Read the resolution here.
Barely a few hours after the PAP released their 2013 Party Resolution, many internet users have expressed their utter contempt. The more candid ones have labelled it as downright “bullshit”, saying that none of these traits have been displayed by the men in white while the more fed-up ones have added that the uprising will come in 2016. My personal view is that this resolution is a too generic to make any real impact, while they reflect the fact that the PAP is still disconnect from the people.
Playing around with words?
One of the key changes that appear to be most relevant to Singaporeans is the idea of a “Singaporean identity”. Taken alone, the average Singaporean would see this as a Singapore made up of people born and bred in Singapore, males who have done their NS and do not identify their roots with a foreign country. However, closer reading would reveal that the PAP’s definition of “Singaporean identity” has expanded to include people from “different backgrounds” as well.
As Sylvia Lim puts it on the population white paper “[The] 55 per cent includes new citizens.. If we look at new citizenships given out since 2004 and add the new citizenships to be given out from now till 2030, what percentage of the population would be Singaporeans who have grown up here? Wouldn’t this figure be below 50 per cent? Is this what the government means by retaining a Singaporean core?”
Too vague to have any substantial policy impact?
Besides the fact that they have tried to mislead the Singaporean electorate, their resolution does not seem to identify the concerns that Singaporeans have. While your average Singaporean is concerned with meeting the increasing cost of living and job security, the PAP have promised to give efforts to none of these causes, instead making vague promises as described above. What defines a child’s “potential”? A polytechnic diploma may be insufficient and unjust considering scholarships to foreigners. What defines“community support” when the government has clearly been averse to increasing social support? Clearly, more definition is needed!
Still unfulfilled promises?
Back in the 2011 general elections, the party then launched a series of aims and electoral promises in its then manifesto. There were 6 primary goals which they promised the electorate then includes 1) Create opportunities for higher incomes 2) Improve the lives of lower-income Singaporeans 3) Bring out the best in every child 4) Develop a vibrant city and an endearing home 5) Help the elderly stay active, healthy and engaged and 6) Involve all Singaporeans in shaping the future
With the benefit of hindsight, your average Singapore would know that none of these policies have been fulfilled. There are also some conflicts as I will highlight below:
Conflicting polices (1) – have they involved Singaporeans in shaping the future?
While they have made some attempts to put on a show, the fact remains that Singaporean voices will never have a stand in policy making unless through the ballot box. One needs to remember how – despite feedback from the national conversation that foreigner flow should be moderated - they pushed the population white paper through only using the party whip. While they have made another show on how to improve conscription, they have also made a qualifier that incentives cannot be monetised when the opportunity costs of NS becomes greater. To have a real alternative voice, we need someone with the aggressiveness of Dr. Chee Soon Juan.
Conflicting policies (2) – have they improved lives for lower income Singaporeans?
They have been quick to claim credit that the incomes of the lower-income Singaporeans have risen. While this may be true, a 0.1% increase is downright pathetic and the essence of the matter remains that there are more monies spent to scholarships on foreigners and their integration rather than these local Singaporeans. To get a better picture of their disconnect, they have also claimed that $1000 a month will allow you to buy a HDB flat while blatantly refusing to raise social aid. Only with a party like the SDP that has the willpower and determination that we are able so rectify this problem.
Concluding remarks
Had the PAP remained silent, people would have continued their contempt for the PAP. However, they have chosen to expose more of their flaws and apathy through a resolution which in essence amounts to nothing. With strong alternatives in the form of A-list radical opposition parties such as the SDP and NSP, one can only see the pressing need to vote people like Dr. Chee Soon Juan into parliament come 2016.
Joseph Kheng-Liang Tan
*The author is a 21 year-old polytechnic graduate who is currently pursuing his law degree in Australia.