Tag: 2020
Special Freshmen Tea with Prof Tommy Koh
Register by 20 Aug 2020
GE2020: Facts, Analysis, Lessons Learnt
Click to enlarge
PROGRAMME:
| 6.50pm: | Login to Webinar |
| 7.00pm: | Associate Professor Kelvin Pang, Master of Tembusu College, will introduce the Tembusu Forum |
| 7.05pm: | Professor Tommy Koh, Rector of Tembusu College, will introduce the topic and speakers |
| 7.15pm: | Speaker A |
| 7.30pm: | Speaker B |
| 7.45pm: | Speaker C |
| 8.00pm: | Question & Answer session with students |
| 8.50pm: | Concluding remarks by speakers and Chair |
| 9.00pm: | End of Forum |
BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF SPEAKERS:
Dr Gillian KOH is Deputy Director (Research) at the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) and Senior Research Fellow in the Governance and Economy Department. Her research interests are in the areas of party and electoral politics, the development of civil society, state-society relations, state governance and citizen engagement in Singapore. Among other things, Dr Koh conducts surveys on Singaporeans’ political attitudes, sense of identity, rootedness and resilience and also helmed several IPS scenario-planning projects. She was part of the team that conducts the IPS Post-Election Surveys. She has published and co-published articles on civil society and political development in Singapore. She was co-editor of Migration and Integration in Singapore: Policies and Practice (2015) as well as State-Society Relations in Singapore (2000) and Civil Society and the State in Singapore (2017) and co-author of Singapore Chronicles: Civil Society (2016).
Dr Walid Jumblatt Abdullah received his PhD under a Joint Degree Program between National University of Singapore (NUS) and King’s College, London. He works on state-Islam relations, and political parties and elections, with particular focus on Singapore and Malaysia. He has published articles in internationally peer-reviewed journals such as Democratization, International Political Science Review, Government and Opposition, Australian Journal of International Affairs, Asian Survey, Small Wars & Insurgencies, Journal of Church and State, among others. He recently started an Instagram Live series, featuring informal yet serious chats with politicians from various political parties, called Teh Tarik with Walid. He hopes to help reduce political apathy and increase political awareness among younger people through this series.
For the forum, Dr Abdullah will talk about the road ahead for Singapore politics. Specifically, three themes will be discussed: 1. The future of the 4G leadership. 2. Race in politics: the continued relevance or otherwise of the GRCs. 3. The type of politics Singaporeans want, as shown from GE 2020.
Mr Viswa Sadasivan with over 30 years of experience in media and public policy analysis, has served on the boards of several government agencies including the Media Development Authority and SPRING Singapore. He also served on various national committees, such as the Singapore 21 Committee and the Economic Review Committee. For a decade, he was chairman of the political division of the Feedback Unit of the government. He served in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) as a National Serviceman for 41 years. Holding the rank of Colonel, his last held position was Deputy Director, Joint Operations.
Viswa made a mark as a Nominated Member of Parliament from 2009 to 2011.
Viswa started his career in broadcasting in 1983 and made a name for himself as an award-winning documentary producer, and anchor of top TV current affairs programmes of the late 1980s and early 1990s – Feedback and Talking Point. Known for his independent thinking and incisive style, Viswa is a sought-after speaker and facilitator. He has interviewed several leaders including the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and more recently President Barack Obama. He has moderated over 300 policy forums in Singapore and globally, including UNESCO’s inaugural Conference for Persons with Disabilities, and the St Gallen Symposium in Switzerland and in Singapore. In August 2011, Viswa gained accolades for his skilful moderation of a robust 2-hour online debate among the 4 candidates in the Singapore Presidential Election. In 2015, he chaired a 3-hour ground-breaking spontaneous debate among the representatives of the 10 political parties contesting in the General Election.
