PAP is a shining example of BN failure
Air Kosong
If countries are like shares trading on the stock exchange, something interesting happened to two shares called “Malaysia” and “Singapore”. In 2008, Malaysia’s share price shot through the sky after a fantastic showing in its political tsunami. Its price started to slide downward gradually over the last three years, while Singapore’s continued to remain hugely depressed.
Until May 2011, that is. Out of the blue, it is Singapore’s turn to shoot through the sky, even surpassing what Malaysia has achieved in 2008. The imaginative share price here is measured by democratic development of the ‘stock’ concerned.
Of course what I am characterising here is the aftermaths of 2008 political tsunami in Malaysia and 2011 general election in Singapore. Earlier, I have asked the question if the Singaporeans are capable of a political tsunami, given that both countries have many similar circumstances surrounding the two dominant political organisations in BN and PAP. What happened and what continues to unfold down south, where I have been living in the past 17 years, is certainly interesting and, more importantly, a great deal of lesson for Malaysians to learn in comparison.
The results of May 7 general election were of no shock and yet of great significance to Singapore. The incumbent PAP was returned to power with a shining majority of 81 in the 87-seat parliament. But its vote share dropped to the record low of 60.14%, a swing of 6.46%. It lost for the first time in a GRC, an electoral system that was known to favour the PAP. It had two of its cabinet ministers on the receiving end of the GRC loss. For the many years in memory, there are six elected opposition members in Singapore’s parliament. Qualitatively and more profoundly, the election saw the disappearing fear factor among Singaporeans in front of the fearful PAP and the emergence of opposition candidates with credibility and track records.
The immediate aftermath is even more interesting. Within a week, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, who is known to be the invisible hand behind the scene even after stepping down as prime minister 21 years ago, and his successor Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong announced standing down from any cabinet role, “to give prime minister Lee Hsien Loong the room to break from the past”. Four days later, a new cabinet was announced, with six veterans dropped from the list. Among the six, two are actually the casualty from the GRC loss and one has announced his retirement before the general election. But the remaining three are the significant ones, as they are said to be the most unpopular ministers mishandling their respective ministries. They won their contested seats but lost the cabinet posts, which are S$2-3 million jobs.
As if still fearing for its survival, the PAP finally “slaughtered its first sacred cow”. Prime minister Lee Hsien Loong announced on May 22 that a committee was set up to review the salaries of the ministers, prime minister and president, which range between S$2-3.7 million. The “sacred cow”, one of the hot-button issues during the general election, is the brainchild of the prime minister’s father, something that “Lee Kuan Yew once put his own reputation – and his ’40 years of experience’ – on the line”, as The Online Citizen describes it. Lee Hsien Loong explained that “the salary of ministers should have a significant discount to comparable private sector salaries to signify the value and ethos of political service”, an argument that the PAP leadership has been insistent on rejecting for years.
Coming back to Malaysia, the 2008 political tsunami was actually more damaging and threatening to the incumbent BN in comparison. Its lost its two-third majority in the parliament, dropping to 140 seats from its previous 198 seats. It lost power in five states. Most threatening of all, its vote share dropped to 50.27%, with a swing of 13.63% against it. It’s effectively a minority government if factors like ‘captive’ postal voters, control of mainstream media and abuses of government machineries during the general election are to be factored in.
What has BN changed as a result? We have a new prime minister, Najib Tun Razak, a year after the tsunami, but the process of his installation was the most undemocratic of all, decided only by a group of about 32 people called Majlis Tertinggi UMNO. Najib then spent millions on a US-based, Israelis-led public relation company called APCO, producing what I would call the 1Malaysia campaign. Full of publicity stunts and superficial element but lacking in substance and clarity, the campaign has proven Najib’s absence of sincerity, courage and leadership to tackle the challenge in Malaysia, to take on hot-button issues.
We continue to have a government that ignores the danger from religious and racist bigotry, in the form of right-wing group Perkasa and UMNO-owned newspaper Utusan Malaysia. We have had the darkest moments through the incidents of cow-head protest by Perkasa members in Shah Alam, fire-bombing of churches and the latest allegation of Christian state conspiracy. We have the deceptive transformation programmes in the public sector that do nothing more than a public relation branch from the umbrella 1Malaysia campaign. The judiciary, the police and various other law enforcement agencies continue to be used as political means of BN. We have had the worst from the death of Teoh Beng Hock, abuse of the court for the coup in the Perak state and prolonged prosecution (and non-stop persecution) of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim.
