The SDP's greater emphasis on 'bread and butter' issues has helped voters to relate to the party better
By Cheryl Chan
Political Correspondent
The year was 1997. The Singapore Democratic Party, widely considered to be the most credible opposition party in Singapore, was wiped out of Parliament, losing all three of its seats. Plagued by infighting and bitter rows between party founder Chiam See Tong and the Central Executive Committee led by Dr Chee Soon Juan, the SDP had been torn apart at the seams.
Four years later, in 2001, a weary SDP headed back to the polls. The rambunctious Dr Chee, pressing for more government accountability, took issue with a clandestine multimillion-dollar loan made by the PAP to discredited former Indonesian President Suharto, and asked Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong to reveal where the money had gone.
In response, Mr Goh and Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew threatened to sue Dr Chee for defamation, charging that he had accused them of acting dishonestly and being unfit for office. Under tremendous pressure, Dr Chee was forced to publish an apology to the PAP leaders, which dealt a devastating death-blow to his election campaign. Dr Chee won only 20% of the votes in Jurong, and his party members fared little better across the board.
After the election, Mr Goh and Mr Lee proceeded to sue Dr Chee anyway, and the courts predictably adjudicated in their favour – awarding them hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages. Dr Chee was made a bankrupt and disqualified from future elections.
Fearing that they would be made guilty by association, many SDP leaders resigned, which decimated the party even further. Mr Goh, Mr Lee and several other PAP leaders were reported to be considering a winding up petition against the party, but for some reason, they never proceeded with those plans.
Dr Chee has been jailed multiple times for his activism and civil disobedience
In the years that followed, Dr Chee, along with a small group of devoted liberals including his sister Chee Siok Chin, Gandhi Ambalam and John Tan, embarked on a campaign of civil disobedience, getting themselves fined and jailed in the process. Singaporeans shunned the SDP, branding them a hard core bunch who were at best deeply radical and at worst insane.
With the rise of a new, moderate Workers’ Party, the SDP was relegated to the periphery of Singapore’s political landscape.
Critics alleged that the party’s brand of activist politics was out of touch with mainstream concerns, and that ordinary Singaporeans could not connect with abstract ideals such as human rights and democracy.
Fast forward to 2011. The SDP has announced that it will be fielding 11 candidates in two GRCs and two SMCs at the May 7 general election. They include Dr Vincent Wijeysingha, the son of a former Raffles Institution principal, who set tongues wagging with a swashbuckling performance at a televised political debate, as well as former senior civil servant Tan Jee Say, who was previously the Principal Private Secretary to Mr Goh. Other candidates include Dr Ang Yong Guan, a prominent psychiatrist and army colonel who has received a host of decorations for his commitment to public service, and Michelle Lee, a London School of Economics graduate and former investment banker turned teacher, because she wanted to work with needy children.
The SDP slate is arguably the strongest slate put out by any opposition party this year, including the WP. Five years ago, it would have been inconceivable that individuals like Tan Jee Say or Ang Yong Guan would even consider joining the party, which is testament to the party’s incredible turnaround.
Acknowledging that the SDP used to have an “image problem”, Mr Tan says that things have changed.
“(The party) has now got a softer image, to the credit of Dr Chee. He has changed, he has improved, he has learned his lessons and we are moving forward. But I’m sure it’s all for the better of Singapore. Dr Chee is not the kind of demon that he was made out to be.”
The SDP has been able to attract candidates such as former civil service high-flyer Tan Jee Say
Mr Tan says he was attracted to the SDP because of its comprehensive economic program, as seen from the fact that it was the only party to publish a Shadow Budget in response to the government’s Budget earlier this year. In the document, the party calls for the elimination of GST for basic food items and medicines, the abolition of tuition grants for foreign students, and the introduction of a Singaporeans-first labour policy.
