The Times They Are A-Changing . . .

The 2011 General Elections (GE) is over and will go down in history as a landmark election for a number of reasons.

Based simply on the results, the following are the most notable.

For the first time, the Opposition managed to break through the seemingly impregnable Group Representation Constituency (GRC) fortress that the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) had put in place in 1988, and close contests in a number of the GRCs.

The Workers’ Party (WP) secured 54.7% of the popular votes in Aljunied GRC to gain the mandate to serve the residents there for the next five years. To top it off, WP retained its seat in Hougang with an improved resounding mandate of 64.8%.

With a total of six elected representatives in the House of Parliament, WP is well-placed to be the alternative voice of the people and the agents for ‘checks-and-balance’ in government.

The party’s overall performance of 46.6% of their total contested votes also augurs well for the shining star among the opposition parties. In all wards contested by the WP, no less than 41% of the votes went to the party, with as much as 49% of the votes in one constituency.

WP could further increase its voice to eight representatives in Parliament should it subscribe to the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) scheme.

In contrast, the fortunes of another long-standing opposition political icon, Mr Chiam See Tong and his Singapore People’s Party (SPP) did not fare as well.

After serving the constituents of Potong Pasir for the last 27 years, Mr Chiam’s presence in Parliament will no longer be felt. His wife, Mrs Lina Chiam, lost out to PAP’s candidate in the contest for Potong Pasir by the slimmest of margins of 114 votes, while Mr Chiam – in his bid for a GRC – lost out to the PAP team in the Bishan-Toa Payoh ward after securing only 43.1% of the votes.

Even though the SPP was unable to unseat the PAP and was itself unseated, the closest of margins of victory (0.7%) in local electoral history would ensure a continued voice for SPP and its supporters in the House by way of the NCMP scheme, provided the SPP takes it up.

The elections also marked the first time that standing office holders found themselves at the losing end of the voting process. In losing Aljunied GRC, PAP lost Foreign Minister George Yeo and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, as well as the likeable Zainul Abideen Rasheed, who had been touted as the next Speaker of Parliament. The voters had apparently disassociated a candidate’s office from the party branding he/she was carrying.

This election is also be marked by the continuing downward trend of the popular vote for the PAP. Despite winning 81 out of 87 seats, PAP’s share of the total contested votes fell a further 6.5 percentage points to hit a low of 60.1%, even lower than the 61% secured in 1991.

Looking back on the two GEs helmed by PM Lee Hsien Loong, the party has lost a combined total of 15.2 percentage points. If this downward trend remains unabated, it could mean a further decline in the PAP’s share of popular votes come the next elections in 2016.

It will be remembered that the PAP had made reconnecting with the people and internal reform its platform in the closing days of the electoral campaign. Whether it was a desperate last-ditch move to stem the tide of voters going over to the opposition or an astute 11-hour strategy to win back the ground on the recency effect is debatable.

GE2011 will also be remembered for the public apology made by no less than the PM himself for mistakes made by the PAP government. Never before had this happened, especially in the context of an election. It was a gamble of a move to show a more human face by the PAP. The gambit may have paid off, given the PAP victories, albeit by slim margins.

So, now what?

With the elections over, it’s time to get back to the business of government and governing the people for the PAP. But the PAP had also indicated that it will do some soul-searching and studying of how to adapt to the new electorate.

If this effort by the PAP is well-intentioned, it will, of course, be good for the electorate as it could mean that the PAP is trying to go back to its roots of being a people’s party.

The days, months, and years ahead until the run-up to GE 2016 will probably see the PAP being put under constant scrutiny by a much more involved electorate who have now had a taste of a true electoral contest and the power that rests in their vote.

How they fare in the next elections would very much depend on how true they stay to their words. The electorate will certainly make their displeasure heard should they lose their way again.

The opposition too, should not rest on its laurels or languish in defeat. The results of the elections speak volumes of the work that they have done over the last two years, going by the pronouncements made by various opposition parties at the close of the elections.