As founder and CEO of Strategic Moves — a corporate strategy consulting practice — Viswa has trained and provided counsel to more than 10,000 public and private sector leaders in Singapore and the region in corporate strategy, policy engagement, crisis leadership and innovation. Given his deep knowledge of and experience in public policy, business strategy, media and conflict resolution, Viswa has been engaged by several public and private sector organisations in Singapore and the region to achieve their strategic goals. For example, over a 15-month period as strategic advisor, he helped the Las Vegas Sands Corp win the bid to operate an Integrated Resort (Marina Bay Sands) in Singapore – a $6.5 billion project.
An accredited mediator for more than 20 years, he is a board member of the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC).
Viswa is also the founder and Editor-in-Chief of IQ [Inconvenient Questions], a video-based socio-political online site that aimed to be the conduit for honest engagement between stakeholders and the government. During its 16-month lifespan in 2015/16, IQ helped raise the bar for quality online discourse through reasoned analysis. It tackled hot-button issues — from freedom of speech to race relations — over 22 lively, no-holds-barred discussions featuring a studio audience and expert panellists. In June 2020, Viswa revived IQ because of popular demand – this time in collaboration with the National University of Singapore Society (NUSS). It has gained a strong following, especially during the 2020 General Election.
Viswa holds a Master in Public Administration degree from the Kennedy School of Government and Administration, Harvard University, where he topped his class in Negotiation and Conflict Resolution.
For the forum, Mr Sadasivan will speak on three possible longer-term outcomes of GE 2020. First, the WP rides on the momentum of GE 2020 and wins more than one-third of all seats in Parliament in the next GE. Second, the PAP becomes a kinder, fairer party and this results in a vote swing in its favour. The third is my ideal scenario for Singapore – a combination of the first two scenarios.
Tembusu Reading Pods AY2020/21 Sem 1
Care to read and discuss a book outside your curriculum this semester? You can register via Eventbrite (click on the link) by 17th August 2020, Monday.
An email will be sent to all participants after 17th August to confirm their registration. The reading pod facilitator will contact participants via email to provide more details (e.g. starting date).
Safety measures must be observed at all times (e.g. no gathering of more than 5 persons at each time, students from different zones should be meet at the same place); refer to the Master’s Letter #7 (sent on 31 July 2020) for safe measurement guidelines.
Participants are responsible to purchase their own book; eBook is accepted. The first 5 sign-ups are eligible for the subsidy – you need only pay S$10 for the book of your choice. Participants will be contacted to submit an RFP for reimbursement of their purchase (i.e. book purchased at $15, college will reimburse $5). Subsequent sign-ups are welcome.
- The Thing Around Your Neck Complete Stories by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie (Student Facilitator: Stacy Fernandes)
By Professor Tommy Koh: China and Japan: Will They Ever Reconcile?
Let me begin my essay by telling you a story. In 1996, the then Singapore Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, was successful in convening the inaugural meeting of the leaders of Asia and Europe, in Bangkok. The leaders agreed to establish the Asia-Europe Meeting or ASEM, in short. They also agreed to establish the Asia-Europe Foundation, ASEF, to promote better mutual understanding between the peoples of the two regions.
Following the summit in Bangkok, Mr Goh and my boss at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr Kishore Mahbubani, requested me to be the founding executive director of the Asia-Europe Foundation. The three and a half years I spent in that job enabled me to learn, more deeply, the history of the post-war European integration project. I was particularly struck by the miracle of reconciliation, which had taken place between historic enemies, such as between France and Germany.
ASEF: China and Japan Say No
At ASEF, I proposed convening a seminar to consider how Asia can learn from the European experience of reconciling historic enemies. To my surprise, the governors of China and Japan objected to my proposal. When I pressed them to explain their objection, they said that their countries were not ready. In exasperation, I said that if they were not ready, more than 50 years after the Pacific War had ended, when will they be ready. In view of their objections, I had to abandon my proposal.
There will be no peace in Asia unless there is peace between China and Japan. It is therefore important for us to help those two great countries to reconcile and to live at peace with each other. I co-chair the Japan-Singapore Symposium and the China-Singapore Forum. When misunderstandings occurred between them, I had tried to explain China to Japan and Japan to China.
