NEW INTERVIEW: My interview with Eric Tan (Workers' Party Treasurer) (interview summary and discussion), 2010.

Mr Eric Tan Heng Chong (former Treasurer Workers’ Party, former Member of Workers’ Party Central Executive Committee, candidate East Coast GRC for Workers’ Party 2006 and 2011 GEs)

Eric Tan stood for the Workers' Party in East Coast GRC at the 2006 and 2011GEs and served for a number of years as WP’s Treasurer. Eric was previously, and at the date of our interview, a member of WP’s Central Executive Council (CEC). He resigned the party, to the complete shock of informed commentators, shortly after the (7 May) 2011GE because his party chose not to award him the NCMP position in parliament (for “best losing effort”). Although he led the best performing opposition losing team, the party opted for renewal by selecting the much younger Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, who was at the time aged 34. Mr Tan’s departure was a major loss for the WP because he was a calm seasoned campaigner and one of the few older people who had contested for the WP at both the 2006 and 2011GEs. Furthermore, his banking industry experience had given him the technical skills and expertise necessary to function effectively as a finance minister in government or as a shadow finance minister in opposition. Despite being such a serious loss for the WP his departure went largely unacknowledged and was basically shrugged off by the party like water off a duck’s back.

Mr Tan graduated from the elite National University of Singapore (NUS); completed compulsory National Service; and worked with the Defence Ministry (MINDEF). At this point he was still regarded as an “Establishment figure” and he viewed himself in the same way (source: interview with Eric Tan, 3 March 2010). At MINDEF Mr Tan said that he first became aware of the elitist meritocracy run by the PAP government (Barr, 2009; Barr and Skrbis, 2008) and he became increasingly disillusioned with the ruling party.

Mr Tan expressed his unhappiness about the government’s harsh treatment of opposition politicians and alleged dissidents especially in relation to JBJ and the so-called Operation Spectrum aka the “Marxist conspiracy” of 1987-88. He was also unhappy about the cost-of-living pressures that became more and more acute and damaging during the “Goh Chok Tong years” (i.e. during the years of the prime-ministership of Goh Chok Tong, 1990-2004). The NSP’s Goh Meng Seng agreed (personal interview, 15 October 2010), claiming that Goh Chok Tong’s gentle manner, as compared to LKY’s abruptness and occasional impoliteness, in fact meant swallowing a “sweet pill” as the government used more and more tricky hyper-capitalist methods such as Certificate of Entitlement (COE); Goods and Services Tax (GST); and Area Licensing Scheme (ALS) (now replaced by Electronic Road Pricing (ERP)) to engineer society and extract increased rents from the working-class.  

In sharp contrast to the SDP, which went into a period of relative decline after losing its three seats in 1997, the WP, after contesting only a few seats in the 1990s, raised its profile considerably at the 2006GE by contesting many seats and polling consistently well (without adding to its one elected seat). At the 2006GE, WP contested the following seven constituencies: Ang Mo Kio GRC; Aljunied GRC; East Coast GRC; Nee Soon East SMC; Nee Soon Central SMC; Joo Chiat SMC; and Hougang SMC; up from contesting only two SMCs in 2001. The WP wisely decided in 2006 and afterwards to focus its attention on contesting seats in the north-eastern part of the island, a region fast emerging as its “natural constituency” or its “heartland” (source: interview with Yaw Shin Leong, 5 October 2011).

The period 2006-13 was important in opposition history because it was the period when the WP became the first ever opposition party to gain a significant brand-factor meaning that a candidate having the WP-brand backing in itself was able to make a significant difference in terms of the votes polled. The SDP had begun this trend, on a smaller and less reliable scale, at the 1991GE when it won three seats (only to lose them all at the 1997GE when Chiam defected to the SPP and the others lost at the ballot box).

Mr Tan described the 2006 campaign at East Coast GRC for WP as follows:

“In 2006 everyone had low expectations of the opposition given all the mess. WP could capture imagination; twenty candidates, well scrubbed, like PAP people. I contested East Coast GRC 2006. I left banking two and a half years ago. Employers are not comfortable if you join in opposition politics. ... Now I’m director of an educational institute identifying good people to join University of Michigan. In 2006 WP rose from the ashes. I worked hard to get elected, like it was a full-time job. The GRC campaign centred around [sic] James Gomez. He said he submitted his [minority certification] form, the Elections Department could not find it; CCTV said he put them in an envelope [instead of submitting it]. They said he had evil intent. PAP could not prove; he said it was an honest mistake; this brought fear factor back. 2001 [actually 1991] they went after Jufrie [Mahmood]; they said he is trying to stir up racial feelings. In ‘06 they picked on James”.

