Journal of Research in Peace, Gender and Development Vol. 1(4) pp. 138-154, May 2011 Available online http://www.interesjournals.org/JRPGD Copyright © 2011 International Research Journals Review “Poverty in Paradise City: When the Jester has a broken Heart” Kieran James1*, Rex Walsh2 and Bligh Grant3 1,2 School of Accounting, Economics and Finance, Faculty of Business, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba Qld. 4350, Australia. 3 Department of Business, Economics and Public Policy, University of New England, Armidale NSW 2351, Australia. Accepted 19 May, 2011 Via detailed personal interviews, this paper canvasses the views of leading Singapore opposition politicians and grassroots activists about poverty and income inequality in Singapore society. The role of opposition internet activism is also explored. Semi-structured personal and group interviews, with politicians and grassroots activists; literature search; and attendance at opposition party functions. The opposition in general and Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) and National Solidarity Party (NSP) in particular have repeatedly highlighted the growing income inequality and poverty in the country. Pictures in the SDP’s promotional literature skillfully and dialectically present wealth and poverty in Singapore within the same pictorial image. Interviewees speak of the Dickensian living conditions in the one-room rental flats in Bukit Merah, just a taxi ride from Changi Airport, in the Minister Mentor Harry Lee Kuan Yew’s constituency of Tanjong Pagar GRC. The SDP’s Alternative Economic Programme It’s about You (2010) outlines the Party’s proposals for minimum wage and unemployment insurance. The researchers obtain direct and personal access to Singapore’s grassroots opposition community, including people that are not party leaders and who are difficult to access. The views of this community have rarely been heard because of the Singapore Government’s hegemonic control of mainstream media within the country. Key words: Grassroots activism, Income inequality, Internet activism, National Solidarity Party, Poverty, Singapore politics, Singapore opposition parties, Singapore Democratic Party. INTRODUCTION This paper explores, using interview-based qualitative research, the ongoing problem of income inequality and poverty in the city-state of Singapore (Singapore, a former British colony, gained full independence in 1965. It has been ruled by the People’s Action Party (PAP) Government continuously since independence. The country is a multi-ethnic one with 76.8% Chinese, 13.9% Malay, 7.9% Indian, and 1.4% Other (Singapore 2000 Census, cited at CIA World Fact Book Singapore page at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worldfactbook/geos/us.html, accessed 4 May 2011). George *Corresponding Author E-mail: jamesk@usq.edu.au; Tel: 61 7 46311456 (2000, p. 175) points out that: “Administrators, continuing a tradition started by British colonialists, apply stark categories that caricature people’s ethnic heritage, and equate ethnicity with both culture and language in ways that fail to reflect the cultural diversity and richness on the ground”). Singapore now has the sixth highest GDP per capita in the world but capitalism, ever since the days of Karl Marx (1968, 1975, 1976a, 1976b, 1978a, 1981), Friedrich Engels (1976, 1987, 2004), and The Communist Manifesto (Marx and Engels, 1994), has been notorious as a mode of production for producing both wealth and poverty on ever-increasing scales (It should be unnecessary to point out that citation of Lenin and Stalin does not mean that we agree with every policy or action of the Government of the former Soviet Union during the period 1917-91). It is not unusual for rising income James et al. 139 inequality, as measured by the Gini Coefficient, to accompany rising GDP per capita as the economy develops effectively two speeds, one for the managers and senior workers in the most profitable industries and one for the remainder of the population. The Singaporean NGO and civil society activist Roderick Chia has commented about a growing class division in Singapore (personal interview, 4 March 2010). Empirically this is the case. Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) (2010) reports that the Gini Coefficient for employed households in Singapore (a coefficient measuring inequality with 1.000 indicating complete inequality) has risen from 0.444 in 2000 to 0.481 in 2008 and the ratio of average income of the top 20% to lowest 20% of employed households has risen from 10.1 to 13.0 over the same period. The 2009 Gini Coefficient of 0.479 puts Singapore 29th in the world according to CIA World Fact Book, i.e. 29th highest income inequality (See URL cited in Footnote 1[accessed 4 May 2011]). In early 2009 6,500 households were in arrears on their government flat mortgage payments by two years or more while in June 2008 13,700 households had been put on pre-paid metering for electricity due to the risk of disconnection, up from 11,900 households eighteen months previously (da Cunha, 2010, pp. 34, 35). Even the Establishment Singaporean author Bilveer Singh (1992, p. 137) stated as long ago as 1992 that “the country was now confronted with a clear class problem”. Vladimir Lenin (1965a) produced an original ground breaking argument in 1916 in Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism where he argued that global companies will increasingly export capital to the developing world and repatriate profits and dividends rather than the earlier system of imperialism-capitalism where foreign markets where used only to sell products and to source raw materials. Joseph Stalin’s (1965) The Foundations of Leninism deals specifically, from the orthodox Leninist perspective, with the impact of imperialism-capitalism on pre-revolutionary Russia. Lenin’s arguments are especially prescient for Singapore which has placed attracting global capital investment as one of its highest economic priorities in the 46 years since independence (de Cunha, 2010; King, 2008). Derek da Cunha (2010, p. 11) even poses the question “whether Singapore is a ‘nation-state’ in both the letter and spirit of the term, or whether Singapore has evolved to being purely an economic entity in its functionality and character”. Singapore would appear to be near perfect fulfillment of the Marxist-Leninist argument that the bourgeois state exists to safeguard and promote capital accumulation (see, for example, Lenin, 1965b; Marx, 1966, 1972, 1978b). We also consider the rise of the “Facebook generation” who have taken opposition politics in Singapore into the internet age and provided younger Singaporeans dissatisfied with the ruling People’s Action Party (人民行動黨)(PAP) Government a healthy forum where they can network, express frustrations, and communicate ideas. Internet activism is vital to improve Government accountability on social and economic issues impacting upon the working-class. Firstly, in a society where the Government and its meritocratic elite have hegemonic control over the mainstream media (George, 2000, p. 199), the internet allows for alternative voices to be heard and the opposition to hold the Government to account. Secondly, internet activism may contribute to the pro-opposition vote at elections and the number of opposition MPs in the Parliament thus indirectly improving the ability of the opposition to put forward its opinions. The Workers’ Party of Singapore (新加坡工人党) (WP) 2011 Election Manifesto was entitled “Towards a First World Parliament” suggesting that first-world parliaments are two- or multi-party systems where the elected opposition can provide checks and balances upon the ruling party. Page 7 of the WP’s Manifesto states as follows: “A First World Parliament is able to balance a strong executive government if there is a credible and responsible opposition with a mandate from the electorate. This will generate a culture of accountability and enable citizens of different political stripes to contribute to nation building and policy formulation in a vital Organ of State” [The Workers’ Party of Singapore, 2011, p. 7]. The opposition in general, and the Singapore Democratic Party (新加坡工人党) (SDP) and National Solidarity Party (新加坡工人党) (NSP) in particular, have repeatedly highlighted the growing income inequality and poverty in the country. The SDP and NSP’s championing of the cause of the poor, and especially the elderly poor, the most obvious victims of Singapore’s hyper-capitalist expansion of the past 50 years, is unusual and refreshing for liberal parties. Pictures in the SDP’s promotional literature skillfully and dialectically present wealth and poverty in Singapore within the same pictorial image. This study’s interviewees speak of the Dickensian living conditions in the one-room rental flats