Lee Kuan Yew and Kiichi Miyazawa
I once sought the advice of the founding Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, on what I could do to help China and Japan achieve a historic reconciliation. He was quite pessimistic. He told me that he had once asked the Prime Minister of Japan, Mr Kiichi Miyazawa, whether the Chinese will ever forgive Japan for all the wicked things that Japan did in China, from 1931 to 1945. According to Mr Lee, Mr Miyazawa’s reply was, “never”.
I am an optimist. I am not prepared to accept, as inevitable, that China and Japan will never reconcile. Let us examine the three impediments to such a reconciliation: (a) the burden of history; (b) the competing ambition to lead Asia; and (c) the deficit of strategic trust.
The Burden of History
It is a historical fact that Japan invaded China in 1931 and waged a war, from 1931 to 1945, in a failed attempt to conquer that country. It is also a fact that during those 14 years, the Japanese army committed many atrocities against the Chinese people.
In Europe, Germany was the aggressor. The German government and army had committed many crimes against the French and other victims, especially the Jews. After the war, Germany repented for all the crimes it had committed against the French people. In return, France forgave Germany. There was repentance on one side and forgiveness on the other.
Why can’t the same thing happen between China and Japan? China says that Japan has not repented for its wrongs. It says that all the apologies expressed by the leaders of Japan had been nuanced and had fallen short of a sincere apology. Japan denies this. It says that Japan’s leaders have apologized on several occasions. Prime Ministers Hosokawa and Murayama had apologized without reservations. It states that the problem is on the Chinese side. It holds the view that China will never forgive Japan, no matter how many times it apologizes.
I have often wondered why Japan finds it so hard to apologize and China finds it so hard to forgive. Why can’t they behave like the Germans and the French? Is there something in the character, culture and value systems of China and Japan which distinguish them from the Germans and the French? I don’t know the answer to the question.
Competing Ambition to Lead Asia
The second obstacle is the competing ambition of China and Japan to be the leader of Asia. One of my previous Japanese co-chairman of the Japan-Singapore Symposium is Mr Shotaro Yachi. When he was the Deputy Foreign Minister of Japan, he said that China and Japan were struggling for leadership and locked in a rivalry that would last a long time.
Both the Chinese and the Japanese believe in the saying that there can only be one tiger on a hill. Both China and Japan want to be that tiger.
Why can’t we see Asia as not a hill but a mountain range with several peaks? The Chinese tiger can be on top of one peak, the Japanese tiger on another and the Indian tiger on a third peak. This works as long as the Chinese tiger and the Japanese tiger are not competing to occupy the highest peak.
I would respectfully point out to both China and Japan that Asia cannot be dominated by any one country. There are three major powers on the continent, namely, China, Japan and India. An extra-regional power, the United States, claims to be a resident power of the region. It is more powerful than any of the three Asian powers. It will never allow the region to be dominated by a regional hegemon.
My advice to China and Japan is to compete but not to seek to put the other down. It should be a win-win and not a zero-sum competition. Asia is big enough to accommodate a rising China, a rising Japan and a rising India.
Deficit of Strategic Trust
The third impediment is the deficit of strategic trust. It is unfortunately true that China does not trust Japan and Japan does not trust China. Because they don’t trust each other, they have tended to oppose each other’s initiatives and to misread each other’s intentions.
A few examples should suffice. China is opposed to Japan’s quest to be a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Japan does not support the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank or the Belt and Road Initiative.
The Chinese suspected that the Japanese Government’s decision to nationalize the Senkaku or Diaoyu islands was intended to change the status quo. I don’t think this was the case. The Japanese government had nationalized those islands in order to prevent their private owners from causing trouble.
How to reduce the mistrust between China and Japan? How to promote better understanding and mutual trust between them?
I think the key question is whether the leaders of the two countries see each other as friends or as enemies. If they see each other as enemies, then the status quo will continue. However, if they see each other as friends, then many steps can be taken, at all levels, to improve understanding and to reduce distrust. At the moment, I think they see each other as frenemies, part friend and part enemy. As long as this is the case, no historic reconciliation between them will occur.
