Hope spreads from tsunami

Hope spreads from tsunami
For younger Singaporeans who want political change the defining March 8 general election in Malaysia has come as an encouragement and morale booster.
SEVERAL Malaysian friends have asked me whether I believe their election ‘tsunami’ would generate a similar phenomenon on this small island state.
Will the near defeat of an almost indestructible political icon across the Causeway result in some sort of upheaval in Singapore’s next election expected in 2010-11?
“We’ve done it, when will you?” a Malaysian journalist asked me, half in jest. Are Singaporeans stimulated by the Malaysian result to opt for change in the city-state, others wanted to know.
So do Singaporeans. Many, including a few younger People’s Action Party (PAP) Parliamentarians, have discussed it at length. The blogo-sphere is hyperactive with speculation.
So can it happen here? Frankly, my answer is yes, to an extent – but only if the opposition coalition in Malaysia fares well and not degenerate into chaos.
In fact, there has already been a psychological impact on some Singaporean minds that if it can happen there, it can surely happen here.
Historically, there has always been a modicum of affinity, or mutual influence, between our two peoples.
I recall one-time deputy minister and Umno Supreme Council member Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi coming here to warn Singapore not to try to set itself up as an example to influence the ethnic Chinese in Malaysia.
In turn, Singaporean leaders have accused Umno “ultras” of acting as “protectors” of the Malays in Singapore, in violation of non-interference.
Actually, the shocking results evoked a bigger concern in Singapore beyond impacting its next election.
The first over-riding concern here was, and remains, potential racial or political violence. May 13 still evokes emotions in many older Singaporeans.
The second is economic impact. Malaysia still ranks high in Singapore’s economy and tourism and any dislocation in its economy would be very bad news for every Singaporean.
Malaysia is also a major supply of foodstuffs, not to mention water!
It hadn’t helped when the Malaysian stock market dropped more than the allowed 10%, resulting in an hour-long suspension. (It has since recovered significantly).
Singaporeans were reassured only after seeing how maturely both sides – winners and vanquished – reacted, ordering their members to avoid being provocative.
But for younger Singaporeans who want political change here, it has come as an encouragement and morale booster. Some 33.3% of Singaporeans voted opposition in 2006.
Not every one agrees with the domino theory, however.
“The two countries are vastly different in the way they are governed. Many of their problems are different. Their voters and political parties are not the same,” said a long-time foreign journalist.
Despite the close affinity, the peoples are different, and Singapore’s opposition and its leaders are far less able to organise or be as cohesive as Malaysia’s, at least for now.
Singapore’s Low Thia Khiang (Workers Party) is no Anwar Ibrahim.
Singaporeans are nowhere as committed as Malaysians to any political cause.
Lee Hsien Loong – or Lee Kuan Yew, if you believe he really runs things in Singapore – is no Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Politically, the latter is more tolerant of dissent.
Singapore has serious problems that Malaysia hasn’t got, but the latter, being a larger and more divided nation, is burdened with big troubles that the island-city is largely free of.
“It is these problems – the NEP, corruption, and racial and religious divides – that have dealt the Barisan Nasional a political blow,” he said.
A portion of Singaporeans will undoubtedly be influenced by the Malaysian development to vote against the PAP, but it is unrealistic to expect the mass electorate to follow suit.
However, there are general similarities, too, that must worry the PAP, including the following:
> The ruling parties of both countries – the PAP and the Barisan – have ruled without interruption, and often with huge majorities, since independence;
> They were both powerful giants, domineering, even arrogant. Before this election, the Barisan held about 91% of Parliament seats, almost comparable to the PAP’s 97.6% control in Singapore;
> Their new generation, better educated, with a different mindset, are taking over whose votes can swing elections. Many voted PAP, but a growing number may be turning against it;
> Both are similarly strong about controlling the media, which is forcing the educated towards the largely anti-government Internet; and
> Singaporeans, too, are unhappy over rising prices (highest in 26 years) and the widening economic gap between rich and poor.
The cynics dismiss any chance – short of a larger tsunami than Malaysia’s – of the PAP losing so badly.
The controversial GRC (Group Representative Constituency), which groups together five or six sometimes scattered candidates, into a voting bloc ensures only the rich and big parties benefit.
If Malaysia’s election is run the same way, a voter in Perak may be voting in a Johor group ward.
The election result tells the story: In Singapore 33% popular votes went to the opposition, which won two – or a pitiable 2.4% – of Parliament seats.
Even it gains 51% of the votes, it could be far from forming the government, let alone win a two-thirds majority.
In Malaysia, the government won 52% of the popular votes and 63% of the Federal seats, a more representative result.
But there the Malaysian result could be a two-edged sword for Singapore’s opposition.
If Kuala Lumpur’s three-party Opposition works well, the impact here will be greater.
But if it fails to deliver in the next three years – or worse still, the members start fighting with each other and everything ends up in chaos – then the PAP will have cause to tell Singaporeans: “You want opposition? This is what you’ll get.”

thestar