The opposition parties have sought to highlight that they love Singapore too, refuting allegations from the PAP that they are out to destabilise the country
By Loh Kai Herng
Contributor
In this election, as has been the case in previous elections, PAP leaders have portrayed opposition candidates as being irresponsible. They have warned of dire consequences if more opposition candidates were to be elected to Parliament.
It is clear that an attempt is being made to link voting for the opposition to voting against the interests of Singapore. Voters were told that if they voted for a non-PAP candidate, they would not be voting for the good of the country. They would not be acting in the nation’s best interests.
This strategy has been remarkably effective, and it has resulted in the opposition suffering from an image problem during previous elections. For example, with encouragement from the mainstream media and the PAP establishment, it was widely thought that Dr Chee Soon Juan was out to destabilize the country with his frequent demonstrations and unpredictable moves.
But this time, it seems that the opposition wants to lay this image problem to rest for good. They want to tell voters that they love Singapore, and they want to dispel any doubt about their patriotism for the country. They are trying to finally destroy the link between voting for the opposition and voting against the country, a link which the PAP has cleverly crafted and sustained throughout previous elections.
To quote from the co-driver analogy that has been making headlines, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said that the opposition wants to “lead us to a crash”, suggesting that voting for the Workers’ Party would be tantamount to voting for Singapore’s demise. It is a charge the Workers’ Party has flatly denied.
Instead, opposition candidates are taking pains to stress that they are real patriots who love Singapore, as opposed to the newer generation of PAP office-holders who are highly-paid and therefore easy targets for attacks about their real motives for entering politics.
As opposition candidates are fond of asking during rallies, are these ministers here to serve Singapore, or are they only here for the money? Their arguments have been helped by the fact that PAP cabinet ministers gave themselves a pay increment of 60% in 2007, an event most Singaporeans still remember today.
In contrast, opposition candidates have not shied in sharing with the public the internal struggles they underwent before they ultimately decided to go against the ruling party. They say that they decided to run under the opposition banner only because they truly want to serve the people, and make a difference. They deny that they are out to destroy Singapore.
Now, the opposition is no longer content to simply defend itself against attacks from the PAP. It wants to tell voters that it loves Singapore, and use this to sway hearts and minds. For a successful example of how the opposition has co-opted the politics of patriotism into their own platform, one only has to look at the Singapore Democratic Party’s (SDP) transformation.
Much has been made of the fact that the SDP is now appearing more like a credible, well-run party. Their election rally stages are beautiful, extremely professional and captured to striking effect in photographs.
Vincent Wijeysingha speaks against a backdrop of SDP and Singapore flags
Most crucially, it is impossible for one to miss the row of flags laid out on the stage – a straight row of Singapore flags and SDP party flags alternating, standing regally in line. In fact, it has helped that the SDP’s flag is the same shade of red as our national flag, and both go together very well in terms of colour coordination.
But it is no simple coincidence that the SDP stage almost looks like the type of platform we would expect at an event like the National Day Rally, with a flag of Singapore behind our Prime Minister. The message the SDP wants to send out is this: they love Singapore, their party is part of the national fabric, and there is no way you can possibly say that they are out to destroy the country.
Come May 7, we will find out if Singaporeans’ perceptions of the SDP have indeed changed. But for now, perhaps my account of the WP’s final rally from the 2006 elections will highlight just how effective co-opting patriotism into politics can be:
In their final rally on the eve of polling day 2006, Sylvia Lim and Low Thia Khiang led a record-sized crowd in a recitation of the national pledge at the Workers’ Party rally in Aljunied GRC. I was there on that night, and tears nearly came to my eyes. It was a poignant moment as I stood shoulder to shoulder with other Singaporeans I didn’t know, saying the words of our national pledge.
For the first time, I understood that the future of my country was in my hands, and I left the Serangoon Stadium convinced which party I would vote for, if only I had a chance to vote then.
Leading a recital of the pledge at the end of a fiercely-charged rally was an effective way to stir up emotions, and I dare say most Aljunied GRC voters who left the stadium that night felt the same way I did. At that point, we had no doubt that we loved Singapore, and that the Workers’ Party loved Singapore too.
–
The author is a 21-year old undergraduate student at Brown University, one of the most respected Ivy League institutions in the United States.
Very nice site!
Very nice site! cheap viagra
What happened to the link at:
http://satayclub.net/2011/05/pm-lee-ncmps-no-different-from-mps/%22
Was not able to access this… are you guys also gettting attacked?