Conclusion
Will there ever be a historic reconciliation between China and Japan? The pessimists say, never. As an optimist, I think it is possible, provided we can overcome the three obstacles I have described.
Master’s Tea with Ms Ng Yee Lin
Register by 7 Sep 2020
Tembusu Alumni Leading The Way for Young ‘Earthpreneurs’
Tembusu alumni, Sai Surya Yarlagadda and Irsyad Ramthan founded Young Sustainable Impact Southeast Asia while they were engineering students at NUS. They were featured on Eco-Business to share tips on how students can convince rising start-ups and big investors to believe in them.
Free Public Talk —”The First Female Tourist – The Amazing Ida Pfeiffer” Friday, 28 August 2020 via ZOOM
In the 1840s it was considered utterly impossible for a woman to travel alone. Modern tourism had not yet emerged. This meant no transport accommodation, or restaurants for travellers. Despite all this, one woman decided to go her own way anyway. Ida Pfeiffer (1797-1858) was the first woman to travel and then circle the world alone. She displayed incredible courage, endurance, and perseverance. Along the way she survived storms at sea, parched deserts, plague, malaria, a near-drowning, earthquakes, robbers, murderers, headhunters, and cannibals. Singapore and Southeast Asia were perhaps her favourite destinations. As a result of her incredible exploits and her best-selling travel books, Pfeiffer became one of the most famous women in the world in the 19th century. Her tale culminates in spies, intrigue, a botched revolution, and a remarkable career cut tragically short by one voyage too many.
About the speaker: Dr John van Wyhe is a historian of science at the National University of Singapore who specialises in the explorers and naturalists Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. He is also founder and director of the award-winning Darwin Online project and has published 14 books. Dr Van Wyhe has lectured and broadcast on these topics worldwide.
This lecture is free. Spaces are limited. Visit the link to register: https://qrgo.page.link/GSiSY
By Professor Tommy Koh: What Asia, Europe Can Do to Fight World’s 3 Major Crises
The world is simultaneously faced with three crises: a health crisis, an economic crisis and a global governance crisis. To tackle them effectively will require countries of the world to work together to find practical common solutions.
Asia and Europe have a major role to play in this endeavour. We wish to argue, in this essay, that by acting together, the leaders of Asia and Europe can provide the world with the leadership, resolve and policy ideas. They should also enlist the support of like-minded countries in other regions of the world.
Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM)
A historic meeting took place in Bangkok, on the 1st and 2nd of March 1996. At the suggestion of the then Prime Minister of Singapore, Goh Chok Tong, 10 leaders from Asia met with 16 leaders from Europe, to begin the process of building a new bridge connecting the two regions and their peoples. The bridge would have three pillars: (a) political; (b) economics and finance; and (c) social, cultural and educational.
The meeting also established the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF), which was set up the following year and based in Singapore.
ASEF is the only institution which ASEM has established. Its mandate is to promote better mutual understanding between Asians and Europeans through intellectual, cultural and people-to-people exchanges. Over the past 23 years, ASEF has brought together more than 40,000 Asian and European participants in seminars, conferences, internships and projects covering culture, education, governance and economy, media, public health, sustainable development, human rights and civil society.
ASEM has expanded from the original 26 to 53 partners: 30 European countries and the European Commission and 21 Asian countries and the Asean Secretariat.
As a grouping, ASEM accounts for 60 per cent of the world’s population and 65 per cent of the world’s economy. It is therefore a group of countries with weight and influence. We appeal to the leaders of ASEM to rise to the challenge and provide the much-needed leadership and resolve to steer the world through its current crises.
The First Crisis
The first crisis is the health crisis. COVID-19 has caused the world’s worst pandemic since the Spanish Flu. To date, it has infected over 14 million people and killed over 600,000. The virus has spread to all parts of the world. Here is what the leaders of ASEM can do to defeat COVID-19.