Mr Tan stressed that the WP’s leadership consciously chose to exercise restraint after being criticized by PAP over the “James Gomez affair” where the WP’s Gomez was accused of being deceitful by claiming that he had submitted his minority race certificate to the Elections Department when there was no official record of its receipt. WP’s restrained approach was important so as to give PAP politicians and MSM journalists no further quotes to use as ammunition. The degree of restraint shown by WP’s leadership clearly impressed many people, and it is one major factor explaining WP’s electoral success in 2006 as well as the high regard in which the public held the party up until at least around 2013. Despite this, Gomez (personal interview, 10 January 2011) stated that, if he had been in WP’s leadership, he would have handled the affair differently. Basically, the PAP’s attempt to gain political mileage from the “Gomez affair” rebounded on itself. Patrick Lee (personal interview, 12 October 2010) told one PAP MP that its harsh politicization of the Gomez affair was, in his opinion, the primary reason why WP polled over 40% of the vote in Aljunied GRC. Mr Tan discussed the WP’s careful and restrained response to the Gomez affair as follows:

“We were disciplined; we stuck together. Low and Sylvia [Lim, Party Chairperson] handled it; press wants to draw you away from party line. Always there is a defamation threat if you call me [i.e. anyone] a liar. We all stayed together; we said WP will stay disciplined; we concentrated on campaigning; we had different policies; campaign went like a pendulum; we felt the pressure”.

The WP gallantly took on the PAP team in Ang Mo Kio GRC in 2006, a contest that looked unwinnable because of PM Lee Hsien Loong’s presence heading the Ang Mo Kio PAP team. Because WP had chosen to contest the PM’s GRC, the media coined the label “Suicide Squad” (敢死队) to refer to the young six-member WP team. However, contesting Ang Mo Kio GRC actually made sound strategic sense since it is an area with a large ethnic Chinese population (that is far above the national average) and it geographically borders the Hougang SMC already held by the WP. It also includes part of the former Cheng San GRC contested by the WP team that included JBJ and Tang Liang Hong at the 1997GE, a team which performed extremely creditably ending up with 45.18% of the vote (44,132 out of 97,685 valid votes) (da Cunha, 1997, p. 131). Although the MSM happily reported the swing towards PM Lee in Ang Mo Kio GRC at the 2011GE (Lee, 2011), insufficient attention was paid to the fact that Lee contested against a strong WP team in 2006 but against a relatively weak and unpopular Reform Party (RP) team in 2011. The media in 2006 also referred to the WP’s “A-Team” (Aljunied GRC including lawyer Lim and researcher Gomez) and “B-Team” (East Coast GRC) although Mr Tan said that he did not like to put one team above the other.

At the 2006GE the WP polled very well in a number of seats including 33.9% against PM Lee’s team in Ang Mo Kio GRC (Lee, 2011). Significantly, Low’s share of the vote increased more than marginally in Hougang SMC from 54.98% (or 12,070 out of 21,952 valid votes) to 62.74% (or 13,989 out of 22,297 valid votes). It appears that the younger voters who came of age in time for the 2006GE were equally, if not more, impressed by Mr Low than the senior and middle generations. Overall, WP’s performances at the 2006 GE were as follows: Aljunied GRC 43.91% (58,593 out of 133,436 valid votes); Ang Mo Kio GRC 33.86% (49,479 out of 146,115); East Coast GRC 36.14% (37,873 out of 104,804); Nee Soon East SMC 31.28% (9,535 out of 30,484); Nee Soon Central SMC 34.63% (7,529 out of 21,740); Joo Chiat SMC 34.99% (6,580 out of 18,806); and Hougang SMC 62.74% (13,989 out of 22,297) (all calculations made by the researcher based on raw data at Singapore-elections.com). The sheer consistency of these results (by the standards of the day) reflected very well on the resurgent WP and showed that the party had built itself a hardcore supporter base of around 30-35% (rather than the historic 20% of “donkey” hardcore opposition voters referred to by Dr Leong). The WP was able to build upon these results at the 2011GE, with the party attracting both more committed hardcore support and more swinging voter support.

Mr Tan presented WP as a party intending to focus on bread-and-butter issues with little desire to broadcast its belief in so-called “abstract” concepts such as democracy and human rights. This is where WP’s approach (in the era of Low Thia Khiang as Secretary-General) differed significantly from that of SDP under Dr Chee. NGO activist Roderick Chia (personal interview, 4 March 2010), who assisted the WP team in Aljunied GRC at the 2006GE, put forward to the researcher a similar dichotomy. Although SDP’s Chee has covered in detail in his various books specific practical policy recommendations (further refined, as far as economic policy goes, in the 2010 SDP document It’s about you: Prosperity and Progress for every Singaporean), most or even all of these appeared to follow, more or less directly, from his personal humanitarian liberal-democratic beliefs. Although this may have begun to change, since around the time of the 2011GE, key commentators of the era perceived that the SDP then saw itself in the somewhat Gandhian or Mandelian terms of “light in the darkness” or “voice in the wilderness” (to quote Mr Tan). Whilst the Gandhianism and Mandelaism might have inspired many SDP members and supporters, Mr Tan argued that they did not gel with the Singapore reality nor did they resonate with socially and politically conservative voters. News reports of SDP’s strategic civil disobedience were especially badly received by this large segment of the voting population which might have been otherwise sympathetic to the opposition cause. Although Roderick Chia agreed with Mr Tan’s argument generally, he was, and no doubt still is today, “very critical of this ‘reality’ that [Singapore] society imposes on us” (source: personal e-mail communication to first-mentioned author, 16 March 2011). He went on to add that: “I believe in the SDP’s vision, really; it’s just that I don’t see it coming to fruition anytime soon” (source: ibid.). Regarding WP and SDP ideology and practices, Mr Tan commented as follows: 

