Skip to main content

The Cracks, The Fault Lines and The “Master of Balance”



Throughout the history of Singapore, cracks and fault lines are always there. If there are no cracks or fault lines, the “Master of Balance” will lose its acting power and basically, has nothing to do or no way to play politics.  Politics is a game and every game needs a master to balance off difference forces.

Since Sir Stamford Raffles landed in Singapura, our lion city, there were cracks all the way until now.  However, to solve the crack lines, a “Master of Balance” will have to appear and harmonise the fault issues.

The “Master of Balance” (MB) of course is the colonial ruler or the ruling party of the time. It may also be a single person, likes Sir Stamford or the founding father of Singapore.  

Sir Stamford Raffles managed to persuade the Sultan of Johor to let the British to set up a trading settlement in Singapore in 1819. From a fishing village to a British possession, besides merchants from Arab, Europe and other countries, the British East India Company also started to import labour from China and India to develop Singapore.  In the course of doing so, they had to balance the rights of Malay and the new immigrants even though all did not have voting rights.

During the Japanese occupation, Japan became the MB. To keep the government running, they needed to employ some locals to maintain laws and orders as well assisting in administration.  The way to maintain the balance during this period is through force and military.
  
When the PAP gained power in 1959, it became the MB. The PAP also claimed and acknowledged that there were cracks among themselves and that led to the formation of Barisan Sosialis in 1963.

“The leftist Barisan Sosialis was slammed by the PAP as a Communist front and attacked vehemently as being a radical pro-Communist group. ……..
Nevertheless, many Barisan Sosialis members did have (to varying extents) admiration and belief in the leftist ideals of Communism as well as Socialism due to the influence of Communist China. This communist orientation was used by the PAP to damage their reputation and viability in the Singaporean context.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barisan_Sosialis)
Even Barisan Sosialis got it right with the issue of merger with Malaysia (Singapore joined and finally left Malaysia in 1965), the MB still managed to win in 1963 election with the help of Operation Cold Store. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barisan_Sosialis)

Not only the PAP is able to balance the result in election, it has also managed in balancing the Chinese and English educated, the racial tension (Malay and Chinese), housing, employment, and in certain way the rich and poor gap in the early days of independence.

So confident is the MB, it claims to move Singapore from third world to first world country.  In the process, there are cracks and fault lines like the Marxist Conspiracy, the merger of newspaper groups, the closing of Nantah, the GRC, the Elected President, the Court Appeal (to UK), and many others.  

Some of these cracks and fault lines still remain today.  This is why PM Lee describes the new crack as the gap and difference between old and new citizens.  

Cracks are not necessary the bad things for the PAP. It can turn into advantages to the MB if he plays the cards well and balance the different demands from different people. Cracks and fault lines are Wei Ji (危机) for the MB and it contains risks () and opportunities().  The problem is how the current leaders of the PAP handle and balance the situation.

Experience proved that in 1963 (see below),  even with 46.9% of the popular votes, a good MB could still win the election with more than two-third majority.

Party
Votes
%
Seats
+/-
272,924
46.9
37
-6
193,301
33.2
13
+13
48,967
8.4
0
48,785
8.4
1
+1
Partai Rakyat
8,259
1.4
0
Pan-Malayan Malaysian Party
1,545
0.3
0
United Democratic Party
760
0.1
0
286
0.1
0
Independents
6,788
1.2
0
-1
Invalid/blank votes
5,818
-
-
-
Turnout
587,433
95.1
51
-
Electorate
617,450
Source: Singapore Elections

Not to mention the PAP obtained 60% of the popular votes in 2011, the MB still has many rooms to move and cards to play.  Unless the quality of the PAP leaders drops sharply to the third world standard and the MB has only paper generals to deploy, then the change of government is possible.     

Cracks and fault lines are not new in Singapore.  In the past, the PAP as the MB has managed to balance the different demands from different sectors.  And in most of the cases, the PAP is acting against the minority, like the Chinese educated, the so-called communists or pro communists, the human rights fighters, the ISA protesters, even the poor is the minority in Singapore as claimed by the government and they are well taken off and provided with safety net.

However, the immigration issue is quite difference. It seems the MB is acting against the wishes of the majority - the old citizens.  MB, of course, can use the old tactics of ‘divide and rule’. 

We will see more of these tactics but will it work again?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...