First, share good practices with one another. Some ASEM partners have done better in fighting the virus than others. Those who have done well should be willing to share their best practices with other countries.
Second, ASEM should agree and persuade others not to impose restrictions on the export of personal protective equipment (PPEs) such as surgical masks, isolation gowns, gloves as well as alcohol rubs ventilators, test kits and medicines. It can also utilise the ASEF Public Health Network, which deals with capacity building and stockpiles of anti-viral drugs and PPEs.
Third, ASEM should encourage the scientists and doctors of the two regions, to share their research and to do joint research on vaccinations and therapeutics.
Fourth, if a vaccine or a cure is discovered, ASEM should agree to make it an international public good. In this way, it will become affordable and available to all the countries of the world.
The Second Crisis
The second crisis is the economic crisis. COVID-19 has essentially forced the world economy to shut down. The International Monetary Fund has stated that this economic crisis will be as bad as the Great Depression of the 1930s.
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to more than a third of the world’s population being placed on lockdown, to stop the spread of the virus. There is a rapid increase in unemployment in many countries. The tourism and hospitality industries have collapsed. The energy industry has been badly hurt. Remittances have dried up. The poor and the migrant workers have suffered the most.
What can ASEM do to shorten the recession and to accelerate the recovery?
First, ASEM should agree to keep their economies open, to support free trade and regional economic integration. There is a grave danger that, because of the crisis, countries will become protectionist and will seek to de-globalise. This should be resisted, and a serious attempt made to persuade major countries beyond Asia and Europe to join in this effort.
Second, they should agree to keep their seaports and airports open. They should facilitate, not obstruct, the resumption of travel, as soon as possible and provided the necessary safety measures are observed.
Third, they should allow the market to determine the supply chains of companies and industries. Because supply chains have been disrupted during the crisis, some countries may be reluctant to restore them. Other countries may have political reasons to exclude some countries from those chains. ASEM can play a leadership role to demonstrate how inclusive and open supply chains can benefit all countries determined to do their part.
Fourth, they should use their influence to prevent international trade and technology from being split into two rival blocs: a US-centric bloc and a China-centric bloc. History has shown that rival trade and economic blocs are detrimental to all parties. ASEM should prevail on both sides to look at concrete ways to work together to address these global crises and, in the process, rebuild the trust to settle their differences peacefully.
The Third Crisis
The third crisis is the crisis of global governance. Multilateralism is under attack. Multilateral institutions, such as, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) are being undermined. The Paris Agreement on Climate Change and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals are facing challenges on several fronts. The leaders of Asia and Europe can play a valuable role in defending multilateralism and the environment.
First, ASEM should continue to strongly support multilateralism and its institutions.
Second, in the case of the WTO, ASEM’s position should be that it is for the reform of the institution. However, it will oppose any attempt to destroy the institution in the guise of reform.
Third, ASEM should support the WHO, which plays an indispensable role in safeguarding the health of the people of the world. Partners should strengthen the organisation and its finances. A higher percentage of WHO’s budget should come from the assessed contributions of member states. This will strengthen WHO’s independence and reduce its dependence on voluntary contributions.
Fourth, climate change and sustainable development should be accorded the highest priority. This is because if we don’t embrace sustainable development and fight climate change, our very existence on this planet will be in peril. ASEM must take a strong stand on these issues.
Conclusion
The world is faced with three crises simultaneously. The world is adrift because of the absence of a leader.
We appeal to the leaders of Asia and Europe, acting through ASEM, to lead the world in tackling the three crises.
Following the summit in Bangkok, Mr Goh and my boss at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr Kishore Mahbubani, requested me to be the founding executive director of the Asia-Europe Foundation.u00a0 The three and a half years I spent in that job enabled me to learn, more deeply, the history of the post-war European integration project. I was particularly struck by the miracle of reconciliation, which had taken place between historic enemies, such as between France and Germany.
u00a0
ASEF: China and Japan Say No
At ASEF, I proposed convening a seminar to consider how Asia can learn from the European experience of reconciling historic enemies. To my surprise, the governors of China and Japan objected to my proposal.u00a0 When I pressed them to explain their objection, they said that their countries were not ready. In exasperation, I said that if they were not ready, more than 50 years after the Pacific War had ended, when will they be ready. In view of their objections, I had to abandon my proposal.