“Part of WP ideology is we don’t speak badly about other opposition parties or PAP in public. We feel we are on same side of the fence [to other opposition parties] but we don’t need to support them. They [SDP] are different branding. SDP style is engagement; pressure groups; protests outside the parliamentary system as they feel parliamentary system is unfair. This approach does not go [down well] with Singaporeans; they are not politicized; tell them you can do something with your votes; they don’t know their political rights. CSJ uses Hong Kong style, put pressure, [and] get what you want. People are not ready for it. SDP brought down opposition cause, people are influenced by SDP actions [to think] that opposition is dangerous [or a] bull in a china shop. I have a right to say I want to differentiate the branding. There is a split because of SDP although ideally we should work together”.

In this interview response (cited above) Mr Tan indicated that he was careful and cautious about SDP. He did not believe that SDP’s approach is suitable for Singapore due to voters not being politically experienced or mature. Furthermore, he laid blame on SDP for causing voters to be afraid of opposition politics and for causing opposition disunity. This view is of course different to that of Dr Wong, Patrick Lee, SDP Assistant Secretary-General John L. Tan, and others who then attributed opposition disunity to the influence of PAP and MSM and to the allegedly authoritarianism ways of Mr Chiam. The WP’s ideological rejection of “Mandelaism”, a word introduced to us by Mr Tan, was probably the most important philosophical difference between SDP and WP during the years of WP’s rise, 2006-13.

The WP did not and does not necessarily present itself as anti-PAP but is more content to work with the government and to hold it to account much like an auditor does with an auditee corporation. The auditor analogy works well to describe how WP’s then two parliamentarians, the elected Low and the then NCMP Sylvia Lim, actually operated in the parliament. An auditor does not adopt a hostile attitude to the corporation being audited. Mr Tan stated that: “we think PAP infrastructure is not so bad or we would not [have] become prosperous” and “you cannot doubt that Lee Kuan Yew loves Singapore first, but maybe it was convenient for his own ambitions”.

Mr Tan (personal interview, 3 March 2010) pointed out that WP usually gets a strong result in the polls because it is seen as the last remaining living link to the sixties Chinese-educated left-wing and because its member JBJ was the first opposition member in the house after PAP regained total control of parliament in 1968. On this point, Roderick Chia wrote that: “personally I identify with JBJ’s legacy [to WP] more than the Chinese-speaking one” (personal e-mail communication, 16 March 2011). Mr Tan pointed out that the link to the old Chinese left-wing should not be understood only in conventional class terms since this grouping has seen its language and institutions progressively marginalized by the English-educated PAP faction since the early days of independence.

As to which group of voters the opposition must target to win more seats, Eric expresses his view on this topic as follows (emphasis added):“In the old days the bottom 20% or 30% [donkeys] are mostly the underclass and minority populations. After 1991, Eunos GRC, [PAP] almost lost; PAP knew they nearly lost the underclass. GCT [Goh Chok Tong] focused on this group. It [opposition vote] shrunk from 35% to 20%; there will always be this 20%; we must capture the middle ground as that is how you change the country. We have to look at the middle group; they are not in love with us. We get 25%, we need them; PAP has maybe 30% diehards; they really believe PAP policy is good for them; we respect that. Next 20% to 30% is upper middle-class who can see through the deceit; who can see that life will be tougher [for the] next ten to twenty years; we want to cultivate them. PAP gives a lot of benefits to underclass now, hard to convert them; three- or four-room [HDB flat] people are either for you or against you and fear factor is high; this [winning them over] depends on PAP policy; not within our power to convert them. You need to show them you have sincere and credible people. Next group is ‘landed’ [property] and ‘condo’ [condominium] people [upper middle-class, not necessarily ruling elite, includes first-generation nouveaux-riche]; PAP looks at very top and very bottom end; upper middleclass is next ground; less fear factor. I hope we can convince them. I think we have a chance”.  Mr Tan was realistic and circumspect when we talked in March 2010. He hoped for ten seats to be won for the first time in GE2011 by WP, bringing the number of opposition MPs to 12 (or 11 if either Potong Pasir or Hougang fell to PAP). Mr Tan’s prediction was only one five-person GRC too optimistic with Potong Pasir SMC being, of course, an opposition loss. Similarly, the SDP’s Chee reminded the researcher (personal interview, 14 October 2010) that the opposition has often hoped to see a positive trend in one constituency continue at the next GE but, historically, it has often been the case that the ground won is then lost again only to be counter-balanced by an unexpectedly strong result in another constituency.

[By Dr Kieran James, University of Fiji, formerly of University of Southern Queensland, 2006-13.]

