the largely depoliticised nature of the citizenry.
<a href="http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r19/theonlinecitizen/Pictures%20Posted%20on%20TOC/Opposition%20Civil%20Society/cst2.jpg"><img src="http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r19/theonlinecitizen/Pictures%20Posted%20on%20TOC/Opposition%20Civil%20Society/cst2.jpg"></a>
But party leadership is also to blame for failing to take advantage of the more favourable post-2006 conditions. The Opposition’s leading lights – its two full-time MPs – cling to an ineffectual conservatism. WP and SDA seem uncomfortably straddled between old-school incrementalism and the imperative to adapt to a rapidly changing and more demanding electorate.
It has warily stuck to the former, a cautious attitude bred by bitter memories of the government’s relentless persecution in the past. WP and SDA remain cagey about engaging the media (one reporter complained that WP appeared perpetually unreachable for comments while PAP MPs were always a phone call away) and have been slow to build an online presence. The WP lacks follow-up on issues that it brings up in Parliament. From rising costs to escaped terrorists, the party seems content to bring up an issue, initiate a short debate (usually taking the form of a condescending rebuttal by the government), and let matters lie. WP and SDA have also hardly organised any events to engage the public beside their usual door-to-door exercises.
Inherent divisions within the Opposition also continue to hold it back. WP, SDA and SDP remain inherently suspicious of each other due to their differences in approach and beliefs, which hinder cooperation. The WP and SDA lack coordination in Parliament and do not support each other much. The possible vacating of the Potong Pasir seat (long held by Mr Chiam, but who is now said to be ill-health) could also bring out the worst in Opposition squabbles over who should fill the seat.
The light gleams an instant, then it’s night once more
<a href="http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r19/theonlinecitizen/Pictures%20Posted%20on%20TOC/Opposition%20Civil%20Society/Picture1.jpg"><img src="http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r19/theonlinecitizen/Pictures%20Posted%20on%20TOC/Opposition%20Civil%20Society/Picture1.jpg"></a>
All these don’t raise hopes that the Opposition is capable of anything more than simply repeating the cycle that it is trapped in. WP seemed to have confirmed this when Mr Low recently told the press that it was not the job of the Opposition to come up with alternative policies. Mr Low wanted the WP to stay focused as a good watchdog, which is evocative of the role of “loyal opposition” that the SDA’s Mr Chiam has carved out for himself over the past decades.
But an effective Opposition’s aim should be to provide a government-in-waiting as well as function as a watchdog – something that was stated by WP itself as a long-term goal in its 2006 manifesto. Just because the PAP has restricted the role of the Opposition to one of a somewhat harmless watchdog, doesn’t mean that the WP and SDA have to stay mentally confined in that straitjacket.
<a href="http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r19/theonlinecitizen/Pictures%20Posted%20on%20TOC/Opposition%20Civil%20Society/SDP/nussforum2.jpg"><img src="http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r19/theonlinecitizen/Pictures%20Posted%20on%20TOC/Opposition%20Civil%20Society/SDP/nussforum2.jpg"></a>
The SDP’s Dr Chee is a conspicuous exception to this, which only reinforces the suspicions of the WP and SDA. But while he comes closest to advocating an alternative vision, this is still a long way off from what is needed because the SDP focuses too much on the modalities of a liberal democracy. Dr Chee’s standing has also been fatally damaged after years of being discredited by the government. His campaigns of civil disobedience have not found much resonance amongst Singaporeans. That may be changing though. The SDP declared recently that their main focus will be on bread and butter issues, and took to the heartlands on Labour Day with their “Tak boleh tahan” (can’t stand it) campaign to prove it.
More needs to be done, but this is critically hindered by a shortage of talent. The lack of an obvious leader, one who can impose a clear vision and unite the Opposition’s disparate strands, is the decisive factor hampering the Opposition from making more of itself. WP’s star in the 2006 elections, Ms Lim, has so far not turned out to be the Opposition heavyweight that seemed to have been expected of her. She has turned in steady performances in Parliament, but appears content to let Mr Low take the lead. There have been no obvious new initiatives from her. The WP’s continuing conservatism shows that either her influence over the party is limited or that she shares Mr Low’s conservatism.
And so Singapore continues to wait for the Opposition to sort itself out. Some watchers have said that Singapore needs a Barack Obama to show the way. But Obama probably isn’t enough – the Opposition needs someone who combines the ruthlessness and iron-will of Margaret Thatcher and with the kind of clear, sweeping vision that Franklin Roosevelt brought to an America in crisis. Godot might arrive first before such a person is found.