There will be no peace in Asia unless there is peace between China and Japan. It is therefore important for us to help those two great countries to reconcile and to live at peace with each other. I co-chair the Japan-Singapore Symposium and the China-Singapore Forum. When misunderstandings occurred between them, I had tried to explain China to Japan and Japan to China.
u00a0
Lee Kuan Yew and Kiichi Miyazawa
I once sought the advice of the founding Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, on what I could do to help China and Japan achieve a historic reconciliation. He was quite pessimistic. He told me that he had once asked the Prime Minister of Japan, Mr Kiichi Miyazawa, whether the Chinese will ever forgive Japan for all the wicked things that Japan did in China, from 1931 to 1945. According to Mr Lee, Mr Miyazawau2019s reply was, u201cneveru201d.
I am an optimist. I am not prepared to accept, as inevitable, that China and Japan will never reconcile. Let us examine the three impediments to such a reconciliation: (a) the burden of history; (b) the competing ambition to lead Asia; and (c) the deficit of strategic trust.
u00a0
The Burden of History
It is a historical fact that Japan invaded China in 1931 and waged a war, from 1931 to 1945, in a failed attempt to conquer that country. It is also a fact that during those 14 years, the Japanese army committed many atrocities against the Chinese people.
In Europe, Germany was the aggressor. The German government and army had committed many crimes against the French and other victims, especially the Jews. After the war, Germany repented for all the crimes it had committed against the French people. In return, France forgave Germany. There was repentance on one side and forgiveness on the other.
Why canu2019t the same thing happen between China and Japan? China says that Japan has not repented for its wrongs. It says that all the apologies expressed by the leaders of Japan had been nuanced and had fallen short of a sincere apology. Japan denies this. It says that Japanu2019s leaders have apologized on several occasions. Prime Ministers Hosokawa and Murayama had apologized without reservations. It states that the problem is on the Chinese side. It holds the view that China will never forgive Japan, no matter how many times it apologizes.
I have often wondered why Japan finds it so hard to apologize and China finds it so hard to forgive. Why canu2019t they behave like the Germans and the French? Is there something in the character, culture and value systems of China and Japan which distinguish them from the Germans and the French? I donu2019t know the answer to the question.
u00a0
Competing Ambition to Lead Asia
The second obstacle is the competing ambition of China and Japan to be the leader of Asia. One of my previous Japanese co-chairman of the Japan-Singapore Symposium is Mr Shotaro Yachi. When he was the Deputy Foreign Minister of Japan, he said that China and Japan were struggling for leadership and locked in a rivalry that would last a long time.
Both the Chinese and the Japanese believe in the saying that there can only be one tiger on a hill. Both China and Japan want to be that tiger.
Why canu2019t we see Asia as not a hill but a mountain range with several peaks? The Chinese tiger can be on top of one peak, the Japanese tiger on another and the Indian tiger on a third peak. This works as long as the Chinese tiger and the Japanese tiger are not competing to occupy the highest peak.
I would respectfully point out to both China and Japan that Asia cannot be dominated by any one country. There are three major powers on the continent, namely, China, Japan and India. An extra-regional power, the United States, claims to be a resident power of the region. It is more powerful than any of the three Asian powers. It will never allow the region to be dominated by a regional hegemon.
My advice to China and Japan is to compete but not to seek to put the other down. It should be a win-win and not a zero-sum competition. Asia is big enough to accommodate a rising China, a rising Japan and a rising India.
u00a0
Deficit of Strategic Trust
The third impediment is the deficit of strategic trust. It is unfortunately true that China does not trust Japan and Japan does not trust China. Because they donu2019t trust each other, they have tended to oppose each otheru2019s initiatives and to misread each otheru2019s intentions.