Before he joined the party, Mr Tan himself authored a 45-page paper on economic alternatives for Singapore. He highlighted that one of the flaws lies in the country’s emphasis on manufacturing, which has resulted on the dependence of foreign workers, which in turn has led to other problems such as depressed wages. He wants to see Singapore move towards beign a services-based economy – something that the PAP itself has advocated for since 1980, but has failed to implement.
Indeed, the SDP seems to have learnt much from the past 14 years spent in the wilderness. The party has made real efforts to connect with the grassroots, taking up the grouses of wet market stall-holders in Fajar in 2009 when the government wanted to relocate them in order to make way for supermarket chain Sheng Shiong. This endeared the party to the frustrated stall-holders, who felt powerless to resist the onslaught of government-backed big business. Indeed, the SDP has made the plight of low-income Singaporeans one of the foremost items on its agenda.
Dr Chee, however, insists that he has not abandoned his commitment to ideals such as democracy and free speech. He has maintainted that it was always the SDP’s intention to champion ‘bread and butter’ issues, but believes that no one can effectively lobby for such issues until Singapore becomes a democratic society.
The only change, it seems, has been in his approach – his party has become far more adept at reaching out to ordinary Singaporeans who were previously unable to understand how democratic ideals such as the freedom of speech could tangibly impact their lives.
In the meantime, if Dr Chee can hold his rejuvenated party together and strengthen it further, it could become a real force to be reckoned far beyond just this election. He will just have to keep changing people’s minds, one at a time – speaking in Hokkien instead of a clipped American accent, if he has to.
–
The writer is a political science graduate from the National University of Singapore. She is currently working as an analyst at a leading research firm.
Tan See Jay is a single issue candidate.
From the grapevine- tsj was at tea with pap and was thought to be too self serving for the whites. Can someone in the press ask him this direct question if he was rejected by the pap? Revenge of the ego is a strong motive.
Unfortunately, Dr Chee’s efforts to re-brand the SDP and give it a new image have been waylaid by the venal, despicable, deplorable acts of Vivian Balakrishnan who is bringing up a totally irrelevant issue. He picked the gay issue as he knows it will be a sensitive one in Holland-BT where many voters are Christians. Vivian Balakrishnan is a cunning, scheming, devious and slimy man with no moral compass and no integrity whatsoever, and it looks like his ploy will work unless Vincent falls into the trap of hitting out against him… and if he does, we could be looking at yet another SDP member being hit with lawsuits and bankruptcy.
Chee Soon Juan makes the 84-year-old great grandma of my grand daughter. She totally agrees that PAP is “chek ark chenghu” who has taken the public (especially the poor) for a ride and only acts nice during election time.
For what it’s worth, I do not think that CSJ is the demon he’s carved out to be by the MSM and PAPpeople. In fact, his Hokkien speech has brought Tharman out to say that GST won’t be increase for the next 5 years! For that, I’m grateful to Dr Chee.
feedmetothefish
Dont be too happy that they have decided not to increase GST. They will hit you in other ways. Perhaps there will be increase in water and electricity and further increase in transport cost. They can raise the petrol and diesel tax from the present 30% ad volarium to perhapse 40%. They can further increase the property tax of HDB flats by another 20%, etc.
So, GST is not the only way to get money out of you.
I am very uncomfortable that Vincent will be using Parliament as a soapbox to campaign for gay rights.. first of all I don’t think that Singapore is ready to legalize and recognize gay marriages as that could spell all kinds of social problems. But more importantly I think that we should not even be having this discussion as there are more important issues (economic, immigration) to worry about. Gay issues impact a very small % of Singapore. If Vincent is hiding his gay agenda then he needs to come clean and clarify matters now.
Dr Vincent Wijeysingha should come clean on his agenda and whether he intends to use Parliament to canvass for gay issues on behalf of the gay rights lobby group. If so, can he really say that he is representative of all Singaporeans, or is he serving the interests of a particular (and rather influential) lobby group?
