The opposition parties, to varying degrees, tend to ask voters to vote for them in order to deny the PAP a clean sweep. They play on the PAP's greatest weakness -- the perception that it is overbearing.

I've always found the PAP position disingenuous. Everybody knows that none of the opposition parties are anywhere near forming the next government. That being the case, it is entirely academic for them to say how they will govern Singapore. So of course, I don't hold it against the opposition parties not to engage with the PAP directly along those lines.

Yet just asking voters to support an opposition party as a parliamentary check on the PAP is also wanting, for while it is true that minor parties can do little more than raise tough questions, there are in fact many ways in which any policy can be criticised.

Likewise, with just about every possible policy or future proposal. Would our opposition parties criticise it as too much or not enough?

As a voter, I will gladly give you my support if your position resonates with my own political philosophy, but I will find it hard to give you my vote if your position contradicts mine. For example, much it may satisfy my desire to see the PAP humbled, I won't vote for an opposition party that is anti-gay, no matter how much it promises to check the PAP.

Of course, nobody seriously expects that a policy will change overnight just because a handful of MPs criticise it; but nudged over time with good arguments, we can expect policy to evolve in the direction that it has been nudged.

Thus I've been reading the various parties' manifestos.

Yet, the role of an opposition is necessarily reactive. No manifesto can possibly anticipate all the issues and policy proposals that may come up in the next 5-year term of Parliament.

So not only was I reading the specifics of the manifestos, but I was also trying to get a sense of the overarching political philosophy of a party. This will give me a clue as to how a party will respond to any new policy proposals in future, and whether that response will be consistent with my own political philosophy.

* * * * *

There are 4 parties in contention: the PAP, the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), the Workers' Party and the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA).

Below, I will express my opinion about what I saw in their manifestos. I will begin with the PAP, which of course is not an opposition party, but the party of government.

The manifesto is extremely brief, comprising 12 pages, excluding the cover. For a party that is virtually certain to form the next government, they ought to say much more about what they wish to carry out. But in keeping with their style, they are running their economic track record. They are basically saying to voters: You don't have to know specifically what we're going to do in the next 5 years (that's why the manifesto is slim), just put your faith in us, leave your lives in our hands.

(You sometimes wonder whether the PAP sees itself as a political party or a religion.)

Some of us may be content with that. Others may not.

Some 60% of the manifesto's 12 pages were covered with images, leaving just a little text in bullet points. It had six themes – they are so brief, I can quote them in their entirety:

• Create opportunities for Singaporeans 
• Give our young the best start 
• Encourage every citizen to play a role 
• Do more for lower-income Singaporeans 
• Help older Singaporeans to lead full and active lives 
• Provide affordable healthcare for all

Each theme was expanded with 5 - 7 more bullet points. For example, under the first theme ("Create opportunities"), there were these two examples:

• Foster entrepreneurship and encourage individuals to pursue their dreams 
• Upgrade our HDB housing estates, rejuvenate the city.... and create a new Garden City by the Bay

All the other pages were like that. An example of what's under the second theme:

• Enhance the Normal course in secondary schools.

Ya, of course, but how? In what way? What direction is "enhancement" going to take? More homework? More ballet? Prettier teachers with shorter skirts?

Under the healthcare theme,

• Make hospitals more efficient so that they can keep charges affordable

Erm... aren't we supposed to be trying to do that all the time? Which political party is going to say we shouldn't make hospitals more efficient?

Do I agree wholeheartedly with the PAP manifesto? Yes. Do I agree with motherhood statements? Of course.

To be frank, I thought it all quite insulting to my intelligence.

* * * * *

 
The opposition parties, in no particular order:

Their manifesto is rather long on accusations of the PAP and short on specific proposals.

It is strongest in its section "Establishing a free and democratic political system". Among its specific proposals are calls for an independent election commission, fixed election dates and the abolition of Group Representation Constituencies – large wards with as many as 6 Members of Parliament.

Where I disagree is when it called for the abolition of the Internal Security Act, which may be useful in countering terrorism. No doubt it has been abused in the past to stifle dissent against the government, allegedly from communist or leftist quarters, but the solution is to put in better checks and judicial review, not to get rid of it altogether.

The rest of the SDP manifesto is rather weak. Its economic proposals appear populist, and in my opinion, unsuitable for the times. For example, the SDP calls for a minimum wage and a "Singapore First" policy, meaning that we can only employ foreigners "if locals cannot be found for the job."

A minimum wage is unenforceable without extremely intrusive regulation that adds costs to business. A fact of the modern economy is that lots of people do part-time work, freelance and otherwise prefer to stay in the informal sector. Are we going to spend resources investigating everybody?

As for the "Singapore First" policy, it's a minefield of bureaucratic regulation to attempt to prove that a Singaporean can't be found for any job before the company can employ a foreigner. In the competitive globalised world, we should be cutting down on red tape, not adding to it.

The SDP's manifesto reveals a policy schizophrenia. On the political side, it stands firmly by liberalism. On the economic side, its instincts are protectionist, almost socialist.

Their website calls it an "Agenda", not a manifesto. It is not clear to me why. It's even shorter than the PAP's, containing only 3 points, which I will quote verbatim:

• Help establish a strong, credible and viable people-oriented alternative political institution to compete with the PAP for the people's mandate
• Create a vibrant prosperous economy through a [sic] open transparent system of governance
• Work towards the democratic growth and development of Singapore into a dynamic, multicultural and caring society.

The three above statements were NOT expanded upon with any specifics.

On the website, there seems to be a separate Agenda for the SDA team contesting in the Pasir-Ris-Punggol constituency, talking about maximising opportunities for all, family values and the high brain drain. However, since it is specific to only one constituency, I will not discuss it further here.