A few examples should suffice. China is opposed to Japanu2019s quest to be a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Japan does not support the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank or the Belt and Road Initiative.
The Chinese suspected that the Japanese Governmentu2019s decision to nationalize the Senkaku or Diaoyu islands was intended to change the status quo. I donu2019t think this was the case. The Japanese government had nationalized those islands in order to prevent their private owners from causing trouble.
How to reduce the mistrust between China and Japan? How to promote better understanding and mutual trust between them?
I think the key question is whether the leaders of the two countries see each other as friends or as enemies. If they see each other as enemies, then the status quo will continue. However, if they see each other as friends, then many steps can be taken, at all levels, to improve understanding and to reduce distrust. At the moment, I think they see each other as frenemies, part friend and part enemy. As long as this is the case, no historic reconciliation between them will occur.
u00a0
Conclusion
Will there ever be a historic reconciliation between China and Japan? The pessimists say, never. As an optimist, I think it is possible, provided we can overcome the three obstacles I have described.
By Professor Tommy Koh: GE 2020: A Reflection
On July 10, the People’s Action Party (PAP) won 83 out of 93 seats and secured 61.2 per cent of the popular vote in the 2020 General Election. In any democracy, such an outcome would be regarded as outstanding. It is important to remind ourselves that Singapore is a democracy and not some other form of government.
EXTERNAL VIEW
I am quite shocked by the comments of some foreign observers. Professor Michael Barr from Flinders University in Australia described the result as a “disaster” for the PAP. Professor Bridget Welsh from the University of Nottingham Malaysia and National Taiwan University described the outcome as a “humiliating defeat” for the PAP.
Are these fair assessments?
Let’s compare the PAP’s electoral performance to those of the winning parties in Australia, the United Kingdom and India.
In the 2019 Australian federal election, Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s coalition won 77 out of 151 seats and secured 41 per cent of the popular vote.
In the 2019 general election in the UK, the Conservative Party won 365 out of 650 seats and secured 43.6 per cent of the popular vote.
In the 2019 Indian general election, the Bharatiya Janata Party won 303 out of 542 seats and 37 per cent of the popular vote.
VICTORY FOR PAP AND WP
When we compare the PAP’s electoral performance to those of the winning parties in these three countries, any fair-minded person would conclude that it was an outstanding victory. It was certainly not a “disaster” or a “humiliating defeat”.
At the same time, the outcome of the election was a victory for the Workers’ Party (WP). There was a doubt, before the election, whether it would be able to retain its seat in Hougang SMC and its five seats in Aljunied GRC. WP not only retained those six seats, and with increased majorities, but it also won a four-member group representation constituency, Sengkang, defeating three PAP office-holders on the opposing slate.
LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
I applaud Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s decision to appoint WP chief Pritam Singh as the official Leader of the Opposition. As Leader of the Opposition, Mr Singh will be given staff support and resources to carry out his responsibilities, PM Lee has said, although it is not clear what level of support he will be given and whether he will be paid a salary. In Britain, the leader of the opposition draws a salary equivalent to that of a Cabinet minister.
By appointing Mr Singh as the Leader of the Opposition, PM Lee is acknowledging that the WP is here to stay and is likely to grow stronger in the coming years.
I agree with Straits Times Opinion editor Chua Mui Hoong’s comment that we may be seeing the emergence of a two-party state in Singapore. (July 11, “A result that could please voters from both sides”.) She wrote that the election result showed that “a two-party system in its infancy is taking shape, as the WP now has the clout to attract good candidates, run a good campaign and put up alternative policy proposals. It will be tested in town council and constituency management next”.
I also agree with Singapore Institute of International Affairs chairman Simon Tay’s comment that the correct reply to the question of who won the election is that Singapore won the election.
On his Facebook page, Associate Professor Tay posted: “If Singaporeans want to signal that we have concerns but are not panicked, that we have trust in a PAP government but not blind faith, and that we will want diverse perspectives and voices of hope to be heard, even as we listen to our leaders in responding to this crisis, our message was sent.