Activist Roderick Chia celebrates Workers' Party wins at 2011 GE

NEW INTERVIEW: My interview with 14-year-old Renarda Yoch & 17-year-old Yap Puay Tong (4/3/2010)

Mr Yap Puay Tong (age 17) and Mr Renarda Yoch (name changed) (age 14) (opposition supporters and activists)

Desmond Lim and Kieran James

By Dr Kieran James: On the author’s last full-day in Singapore on his March 2010 research trip (4 March 2010), he was scheduled to interview 17-year-old Junior College 1 student Yap Puay Tong and 14-year-old Secondary 3 student Renarda Yoch (name changed) in the distant HDB housing estates of Tampines at 4pm and nearby Bedok one hour later. The train trip involved him leaving the familiar environs of the inner-city and the tourist precinct to travel north-east on the Eastern MRT Line into the world of Singapore’s socially-engineered HDB estates where the percentages of each official ethnic group in each precinct and tower block are monitored and controlled to prevent the development of ethnic enclaves. The interviewer spent a half-hour in Tampines watching literally thousands of commuters stream through the MRT station gates and into the Tampines Town Centre. His first impression was that young Renarda had forgotten the appointment or been too shy to commit his views to the public record. The interviewer preceded on to Bedok and, expecting no further interviews for the day, enjoyed a can of Guinness and some Hainanese chicken-rice at the Bedok Hawker Centre. Guinness is freely available in nearly all the island’s hawker centres so clearly the PAP is not anti-everything! At Bedok MRT Renarda suddenly arrived and explained that the pair had decided to interview together at Bedok and that Puay Tong was coming on the next train. When Puay Tong arrived, we withdrew to McDonald’s in Bedok Town Centre for a group interview.

The late Patrick Lee Song Juan (SDA)

Renarda (14-years-old at the date of the interview but turning 15 in calendar year 2010) is in secondary school while Puay Tong is in Junior College or JC, an elitist system of junior colleges designed to provide the most intellectually competent secondary-school leavers with an academic and social pathway to university. Renarda comes across as an intelligent, thoughtful, and articulate 14-year-old. He has decided that the official Establishment ideology, as taught in school textbooks, is not the reality of Singapore’s history as he understands it. As Renarda says, ‘[t]he PAP was gerrymandering. The GRC system, it’s a mockery of our system. In school we have to talk about democracy. It’s all a show’. Renarda said that he attended two opposition rallies, five years apart at the same venue, accompanied by his father. At the time of the first rally he was a PAP supporter, as was Puay Tong in his younger primary school days (Primary 5). At the second rally Renarda realized that the WP people there were normal patriotic Singaporeans. If his recollections are correct, these two rallies must have been at the 2001 and 2006 GEs when Renarda would have been aged only eleven and six respectively. Renarda declares himself now as someone wanting to exercise his democratic rights, learn about his country, and work towards social and political change. Like Puay Tong, he takes his responsibilities as a Singaporean citizen seriously and believes he owes it to his country to work towards creating a more just and democratic society. Similarly, Puay Tong states that: ‘I am 100% Singaporean that was born here [and] that would like to see changes for my country’. Renarda comments that he has not decided on which opposition party to support but that he attended SDP’s 30^th Anniversary Dinner on 27 February 2010 because, in his words, ‘30^th birthdays do not happen every day’. Renarda declares his total respect and support for Dr Chee and for the Facebook activist community which includes the SDP Youth and the RP’s Alex Tan (formerly of the SPP). Both Renarda and Puay Tong are active in making political posts on Facebook along with their other non-political ‘teenager’ posts. Puay Tong is a dedicated football supporter of Borussia Dortmund.

Yaw Shin Leong (ex-WP) and Kieran James

For his part, Puay Tong rejects the conformist Singaporean ideology and system and especially the pressures to work hard and conform placed upon students by the school system. He states that: ‘I believe that the education system needs flexibility. ... Our education system needs a reform to suit individual interests rather than everyone keep[s] studying by the books’. Puay Tong reminisces about a Secondary 4 school teacher, Mr Wee, who observing Puay Tong’s interest in opposition politics encouraged him further in that direction and took him to RP open houses. Puay Tong was reprimanded in school for distributing RP political flyers within the school grounds, a practice which the Ministry of Education (MOE) bans. Furthermore, he has been accused by his less politically aware classmates of being ‘non-Singaporean’ because of his rejection of the dominant ideology. His then teacher, Mr Wee, suggested that he ‘read other party’s beliefs so I can see which ideology suits me the most’.

Puay Tong intelligently critiques the PAP Government’s ideological line that ‘we must pay high salaries so that MPs do not become corrupt’ by arguing, firstly, that the PAP MPs we have now are only those that can be persuaded to join politics and hence they are a ‘reserves team’ at best. Secondly, Puay Tong argues that if high salaries are paid to avoid corruption then that must means that the current crop of MPs is naturally corrupt. He rails against the Singaporean PM’s salary which is many times higher than the salary of the American President.

