Approved Oppositions and Second Awakenings: My response to Paul Jacob’s article

In a Straits Times Insight article entitled “Watching, waiting for a second awakening” published on Sat 02 Aug, Paul Jacob offers an alternative theory to the view that the PAP will spare no effort in winning back Hougang and Potong Pasir SMC, as seen from Dr Ng Eng Hen’s vociferous criticism of the Worker’s Party in a recent editor of Petir and SM Goh Chok Tong’s latest salvo at a National Day celebration dinner.

Paul Jacob opines that the brand of politics offered by Low and Chiam is something the PAP can live with, as evidenced by Low and Chiam being described by the PAP as “responsible” and “non-confrontational”, and by their having received kudos for working “within the system”.

While Paul Jacob makes the insinuation that such a compliment could actually be embarrassing, he is quick to assert that neither Low nor Chiam have tried to distance themselves from it. Furthermore, Paul Jacob reiterated Low’s opinion that he is comfortable serving as a check on the Government but not as an alternative to it.

Why have Low and Chiam not tried to distance themselves from the PAP granting them the status of “approved Oppositions”? In my opinion, there could be a few reasons:

• The term “approved Opposition” allows Low and Chiam to appeal to “middle ground” voters who might not have strong views which side to vote for.
• Low and Chiam think challenging the label “approved Opposition” might open a pandora’s box and lead to an uncomfortable examination of their own track record.
• Low and Chiam think the electorate agrees with the PAP view of what an Opposition should be, and so are willing to be described in those terms. In other words, they think the PAP’s views are representative of the electorate, and that their only role as Opposition parties is to give the electorate whatever they think the electorate wants.
• They think that being “approved Oppositions” takes some heat off their backs and gives them a little more leeway in terms of convincing people that it is safe to join their ranks and stand as candidates on their platform.
• Low and Chiam think that the electorate still regard the PAP with a certain amount of respect, and so by getting into the PAP’s good books, they can maintain their own credibility and standing by appealing to the PAP’s authority.
• They still think that the PAP is doing a good job of running the country, deserves a passing grade, and that the term “approved Opposition” fits well with what they see themselves as — moderate voices who are not to stir a hornet’s nest or campaign for drastic changes, but merely to act as checks and balances and offer measured criticism where appropriate.

Of course, the above reasons are only my conjecture based on gut feel and my reading of the Opposition parties’ minds. I could well be far off the mark.

In my opinion, a politican worth his salt must have a clear idea what he wants to achieve for Singapore, and must be prepared to campaign on a platform he personally believes in and feels strongly for. Let the voters decide at the ballot box whether your platform and political ideals are worthwhile. Why bother to be in Opposition politics if you believe that the PAP’s views are representative of the electorate? You might as well join the PAP if you think it helps your cause by appealing to the authority of the PAP. By subscribing to the PAP’s view of what Opposition should be, you are only preserving the PAP’s monopoly on political space and political ideology.

Low and Chiam might think that acting cool and not responding to the label “approved Opposition” is a good tactic in itself, but I feel this strategy could backfire. Consider these possibilities:

• PAP’s label of “approved Opposition” alienates voters who are strongly anti-PAP. That is most probably why the PAP gave Low and Chiam that label.
• If you allow the PAP to label you as “approved Opposition”, thinking it benefits you, they can also withdraw that label at any time. In other words, you are still at their mercy.
• Accepting PAP’s labels opens the door for them to influence what you are doing by progressively changing the meaning of those labels over time. In other words, labels could be one of the tools by which the PAP can slowly gain control over how you evolve as a political party.

After describing how WP’s poor showing after the 2006 polls led to strong criticism of the party and how this could translate into more support for Opposition parties like the SDP, Paul Jacob made a very interesting remark: “An all-PAP Parliament is not an impossibility given the right conditions and circumstances. But I do not think it will sit well with the electorate of this day and age. Nor, I daresay, with the PAP itself.”

Paul Jacob recognizes that even the PAP leadership is uncomfortable with complete one-party rule. What then is its solution? Could the solution be found by having one or two “approved Oppositions” in Parliament to serve as a small and harmless counter-weight, so that the PAP can avoid being put in the uncomfortable situation of trying to portray Singapore as a democracy whilst having all the seats in Parliament to itself? This certainly is food for thought.

At the end of the article, Paul Jacob says, ” It will be interesting to watch and see if the recent PAP salvos produce a second WP awakening.”

I, on the other hand, am still waiting for the first awakening to occur, when mainstream Opposition parties wake up, smell the coffee, and realize they have a much larger role to play in terms of addressing national issues, growing their ranks substantially, and preparing to form an alternative government if and when it becomes Situation Critical.