Punggol East: Let’s get some issues clear

(EDITORIAL POLICY: This article may NOT be reproduced on any blog or website, but link-backs or SNIPPETS with FULL attribution to this site are okay.)

Written by Ng E-Jay
02 January 2013

From the looks of it, the Prime Minister’s Office will be compelled to call for a by-election in Punggol East SMC no matter how much they are reluctant to expose the precipitous drop in support for the PAP that has occurred.

In the meantime, there are some issues that I wish to address.

(a) Some people have called for WP to step aside and let other parties have a chance at contesting Punggol East, or for SDP to refrain from engaging in a multi-cornered contest.

I find this sentiment undemocratic. Every party has the right to improve its branding and market itself to voters through an electoral contest. No party should be expected to step aside for the sake of another party. Asking parties to keep giving way to each other would keep each of them small and weak. That is precisely what the PAP wants — for there to be many parties, but each small and weak.

How can a party grow strong if it is not free to contest and test its branding even in the most challenging of constituencies or even where there is a possibility of a multi-cornered fight against a possibly stronger party?

How can a party learn and improve itself if it is forced to confine itself to a very limited set of constituencies? That is the surest way to ensure it will never grow and never become great.

(b) Some people say a multi-cornered fight would hand Punggol East to the PAP on a silver platter.

If all it takes is a multi-cornered fight to ensure an easy victory for the PAP, then perhaps the PAP deserved to win anyway.

In the 2011 elections, had Desmond Lim not contested, his 4.5% of the vote share would have gone to Lee Li Lian, but she would still have lost. She might have gotten a chance to become NCMP, but that issue does not apply in a by-election.

What if the PAP wins the ward very narrowly (say, by a 1% margin) due to vote splitting? I would say that is an acceptable outcome in a by-election, and besides, that would mean the PAP certainly was not handed the victory on a silver platter. In fact, if this outcome happens, the opposition parties would learn that victory in 2016 is achievable with a little more hard work.

(c) If an opposition party performs poorly compared to the WP in Punggol East, it would be seen as a spoiler and that would bring it a bad image.

This sentiment is understandable and unavoidable. That is why each party apart from WP must carefully weigh its options and perform its risk-benefit calculations. Is the increased exposure and the chance to showcase its policies worth the risk of being seen as a spoiler? That is a question each party must decide on.

(d) Give way to WP now, and use this as a bargaining chip in 2016 horse-trading.

Let me assure all my readers that this strategy has zero chance of ever working.

The WP has absolutely no intention of returning any other party’s goodwill or being a team player in the next general election.

The WP wants to edge out all the other parties by contesting more and more seats in each election, and refusing to compromise except perhaps in special situations where a beneficial deal can be reached.

The WP certainly had no intention of compromising with NSP in Moulmein-Kalling in 2011. I can also assure you the WP would have no intention of compromising on places like Tampines in 2016.

This behaviour is not wrong. Every party deserves the chance to grow as quickly as possible. By contesting aggressively and refusing to give way, the WP is simply pursuing a logical, self-serving strategy of expansion and capacity building. What good would WP bring to itself if it gave way to smaller parties and denied itself a chance to grow?

Knowing this, however, other parties need not feel obliged to give way to WP or expect to use a concession as a bargaining tool.

In fact, the WP is looking for a chance to test its party branding, which it deems superior, against other opposition parties. The Punggol East by-election may just give WP what it has wanted for a long time.

It is then up to parties like the SDP to show that a test of party branding against the WP need not end in tears, but may instead end in joy.

  1. WP has shown to be a good moderator at best, and abilities to run a GRC, too bad too many people want them to do more than that

  2. Are you sure that the WP is a “good moderator.” They can’t even asked the PAP about the computer system and the company AIM, when they knows about it….

    What do you think they can do in Parliament…See for yourself..

  3. The test of the pudding is in the eating. WP have been working the ground of Punggol East for some time. The other parties had not.
    The reasons why SDP & RP wants to contest the by-election there is weak and people will see through.
    SDA already loss their deposit last time and if they still want to contest again, means this guy does not learn from his mistake. What does that make him.
    Independent candidate had not garnered good support in the past simply because without a party support, there is little that can be done.
    However, everyone is free to contest and take the risk to lose the deposit which could be better use for the next GE considering the lack of money for the opposition parties.

  4. I disagree with Mr Ng.

    At this stage in the development of Sg’s political landscape, I am generally opposition party agnostic, so long as theyare Opposition. For every weakness WP has, they have their own strengths – the same applies to the SDP for instance.

    As a non-party affiliated citizen, I am more concerned with having MORE opposition in parliament to achieve the following:

    – send a strong signal to the PAP that every move the make will be scrutinized & accountability to the electorate is paramount.

    – demonstrate to the 60% that the opposition are a credible non-nihilistic bunch of people.

    – introduce alternatve views on running this country, which views are drowned out by the mainstream media & the PAP controlled bureaucracy.

    Mr Ng’s argument holds true for a truly developed democracy.. which SG is not. Lets not kid ourselves. I see far too many shortcomings in allowing one party dominance, that I think the opposition should put aside their ego & cooperate for the good of the development of democracy in Sg. Even if this means making sacrifices for its party’s development plans. I’m sure this is wishful thinking, as all poiliticians invariably have their own personal agenda in the mix. I think a sizeble no. of sgreans DO NOT WISH to see a repeat of the Presidential Election results.

  5. I’m sorry E-Jay, IMHO you’ve got it totally wrong. The fatal flaw in your argument is the assumption that Singapore is a normal democratic country — let’s get it straight, it absolutely is NOT. The PAP has things stitched up so much so that it’s virtually impossible for any opposition to actually win.

    We cannot make progress in this country democratically by playing nicey-nicey with the PAP and sticking to rules, because the PAP has shown that they’re fully capable of bending the rules to suit themselves.

    To those critical of the WP I say, give them a chance, they obviously recognize that majority of Singaporeans (60.1% or whatever) are moderates who don’t go for the wild antics of the CSJ type (though I admit he has toned-down significantly of late). That being the case, they operate in a non-confrontational mode, which works well. Their success in securing a GRC is proof positive. Give them a chance to consolidate more power with more MPs I say.

    The only way to bring about change in Singapore is to play smart, not play by the rules – don’t fall for the PAP’s tricks.

  6. At this juncture & this moment, singaporeans are not interested in opposition parties protecting & projecting their idealogies.

    This is not the time for it. Not yet.

    What singaporeans want is to kick PAP out.
    This is what singaporeans want

  7. The objective of any political party should be to form the government. The only way it can hope to do so is build its support base and contest in every constituency in every general election. No party need to give way to any other party. Let the voters decide which party they want.
    Any party that has no intention to form the next government should close shop. No point in being a permanent opposition party. It might as well convert to an activist organisation dedicated to championing particular causes.