Elite-Grassroots Split in PAP


September 5, 2011

http://www.thestar.com.my

Alternative Take on Singapore Presidential Election 2011: Elite-Grassroots Split in PAP

Insight Down South
By SEAH CHIANG NEE

After a poor election showing three months ago, a split has become evident in the PAP rank-and-file between the younger and older generation on how far and fast reforms should proceed.

AN internal rift in the powerful People’s Action Party (PAP), which has governed Singapore for 46 years, isn’t the sort of news one often gets to read about here.

That it surfaced last week – three months after founding leader Lee Kuan Yew left the Cabinet – caused much speculation among citizens, and with party representatives hurrying to deny it.

The informant was not some flippant source but a respectable former party stalwart, Dr Tan Cheng Bock (left), who recently quit the party to contest in the presidential election.He missed defeating former Deputy Prime Minister Dr Tony Tan, a PAP-favoured candidate, by a slim 7,269 out of 2.2 million votes.

The dismal showing by the one-time PAP inner cabinet member (Dr. Tony Tan) was a major blow to the ruling elite. The man who almost pulled it off was a popular doctor and PAP MP for 26 years.Despite being an outsider, Cheng Bock said, he had received the support of the PAP grassroots.

“There’s definitely a division in the PAP.The split is right down the middle,” he told the press.

Grassroots leaders had ignored advice not to vote for him. “Many old MPs have also came out to support me. It’s two camps… so it’s quite level,” he said. “The party will need to take a critical look at its way of doing things.”

For years, people had speculated that once party strongman Lee Kuan Yew stepped down, the PAP – one of Asia’s longest ruling parties – would split into factions.

Lee, himself, had once talked of a possible split when he was no longer around. Only recently, he warned of the danger of PAP losing power in Singapore. “That day will come,” he said.

After a poor election showing three months ago, the 87-year-old Lee resigned from the cabinet, retaining only his Parliament seat. Since then, there has been no sign of PAP’s control slipping but – as Dr Tan pointed out – a split of its rank and file is real.

Throughout its rule for half a century, the party’s strong point was its ability to keep its internal conflicts a private affair, fought within four walls.

In 1961, the party split into two when the extreme left wing faction split to form the Socialist Front. Since then, internal rifts were occasionally whispered to have taken place among cabinet members, or with Lee, over major policies.But most of the quarrels were in private.

“Usually the losing side would fade away,” said a retired journalist who reported the PAP for decades.

Open challenges against Lee were harshly dealt with.Lee’s retirement in May was unquestionably regarded as a key moment in Singapore’s political history.

Traditionally, the departure of a strongman who has exercised power over his people for a long period is often followed by internal upheavals as sections jostle for power.

“This removal of a central point of control usually unleashes forces that had been under restraint to move to fill the power vacuum,” said a polytechnic lecturer.In Singapore, this is unlikely, he said, given the nature of its moderate, well-educated population not given to public combat.

But peaceful changes through the ballot box and a changing electorate are another matter and cannot be ruled out, analysts say.They may likely emerge from internal reviews conducted after heated debates within the younger party leadership as time passes and the Kuan Yew era fades.

Currently, one clear cause of the split within the PAP, as well as between the government and the public, is the widening gap between rich and poor. The discontented members Dr Tan referred to include many from the 25,000 grassroots leaders, which are a powerful part of the PAP’s power machinery during the past half a century.

For simplicity, some analysts have termed it a PAP elite versus grassroots conflict.Another strong debate raging now is: how far the party leadership should act to address public unhappiness or meet demands for policy changes.

If speculation of a PAP split becomes a reality, it is unlikely to be similar to the ideological break-up of 1961.

Singaporeans are largely ideology-free.

Instead, the split is between the younger and older generations on how far and fast reforms should proceed. Referring to the differences with his father (Minister Mentor, or MM, in the last cabinet), PM Lee Hsien Loong said in May: “MM is MM, we are different. We do it our way.”

Lee Kuan Yew would tell it “straight from the shoulder” – no ifs, no buts, solid hard talk, he said.

“I think you have got used to our style.We understand what we need to do, but we don’t try to do it MM’s style. We do it our way.”

The older conservatives are evidently more worried about the changing politics.One of Lee Senior’s close friends, Philip Yeo, recently said: “My greatest fear now is that the government is terrified of the people. You cannot have a system where the people are pampered.”

Lee, himself, has warned again of the dangers of Singapore moving towards a two-party system and “electing weak and ineffective governments”.