Riding on the back of the support they received in this election, the parties and their candidates should continue to work the ground they have campaigned in, carving up GRCs into single member wards and assigning shadow MPs to stave the possibility of future redrawing of electoral boundaries, and get to know the people they wish to serve better and let the people get to know them as individuals, party branding aside.

The battle for the hearts and minds of the voters should not just be a once in five years event, it should be a constant and continuing effort with eyes ever on the lookout for the constituents and ears ever on the ground to hear the pulse of the people.

At the end of the day, the end goal of the electoral battle is to gain the right to serve the people, and as the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) had rightly put it from the get go of GE2011, the elections is about you. It is not about party renewal, not about goodies that are after all paid with taxpayers’ money, it is first and foremost about you. Even the PAP had to concede in the end that the elections is about you.

We would do well to remember this as we get on with the business of living and working in this place we call home.

Reflections before a date with destiny . . .

As of 10 pm last night, the curtains came down on the election rallies. The opportunity for the contesting political parties and their candidates to put themselves before the voters to be seen, heard and judged has passed.

Today is meant to be a day for quiet reflection, for us to review all that we have heard and seen, before we head to the polling booths tomorrow to pass our judgement with our votes.

For many, it will be the first time that we are voting and taking part in the parliamentary democracy process of giving the privilege to those amongst us who have come forward to serve the people. Is that not after all the basic and fundamental role of the elected members of parliament?

Unlike past general elections, this election has been different from the very start. Even before Parliament was dissolved, the opposition parties came together and worked out a concerted strategy to take the battle for the hearts and minds of the voters to the ruling party.

By Nomination Day, it was clear that despite wearing different colours, the opposition were single-minded in ensuring that it would be a straight fight between the incumbents and the challengers in all but one constituency. In the end, 82 seats are being contested by 165 candidates. The ruling party was returned unopposed in 5 seats due to a technicality.

That, in itself, had been a victory for the voters. It meant that for the first time since 1972, almost all of us would get to vote, to decide our future, our destiny.

As the election campaign swung into motion, it became clear that this would be a keenly contested election given the candidates the opposition had been able to put on their slate.

What was probably unexpected, especially by the PAP, was the determination and sophistication with which the Opposition seized the initiative. They took up the issues of the day, issues that were close to the hearts of voters, and quickly gained ground.

In contrast, the PAP found themselves having to answer and/or fend off question after question that put on display their track record and sought to hold them accountable. Even the “carrots” presented to voters seemed to gain little traction with masses who had had enough of ‘more of the same’.

If attendance at election rallies were a benchmark of support for the challengers, it was clear who was ahead in the hustings. It helped that voters were eager to hear alternative views instead of the same scripted lines.

By mid-campaign, the challengers had not only seized the initiative but also the agenda as the PAP found itself forced to make a number of adjustments to its battle plans.

From dangling multi-million dollar upgrading carrots in front of the voters (along with the veiled threat of withholding the upgrading if voters did not vote for PAP) and casting doubts about the character, quality and capability of the Opposition candidates, as had been the case in past elections, the PAP found itself having to change tack and make overnight promises of policy reviews in housing and education in response to the ever growing number of voices that identified with the Opposition’s cause.

In what was probably a surprise to many, was the PAP’s apology and admission that it had made mistakes towards the close of the election campaign.

Never before had this happened. As far as I can remember, the PAP had never admitted to being fallible, especially in the course of an election campaign. Cracks were beginning to emerge, and the PAP had to switch from its logical-rational approach to trying to make an emotional connection with the voters.

But many found this to be unfamiliar territory for the PAP and questioned the sincerity of the apology and wondered if it was merely a campaign ploy, especially since it was followed by one of the party’s candidates shedding tears at a rally and the posting of an emotive video on the Internet.

And finally, at the close of the election campaign, it was especially notable that the PAP was beginning to borrow lines from the Opposition. From its original positioning of the election as a leadership renewal process, the party now found itself mirroring what the Opposition had all along been saying, that the elections was about us, the voters and our families.

In contrast, the Opposition had been steadfast in its approach and strategy, it stuck to the issues, it reached out and struck the right emotional notes that resonated with the masses. No longer just speaking in rhetoric, the Opposition offered concrete plans for voters to consider as they ponder their future.