The interviewer left the two-hour interview recharged, motivated, and encouraged by the political talk and this euphoria could not be attributed to the caffeine offered by his jumbo-size Coca-Cola. It was not even due to the remnants of the Guinness. The interviewer was impressed by these young men’s enthusiasm and devotion to opposition politics, and especially their desires to exercise fully the rights of their Singaporean citizenships and to work towards meaningful social and political change in their country. There was a maturity and reflection evident in their analyses which suggested that they have the ability to stay on the opposition side for the long-term and win over many people, through the power of logical and passionate argument, to the opposition side. They clearly saw the PAP’s authoritarianism as belonging to a feudal past and being out of step with the rest of the world and with the true needs of modern Singaporeans who do not lack goods on the shelves but who feel constrained and restricted in regards free speech and the exercise of other civil rights. Puay Tong’s philosophy can be well summarized by the following quote:

“I value honesty in politics, honesty to the people, what are you doing and why. Finance and stats [statistics] must be available. This is our country and we want to know. This is your basic duty to let people know what you are trying to do” [group interview, 4 March 2010].

Renarda adds, alluding to the foreign worker issue: ‘My ideology is, I quote Alex Tan [RP Youth], you must create a Singapore for Singaporeans’.

Roderick Chia, Kieran James, Jarrod Luo (ex-SDP)

Puay Tong and Renarda are no ‘rebels without a cause’ but mature individuals who have actively questioned the version of the truth contained in the school textbooks and have decided that they prefer Dr Chee’s version of the Singaporean story to the official Establishment narrative. Renarda states that: ‘PAP think they are the saviours of Singapore, the textbooks read that way. ... The standard mentality of our generation is that the PAP brought us to greatness’. Both Renarda and Puay Tong reject the textbook claims that Dr Chee is ‘an infamous politician’, Lim Chin Siong was a ‘left-wing communist who threatened our security’, and Harry Lee was the politician who played the major role in independence. Renarda claims that, in fact, it was David Marshall, Lim Chin Siong, and Lim Yew Hock who played the major roles in the independence struggle although Renarda is quick to point out that Lim Yew Hock was a ‘compromise politician’ who, as Puay Tong reminds us, instituted the persecution of the Barisan Socialis. Renarda states that: ‘There is always the idea in school that Barisan Socialis and Lim Chin Siong and Chia Thye Poh are evil’. In fact, the PAP was able to create a world-first for combining ‘creating docile bodies’ (Foucault) with ‘maximizing the rate of profit’ (Marx) when dissident Chia Thye Poh, when shifted to resort island Sentosa whilst still under house arrest, was forced to work each day on the mainland so that he could, in Renarda Yoch’s words, ‘pay rent for his own jail’.  

Renarda states that he is proud to live in Hougang SMC and that his family has told him that Low Thia Khiang is a distant relative (grand aunty’s husband). Puay Tong’s father was a member of Barisan Socialis so each has a strong and respectable oppositional lineage. As has been illustrated, both these young Singaporeans have knowledge of past activism within Singapore dating back to the independence era. Renarda is willing to positively acknowledge the contributions made by PAP politicians George Yeo, Ong Teng Cheong, and Goh Keng Swee, pointing out that these three represent politicians from ‘three different generations’, much as Patrick Lee Song Juan applauds PAP MP Lily Neo’s compassionate championing of the cause of the Singaporean poor in and out of the Parliament.

Dr Chee Soon Juan and Kieran James

Puay Tong and Renarda are concerned that the MSM will make Harry Lee a ‘saviour, some kind of cult hero’ (Renarda’s words) after his death, much like what has happened in North Korea. Using teenager terminology, which is nonetheless appropriate, Puay Tong suggests the official ideology will turn Harry Lee into a ‘Spiderman’ or a ‘Superman’ able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Within the dominant ideology he is already three-quarters there. ‘Very likely he will die with his boots on’ adds Renarda.

The Slovenian post-communist philosopher Slavoj Žižek (2008, pp. 259-60) has argued that although the secret police in the communist German Democratic Republic (GDR) or East Germany numbered 100,000, or four times higher than under the Nazis, this did not amount to, simplistically, four times the level of repression. Žižek (2008, pp. 259-60) argues that the East Germans under Nazism were morally depraved and hence needed much less of a secret police to restrain their instinctual pushes for freedom. By contrast, communism retained an emancipatory Marxist-Leninist aspect even in East Germany. Therefore, communism restrained the impulses for freedom whilst simultaneously creating and encouraging many of those same impulses. In the same way, the PAP’s determined and relentless 40-year push for excellent English education in Singaporean schools and a demanding school syllabus are the very factors that have directly created young and politically aware intellectuals such as Puay Tong and Renarda! One is reminded of Mikhail Gorbachev who was so committed to pursuing his objectives of glasnost and perestroika for the Soviet Union that he gave further power and encouragement to forces that ultimately undermined and eliminated his own Government. Has the PAP engineered its own eventual redundancy? For many young Singaporeans, even amongst that vast majority who are not as politically aware as Puay Tong and Renarda, authoritarian states tend to be looked down upon. The senior Lee’s new public affection for the post-Maoist China of Deng Xiaoping and his successors is unlikely to sway many younger English-educated Singaporeans who probably prefer Obama and the freedoms (real and imagined) of the west. The demise of Suharto in Indonesia, Marcos in the Philippines, the LDP in Japan, the Kuomintang in Taiwan, and the recent regime change in South Korea suggests that Asian history may well be on Puay Tong and Renarda’s side.