Dr Tan’s revelation of a PAP split was not the first.After losing in May’s general election, Former Foreign Minister George Yeo said he would work from within to help the party reform.

“I think we have many party members (who) feel that way. And in the coming weeks and months, there will be many discussions and debates about the way forward,” Yeo said.

“We’ve got to gather feedback from all supporters… from outside the party, too … from all classes, all groups, and try a way to achieve this new unity.”–The Star (September 3, 2011)

5 thoughts on “Elite-Grassroots Split in PAP

  1. A Team A and Team B scenario in the making. In Singapore Tan Cheng Bock is still held in high regards whereas in Malaysia someone like him would be demonized and become the victim of every government machinery.

  2. Semper Fi,

    The hallmark of Singapore is political stability. No Singaporean will do anything to destroy this priceless intangible that underpins Singapore as a destination for business, international capital, and tourism. I, therefore, share the view expressed by Manu Bhaskaran (whose article I posted earlier).

    Furthermore, the PAP has the ability to look at itself critically and adapt to change. As I write, their leaders and strategists are already taking hard look at signals that came out of the May 2011 GE and the recent Presidential Election which saw a razor thin victory to Dr. Tony Tan. They will bounce back from this setback in no time.

    Remember the PAP has been in power since 1959, not by populist policies but by competent and realist leadership. Whatever you may say about Mr Lee Kuan Yew, you cannot take away credit from the former Prime Minister and Minister Mentor for taking Singapore with no natural resources except intellectual and social capital into the First World. The country today is second to none in terms of governance because of Mr Lee, the strict Mandarin Patriarch of Singapore and man of awesome intellectual capacity, unshakeable convictions, and moral integrity.

    Over to Mongkut Bean, CLF, Isa Manteqi, Tok Cik. Abnizar and Frank et.al for their comments.–Din Merican

  3. The fact that in five decades there has never been talk of a split before now, is in itself a tribute to the Singapore Team. Looked at dispassionately, current developments are but a ripple in the country’s politics and it is inconceivable that the Party is not already scrambling for solutions.

    But the government has allowed itself to take its finger off the country’s pulse and citizens are right to ask : “how come?”.

    LKY did mention recently that Singaporeans should remember “where we came from”. Perhaps he ought to have addressed himself to his younger colleagues.

  4. No, not very familiar on this, although S’pore is our close neighbour. However, me thinks it is not about ” split ” as portrayed by the old guard.

    Its natural i think that there are differences between ” kaum tua ” & ” kaum muda ” : the old guard wanting to hold on to its bastion, and the new upstarts who think they have better ideas how to ” move forward “, brash & confident!

    As in all things Nature will provide the wisdom. So too with Human Affairs, be it about philosophy, ideology, or about governance. It’s the same mode of synthesizing things: which is to apply the antithesis to the thesis viz the rear-guard (kaum tua), from which the synthesis would emerge to seek the way forward. Of course we are unable to discern with clarity what will emerge, henceforth.

  5. The young should take over from the old and the transition should both be smooth and trouble-free. That’s to be expected from a matured society. The old guards should know when and where to make way. Them holding to power and refusing to let go will drive a wedge between the two sides.

    It’s interesting to see how the political landscape takes shape in Singapore, as it will have a direct bearing on its neighbours, especially Malaysia.

    LKY may scoff at the idea of a two-party system believing it will not work but isn’t that what political dynamism is all about? But to old guards like LKY and Octo power means plenty to them. Having little or none of it will affect their relevance. This is one fear the two old-timers share.
    _________
    Tok Cik,

    LKY is now standing back, but still a referee. This great Singaporean is full of fresh ideas and travels to see things for himself and comes back to share them with his young colleagues. But his moral authority is still very strong and that helps to moderate the pace of reforms. The PAP policies are founded on realism.

    The values of a rugged society are fast disappearing in Singapore, but Singaporeans must be constantly reminded that when adversity beckons, they must have the will power to face and deal with it. They must respond to the challenges of progress. For the younger generation to do so, they must be prepared mentally and physically. In this sense, LKY is right. He reads history and Arnold Toynbee is one of his favorite historians. Society declines when its members develop soft bellies.

    I can understand where he is coming from because of my own background and experience. Our age difference is not wide: he was born in 1923 and I came into this world in 1939. When he came to power in 1959 at the age of 35 plus, I was 19+ years old.–Din Merican

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.