The Opposition reminded voters that they seek the privilege to serve, not rule, the people, the constituents. They seek to establish a social contract with the voters, and through such a contract, be their voice in Parliament.

With the campaigning over, it really is up to us, the voters, to make the right choice. Do we simply stay with the familiar and hope that the change we want will come about, or do we take that leap of faith and take charge of the change we want to see?

Gandhi is reported to have said: “Be the change that you want to see in the world.”

Change starts with you… and me!

Identities in Changing Contexts: Whither the Singapore Identity?

Excerpt of a paper I delivered at the Asia-Pacific Youth Forum in Nago, Okinawa, 5-14 December 1997. Even though it's more than a decade since I wrote it, the main thrust is still holds relevance today.

As a researcher, I find Singapore’s experience with ethnic-based community self-help organisations (CSHG) an interesting area for study in relation to the country's efforts to build a national identity. The promotion of CSHGs since the early 1990’s seems at odds with the moulding of a national identity.

What started out as a focused effort to improve the educational achievements of the Malay community with the establishment of Yayasan Mendaki in 1981, spawned a series of similarly constituted CSHGs beginning in the early 1990s with the Association of Muslim Professionals followed by the Chinese Development Assistance Council, the Singapore Indian Development Association and the Eurasian Association.

With each organisation catering to their own community, one cannot help wonder if this will only serve to further delineate Singapore society along racial lines, with each being more acutely aware of their sense of communal identity.

Singapore’s history suggests that the government had wanted to play down the sense of ethnic differences through its policy of multiracialism, multiculturalism and the practice of meritocracy where everyone was judged on the basis of their ability rather than their race.

A question that bears asking, therefore, is, can a Singapore identity ever evolve? Is it at all possible to establish a homogenous national identity for Singapore?

It would be easy to suggest that the answer is an emphatic 'No'. We are all too acutely aware of our own ethnic identities to ever allow it to be subsumed or even assimilated into a single identity.

The notion of identifying ourselves along the Chinese-Malay-Indian-Others (CMIO) framework is very much entrenched in our psyche and looks to stay for quite some time yet. Its most overt representation being found in our identity cards. Maybe this is something that cannot be avoided in a heterogenous society like ours.

Yet, strangely enough, when we go abroad, we tend to identify ourselves as Singaporeans, as a people from one country, having a uniquely distinct identity despite our ethnic differences. How does one explain this apparent paradox? How is it possible that the very people who see themselves as being Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others at home, suddenly adopt a super-identity, Singaporean?

It has been suggested that this strange paradox was borne of the fact that Singapore’s birth as a nation was not quite what was intended at that time. The early and mid-1960s was quite a tumultuous time for the region and especially so for Singapore. Race relations were very fragile following the outbreak of riots in 1964 and later in 1969.

While the government publicly strove to bind the people together through multiracialism and meritocracy, the private domains of the people were very much left untouched, each allowed to develop on their own. Hence, each community saw the rest as the ‘other’.

This sense of otherness may offer some explanation as to why Singaporeans tend to see themselves as distinct communities at home and as one people, one nation when abroad.

While Singapore has generally been structured along racial lines since its colonisation by the British, her economic prosperity and development has also seen the emergence of class stratification.

But even before this, other dichotomies have existed such as majority vs. minority, vernacular vs. English-educated, the local vs. overseas graduate, Asian vs. Western values, to name a few. These dichotomies suggests that at one point or another, every Singaporean could undeniably feel themselves to be marginalised.

With not golden past to return to, save those primordial links to our ethnic identities, it became logical for Singapore to be a nation of many races, many faces. But with the emergence of class as a distinct means of dividing society, racial lines are beginning to be blurred.

It has been argued that this stratification of society has been the direct result of the practice of meritocracy in Singapore. While it served Singapore well in its early years to ensure rapid economic progress and rewards for those who worked hard, it has, as a consequence, produced a society driven by material gains.

This is clearly evident by the standard and cost of living in Singapore and the aspirations of its people – the five C’s (Career, Credit Card, Car, Condominium and Country Club) being an example. This is a concern because if the class divide should become entrenched, it could result in social sedimentation and the formation of a permanent underclass.

