GE – Freak or no freak?

Tham Yuen C picked up the discussion on the freak election revisited by Ho Kwon Ping in his article in the Sunday Times yesterday. Many people thought Ho Kwon Ping was being polite and saying the right thing. Tham Yuen C spoke to several academics to feel the pulse once again. Tan Ern Ser, Viswa Sadasivan, Pauline Straughan and Bilveer Singh were all consulted on their views on this freak issue. Wondering if they were as polite as Ho Kwon Ping, but all agreed that a freak is unlikely. But they qualified themselves by saying that under certain conditions, though a freak is very unlikely, could still not be ruled out.

Tan Ern Ser said PAP would do everything possible and would adopt policies that are sustainable to stay in power. He even suggested that PAP would win by default as the ageing population would not want change. Sadasivan read that the ground was a lot sweeter than before but cautioned whether the changes in PAP policies were due to seeing the light or a matter of survival. Pauline Straughan was more hopeful that the PAP would continue on its momentum to talk to the people and to keep talking to the people, then the next election would not be shocking, like a freak election. The PAP would still win unless it does something spectacularly unpopular. The idea of PAP doing some, thing silly to lose its legitimacy, like rampant corruption, is unlikely. Bilveer Singh added that the electorates were sensible people and would not allow a freak to happen. All in, they agreed that PAP would still win but at most losing some popularity vote.

Based on the comments of these experts, all things are normal and PAP would be in power for the next 10 to 15 years as forecasted by Ho Kwon Ping. But would PAP do something spectacularly unpopular to do itself in, like not holding to the one goal lead but went for an all out and reckless persecution of opposing views? They are now tweaking many policies and the CPF sacred cow is not being spared. The only danger is that the above comments become positive feedback and give the PAP a false sense of confidence to continue with what it has been doing, more tough or hard headed policies, and the same tactics of fixing the opposition and dissenting voices.

There are signs of panic and strange behaviours from the PAP and its apparachiks. The most obvious is the relentless effort in charging of Roy and Hui Hui. Would the PAP read the kpkbs in social media and kopitiams as noises from the lunatic fringe or would they take it seriously as feedbacks from the ground up? Would PAP continue to deal with oppositions and opposing views like in the past and think it can get away with it? Or would the PAP take heed from these feedbacks that the old way of tackling dissent cannot work anymore and if pushed through in a high handed manner may lead to the freak election result being prematurely brought forward instead of another 10 or 15 years?

There is now a confluence of factors and events emerging in the political theatre that could make the freak come true. Smaller and less spectacular events, but cumulated, could be that something that is spectacularly unpopular. Maybe the PAP is so confident that nothing has changed and the next GE is already in the bag for another 2 or 3 terms, and it can do as it has always done before and swing the sledgehammer freely at anyone in its path. Can the PAP continue to do unpopular things? Would a few careless straws, added together, break the camel’s back?

What do you think?

Kopi Level - Yellow