SINGAPORE: President Tharman Shanmugaratnam’s 2011 remark, about how having a strong opposition is beneficial to the country, has resurfaced online as speculation about the timing of the next election gains heat.
In a televised multi-party forum ahead of the 2011 general election, Mr Tharman – who was then-Finance Minister – had said: “I think a strong opposition is good for the PAP, and for Singapore, as well.”
Then-Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo echoed Mr Tharman’s views a day later, saying: “It is important to have a credible opposition so that should the PAP turn corrupt or become flaccid, there’s an alternative that Singaporeans can go for.”
Veteran opposition politician Low Thia Khiang welcomed Mr Tharman’s view at the time and said: “I think that shows quite a shift in the PAP’s mindset, that they now see that a strong opposition is positive and good for the future of Singapore.”
This is not the first time Mr Tharman’s 2011 remark has resurfaced. It also recirculated in the lead-up to the 2015 and 2020 elections, with many sharing his comments on social media and messaging platforms.
This time, noted socio-political commentator Yeoh Lian Chuan is among those who brought the 2011 comment up online. Welcoming Senior Counsel and rumoured Workers’ Party candidate Harpreet Singh Nehal recently published analysis of why Singaporeans should vote for a stronger opposition, Mr Yeoh wrote on Facebook:
“Remember that even President Tharman has previously made the same point – that a strong opposition is good for Singapore (and for the PAP itself).”
The lawyer added, “Recently, the PAP’s senior leaders including SM Lee have argued otherwise. But one should be mindful that of course they have to take such a line in public; but the thesis is unconvincing.”
Just three days after Mr Tharman made his remark about the opposition in 2011, then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong asserted that a two-party political system was “not workable” in the country as there is “not enough top talent”.
Mr Lee told an audience at the National University of Singapore (NUS): “This is the way to safeguard our common future — not to weaken the ‘A’ team in the hope of buying insurance, but to strengthen the ‘A’ team, to give it the best chance of succeeding.”
He added two-party system such as that of the United States would become a “worst-case scenario” that could spell “the end for Singapore” because it may split the country along racial, religious, or class lines.
Mr Lee also provided a hypothetical example of someone who wished to join a political party in Singapore: “He has two choices. First choice, join the Opposition, oversee the PAP, but really spend his life and quite a long time waiting and watching, just in case the PAP screws up, then he’ll be ready to take over.”
Option number two would be to “join the government, help it to make better decisions, implement good policies and avoid making mistakes and screwing up”.
Mr Lee then asked the audience: “Now, which makes more sense for him, and for Singapore?”
Back in 2006, when Low Thia Khiang, Chiam See Tong and Steve Chia were the only opposition politicians in Parliament, Mr Lee had urged voters to refrain from voting in more opposition lest he is forced to focus on how to “fix them” instead of focusing on the nation’s challenges. He asserted:
“What is the opposition’s job? It’s not to help the PAP do a better job! Their job is to make life miserable for me so that I screw up and they can come in and sit where I am here and take charge.
“Right now we have Low Thia Khiang, we have Chiam, we have Steve Chia. So can deal with them, it’s ok. But supposing you had a Parliament with 10, 15, 20 opposition members out of 80.
“Then, instead of spending my time thinking of what is the right policy for Singapore, I’m going to spend all my time – I have to spend all my time – thinking what is the right way to fix them, what is the right way to buy own my supporters over, how can I solve this week’s problem and forget about next year’s challenges?”