So, with so many different factors to consider, is it at all possible to create a common identity for a nation like Singapore? Or are we fighting a losing battle? I hope not.

If our annual national day celebrations can be used as a benchmark, I am quite optimistic. It is quite moving to see people of different class, race and creed coming together in one voice, in unity, in praise of their nation. Somehow they manage to cast aside their differences to see themselves as Singaporeans.

But this is only one occasion.

There are still many hurdles to clear before we can truly say we are one nation, one people.

Maybe, that is the uniqueness of Singapore. Maybe our lack of a common supra-culture is what defines us as Singapore and being Singaporean. And in this ever globalized world, this special characteristic, this diversity may be what will see us through.

To whose drum beat does the public sector dance?

For the first time since the 1972 general elections, the most number of parliamentary seats are up for grabs – 82 out of 87 are being contested. The possibility of the PAP losing some seats looks very real. Casualties could include ministers and chairmen of town councils.


This presents an interesting scenario for the public sector, especially the Civil Service and Town Councils.


Both have long been closely associated with the ruling party. But, if you ask me, they should not be beholden to any party. Their accountability should be to the citizens whom they are expected to serve.


For the Civil Service, this association is a consequence of the long-standing dominance of the PAP as the government of the day and the absorption of senior civil servants into the ranks of the party when the General Elections roll by.


Town Councils too, are a construct of the PAP-led government to allow for some semblance of local/municipal government. For now, all but two town councils are currently managed by PAP Members of Parliament.


However, even if the town councils came into being through the initiative of the PAP-led government, should these town councils be beholden to the party?


For me, the answer is an emphatic 'No'. Town council are, first and foremost, there to serve the needs of residents, not the party.


While the reins have seemingly been handed over to caretakers while the politicians seek a new mandate, the partisanship of the town councils are quite obvious and it does not look like it is going to go away.


Gazing ahead past 7 May, and embracing the possibility of the electorate voting in more opposition MPs and giving the PAP less than the simple majority it needs to form the government, what would this mean for the Civil Service and Town Councils?


How will the Civil Service navigate the new political landscape in the event of the formation of a coalition government? How can we, the citizens, be assured that the bureaucracy will support all members of the new government with integrity, service and excellence, irrespective of their party affiliation?


Even if the PAP secured enough seats to form the government, the same dictum apply, that is, the Civil Service should provide all MPs with the same level of support and access to information, irrespective of their political affiliation.


Despite the Civil Service’s assertion of its party neutrality, one cannot help but wonder if this bureaucracy can be truly neutral given its links with former civil servants who crossed the divide to carry the PAP’s agenda and who in many cases become political office holders within the government ministries they once served.


Closer to the heartlands, can we be assured that Town Councils will extend their full cooperation to whomever gains the mandate of the electorate? It would be ungracious if Town Council officials refuse to work with the non-PAP MPs returned by the electorate on the basis that their allegiance was to the PAP.  


Let us hope that should the outcome of the elections not favor the incumbents, it would not lead to a form of denial-of-services whereby citizens’ needs become collateral damage.


It would be in the interest of the nation as a whole for public service structures to continue to serve the needs of the citizens, irrespective of who the political driver(s) may be.

Making My Vote Count!

Never before in my 26 years as an adult, have I felt such a heightened sense of anticipation and expectation with just two days to go before I go to the polls. Come 7 May, I will have my first real opportunity of choosing who will be my voice in Parliament.

Along with me will be 2.3 million voters who make up the constituents of the 82 contested seats. Each of us will be exercising our rights to determine the future of our country, our home, our family for the next five years.

Our votes, my vote is therefore precious.

This election is truly about us – a cause the opposition has championed quite convincingly judging by the response and reactions of the crowds at their rallies.

In past elections, the choice for most of us would have been very simple and obvious. However, as the ruling party has not really faced a real fight nor have we had to exercise our rights at the ballot box in the past, that’s an untested assumption.