in Bukit Merah, just a 25-minute taxi ride from Changi Airport, in the Minister Mentor Harry Lee Kuan Yew’s constituency of Tanjong Pagar GRC (A Group Representative Constituency (GRC) is a large electoral area where teams of four, five or six opposition candidates compete against the same number of PAP candidates. The GRC system, introduced in 1988, was ostensibly designed to allow for minority ethnic group representation in Parliament as each GRC team had to comprise at least one member of Singapore’s ethnic minority communities (designated as “Malay”, “Indian” or “Other” by the PAP Government). The remaining electorates are smaller SMCs (or Single Member Constituencies). The Singapore Constitution requires that at least nine seats be SMCs, recently increased to twelve. Commentators argue that GRCs favour PAP since the statistical “law of large numbers” 140 J. Res. Peace Gend. Dev. applies (da Cunha, 1997). For example, if the vote is 60% pro-PAP across the whole of Singapore then the larger the electorate area is the closer the pro-PAP vote there will be to 60% (George, 2000, p. 88). In smaller SMCs of around 20,000 voters (as opposed to between 100,000 and 200,000 voters in GRCs) the chance of an opposition candidate polling over 50.1% of votes increases especially as the small size of the SMC may allow that candidate to reach out successfully to voters at a grassroots level). The SDP’s Alternative Economic Programme It’s about You (2010) outlines the Party’s proposals for minimum wage and unemployment insurance, generous policies directly aimed at poverty alleviation. The new and minor Reform Party (RP) also supports a minimum wage. Interestingly, the SDP, a liberal-democratic party, has more radical pro-worker policies than the traditional labour party, the WP. This is not altogether surprising. The traditional Chinese left-wing of the 1960s, of which the WP is the modern living descendant, was concerned with Chinese language and cultural causes, in a post-colonial Singapore where English was still pushed as the number one language of education and business, as much as it was concerned with traditional labour issues (Eric Tan, personal interview, 3 March 2010). The SDP’s strong pushes for poverty to be addressed in radical fashion, and its ideological commitment to the confrontational politics of the Westminster two-party system, mean that the Party is rarely given legitimate space to fully air its views in Singapore and it is not regarded as positively by the PAP Government as the more moderate WP or Singapore People’s Party (新加坡人民党) (SPP). We also find that Dr Chee Soon Juan’s SDP has been the most committed in encouraging active use of the internet by its political activists on a day-to-day basis outside of election campaigns (In this paper we follow the standard Singaporean convention for Chinese names by placing the family name first). The Party has a dedicated group of young volunteers in their twenties who have been very active in making political posts on the SDP website www.yoursdp.org, blogs, and Facebook. This group has the ability to overcome the “tainted brand” factor relating to Dr Chee Soon Juan (徐顺全) himself following his much-publicized public confrontation with the then PM Mr Goh Chok Tong (吴作栋) during the 2001 GE campaign (Roderick Chia, personal interview, 4 March 2010). The NSP’s Secretary-General Mr Goh Meng Seng also discusses his reason for leaving the WP – that Party’s conservative attitude towards internet activism. As an illustration of the WP’s perspective on this topic, Mr Low Thia Khiang (刘程强), the WP Secretary-General, the former long-serving member for Hougang SMC, and current MP for Aljunied GRC, speaks as follows: “My facebook account is updated by someone else. I am not accustomed to online interaction. I am more traditional. I prefer face to face interaction. Social networking is more suitable for use between friends” (cited in Ye, 2011 as translated by Tan). In between the 2006 and 7 May 2011 GEs, the WP lost three key faces from its moderately successful 2006 election campaign – Mr Chia Ti Lik (to Socialist Front), Mr Goh Meng Seng (to the NSP), and Mr James Gomez (to the SDP). Although 2006 WP candidate Ms Glenda Han is working in Hong Kong and has sold her Singapore pub, Les Chameaux at Robertson Quay, she informed the first-mentioned researcher (personal e-mail communication, 24 March 2011) that she would contest the 