Isn't this electioneering and against the law? he asked.

Minister of Home Affairs Wong Kan Seng, speaking for the PAP and the government, dismissed Chiam's complaint. It wasn't electioneering because Sitoh was not (yet) a candidate.

This was ridiculous, I said to myself on reading the story. What we have here are bull elephants dancing a minuet.

In my opinion, the issue that Chiam raised was really very minor, but Wong's reply was only a half-answer. If Sitoh wasn't a candidate, then why did the PAP concert organisers put the singer up to asking the audience to vote for him? Chiam should have pressed this point home, but didn't.

Then in the Straits Times Forum of 26 October 2005, Chan Mia Lee wrote that if Chiam felt he was in danger of losing support from his constituents, he should engage them "with more and more social programmes."

She added, "Mr Sitoh and his supporters have set the pace, so rise to the challenge and follow them by organising activities such as a weekend Mega Tour to Port Dickson with five meals, one night's accommodation and transport thrown in, all for a mere $88 per person."

"It is time Mr Chiam realises that Potong Pasir residents want him to work harder and provide them with social activities too, not just maintaining the ward well."

With that, the petty was in danger of descending into the ridiculous.

Why is it expected of MPs to organise cheap bus excursions and Texan line dance evenings?

* * * * *

What we see here is the sorry result of one of the many PAP plans to monopolise politics. I will argue here that that short-sighted and selfish impulse to squeeze out all opposition is contrary to Singapore's interests. What the PAP has gained by this particular plan has been at the expense of Singapore as a whole.

The rationale was that residents should suffer if they vote in incompetent MPs. If their housing estate deteriorates, their single biggest financial asset (their homes) will lose market value. That way, voters should always vote responsibly.

It's the Singaporean way, the PAP said, of ensuring that we do not vote in people who talk big, but do little.

The problem with that rationalisation is, what constitutes "competence"? It seems now to be measured in terms of precinct-management skills. By this reasoning, our national parliament should be made up of people who can change light-bulbs and catch rats. And organise cheap bus excursions to keep little old ladies happy.

While routine maintenance is paid for by residents' monthly payments, major upgrading projects use money from the State. These can add even more value to housing assets than keeping an estate clean and tidy.

In the 1990s, the PAP reinforced their "vote competent MPs" message by dangling the additional carrot that if a constituency returned a PAP MP, State funds would be channelled to it. Entire blocks of flats would be upgraded, schools refurbished and sports amenities added. If you voted for opposition MPs, the threat read, you wouldn't get these projects that add value to your neighbourhood and property [2].

With that, a generation of voters were taught to apply only municipal and pocketbook considerations in deciding their vote. Broader policy issues and the political direction of Singapore became unimportant in elections, quietly slipping away into the hands of the PAP elite.

The wonder of course is that opposition parties still managed to win a few constituencies at each general election. Being few, these seats are extremely precious, as they are their only way of getting a voice in Parliament, and their only way of getting a little media coverage. Our media steadfastly refuse to cover any political speeches by non-PAP politicians anywhere unless made in Parliament.

Constrained by this biased media landscape, deprived of open support (and funding) from a public that fears PAP intimidation, opposition parties in Singapore have a precarious existence.

Quite understandably, they have to do everything possible to retain their seats, which probably explains why, over the years, I have observed that they pay more and more attention to municipal affairs, but have less and less to say about national affairs.

It is rare for opposition MPs to actively debate policy directions with the government. It is even rarer for them to propose alternative policies. For all practical purposes, our opposition parties have no voice in the broader political debate in Singapore. Perhaps they have a view but are simply not reported; however, I don't think media bias is the only explanation.

Can this be healthy for our long-term future?

* * * * *

To engage the government in debate about policy is not something you do off the cuff. It requires considerable preparation in research, analysis and brainstorming. Our opposition MPs need research assistants (and perhaps a think tank affiliated with each party) in order to assess government initiatives, spot their weaknesses or unexpected consequences, and come up with alternatives.

More importantly, what we need are opposition MPs who aren't spending enormous amounts of time dealing with untrimmed shrubs and uncollected trash.

In my Nov 1999 article Reengineering our electoral system  I proposed a revised electoral system. I suggested that half the MPs should be elected from single-member constituencies, under a 'first past the post' system, but the other 50% of the MPs in Parliament should come out of proportional representation.

Each voter should have two votes. One, to choose your constituency MP, the other to indicate which party's policy platform you prefer. Such a system will put back into Parliament politicians whose eyes are kept firmly on national, policy issues, unburdened by having to deal with municipal problems.

© Yawning Bread