We now sit on the cusp of an historical moment in our political history, of being able to elect a new government, with the possibility of putting in place a multi-party government of the people, for the people.

By all accounts, the era of the dominant one-party government seems to be close to an end given the evolution of the opposition political parties into credible vehicles to carry the voices of the people.

Judging by the slate of candidates who have come forward to serve the people on an opposition ticket, I cannot help but feel that the political landscape has come of age.

Most notable are the credentials that these candidates bring with them – scholars, academics, professionals, just to name a few. Articulate, eloquent, effusive, informed, measured, nuanced, passionate are some of the adjectives that come to mind when I think about the opposition candidates – even the political newbies among them.

Despite early hiccups in carving out where they would contest, they got organized, made bold moves, and took the fight to the incumbents. They zeroed in on the issues, demonstrated their connectedness with the ground, and stayed their course despite the many attempts of the ruling party to derail their cause.

Never before have I seen the ruling party forced to retreat into a defensive stance as they found themselves flooded by the opposition with questions that demanded answers. Answers that had to be cobbled quickly, effectively forcing the party into a reactive stance. Confidence has given way to a sense of resignation that the opposition had been underestimated.

From a focus on leadership renewal, the campaign shifted to dangling upgrading carrots and casting doubts on the opposition candidates and their plans. But when it became apparent that the opposition was making a lot of headway in the contested GRCs despite the attacks, the focus shifted to defending their key candidates and then lately shifting to an attempt at connecting with voters by way of apologizing for mistakes made over the last five years.

Is this apology a timely move on the part of the ruling party or has it come too late?

With just a couple of day to the end of the election campaign, I cannot help but feel that it has come too little, too late. Voters have long memories and coupled with the astute moves of the opposition to play on our collective memories, the apology would probably hold little sway with voters.

Taking everything into consideration, this General Election will truly be a watershed election, with the possibility of surpassing even earlier past opposition gains in 1981 (Anson), 1984 (Anson and Potong Pasir) and 1991 (Bukit Gombak, Nee Soon Central, Potong Pasir and Hougang).

With friends contesting on both sides of the political divide, I kept an open mind but having weighed in everything that I have heard, seen and read, I know with certainty who will get my vote come 7 May.

Majulah Singapura!

Through The Barricades

Song is about Belfast and captures the feelings of a young protestant boy caught between the certain past and an uncertain future.

Building our future on the past

Originally written and published in The Edge Singapore about 5 years ago, this piece still holds a lot of relevance today, given the multitude of changes taking place on our shores. Old, familiar places are having to make way for new constructs that supposedly define the new Singapore.

Can preserving our ‘built’ past provide the social glue to ensure the future

The last few months (this was in early 2003) has seen at least four legacies of our past gazetted as national monuments by the Preservation of Monuments Board. They include a church, a cinema, an office building, and a hospital.

The gazetting of the former Kandang Kerbau Hospital building as a national monument appears to be the latest in the government’s recent efforts at preserving Singapore’s past heritage. The hospital holds fond memories for many of us, as it was probably where most of us were born.

The church, cinema and office building too have their own place in our own personal and collective history.

The Church of Saints Peter and Paul in Queen Street have probably seen its fair share of Singapore’s history over its 133 years of existence. So too has MacDonald House, which became the target of a terrorist attack during the infancy of Singapore’s independence. And Cathay Building, which used to house Cathay Cinema, will probably be remembered for all the great movies that we grew up with.

At last count, no less than 50 Singapore buildings have been named as monuments by the Preservation of Monuments Board.

Giving value to the past

This renewed interest to preserve our ‘built’ past has come as a surprise for some, especially following the much-publicized saga over the decision to tear down the National Library building.

However, judging by Deputy Prime Minister Dr Tony Tan’s speech at the opening ceremony of the Heritage Festival in March 2003, there appears to have been some rethinking about the value of our ‘built’ past in relation to Singapore’s future.

Dr Tan said: “Buffeted by the forces of globalisation, the information revolution and the new world order, young Singaporeans are continually confronted with questions of values, identity, belonging, and loyalty. They need answers, relevant references and roles models.

