Donaldson Tan

Last Saturday, Liberal International (LI) and the Council of Asian Liberals & Democrats (CALD) jointly organised a roundtable discussion titled “Fortifying Liberal Democracy and Partnership in the Region” in Singapore. Several political parties were invited.

Notably, parties represented include the Singapore People’s Party (SPP), the Reform Party (RP), the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), the United Singapore Democrats (USD) while the People’s Action Party (PAP) had declined to participate.

The roundtable was chaired by Mr Hans van Baalen, who is both a Member of European Parliament for Netherlands and the current President of LI. According to him, Singapore looks much civilised from the outside. For a foreigner passing through Singapore, many things certainly appear to be in order given the Republic’s prosperity, but, in fact, there is no free and fair election.

He also observed that it is not uncommon of opposition political parties to face anti-competitive election rules in transitioning democracies such as Singapore. While competition is good in politics, competition does not protect politics from anti-competitive practices. It was raised at the roundtable that the GRC scheme had effectively impeded free and fair election in Singapore since its introduction in 1988 General Election. The introduction of the GRC scheme is widely seen as a reaction to the late JB Jeyaretnam’s 1981 by-election breakthrough in shattering PAP’s parliamentary monopoly and his subsequent re-election in the 1984 General Election.

Perhaps fearing a repeat of history whereby an Opposition member was elected into Parliament via a by-election, the PAP has categorically refused to hold a by-election when the then MP for Bukit Batok Dr. Ong Chit Chung passed away in July 2008. The Bukit Batok constituency is part of the 5-member Jurong GRC.

In response to calls for a by-election, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong stated that he has full discretion on whether to call for by-election and that voters in a GRC voted according to party lines and as long as the GRC team, whether it is one member short or not, is PAP, the party continues to hold mandate for that GRC. However, Jurong GRC was a walkover ward in GE 2006.

One should note that PAP’s popularity is on a downward trend since its all-time high of 86.7% in 1968, to 66.6% in 2006. This affirms the long term viability of a parliamentary opposition and that is why the PAP responded by introducing the NMP and NCMP schemes to reverse this trend.

The aim of these schemes is to incorporate alternative voices in Parliament to play down the need for an alternative government. According to Kenneth Jeyaretnam (Secretary General of the Reform Party), the goal of a political party is to seek power by winning seats in Parliament to become an alternative government. Moreover, it is not necessary for political parties to play or even monopolise the role of political watchdog. This is one area where media and civil society actors can participate.

More importantly, what is the impact of the introduction of unelected members of parliament on political competition? In terms of parliamentary participation, there is added pressure to PAP MPs to be less complacent and to be more competent in parliament. Yet the trade-off manifests disproportionately in terms of electoral participation. Moderate dissenting voices are being co-opted to deliberately avoid a more aggressive opposition being elected into Parliament.

The PAP government has submitted legislative amendments to Parliament to increase the number of Nominated MPs from 6 to 9 and to set a ceiling of 9 Non-constituency MPs for the next General Election. The number of Single-Member Constituencies is also expected to increase from 9 to 12. Collectively, these legislative moves affect electoral participation and how the strategy of Opposition unity plays out.

In the last General Election, opposition unity materialised in the form of avoidance of 3-cornered fights. As a result, the Opposition contested 47 out of the 84 seats in Parliament in total (29 in GE 2001). Consequently, the PAP was unable to return to power on Nomination Day for the first time since 1988.

The key to avoidance of 3-cornered fights does not lie in politicians stepping down from GE candidacy, but rather candidates from different opposition political parties eyeing the same Single Member Constituency could be re-distributed into a number of GRC teams contesting under an alliance banner. How this re-distribution occurs would depend on a variety of factors, including but not limited to the opportunity cost for the candidate and his political party.

In retrospect, raising the ceiling on the number of Non-constituency MPs in Parliament raises the opportunity cost for candidate and his political party in electoral participation since it provides a back-door entrance into Parliament. Moreover, only up to two candidates from each opposition GRC team may be considered for the Non-constituency MP scheme. Overall, this increases the attractiveness of SMC over GRC at the expense of formal coalition such as the Singapore Democratic Alliance.

Moreover, the competition dynamics for a SMC differs vastly from that of a 5-member, 6-member GRC. A greater area coverage means more campaigning cost and a higher frequency of public outreach activities. All these involve more manpower in comparison to campaigning in a SMC. On top of that, a greater sum of election deposit is at stake. Fortunately, what this entails is that 3-cornered fights are very unlikely to happen in a GRC unless it is a 3-member one.

Yet GRC teams from the Opposition camp do not arise from the Singapore Democratic Alliance solely. Parties that had fielded GRC teams in GE 2001 and GE 2006 include the Worker’s Party and the Singapore Democratic Party. It is unclear whether the constitution of the Singapore Democratic Alliance impedes its member parties from contesting in a GRC individually. Furthermore, time is running out for Opposition political parties to participate in formal coalition due to an administrative hurdle.

Contesting for a GRC legally requires each team to contest under a single banner. This means every GRC candidate must be a member of the same political association, whether it is a political party or an umbrella organisation such as the Singapore Democratic Alliance. However, the party constitution of each potential member political party has to be in harmony with the umbrella political organisation. For example, the constitution of the Worker’s Party forbids dual party membership (See Clause 5).

Moreover, the United Singapore Democrats is a mysterious political association. Not much is known about it. Many has speculated that it is a political party intended to replace the Singapore Democratic Party should the PAP decide to close it down by demanding SDP leaders repay the debt it owes to the PAP. However, there is possibility that the USD is an umbrella political organisation that acts as an alternative coalition to the Singapore Democratic Alliance. Given the tense relationship between Mr Chiam See Tong and Dr Chee Soon Juan, it is hard to forsee the entry of the SDP into the SDA, but it would be interesting to observe two competing opposition coalitions in the local political scene.

How the political climate in Singapore continues to evolve depends on political actors who are in the drivers’ seats. There is a lot of uncertainty attached to strategic opposition unity. The implementation phase is no less than the conceptual stage. Inter-party diplomacy will play a strong role in the strategy implementation phase. Just as what Mr van Baalen had said at the CALD-LI Roundtable, the PAP should rightly be playing a prominent role to bring about change, but in the absence of this, only the opposition alliance can bring about the much needed change.