Dr Ang Yong Guan should also come clean on his past association with City Harvest Church and his own views. If he is not an evangelical fundamentalist then he should refute those claims right away. He should also make clear his stand on Dr Wijeysingha and whether he would accept his team mate advocating gay issues in Parliament.
SDP has alot of answering to do.
@ NOT MY SDP:
At least CSJ has dared to speak up for his beliefs and take the punishment as it comes. Are you prepared to do the same. If not, then don’t talk so much. What’s the use of complaining and not doing anything?? CSJ wins my respect for sacrificing for what he believed
I think its about time that we give CSJ his due recognition for having sacrificed so much for the sake of our rights. And it will only augur well for Parliament if more opposition parties including SDP are voted in as variety is the spice of life.
It’s time that we give our PAP MPs a run for their monies.
What rights? He went to jail, got fined, got bankrupted for “freedom of speech” and “freedom of assembly”. My question is, do we have MORE such freedoms as a result of CSJ’s antics? No, the answer is we have LESS!! In the past, illegal assembly was defined as gatherings of “more than 4 people”, now the law has been changed and even 1 person can be considered an illegal assembly. This is the so-called fruit of CSJ’s labour. Besides, the heartlanders and grassroots do not actually care about such things anyway. What has CSJ done to improve the lives of people in terms of flat upgrading, municipal facilities, essential services? Has he given food to the hungry for free? No!! But the WP has done exactly that in Hougang (including giving free handouts of essential food items to the needy). SDP is bringing down the opposition as a whole.
Wow, the PAP internet brigade is certainly getting active during election time.. lots of PAP moles here trying to badmouth SDP
Oh really? Just because we disagree with the SDP, we are “PAP moles”?? This is the “with us or against us” argument made famous by George W. Bush.. please reconsider this flawed logic
I am not pro-PAP. I am pro-Singapore. I dislike PAP and I would vote for any DECENT opposition party that contests in my area including WP, NSP, SPP, SDA, RP. But I won’t vote for SDP because their ideals are heavily flawed, and because their leader Dr Chee Soon Juan is a man of questionable ethics having turned his back on his former mentor the honourable Mr Chiam, and in addition, Dr Chee has also DESTROYED the SDP from within. As this article says, in 1997 the SDP was WIPED OUT of Parliament when it previously had 3 seats and was very widely tipped to become a real threat to PAP.
The SDP was not destroyed by CSJ. The SDP was brought to the brink of destruction thanks to selective targeting of CSJ by LKY and GCT aided by the kangaroo courts and the 154th media. CSJ has actually revived the party. The fact that SDP managed to attract very credible candidates is actually down to Dr Chee’s efforts even though he himself was barred from contesting this election. Please get your facts straight. If not for CSJ, SDP would have been destroyed long ago.
You are so naive that it’s funny. Are you still schooling? Do you really think that CSJ’s abstract notions of “human rights” actually resonate with the grassroots? Do you think your average auntie or uncle CARES about such things? He went and got himself fined, jailed and bankrupted umpteen times because of these supposedly “noble” causes but to the average citizen he just looks like a buffoon. No one believes that he is credible and that is his own bloody fault. The SDP is spoiling the market for ALL opposition parties in Singapore. It was no surprise that they were the WORST PERFORMING party in the 2006 polls and this will continue in 2011 whether they have TJS or not.
This so-called SDP revival is a flash in the pan.. their team is made up of opportunists in a marriage of convenience. You have TJS and AYG who are Christians and right-leaning moderates, as well as former establishment figures. Then you have CSJ and his old guard along with people like VW and JG who are all left-leaning liberals who place great emphasis on abstract liberal ideals like gay rights, freedom of speech, freedom to conduct demonstrations, and so on. Do you really think that CSJ has done his homework?? Bringing people together from such disparate ends of the spectrum.. this is a ticking time bomb. SDP could implode for a second time and if it does, it will be the end of the party and CSJ’s political career (or what’s left of it). TJS and AYG would have been better off joining WP. I do not for a minute believe that a leopard like CSJ will ever change his spots.