“Who won the 2020 General Election? Singapore won.”
TIMING OF THE ELECTION
Singapore is in the midst of two crises: a health crisis and an economic crisis. The conventional wisdom is that an election during a crisis will benefit the incumbent. Why didn’t the PAP benefit more from the crisis?
I think the reason is that many voters felt that holding the election in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic was too opportunistic. Many doctors had feared that it could lead to a second surge of the virus outbreak.
TAKE THE HIGH ROAD
I think the electorate was sending several messages to the political parties. One message was to urge the parties to take the high road and not the low road.
The second message was for them to focus on the issues instead of attacking their opponents. Character assassination is frowned upon by the electorate.
For this reason, the following attacks were not well received:
- An attempt to use local playwright Alfian Sa’at as a stick to beat Mr Singh.
- An attack on Ms Raeesah Khan, a young WP candidate for Sengkang GRC, for her social media posts on race issues.
- An attempt to brand Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) chief and Bukit Batok SMC candidate Chee Soon Juan as a liar.
- The use of Pofma (Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act) over statements made by SDP chairman and Bukit Panjang SMC candidate Paul Tambyah.
INTERNET ELECTION
This is Singapore’s first Internet election. Because of Covid-19, physical rallies were not possible. Political parties concentrated their activities on home visits, meeting voters at hawker centres, and campaigning online via e-rallies and virtual talk shows.
My impression is that all the parties did a good job using the Internet to connect with voters and to disseminate their messages. The PAP and WP were particularly effective in this respect.
WOMEN POWER
A wonderful aspect of the 2020 election was the large number of women candidates – 39 in all.
It is also significant that the PAP women candidates in single-member constituencies, such as Dr Amy Khor, Ms Tin Pei Ling, Ms Sun Xueling and Ms Grace Fu, won their seats by large majorities.
I am very pleased to see more women joining politics and entering Parliament. We need more women in Parliament and in the Cabinet. My dream is that one day, Singapore will have a woman prime minister.
SENGKANG GRC
WP’s victory in Sengkang GRC was a big surprise. It brings back memories of the loss of Aljunied GRC by the PAP to the WP in 2011.
How did the young WP team of Ms He Ting Ru, Associate Professor Jamus Lim, Mr Louis Chua and Ms Raeesah succeed in defeating the older PAP team, which included three office-holders – Mr Ng Chee Meng, Dr Lam Pin Min and Mr Amrin Amin?
Mr Ng as labour chief was a Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, Dr Lam was Senior Minister of State for Health and Transport, and Mr Amrin was Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Home Affairs and Health.
I don’t know the answer. Some experts think that it was due to the special character of the constituency, with its higher percentage of younger voters, and to the star power of the WP candidate, Prof Lim. Others think the PAP’s strong criticism of Ms Raeesah swung young voters over in a sympathy vote.
Sengkang GRC is a new constituency carved out of previous wards. Most of its voters live in Housing Board flats and it is a constituency with many young voters and young families. Do young voters have a different world view and aspirations than older voters?
I think the answer is yes. Young voters want the Government to be more consultative and less paternalistic. They are more liberal and accepting of alternative views and lifestyles. They are less race-conscious and do not agree that Singapore is not ready for a non-Chinese prime minister.
Young voters are also more socially conscious and want to see a radical reduction of poverty and inequality. They want a fairer Singapore. They are more environmentally conscious and want Singapore to grow greener.
They have sent several messages to the PAP Government with the vote and I sincerely hope the PAP is hearing them. I hope the Government will consider them with an open mind and not brush them aside.
In conclusion, two things bear repeating.
First, the outcome of the 2020 election was a victory for the PAP. It was not a disaster or a humiliating defeat.
Second, the WP has made a major breakthrough by retaining Hougang SMC and Aljunied GRC, and winning Sengkang GRC. It is now recognised as a credible opposition, and Singaporeans will expect it to oppose the Government in areas where it disagrees but always be loyal to Singapore.