Thus, the impression that I got is that the SDA -– which is an alliance of 4 different parties -– does not have a co-ordinated or consistent platform.

It appears to take the position that all politics is ONLY local. Already today, I see that their candidates for the Jalan Besar constituency are coming out with a Jalan Besar agenda, basically dealing with municipal issues. That's fine of course -– for Jalan Besar residents, and if the posts they are contesting are for local town councillors.

But MPs also have to respond to national issues in Parliament. That's what a manifesto is for. Unless the SDA has one, it will be hard for voters to know what the party will do with their voices if/when they get into Parliament.

Will it argue for more liberalism -– political and economic? Will it, like the SDP, push for more protectionism and a more interventionist government in the economic sphere? Or will it, not knowing what to think, just keep quiet?

Theirs was the lengthiest and most detailed manifesto. Kudos to them for putting on their thinking caps. The 52-page document had 7 sections, on "Justice, Law and Order", "Economic Policy", "Public Transport" etc.

I agreed with just about everything in their first section. It called for an independent election commission, judicial review (for rationality, not merit) of administrative decisions and independent ombudsmen.

Another point was that no act of the Executive should be placed outside the scope of judicial review. This is becoming a habit of the government nowadays when they craft new legislation.

The manifesto also said that criminal law should not have mandatory sentences, because by doing so, it transfers judicial discretion from the judge to the prosecutor. Furthermore, term appointments of High Court Judicial Commissioners and the extension of the Chief Justice's appointment beyond retirement age should be stopped because such schemes leave judges serving at the pleasure of the Executive. Yawning Bread has been arguing for all these things for years.

The manifesto also argued for suspects to be given early access to lawyers. Right now, an arrested person is denied legal counsel until the police have "completed their investigation".

In the economic sphere, the Workers' Party accepted that economic growth comes from remaining an open and competitive economy. Its concern was more on how to soften the inequalities that may result. It called for more support for small and medium-sized enterprises and start-ups, for example.

However, when it called for "effective measures to curb property and land speculation", I began to wonder, how? Is it a serious problem in Singapore? What about other asset bubbles? I don't think they've given enough thought to this; it sounds like knee-jerk populism.

Then when it said that the Goods and Services Tax on "basic necessities" should be waived, I disagreed. Such a move would be firstly, distortionary, and secondly, open to all sorts of definitional difficulties that will no doubt create red tape.

Another area where I had my doubts was their call to raise the total contribution rate to the Central Provident Fund (Singapore's compulsory savings scheme) from the present 33% to 35% for employees under age 55. Within this 35%, they would decrease the employee's contribution from 20% to 17.5%, and increase the employer's contribution from 13% to 17.5%. I disagree. This is a hidden cost increase on employers.

Altogether, I am a little wary as to whether this party's views on economic issues are consistent with mine.

On social issues, the Workers' Party had ideas for various niche segments of the population. It insisted that "single parents must not be left out of available assistance schemes", e.g. public housing subsidies.

It called for a "care centre in each precinct for the elderly". I think this is important as leaving the care of the elderly in the hands of ever-smaller families that are already stressed out from work commitments is going to get increasingly difficult. A care centre is a halfway house that does not go as far as institutionalising the elderly, yet provides a way for medical attention and living assistance to be provided to the elderly on a regular basis.

Schools should abolish streaming, it said. In its place, there should be a "multi-tiered advancement system", where students progress at different rates subject by subject. Streaming is too rigid; furthermore, it leads to elitism.

Another good idea is a compulsory Basic Hospitalisation Insurance Scheme, with the government helping out with co-payment of the premiums. The present Medisave system essentially expects each individual to pay for his own medical needs, but since medical needs are so unevenly spread, many patients end up with no financial resources for treatment. Naturally, medical cost-sharing and cost-control are devilishly complicated matters, and no single manifesto can express all the issues involved, but the Workers' Party's goes some way, with more details than I can cover here.

Still in the medical area, the party said HIV and Aids medication should be covered "under the Basic Healthcare Package."

I disagreed with this party's call to abolish ethnic quotas in housing. As a long term goal, it's fine, but an immediate abolition is too risky.

As for its public transport proposals, they're definitely food for thought, though I'm not sure if they are practical. The party calls for a non-profit National Transport Corporation to "oversee and provide universal transport services to all." Basically, it said that this body should run the trunk routes, but the inter-town feeder services should be "deregulated". I don't understand why there is a distinction between trunk and feeder. If deregulation works for one, why not for the other? Perhaps it's because the railway system is a natural monopoly, but trunk bus routes?

Coming back to political questions, the Workers' Party took aim at the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act. It disagreed with the right of the government to "appoint the management and ... directors of media companies." It believes that Singapore should be "open to private and commercial media" with no government ownership.

The manifesto also said the party will push for an amendment to the Films Act. The present ban on political films should be repealed.

Interestingly, the Workers' Party called for a Privacy Act and a Freedom of Information Act. I think these are important proposals. A liberal democracy must respect privacy, and civil society must be girded by access to information, otherwise how can they engage with issues?

I would characterise the Worker's Party's stand on political and civil rights issues as strongly liberal. On economic and social issues, I think they are more centrist, but they try to be constructive. I disagree with on some issues, however.

* * * * *

The above is my quick tour of the manifestos. I don't think we should rely exclusively on government-controlled Straits Times, Today and Mediacorp to tell us what the opposition parties are saying. If we do, all we'll learn about them are that they are "time bombs".

Each of us should read the manifestos for ourselves and decide, as I have, what we agree with and what we don't. Citizenship brings with it responsibilities, and the first is to be informed enough to know what you want to do with your vote.

© Yawning Bread