The People’s Action Party’s (PAP) standard line that it starts preparing for the next general election the day after the last one ends has probably never been truer. Traditionally, a committee is formed to study voting patterns. This year, it will have its hands full divining why various precincts cast their ballots the way they did.

On the one hand, there is bound to be a secular decline in support for the PAP from the unreal highs of the 1960s and 1970s. Regardless of how well it performs, it must expect a falling vote share and rising number of opposition seats in line with more ‘ordinary’ democracies.

Indeed, the fact that the slide has taken place so gently, such that the PAP still claims more than 60 percent of the popular vote and 93 percent of seats in parliament, shows how solid its base remains. Retiring senior minister S. Jayakumar provided a sense of perspective from other leaders in Jakarta where he was attending the ASEAN Summit: “They thought it was a big win and quipped that they would like to have that kind of a win in their countries!”

On the other hand, the PAP has been rightly taken aback by the level of unhappiness expressed by Singaporeans in the course of this campaign. It must assume that even some who ultimately voted for the PAP may be dissatisfied with the ruling party, opting for the status quo only because the opposition candidates in their wards were weak ― something that may change in the years to come.

So far, all indications are that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is under no illusions that it can be business as usual. “We hear all your voices, whether it’s expressed in person or over the Internet. The PAP will analyze the results of the elections, learn from what has emerged in this general election, put right what is wrong, improve what can be made better, and also improve ourselves to serve Singaporeans better,” he said in the early hours of Sunday (May 8), flanked by colleagues whose bright white-and-white uniforms contrasted with their somber expressions.

Do not expect this to be an instant or total transformation. The government, and most of the people, would see no need to change fundamental features of Singapore’s formula, such as maintaining competitiveness and pushing for economic growth before redistributing wealth.

P.M. Lee has already tried to temper expectations by saying that any new compact with the people would have to “engage Singaporeans in the more difficult decisions and trade-offs which governing Singapore involves.”

In election after election, the Singapore electorate has shown that it is not impulsive or fickle. Overall, it seems to prefer gradual change rather than any shifts of a tectonic scale. This year’s result, with just two more opposition seats than the previous high 20 years ago, doesn’t quite deviate from that pattern. The average Singaporean seems comfortable with the current pace of liberalization, even if others might consider it gloomily glacial.

However, the intense contest for votes has revealed a handful of issues that might need to be placed high up on the PAP’s agenda.

First, the PAP needs a better grasp of whether the young are with the party. Several MPs confided to our reporters that younger voters tended to be less friendly towards them. On the surface, it appeared that the PAP had spared no effort to connect with the young. There have been Young PAP parties at Zouk, forays into Facebook and the like.

But perhaps the youth are seeking a sense of idealism and purpose. Again and again, they have said that they are vexed by issues such as the unfairness of the GRC system, high ministerial pay and the emphasis on racial identity.

Setting aside the merits and demerits of each of these individual policies, what seems clear is their need to feel assured that their country is not just efficient and wealthy, but also anchored in values they can respect. They also want to believe in the honor of public service and respond to those whom they feel are driven by ideals more than by remuneration.

Second, the PAP needs to review its internal processes and protocols. In the past, it was miles ahead of any opposition party in terms of organization. The Workers’ Party (WP) and the Singapore Democratic Party seem to have narrowed the gap. The opposition still cannot compete in terms of the numbers of volunteers and financial wherewithal. But these parties are still in a growth phase.

The WP ran a tight, disciplined campaign with clear public messaging. As a colleague with an interest in history who has tracked the WP quipped: “They’re the new Malayan Communist Party, tight, secretive.”

Perhaps because of the high number of walkovers in the past, and because party leaders have to focus more on government than on party building, the PAP machinery may be a little rusty. It may be time to beef it up. After an attempted takeover of the party by the extreme left in 1957, the PAP made a conscious decision to keep the party small and modest in order to prevent alternative power centres from emerging. It may be time now to relook this approach.

The most noticeable problem with the PAP’s internal coordination, though, were the own goals scored by senior members who may have cost more votes than they gained with their interventions. Other ministers also did not seem to be on the same page in their messages.

Third, the PAP will need to review how it selects and deploys its talent. Confidence in the PAP’s recruitment system took a beating. Party leaders were unable to satisfy the public that all in their slate of new candidates were the best they could come up with, especially when the opposition paraded a handful of new candidates who were patently superior.

To make matters worse, the package deal politics of the GRC system seems to have backfired. Polling Day produced outcomes that unnecessarily hurt the PAP and, one dare say, Singapore. Dispensable candidates who have failed to impress voters will ride into Parliament on the coat-tails of their GRC heavyweights. In the meantime, some of the PAP’s top talent have been axed in one fell swoop. Along with losing an able foreign minister and a respected community leader, the GRC system has cost Singapore a high-caliber potential office-holder in Ong Ye Kung.

While his political career need not be over and he could return stronger, there is clearly something counterproductive in the current system.

A review of this and other practices and principles could result in a system that presents the PAP in a better light, one that is more responsive to Singaporeans. Both would be good outcomes.

By Zuraidah Ibrahim

(The Straits Times)

(Asia News Network)