|
|
Broadly speaking, the
opposition has been partitioned into two loose groups - the
moderates and the radicals - with widely different ideologies and
strategies in their bids to dilute the dominance of the ruling
People's Action Party (PAP).
-
Peh
Shing Huei, Straits Times
|
The
partitioning of the opposition
Peh
Shing Huei
The Straits Times
29 Feb 08
Just when it
seems Singapore's opposition parties here cannot split themselves
any further, they prove that if there is a will, they can divide.
True, they have never been united despite decades of
battling a common enemy. But events of recent months indicate
that the cleavages have grown more pronounced.
Broadly
speaking, the opposition has been partitioned into two loose
groups - the moderates and the radicals - with widely different
ideologies and strategies in their bids to dilute the dominance
of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP).
Among the
moderates are the three biggest opposition parties now - the
Workers' Party (WP), the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) and
the National Solidarity Party (NSP).
While far from happy
with the status quo and the electoral system, they have opted to
stay within the laws. They limit their challenges to the
Government to constitutional means, contesting elections for
seats in the legislature and using the latter to voice their
views.
They focus more on bread-and-butter issues, with
low-key delivery and a general preference for quiet grassroots
work.
Not so for the radicals.
Without any
representation in the Parliament, the likes of the Singapore
Democratic Party (SDP), the yet-to-be-formed Reform Party of Mr
J.B. Jeyaretnam, and some former candidates of the WP prefer to
operate around the edges of the law.
With an emphasis on
human rights issues, this grouping is eager to play to an
international audience, wants a more hardline approach towards
the PAP, and is not afraid to take its protests to the streets.
As Mr Jeyaretnam told me in an interview last month: 'At
the moment, the other parties, barring SDP, seem to give the
impression that they'll go along with the system. I'm not
prepared to go along with the system.'
He added:
'Allowing the people to be heard is vital to any democracy. And
of course, you know, if necessary, we would call for a peaceful
assembly - and if that's denied, we might challenge it.'
While
the differences between the two groups are not new, the divide
has grown starker in the last few months with the radical clique
growing in ranks.
Previously, it was occupied solely by
Dr Chee Soon Juan's SDP.
Now, it has been bolstered by
the return of Mr Jeyaretnam to politics after years crippled by
bankruptcy, as well as young activists such as former WP
candidate Chia Ti Lik, leader of advocacy group SG Human Rights,
who prefers the more combative style of Dr Chee.
The
radicals have gained fans among the online community in the past
year, drawing street cred for their brazen actions flouting the
law.
In contrast, the rhetoric found on Internet forums
against the non-confrontational stance of WP chief Low Thia
Khiang has gone up a notch, slamming the Hougang MP and his party
for being non-existent and ineffectual.
The divide was
clearest in a forum organised by the SDP last month.
Although
invitations were sent to leaders of the moderate parties, none
accepted and the panellists took shots at the moderates.
Mr
Chia, one of the panellists, lambasted opposition MPs Chiam See
Tong and Low as 'PAP apologists' who 'played by the rules' and
got nowhere.
Another former WP candidate, Mr Jufrie
Mahmood, went as far as to say that the duo 'did not deserve the
label' of opposition.
Similarly, when the WP celebrated
its 50th anniversary in November last year, only leaders of the
moderate parties attended. Dr Chee and Mr Jeyaretnam were both
absent.
The partition may add much colour to the
opposition scene, but it is a black eye to their hopes of eroding
the PAP's support.
Mr Chiam said it best when forming the
SDA in 2001, bringing together four parties under an umbrella
alliance: 'Singaporeans do not want small parties but a strong
group against the PAP.'
Some young members of the WP and
the SDA are also cognisant of the need to unite, forming civil
society group Project Breakthrough in 2006 to pool their parties'
information and resources for the General Election.
Indeed,
if the opposition is serious about taking a chunk out of the PAP
instead of its periodic mosquito bites, unity is a prerequisite.
Against a hegemon like the PAP, inter- and intra-party
fighting is unnecessary, if not downright suicidal.
While
it is natural to have diversity in a political system, with
different parties adopting different platforms and strategies,
there is room for cooperation and respect.
After all, no
matter what their leanings are, both groups are still keen to
contest elections and should focus their attention on the polls
instead of personal grudges and petty bickering.
In
politics, a divided enemy means victory. The sooner the
opposition realises this, the better.
shpeh@sph.com.sg
|
|