You are patriot. So, would you do what you can do for your country? That is to ensure we have a “first world parliament”. To have a “first world parliament”, we must have a “strong Constitution” that no one can abuse and only Singaporeans can amend it in referendum. To have a “strong Constitution”, we need a impartial government to rewrite and strengthen the Constitution. Are PAP willing to do this for the sake of the country and its people? Which alternative party when elected as government is likely to do this? You will have to answer these questions yourself.
There are few scenarios that Singaporeans must understand in this GE2011:
1. More voices but no change – To have less than 1/3 opposition seats in parliament will not change anything already done, e.g. cost of living, FTs, property prices, etc except that opposition MPs can make more noises and suggestions that PAP in majority may not listen. There is also a risk that PAP back in power will find ways to suppress all oppositions so that there will not be any chance of voting like in this GE2011.
2. Partial change – To have more than 1/3 and less than 2/3 opposition seats will be likely to change some already done as above but will not change the Constitution that allows GRC, NMP, NCMP, and election boundary redrawing. PAP will still be in power or sharing power with oppositions. This may be harder for PAP in power to diminish the oppositions.
3. Complete change – To have more than 2/3 opposition seats means the alternative party will be the government and PAP the opposition. This can change everything including the Constitution. However, Singaporeans must make sure the elected government rewrites the Constitution to abolish those ill clauses and introduce check and balance clause. Also, to ensure Constitution is not allowed to change without referendum. Otherwise, the next non-PAP government may have the chance to abuse the Constitution as well.
Basically, this GE2011 is not about local town upgrading, FTs, or cost of living, etc. It is about whether Singaporeans would like to take back the political power and have a say on the future of Singapore. Once the people take back the power, they can then have a say on how to run this country and all those policies and problems will be resolved to their preference.
Singaporeans must vote wisely on 7 May to decide what they want in the future.
And exactly which part of the Constitution do you wish to change? This is treading on dangerous ground because our basic rights are enshrined in the Constitution. Not only that, but also values such as multi-racialism and equal opportunities for all. Don’t think that the Constitution can be just changed as you please. This is not masak-masak, the Constitution is a sacred document that is the fundamental basis for our nationhood. If you want to change the Constitution, you should come clean immediately on what is your intention and motive. Don’t try and hijack Singapore’s sovereignty for the purpose of your own selfish hidden agenda.
nani, are you aware that our constitution’s been treated like a doormat by the PAP from time to time? Under the constitution, citizens of Singapore are supposed to have the rights to freedom of speech and assembly, but the PAP have continually denied this right from us. I respect the constitution. I do believe that our constitution should be protected, however, the PAP continually insults the constitution by breaking many of the rights that are entitled to we the citizens of Singapore.
Ever since GCT has marketed Singapore Inc, Singapore is just a company, not a country anymore. The people are there to make more money for the company so that the top management (Ministers etc) can have a higher salary and bonus.
National interest in PAP case is only PAP interest – they do not represent my interest, at least not anymore. I do not want another 900,000 more foreigners in Singapore – we are already too crowded……but our pleas have fallen on deaf ears, so we have to give the other parties a chance.
You are being very naive and ignorant. Just like most uneducated voters who fail to see the bigger picture. When you face competition in your jobs, you blame the FTs. Instead of complaining, why not upgrade yourself so that you can become a better employee? As Mr Lim Swee Say mentioned, you need to work better, cheaper, faster. There is no free lunch in this world. Singaporeans’ sense of entitlement and inability to manage hardship will be the undoing of this country. Without the FTs, investors will pull out of Singapore as the labour costs will be too high. They can easily go to India or China where labour costs are lower. If they pull out, you know what this means? Unemployment! You and I would be out of a job, pronto. FTs are the easy target because Singaporeans are xenophobic and racist. But without them, we would all be unemployed. Why do you think the USA has 10% unemployment while Singapore has only 1.9% unemployment? Who do you think builds your homes? Who do you think repairs your roads? Who do you think does the hard work behind your new MRT stations, shopping malls, integrated resorts, museums, tourist attractions? Do you see any Singaporeans doing it? I rest my case!
Vote for PAP = Voting for 900,000 more foreigners into Singapore.
I am surprised that the SDP has not attacked ministerial salaries more than they have. I would have expected them to really whack on this issue.