7 May 2011 General Election in East Coast GRC on a WP ticket. Meanwhile, Goh Meng Seng (personal interview, 15 October 2010) expresses a desire to make more effective use of the internet in the future for political purposes. Goh has his own Facebook page where he has been active in the last three years since joining the NSP. The NSP’s relatively strong performance at the 7 May 2011 GE may be partially due to Goh’s internet activism. The 7 May 2011 GE was the first in which candidates were permitted to campaign online through Facebook, Youtube and Twitter. PM Lee Hsien Loong held a one hour Facebook chat with internet users where he was inundated with 5,000 comments (Tay, 2011, p. 2). In the battle of the attractive female candidates in Marine Parade GRC, 24-year-old advertising executive Ms Nicole Seah of the NSP was favourably received on Facebook while the PAP’s 27year-old business consultant Ms Tin Pei Ling was unpopular on the new medium with even PAP supporters joining the “I do not want Tin Pei Ling in Parliament” page. This page had 44,000 “likes” as at 9 May 2011 (Chow, 2011). By contrast, Seah had 93,000 Facebook “likes” as at 9 May 2011 making her the most popular Singaporean politician online (Tay, 2011). The PAP’s team leader in Marine Parade, the Senior Minister (SM) Goh Chok Tong, agreed that the Seah and Tin factors affected the final result in Marine Parade where the NSP lost by a smaller margin than generally expected (Chow, 2011). More generally younger voters discussed the election online among their friends through Facebook comments and Facebook “likes” and “dislikes” (Dr Mark Cenite of Nanyang Technological University, cited in Tay, 2011, p. 4) rendering null, void and obsolete to a large extent the PAP’s hegemonic control over mainstream media. The PAP was increasingly seen as fighting obsolete battles with obsolete weapons (Daniel Yap, Letter to the Editor, The Straits Times, 10 May 2011, p. A22). Internet activism among younger voters may well be partly responsible for the victory by the WP in Aljunied GRC and the pro-PAP vote in contested constituencies falling to a historic low of 60.1%. We provide short case studies where the interviewees reflect upon poverty and income inequality in Singapore, opposition internet activism, and what is needed to increase the opposition presence within the Singapore James et al. 141 Parliament. As at the dates of the interviews, the combined opposition held two seats in Parliament, Potong Pasir SMC held by Mr Chiam See Tong of the SPP and Hougang SMC held by Mr Low Thia Khiang of the WP. The 7 May 2011 GE saw Mr Low shift ground to Aljunied GRC where his five-person team was the first opposition team in Singaporean history to ever win a GRC (Kor and Ong, 2011). Low’s designated successor, Mr Yaw Shin Leong, recaptured Hougang SMC for the WP, with a two percentage point swing in his favour (Kor and Chong, 2011). Mr Chiam contested for the SPP in Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC while his wife, Madam Lina Low, contested in Potong Pasir SMC. Ultimately both Chiams were unsuccessful in their respective contests with Potong Pasir SMC being returned to the PAP Government by a mere 114 votes (7,859 for the SPP versus 7,973 for the PAP) (Au Young and Durai, 2011; Hussain, 2011) (Voting results for the 7 May 2011 GE are taken from The Sunday Times (Singapore), 8 May 2011 (noon edition), pp. H9-H12). The research questions posed to all of this study’s interviewees are as follows: 1. What are your perceptions about income inequality and poverty in Singapore? 2. What specific proposals have the opposition parties put forward recently that will address the problem of poverty? 3. Do you perceive that internet activism can successfully alert more people to problems in and resulting from the Singaporean system? RESEARCH METHOD The data sources for the present study are: literature search; participant-observation; and semi-structured interviews (with sixteen people in person, two of those interviewed twice, and seven interview responses sent and returned by e-mail). Participant-observation includes th the first-mentioned author’s attendance at the SDP’s 30 Anniversary Dinner held on 27 February 2010 and its 31st Anniversary Dinner held on 19 February 2011 as well as several research-oriented/ social visits to the SDP’s offices in Jalan Gelenggang (just off Upper Thomson Road in Singapore’s north). This