Kieran James and Ravi Philemon

In terms of predictions for the 7 May 2011 GE, Puay Tong suggested that Tampines GRC would probably be won by the opposition (it’s a ‘good chance’) with East Coast GRC also being, in his words, ‘possible’. Puay Tong suggested Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC as a possible ‘fifty-fifty’, in his words, opposition gain. He regarded opposition-held Potong Pasir SMC, without Chiam See Tong in the contest, as also being no better than a ‘fifty-fifty’ proposition. Showing a strong grasp of grassroots issues, Puay Tong pointed to the unpopularity of the PAP’s Mah Bow Tan in Tampines GRC. After he (Mah) lost to Chiam in Potong Pasir SMC at GE 1984, Puay Tong recounts Mah’s nasty trick of rerouting Bus No. 147 so that it goes through Seng Kang rather than Potong Pasir. Petty slights at the local level such as this one tend to be perceived as highly irritating by the Singaporean electorate and memories fail to fade quickly. Renarda makes the strong concluding point that ‘all it needs [for an opposition breakthrough at the polls] is for Singaporeans to trust the opposition’. Puay Tong and Renarda’s predictions regarding GE 7 May 2011 proved to be extremely insightful. The only clear mistake was in expecting a ‘probable’ opposition win in Tampines GRC, although had a WP team or even a better known NSP team contested there the PAP may not have retained the constituency. The WP did well in East Coast GRC, slowly pegging back ground on the PAP so that, if the current percentage swing is maintained, the WP should secure the constituency at the next election. The WP scored 36.14% (37,873 out of 104,804) in East Coast GRC at GE 2006 but the Party secured a nine percentage-point swing in its favour at GE 2011, which increased its share of the vote to 45.17% (49,342 out of 109,237). These results reflect favourably on Eric Tan and his team.

Roderick Chia, Dexter Lee, Kieran James

After contesting at East Coast GRC, Glenda Han had to fly back to Hong Kong to continue her regular job there only one day after the 7 May 2011 poll. Her fly-in-fly-out campaigning, something that Monash University lecturer James Gomez also did from his base in Melbourne, Australia, was a new feature of the 2011 election campaign. Gomez told a Monash University postgraduate class, during a guest lecture (attended by the first-mentioned researcher at Caulfield campus on 31 March 2011), that he can very easily now fly to Singapore on a Friday, do a few campaign walkabouts and meet-the-people sessions, tape one or two three-minute Youtube video clips for the SDP website, and then return to Melbourne on the Sunday or Monday. The campaigning on the run tactics of Gomez and Han were not commented upon by the MSM in Singapore, as far as we are aware, perhaps because they do not follow the activities of opposition candidates when they are out of the country. The use of Youtube as a campaign tool dovetails well with the fly-in-fly-out campaigning and the latter might not be possible without the former. 

[By Dr Kieran James, University of Fiji, formerly at University of Southern Queensland, 2006-13.]

NEWS: Letter to PM from PA grassroots leader Aljunied GRC, 2 September 2015

A historic moment - George Yeo accepts defeat in Aljunied GRC on election night 2011 as Dr Vincent Wijeysingha of SDP looks on (at SDP election night function, Quality Hotel, Balestier Road). Meanwhile SDP leader Dr Chee Soon Juan speaks to the crowd.

Letter claimed to be from PAP grassroots:

Dear PM,

I am a PA grassroots leader in Aljunied TC. I am sorry to be sending this anonymous open letter to you via TRE. But I really got no choice because I don’t know how else I can be heard.

I want to tell you how disappointed I am about the PAP team you are fielding in Aljunied GRC for this coming GE. And it is not just me, but many of my fellow volunteers too. The message we are getting from you is: “PAP leadership has already given up on Aljunied GRC”.

If you have already given up, how do you expect us to fight on? I mean, we are all volunteers you know? Some of us take leave from work, many of us sacrifice our personal time. Your unveiling of the PAP team was like pouring cold water to our face.

My biggest disappointment is that you did not field any ministerial calibre people in the team. Ng Eng Hen said that other GRCs are more worthy to have such candidates fielded. You can say all you want but you know what we really think – You scared to lose, is it? What kind of fighting spirit is this then? When it is sure win, then you say you got so-and-so ministerial material to anchor the GRC. When it is not sure win, then you say we don’t deserve ministerial material. So is the ministerial material candidate a leader? Or is he just someone to be ushered in?

Chan Chun Sing said in the PAP annual conference that we will fight, fight, fight. Say only, right? How come no generals ever got fielded into SMCs? How come no ministers or ministerial material ever got fielded into any SMCs? How come neither George Yeo nor Lim Hwee Hwa ever continued to work the ground in Aljunied, even after they are defeated, to help win it back? Is this how “ministerial material” is to behave – when “PAP pow chiak”, they are “leading”, when not “pow chiak”, they are nowhere to be seen.