More on why Dr Vivian says that the SDP’s team is made up of “strange bedfellows”. Dr Ang Yong Guan is known to be an evangelical Christian who has spoken at forms linked to the now-discredited City Harvest Church. While Dr Wijeysingha is an ultra-liberal gay rights activist. Why are they contesting on the same team? Has Dr Ang even done his due diligence on the background of Dr Wijeysingha? Do they see eye to eye on gay issues? Is Dr Ang comfortable with his team mate trying to openly champion gay rights issues in Parliament (which presumably he will do, according to the video)? Unless they come clean on this, Vivian B’s comments on “strange bedfellows” will be valid. People deserve to know whether or not AYG and VW see eye to eye and whether VW is going to champion gay issues in Parliament (e.g. Section 377, etc)
You are treading on very dangerous ground here by bringing Dr Ang’s religion and Dr Wijeysingha’s sexual orientation into the picture.
First of all, what is your own agenda? Do you have a problem with gay people? Are you homophobic?
So what if Vincent is gay? It should not make an iota of a difference. Saying that he should not be elected because he is gay, is the same as saying that you shouldn’t elect someone because of their age, gender, race, or religion. It is bigotry and discrimination. Is this what the PAP is advocating? Dr Vivian is trying to make the SDP lose votes with cunning insinuations.
No one cares whether VW is gay as long as he does not use Parliament as a soap box solely to air gay issues. I think that most Singaporeans are ambivalent about gay issues. Even MM Lee has said that the best approach is to leave gays alone and respect their way of life. More importantly, are we going to deny Vincent the chance to champion cost of living issues, immigration issues, healthcare issues, education issues just because he is gay? That is ridiculous
Just when things were starting to look good for the Street Demonstration Party, their venal and clandestine agenda has been unveiled. All of us know exactly what their agenda and motivations are, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan also knows, it’s all clearly stated in the video. Dr Wijeysingha wants to go to Parliament so that he can champion gay rights issues but is afraid to admit it in case it costs him votes from the right-wing Christian lobby. But the truth is now out and SDP is going to lose alot of votes.. Dr Balakrishnan has, by mere insinuation, destroyed SDP’s threat in one political master stroke. He didn’t even need to make any accusations. His vagueness caused people to go online and find out for themselves, which they have done. The SDP says it engages the internet and uses it as a tool. Well, they have now fallen on their own sword!
CSJ as usual has shown his reckless nature and failed to make the right calculations. He will have no excuses because he himself champions the use of internet as a medium of FREE SPEECH. Now that this issue has spread like wildfire thanks to the INTERNET, he can’t say anything otherwise he will be guilty of hypocrisy!
But then again we all know that CSJ has always resorted to hypocrisy and double-standards. We all know that he leads his party like a dictator even though he always champions for democracy. We all know that he BETRAYED his mentor, and the man who got him into SDP in the first place. If Chiam was still in charge of SDP, by now they would have 15 seats in Parliament instead of zero.
Article is a bit lightweight,
More focused on issues and less emotional outburst will be helpful for the SDP,
When there is need to opposed do it constructively and when there is need to seek consensus , approached it with level headed ness , be firm but gracious
With this game plan , you will win enemies over and attract more support and friends , forget about screaming and shouting and creating chaos especially in the afternoon and at night
I really need to take naps and have a good night rest
Pingback: Daily SG: 25 Apr 2011 « The Singapore Daily
Pingback: Daily SG: 25 Apr 2011 « The Singapore Daily
I find it really odd that Tan Jee Say joined SDP instead of WP. I wonder what his reasons were.
I still don’t think that CSJ is a suitable leader for the SDP if it wants to be credible. After this election, if any SDP member wins any seats (whether MP or NCMP) probably Dr Chee should consider stepping down from the S-G position at least until he is no longer a bankrupt and able to contest elections.