About high time that national issues are discussed during elections

This unpublished article was written some time ago with minor additions from my latest interview with Mr Goh Meng Seng

During the 1997 General Elections, Mr Tang Liang Hong was the main focus, at least during the hustings as far as the ruling party is concerned. He was contesting in the ‘troubled’ Cheng San GRC which even prompted the then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong to cast his lot there as a ‘special candidate’. The 2001 General Elections then shifted to Dr Chee Soon Juan when he confronted Goh over an alleged loan made to the Indonesian government which prompted a law suit launched by the former and Mr Lee Kuan Yew respectively. In 2006, Dr James Gomez became the centre of the focus for his oversight when it came to filling up minority forms.

Thus, it is apparent that the characters of the opposition members is the favorite talking point of the ruling party. The other favorite talking point is the opposition’s ability to manage an entire estate, and that is where upgrading comes into the equation. Thus, the other main talking point during the 2006 General Elections was about Mr Chiam See Tong’s sinking funds at Potong Pasir, and the upgrading carrots dangled in the faces of Hougang and Potong Pasir residents. In my interview with Professor Chua Beng Huat after the 2006 Elections (published in The Ridge), the latter pointed out that the important issue of values of HDB housing wasn’t discussed during the elections. Mr Goh Meng Seng in an earlier interview with myself noted a trend in which the ruling party focused on estate matters and characters of targeted members of the opposition, whilst neglecting to address real policy debates.

Indeed, the elections of 2006 took a curious turn after all the political parties including the PAP released their manifestos. Initially, a healthy debate revolving around the manifestos put forth by the political parties started developing, only for an abrupt turn to come about after Gomez’s unfortunate faux pas with minority forms. From then on, it was ‘Gomezgate’ all the way for the Workers’ Party and “Sinking funds” saga for Mr Chiam of the Singapore Democratic Alliance.

It will be inevitable that policy debates will begin to take centre stage for the elections. In fact, during 2006, the Workers’ Party to their credit stuck to policy debates despite the constant barrages of criticisms over Gomez’s oversight from the ruling party. For instance, Miss Sylvia Lim discussed at length about means testing in healthcare and Mr Goh Meng Seng (when he contested Aljunied GRC in WP’s colors) was critical of the opening of the casinos due to the social costs incurred.

And judging from the way the other political parties are set up to contest the elections, policy debates will increasingly become the raison d’etre of electoral hustings. The new Reform Party looks set to discuss policy reforms in the areas of economics, healthcare and education. One would also expect the Workers’ Party to address certain national policies like what they did in 2006. The National Solidarity Party has adopted a “minister-specific strategy”, which according to Goh Meng Seng will “allow serious opposition candidates to learn the rope of policy analysis”. Goh views this strategy as part of the larger picture of a developmental path towards a more mature democracy whereby political players will have to personally upgrade themselves on matters of public interests, i.e. policy analysis debates.

The newer generation of eligible voters tend to have higher expectations, besides mere estate management and upgrading. They expect the various political players to address national policies which are of concern to all and sundry. Thus, no political party, even the ruling PAP can avoid policy debates forever. It may increasingly be the focus of future elections with an increasingly educated electorate at large. Avoiding policy debates will alienate such voters and can be fatal as their numbers are large enough to cause a swing in results.

If the battle lines haven’t been obviously drawn, it will look more like a public policy “game of chess” debate in future elections. One can certainly expect our current opposition to be seated at the chess table with eager anticipation. The question is whether the ruling party will continue to preoccupy itself with the characters of certain members of the opposition and the issue of upgrading, or will it start making its own moves in the “chess game” of public policy debates?