Some of us have worked in grassroots for many years, even going back to your father’s days. He knows how to fight. I don’t see this in you. Even Tan Cheng Bock said : today’s PAP has forgotten how to fight.

The next disappointment is with the sudden removal of Chan Hui Yuh and Kahar from the team lineup. They have been working the ground for more than a year now. The excuse given is that Chan is a young mother of two young children and “the PAP will not put family relations at risk. It’s not win at all cost. We value the family”. Aiyoh … sounds so lame … then how come you field Tan Pei Ling in MacPherson SMC? She just gave birth leh. And the sudden removal of Kahar and replacement with newbie Shamsul is perplexing. 

Especially since Kahar actually attended a function organised by WP’s Malay MP couple of weeks ago. 

What’s going on?? Are you taking the Malay votes for granted?

I guess the biggest issue is this: You only sent in Lim Boon Heng to walk the ground in Aljunied recently. You only deployed retiring MP Yeo Guat Kwang at the last minute. You removed those who’ve been walking the ground for a long time. Do you even have a strategy to win back the hearts and minds of Aljunied GRC residents? Not a strategy that pops up during GE time, but a long-term strategy? You accuse the opposition of only showing up during election time. Some of these candidates that you’ve appointed seem to be doing the same.

Although I and my fellow volunteers are demoralised, we will still do our best. It is hard especially when you have already given up hope, how can you ask us not to give up hope?

We will keep repeating “LKY, LKY, LKY”.
We will keep repeating “AHPETC accounts, AHPETC accounts, AHPETC accounts”.
We will keep repeating “Upgrading, Upgrading, Upgrading”.
We will keep repeating “SG50, SG50, SG50″.

But if that is the only strategy to win back Aljunied GRC, I think it will fall short. I hope I am proven wrong.

Tan Ah Kow (pseudonym)

OPINION: How were you punished when you were 16-years-old? By Martyn See, 14 May 2015

What did you do when you were 16 years old?

Did you play truant, cheat in homework, lie to parents, disrespect authority, use profanities, badmouth people, play pranks, skip church, hate the world, watch pornography, obssess over clothes, indulge in video games, smoke cigarettes, shoplift, drink alcohol, run away from home? 

How were you punished?

Did policemen arrest you at your home? Were your personal items seized? Were you interrogated for 36 hours? Were you imprisoned? Were your hands and feet shackled in chains? Were your personal details exposed in public and your character and family smeared by newspapers and TV? 

Or were you a 16-year-old who was a class monitor; who investigated the meaning of language and films; who nurtured in your mind such strong opinions about people, society, politics and religion that you couldn't wait to share them with the world? And that you also decided you will hold fast to these beliefs, even as the government arrested you, shackled you in chains, threw you in prison, smeared you and your family, while a stranger slapped you in public?

What kind of a 16-year-old were you? What kind of judgement will you pass on other 16-year-olds? [By Martyn See, used with permission.]

OPINION: Free Amos Yee - Support from Hong Kong, by Roy Ngerng, 12 May 2015

Our friends from Hong Kong have also sent in their photos to support Amos! Here's a shout out to Hong Kong! Thank you! 

Within just 2 days, I have received photos from more than 70 people from Singapore and around the world. 

Thank you all for all your support for Amos. Amos is still being held in remand and cannot see all these. Hopefully he will be out very soon and will be able to see what you have done for him! 

Amos did not do anything wrong. He has to be released. Otherwise a grave injustice had been done. 

You can still send your photos to me if you want to be part of this campaign for Amos. Send a photo of yourself holding a message of support for Amos to my Facebook or email address at royngerng@gmail.com. I will be putting the photos together into a video tonight, to be released before the judgement for Amos is passed tomorrow. 

May all be well for Amos. 

And if you are nearby Hong Lim Park now, do join us at the vigil for Amos. We are starting now. 

‪#‎FreeAmosYee

‬[This post is shared here with the kind written permission of Roy Ngerng.]

OPINION: Free Amos Yee, by Roy Ngerng, 20 April 2015

Hello, this has been what has been happening over the last few days after I started posting on my Facebook to support Amos.

(1) Many Singaporeans support Amos. The postings on Amos have received several hundred likes each time.

(2) However, there is a group of Facebook profiles which have been putting out negative remarks against Amos.

(3) When I look at these profiles, all of them have posted photos of the black ribbon of Lee Kuan Yew or have posted messages in support of the PAP. All of these profiles are PAP supporters.

(4) Many of their negative comments focus on criticising Amos's character. They also insist that Amos should be criminalised and jailed for making his video.

(5) I have since deleted many of these comments which are personal attacks and blocked the profiles. These profiles do not want to add to the conversation but are intent on putting out a negative propaganda against Amos

Roy Ngerng (activist)

Why do I say so?

(1) It is known that in 2007, the PAP announced in The Straits Times that they would send out their members to conduct a "quiet counter-insurgency" online. They are known by many of us as the PAP Internet Brigade (IB) today.

(2) If you have been reading my Facebook postings on Amos over the last few days, you would have noticed that their comments have been very similar. Their comments are planned in advance before they are posted.