“The search for answers to these complex questions must begin with our culture and heritage. History and memories of shared experiences provide valuable lessons for us to tap on to make sense of a world where the only ‘constant’ is ‘change’. To make sense of where we are heading to, we need to know where we came from.”

Besides the gazetting of these four monuments, other efforts at preserving the past include the plan to convert the former Singapore Improvement Trust flats in Tiong Bahru into boutique hotels. (Afternote: Two flats have been converted into the said boutique hotels and promises to inject new life into an otherwise quiet enclave in the Tiong Bahru area.)

Sadly, the same cannot be said for another symbolic legacy of Singapore’s past. The Geylang Serai Market flats will have to make way for redevelopment under the Housing and Development Board’s Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS).

Of course, it helps that SERS is so well received in Singapore, as evidenced by reactions from long-time residents of the Geylang Serai Market flats such as Madam Salha Abdullah, a 70-year-old grandmother. Madam Salha hopes to have the opportunity to relocate into a new flat there once the redevelopment is completed.

“I feel sad about leaving this place as I have lived here half my life. But I understand that the redevelopment needs to be done. In any case, it means that we will have a much cleaner and bigger market,” said Madam Salha.

SERS will also help to rejuvenate ‘old towns’ like Geylang Serai by allowing young families to buy a new flat and settle there.

Both plans – the conversion of Tiong Bahru’s flats into hotels and Geylang Serai’s SERS – appear to be an effort at redevelopment to preserve the spirit of the past, one cannot deny the fact that it is driven by a strong economic impetus.

Land squeeze

But given the reality of Singapore’s land squeeze, and the growing scarcity of land for development, it is not surprising that efforts at conservation, preservation, and redevelopment are inextricably tied to economic re-use.

A case in point being the designation of both MacDonald House and Cathay Building as Category 2 monuments. This means that future owners of the buildings would only be required to preserve their facades and have the flexibility to retrofit the buildings for better returns on investment.

The same can be said for the redevelopment of Boat Quay and Clarke Quay into riverside entertainment belts – although both areas appear to be in much need of rejuvenation as a result of the economic slump.

Similar attempts at preserving the past by converting historical buildings into entertainment zones include the recreation of the Convent of the Holy Infant Jesus (Bras Basah) complex into CHIJMES and the use of the former Thong Chai Medical Hall as a pub.

Sadly, the same cannot be said for a number of Singapore’s icons from the past that merit the status of being monuments. These include the National Theatre and Van Kleef Aquarium.

“I remember the Van Kleef Aquarium because I went there during my primary school, and next to it was the National Theatre with its diamond-shaped façade,” said William Lim, a 32-year-old customer service officer.

“We may have the Esplanade in place of the National Theatre and Sentosa’s Underwater World in place of Van Kleef Aquarium today, but it’s just not the same,” added William.

Ironically, the site that both icons used to occupy continues to remain vacant, merging into the foot of Fort Canning Hill.

And the same fate awaits the National Library at Stamford Road, which is due to make way for a road tunnel project.

Memories and meaning

But at the end of the day, can we keep the memories alive and retain meaningfulness for the community by simply preserving a building.

Taking a line from Professor Edwin Thumboo’s poem – to preserve the past, ensure the future – it seems to suggest that the preservation of a building by gazetting it as a monument will keep the memories alive and retain meaningfulness.

However, National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan offered a counter-perspective during the height of the National Library debate in 2000. Mr Mah said: “To ‘preserve the past’ and ‘ensure the future’ would be to actually develop the area along the lines that have been proposed, to bring back what was there in the past.”

“That really is something which is wholly in keeping with the sentiments expressed because by doing so, you not just preserve the past but do so in a way that provides an opportunity, provides an environment, provides an institution which will benefit many generations to come.”

It may not take a leap of faith to accept this view, but there still the detractors, especially when you consider the limited success of attempts to transform heritage areas such as Kampong Glam, Chinatown and Little India into living showcases of our heritage.

But the end of the day, what is important is that we are able to treasure the heritage assets that we have and build on them, weave them into a rich social tapestry that will withstand the onslaught of a more uncertain world.