Election
The ideal MP
A graduate, gifted at working with heartlanders, in Parliament fearlessly speaking up for his constituency. By Seah Chiang Nee of littlespeck.com.
April 1, 2006
Politics never stands still, not even in Singapore.
In the '50 and '60s, MPs in Singapore, PAP or Barisan Sosialis, emerged from the heartlands.
They were hawkers, bicycle shop owners, Chinese medicine sellers, with little education. But with silver tongues and the ability to work up a crowd, they won elections and kept their seats.
An example was a former classmate, Robin Sim Boon Woo, who disappeared from my life before the Senior Cambridge exam (now 'O' levels).
The next time I saw him, I was a reporter and he was speaking with adrenalin pumping in him at a PAP rally - in Tamil.
He campaigned in Malay, Mandarin and English. Robin was a PAP MP in a rural constituency for many years.
Years later, he told me of his frequent combats with the leftist Barisan Socialis. His constituency work involved things like driving a voter's sick wife to a 'sinseh' or attending marriages, funerals and birthdays.
'I knew every household in my ward by their names, how many children they had and where they studied and I made regular visits, election or not,' he said.
Was that necessary? 'Yes. My rival lived among the people and bonded with them. It was a powerful factor.'
I have not forgotten this dapper, street-wise guy, who truly represented his generation of politicians.
Voters today no longer care for these poorly-schooled grassroots workers, preferring graduate MPs.
The PAP went into self-renewal. Unless you were young, had a degree, you were not MP material.
But the pendulum may have swung too far. A new breed of MPs, comprising mostly scholars and the successful, has taken over.
They may run a town council well but may fare less well at interacting patiently with ordinary people.
For the ruling party, 'the good, qualified candidate' is both a winning formula and a vulnerable asset.
The wind of change, which blew out the heartland-type politician might again change direction and make them popular again one day.
The pre-election discussions have revealed a growing demand for more opposition MPs to provide alternative views and more active debate in Parliament. That is as it should be.
It remains to be seen if this is reflected in the polling outcome.
To the critics, today's Parliament is at worst a 'rubber stamp' and, at best, a polite discussion group that reinforces the official line.
The ruling party usually carries out a post-mortem after an election.
I hope this time it will include a review of its concept of 'a good candidate' - to see if it has moved too far from what voters want - and of the MP's role in a changing Singapore.
Some perceive the new PAP MP as intelligent and a capable problem-solver but a political lightweight who needs help from the big guns to be elected.
He is both a tower of strength and a political liability in the face of a changing electorate.
This is because voters want their MPs to firmly represent their interests and voice their concerns, not just to reinforce the party's position.
He's required to pursue a debate, challenge the Government if necessary, not merely ask a question then sit down.
This may require a loosening-up at a rate faster than what PM Lee Hsien Loong had promised.
We await to see how fast Parliament will change in this area.
Yes, the PAP has read the ground correctly that voters today want MPs who could empathise with them and voice their concerns. Most of its new candidates have extensive history in community works which should enable them to empathise with the ordinary people.
But I doubt it will allow the MPs to speak freely not to say to challenge its authority. It even reprimanded its MP and NMP for using inapproriate words. If I don't remember wrongly, Dr Amy Khor was reprimanded for using the word "betray" while a female NMP for muttering to herself the offensive word "shit". These public reprimands are more effective than the party whip in keeping its candidates in check!