(3) Another evidence of how they are coordinating their comments is that as soon as I had deleted their comments or blocked their profiles, some others would come to my profile to comment that I have blocked the rest. So, there are back-ups. You can see that clearly, they are coordinating back end to launch an attack on Amos, and they know when someone is blocked and communicate this to one another. This is not their first time. When I was sued for defamation and along the course of the last few months, I have also been on the receiving end of these coordinated attacks. I have lodged a formal complaint to the United Nations about this, and about the defamation suit.

(4) In addition, these profiles would put out negative comments to say that because Amos had used vulgarities, spoke on Christianity and Lee Kuan Yew, they want him to be criminalised. However, when a PAP activist Jason Tan said that he would "cut off Amos's dick and put (it) in his mouth" and a report was made to the People's Association which the Singapore prime minister heads, none of these Facebook profiles of PAP supporters spoke up about it. Neither did the People's Association responded. Also, another ex-PAP member, Jason Neo, had commented on a photo of a bus with Muslim children and said, "Bus filled with young terrorist trainees?” A police report was also made four years ago, but there was no follow-up and again, none of these PAP supporters spoke up about it.

(5) It is very clear by now that the PAP supporters are coordinating a campaign simply with the agenda of attacking Amos. If PAP members commit the same "crime", the PAP supporters will remain silent on it. This happened first when Amos was arrested and charged within a few days of his posting of his video while the Jasons are still at large, and second where the PAP supporters would launch a coordinated attack against Amos but would not do so against the others.

(6) In addition, many of these profiles are new and not real. Each PAP IB can operate several accounts. Some of the accounts that I had blocked were just created this year, solely with the purpose of attacking. Also, these IBs operate in groups and at certain hours to coordinate their comments and to launch their attacks at similar timings.

(7) I am letting you know about what has been going on so that you can see that the PAP has been intentionally creating a campaign against Amos.

(8) It is clear that Amos's persecution is political.

Now, about the bail.

(1) First, Amos's bail terms have been made intentionally difficult. Amos is not allowed to post or comment on ANYTHING, whether directly or indirectly. Effectively, Amos cannot say anything, and as one person said, he cannot even post a picture of a cat. The bail terms are ridiculous. It is unjust in the first place.

(2) Second, the bail amount is high. It is $20,000.

(3) Now, many of these PAP supporters have taken to using the following strategy. They ask about why I have not bailed Amos, knowing that I am in Malaysia for a few days. Second, they say that the bail can be done without putting in the money, knowing it is difficult to fork out the money when it is needed.

(4) Their first intent is to mock the support for Amos in an attempt to stop the show of support. Pretty much, the PAP does not want anyone to show support for Amos so that they can persecute Amos the way they want it. But since I have been vocal, it makes me an easy target. There are a few of us activists who are speaking up. If there are many other people speaking up for Amos, it would be more difficult for the PAP to do so. Please speak up.

(5) Second, the PAP knows that the bail terms are difficult. It has been intentionally made so. The bail amount has also been intentionally made high. They know that when Amos is bailed out, there is no way he would be able to abide by the bail terms. No one would be able to. The bail amount might then have to be forfeited and this is why we need the money ready at hand. But the PAP has purposely made the bail conditions difficult and the bail amount high, with the purpose of stopping Amos from saying anything and with the purpose of letting anyone who bails him lose the bail amount.

(6) Again, you can see that this is political persecution. Why are the PAP supporters launching a coordinated campaign to criticise him? And why is it only the PAP supporters who are criticising him?

More importantly, why are the PAP supporters organising a hate campaign against Amos? Did the PAP not preach that it believes in being compassionate? Or was it all just pretense? 

If the law is applied fairly where PAP members face the same persecution, then perhaps this might be understandable.

However, it is clear that PAP members are allowed to go scot-free and are protected. However, Amos is facing onerous and unreasonable bail terms, and now locked up in prison, in remand.

Amos is a victim of political persecution by the PAP. He is also a victim of harassment from the PAP supporters and activists who have launched a coordinated campaign to discredit him and malign him.

This is unjust and wrong. The PAP has abused its power. Please speak up if you want to stop this abuse of power and to protect not only Amos but one another.

Please speak up. We cannot do it on our own. We cannot sit still while a fellow Singaporean is being persecuted. One day when we are the ones who facing trial, who will help us?

[This post was published here with the kind written permission of Roy Ngerng.] 

Poster in memory of Chia Thye Poh at SDP headquarters in Upper Thomson. Chia was detained without trial for over 20 years under the authoritarian ruling regime of Singapore. According to LKY this is the way to run a "Chinese society". To rewrite the lyrics of a song by the legendary English punk band The Clash, "ask the family of Chia Thye Poh what they think of voting PAP..."

SDP Youth cheer the announcement of the Workers' Party win in Hougang SMC on election night 2011 @ Quality Hotel Balestier, 7-8 May 2011.

The graffiti on this block of HDB flats in Toa Payoh showed that there is some community dissatisfaction with PAP and that some people are now willing to take extreme measures to express their dissatisfaction.