The recent comments made by Pritam Singh, the leader of the Workers’ Party (WP) in Singapore, are thought-provoking. He argues that the correct response to the dominance of the People’s Action Party (PAP) is to provide Singaporeans with more choices during elections. This perspective not only embodies the stance of the WP but also discusses the future of Singaporean politics.
Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh on “What is the appropriate response to PAP political dominance?” wpsg makeyourvotecount sgparliament pritamsingh sgnews
The lifeblood of democratic politics lies in the people’s right to choose. Singh’s emphasis on this principle is commendable. In a political climate like Singapore’s, where a single party has dominance, an option distinct from the PAP is crucial. This is a maintenance of political diversity and respect for citizens’ rights. Offering diverse options means recognizing and respecting the notions and needs of the people, and signifies the fulfillment of political participation, all of which the WP is pursuing.
Singh’s viewpoint also underscores the unique positioning of the WP. Their aim is not to become another PAP but to stick to their own position, presenting a political choice that differs from the PAP. This spirit of maintaining self-identity and refusing to imitate not only gives the WP a unique identity but also adds a diversity to the political landscape of Singapore.
It’s noteworthy that Singh’s stance reveals the unwavering determination of the WP. They understand that the road to success is inevitably filled with challenges and setbacks, but these will be converted into the impetus to face difficulties in future elections. Such a positive attitude is extremely important for the long-term development of any political party.
Through Singh’s perspective, we can see the path the WP is paving for Singapore’s political future. It’s a path advocating diversity, emphasizing citizen participation, and filled with both challenges and opportunities. For Singapore, such a path may bring challenges but will also bring infinite possibilities. In this process, every Singaporean will play an important role in shaping a diverse and open political landscape in Singapore.
“Populism” became a focus of last week’s parliamentary debate on the government’s policy guidelines, and in a rare move, on the final day of the debate, opposition leader Pritam Khaira Singh agreed with Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Lawrence Wong that everyone should say no to populism. Clearly, no politician will admit to pursuing a populist path, so we can only listen to their words and observe their actions.
But what is populism? In the context of parliamentary debates, populism is obviously bad and detrimental to the healthy development of democracy, and therefore unanimously rejected. Tracing its roots, it has various definitions. As used in the general news media today, populism refers to politicians who exploit certain issues to incite public sentiment, oppose those in power (the establishment), and the elite class, in order to gain votes. Therefore, former US President Trump and former Brazilian President Bolsonaro, for example, are populist politicians.
What is populism in the context of Singapore’s recent parliamentary debate? In the past, our understanding of the term was straightforward, referring to politicians who propose various voter-pleasing and sensational ideas, such as free education and healthcare, to win votes. This time, Lawrence Wong provided his own clear definition. He said, “Populism is politics that suppresses, conceals, and falls into post-truth, and twists facts for political gain. It falsely claims that complex issues have simple solutions when that is not the case. If populism takes root in Singapore, parties implementing populist policies may gain some short-term benefits, but in the long run, it will cause great harm to Singapore and Singaporeans.”
He went on to say, “As far as the government is concerned, our position is very clear. We reject all forms of populism and uphold honesty and integrity when formulating policies. If the government does not meet these standards, we expect the opposition to point it out. Please do so. You must do so. We expect you to do so. Conversely, if the opposition proposes ideas and policies that we consider populist, we will also point out and emphasize our concerns, as we should. I hope this is our consensus on how to advance Singapore’s political and democratic development.” Pritam Khaira Singh immediately expressed agreement. This is an important reference point for “observing their actions.”
In fact, Lawrence Wong expressed this expectation on the first day of the debate. He hoped that during this debate and for the remainder of the current government’s term, the opposition would propose realistic alternative policy options, rather than opportunistic or populist ideas that slowly erode public trust in the government, and should instead present rigorous alternative guidelines as a potential alternative government.
The so-called gradual erosion of public trust in the government, or “salami slicing” in popular terms, is a powerful political tactic, as it operates in the gray area. It is not easy to label it as populist. For example, if you say that the government should only use half of the net investment income contribution from reserves, and someone else asks why not use 60%, it may be debatable whether this is populist, but it is definitely “salami slicing” and can easily win voters’ hearts. Similarly, if you insist on raising the consumption tax, others may argue for raising taxes on the wealthy or corporations instead, which could also win over some voters.
The most deadly aspect is the amplification effect of social media, which makes “salami slicing” tactics even more potent. Because one person can form a cyber army, stirring up noise for various opposing voices. However, Pritam Khaira Singh did not take the bait to Lawrence Wong’s direct attack but adopted a temporary avoidance strategy, admitting that the Workers’ Party is not yet able to form an
alternative government and expressed the desire to continue learning and growing. He also emphasized that the Workers’ Party’s goal is to provide constructive feedback and to ensure that the government is held accountable.
In this debate, both the government and the opposition agreed to reject populism, emphasizing the need for responsible and honest policy-making. This consensus is crucial for Singapore’s political and democratic development. As citizens, we must not only listen to politicians’ words, but also observe their actions, to ensure that they are adhering to the principles they claim to uphold.
Going forward, it is crucial to maintain a healthy political environment in Singapore, where parties and politicians focus on substantive policy discussions and strive to provide pragmatic solutions to the challenges faced by the nation. In this way, Singapore’s political landscape can continue to mature and evolve, ensuring that the country remains resilient in the face of a rapidly changing global environment.