author also attended the election night count and press conference with SDP politicians and supporters held at the Quality Hotel in Balestier Road, Singapore, on the night of 7-8 May 2011. In regards participant-observation, before the formal commencement of the research project, this firstmentioned author worked in Singapore for four years, 1993-94 and 2001-02, in three Singaporean-owned companies in the auditing, ship-repair, and education industries. The sampling method used to select interviewees for this study was “purposeful” sampling (Facio, 1993, p. 76; James and Otsuka, 2009; Kim, 2004, p. 104; Patton, 1990, p. 169), rather than random sampling, as this was felt to be more appropriate for the cultural context of Singaporean opposition politics where established friendship networks are important and trust must be slowly earned. It was also our prior hope to interview people of different ages and genders and associated with different opposition parties. We have been able to achieve this goal to some degree. The first-mentioned author first contacted the SDP through its official website asking for assistance in researching this topic. After a favourable e-mail response was received from the SDP’s Dr Chee Soon Juan, the researcher made a trip to Singapore in September 2009 where he was introduced to members of the SDP’s leadership and several of the Party’s women and youth activists including Jaslyn Go, Jarrod Luo, and Seelan Palay. This researcher made a second trip to Singapore in February-March 2010 where he was introduced to various other people at the SDP’s 30th Anniversary Dinner. He then interviewed the contacts he met at the dinner in singles or in pairs in the week following the dinner. An additional interview, with the WP’s Treasurer Mr Eric Tan Heng Chong (陈恩忠), was arranged with the assistance of the SDP activist Dr Wong Wee Nam. The researcher made a third research trip to Singapore in October 2010 when he interviewed several other prominent opposition politicians and activists. During this October trip, he interviewed the NSP’s Secretary-General Goh Meng Seng after first arranging the interview through Goh’s Facebook page. He also interviewed opposition activist 65-year-old Mr Patrick Lee Song Juan who was part of the unsuccessful Singapore Democratic Alliance (新加坡民主联盟) (SDA) team which contested the Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC at the 7 May 2011 GE. Interviews were all conducted at times and places chosen by the interviewees. The researcher took detailed shorthand notes during the interviews. Interviews were not tape-recorded. On the evenings after each interview the researcher studied his interview notes and, if necessary, asked the interviewees for clarification, by email or in person, if any notes were unclear in their meaning or required amplification. After each research trip, the researcher used the following iterative method to analyze the interview data: Firstly, interview notes were read through in their entirety, and key themes were identified. Secondly, he returned to the notes and highlighted sections that related to each research question and other important themes. Thirdly, for each key research question or other theme/interviewee combination, responses were aggregated and then, if necessary, edited before final inclusion in the paper. The researchers decided to present interview responses in this paper for each interviewee rather than for each theme with the interviewees chosen being those who gave the most insightful or relevant responses according to the researchers’ subjective judgement. The two 142 J. Res. Peace Gend. Dev. interviewees chosen, Dr Leong Seong Kwok and Ms Jaslyn Go are both activists associated with the SDP but, importantly, they differ in terms of age and gender. As such, the paper canvasses views and opinions shared by all or most opposition activists as well as those which are more age- and/or gender-specific. As Jaslyn was interviewed by the researcher as part of a group interview with Seelan Palay and Jarrod Luo, those two respondents’ comments are also included in Jaslyn Go’s sub-section of the paper. Jarrod Luo contested with the SDP team in Sembawang GRC at the 7 May 2011 GE. Interview responses from other respondents, where perceived to be especially insightful or relevant, are also included and commented upon at various places in the paper. Ongoing online communication was