In a rally on April 27, Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong delivered a forceful rebuttal to attacks by WP chief Pritam Singh a day earlier - LIM YAOHUI, BLOOMBERG
SINGAPORE: If there is a pattern emerging in this election’s main campaigns – between the ruling PAP and its rival WP – it follows a clear arc: a steady, almost equanimous start, followed by a decisive sharpening at the midpoint.
This tougher stance will likely hold until campaigning concludes at the end of May 1, though I expect a certain restraint will prevail throughout.
One has seen electoral campaigning in other countries descend into ugly mud-slinging as Polling Day nears. Yet my read on Day 6 of these nine days of hustings suggests we will not go down that road.
Both sides are likely to slug it out with very fierce attacks, certainly. But decency and mutual respect will hold. On the PAP’s part, its trademark sharp elbows during hustings will not suddenly disappear – this much is clear.
One can surmise from Prime Minister Lawrence Wong’s lunchtime Fullerton rally speech on April 28 that his overarching message in this campaign remains one of hope.
While he had some choice words for the opposition, what stood out to me – standing in the blazing sun with thousands of others – was how his speech concluded with optimism about Singapore as the against-all-odds nation that will see better days yet, provided voters back the PAP resolutely.
Among his sharper criticisms was the charge that the opposition had wilfully ignored full ventilation of the debate on why the goods and services tax (GST) had to be raised from 7 per cent to 9 per cent, instead rehashing arguments that had been rebutted.
“Because politically,” he said, “they know it’s to their advantage to make this an issue, to stir up unhappiness, just to maximise their votes.”
This ramping up of sharp rhetoric became evident over the weekend.
Commentators, journalists and voters I met during the early part of the campaign – at least until Saturday – all noticed the same thing: Both the PAP and WP seemed to be holding back, avoiding direct confrontation even when it might have made political sense to attack.
At a doorstop interview with the media on Saturday morning, I put this impression to the WP chief, Pritam Singh.
His response was telling: This approach reflected “the sensible politics we want in the country” – though he carefully noted there were policy differences that would be ventilated in rallies.
The shift happened rapidly. That very evening, Pritam went on the attack against the PAP’s Ng Chee Meng, dedicating a sizeable portion of his remarks to criticising the NTUC chief – perhaps revealing the WP’s assessment of Jalan Kayu SMC’s contestability, where its candidate Andre Low is running.
Forceful rebuttal
Pritam would have known his attacks would draw a response.
Indeed, they did – and from no less than Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong, the PAP’s most seasoned and arguably most effective campaigner. While stumping for Mr Ng on Sunday, he delivered a forceful rebuttal to Pritam's comments.
His offensive – sharp yet accessible to the mass audience and peppered with colloquialisms – surely accomplished its purpose, even as some opposition-leaning commentators lamented his departure from the gentler tone of the campaign’s early days.
SM Lee’s barbs covered considerable ground: questioning what he described as feet-dragging by the opposition on the widely reported foreign interference efforts (“You didn’t notice, you didn’t know, or buat bodoh?”), forcefully rebutting Pritam’s arguments that the WP had performed better than the PAP and labour MPs in asking questions about the Allianz-Income saga (“wow, lawa”), and imploring voters to follow in the footsteps of pioneers who had backed the PAP.
“They knew it’s not masak-masak, it’s not main-main, it’s not playing guli; it is your lives, our lives, our children’s futures.”
Partisans may not appreciate such directness, but I have to say, standing with the obviously pro-PAP crowd at the rally in Fern Green Primary School, I could see these lines landed very effectively. There was no fiddling with phones, no chatting. Rallygoers were all ears as SM Lee first spoke in Malay, then Mandarin and English.
As much as the WP and its top campaigner, Pritam, will in all likelihood continue a campaign of strategically taking on a more forceful attacking line in rallies in the coming days, they should expect equally firm responses from the PAP’s prominent campaigners.
Reflecting on non-negotiables
With both sides now certain to engage in sharper rhetoric, it’s worth reflecting on the boundaries that should sustain our political culture as we enter the final campaign stretch.
Non-negotiable, of course, is the firewall against exploiting racial and religious divisions, as well as the rejection of foreign interference.
These principles have been unhesitatingly embraced by the PAP, WP and other contesting parties in the aftermath of PM Wong’s comments on Saturday, following the authorities’ warnings about foreign attempts to sway voter sentiment along racial and religious lines.
I can think of a few other guard rails, or at least cautionary lessons, drawn not just from past campaigns but also from the current one unfolding before us.
Political decency stands foremost among these.
Politicians should resist the temptation to brand opponents as morally contemptible simply because they hold different positions.
I’ve made this point previously, but it bears repeating – portraying political adversaries as inherently malevolent or morally compromised doesn’t merely inflame tensions for a news cycle. The damage runs deeper. It gradually erodes public faith in the entire political ecosystem, making compromise and governance increasingly difficult long after Polling Day.
Rhetorical discipline matters equally. PM Wong, for example, had taken issue with how some opposition parties framed the GST hike.
Now, opposition to the increase is legitimate democratic positioning – that’s not the issue. Opposition parties can make their substantive points forcefully, explaining why they disagree with the Government’s rationale.
But when rhetoric veers into inflammatory territory, we must ask: Whom does this truly serve? When politicians characterise the PAP as an “arsonist that sets fire to your house and then gives you a cup to put the fire out”, they demonstrate a fundamental misreading of our electorate.
Singaporean voters have consistently shown sophistication in distinguishing between robust critique and theatrical hyperbole. There exists a general wariness – perhaps even distrust – of political polemics here that savvy campaigners understand. This explains why most of them have not made – nor are they likely to make – incendiary remarks. Singapore voters do not reward such behaviour.
So as we enter these final campaign days, expect and even welcome the sharper exchanges. They help crystallise choices and illuminate distinctions that might otherwise remain blurred.
When robust debate stays within appropriate bounds – free from racial politics, fearmongering or voter intimidation – it strengthens rather than weakens our democratic process. The contestants can fight fiercely, but they would do well to remember what they’re fighting for: the right to serve Singapore and Singaporeans. - The Straits Times/ANN