maintained with most of the interviewees after their formal interview which was especially important given that the researchers wanted to be kept continually informed of news events and “ground sentiment” in the lead up to the 7 May 2011 GE. Although all interviewees were advised that they could choose to use a fictitious name for publication purposes, only one of our interviewees, 14-year-old Renarda Yoch (name changed), elected to suppress his real name. Renarda was interviewed by the researcher with the permission of his parents and in the presence of his 17-year-old friend. For the present study the first-mentioned researcher interviewed the following individuals: political activist Dr Leong Seong Kwok (one-hour personal interview); SDP activist and Women’s Wing member Ms Jaslyn Go (30minute group interview and subsequent e-mail communications); SDP internet activists Mr Seelan Palay and Mr Jarrod Luo (30-minute group interview and subsequent e-mail communications); SDP Assistant Secretary-General Mr John Tan (two personal interviews of 30 minutes each); current SDP activist and NSP candidate at the 1997 GE Dr Wong Wee Nam (one-hour personal interview and subsequent e-mail communications); WP Treasurer and 2006 and 2011 WP candidate Mr Eric Tan Heng Chong (two-hour personal interview); political activist and NGO employee Mr Roderick Chia (one-hour personal interview and subsequent e-mail and informal conversations); political activists 17-year-old Mr Yap Puay Tong and 14-year-old Mr Renarda Yoch (name changed) (two-hour group interview and subsequent e-mail communications); Monash University lecturer and SDP candidate Mr James Gomez (one-hour personal interview and subsequent informal conversations), NSP Secretary-General Mr Goh Meng Seng (two-hour personal interview); SDP Secretary-General Dr Chee Soon Juan (one hour personal interview and subsequent informal conversations); SDP leader and candidate Ms Chee Siok Chin (one group interview of 30 minutes and subsequent informal conversations); political activist and SDA candidate Mr Patrick Lee Song Juan (three-hour personal interview); political activist and deaf community representative Mr Wong U-Wen (one-hour exchange of written notes); WP Secretary-General and MP for Aljunied GRC Mr Low Thia Khiang (e-mail responses); WP candidate and the member for Hougang SMC Mr Yaw Shin Leong (e-mail responses); former WP candidate and now Socialist Front leader Mr Chia Ti Lik (e-mail responses); pro-China Facebook activist Mr Edward Tan (e-mail responses); NSP candidate and NCMP (Non-Constituency Member of Parliament) The NCMP scheme provides a fixed number of seats in parliament to the best losing opposition candidates. They cannot vote on certain bills and they do not represent a physical constituency. Because of this latter fact, government authorities are not obliged to respond to their requests for information. Ms Sylvia Lim, WP Chairperson, was NCMP from 2006-11) 2001-06 Mr Steve Chia (e-mail responses); SDP activist Mr Vincent Liaw; and Ms Glenda Han, 2006 WP candidate for Ang Mo Kio GRC and 2011 WP candidate for East Coast GRC (e-mail responses and subsequent e-mail communications). Voices from the heartlands: opposition activists’ perceptions on the research questions Dr Leong Seong Kwok (ex-PAP supporter and current SDP activist) Our first interviewee, Dr Leong Seong Kwok (aged around 60), is 1997 NSP Hong Kah GRC candidate Dr Wong Wee Nam’s college friend of 40 years ago. Both men attended the SDP’s 30th Anniversary Dinner held on 27 February 2010 and both were introduced to the firstmentioned researcher by Jaslyn Go. Dr Leong is a member of the generation of Singaporeans now aged in their 60s who were initially PAP supporters but, sometime during the 1970s and/or 1980s, became disenchanted with some of the ruling party’s policies. As Mr Kevin Teo wrote on Facebook recently: “The government has lost its heart, it used to have a true lion heart that was true to its citizens. Not anymore, tody [sic], with a bunch of detached-from-ground-truth ministers, we have lost our identity and our pride, and the govt has gained Shame!” (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000706032 385&v=wall&story_fbid=129348797110315#!/?ref=logo [posted 8 August 2010, accessed 8 August 2010]. 1 The Graduate Mother Scheme is widely held to be a major reason for the sharp drop in the pro-PAP percentage of the valid votes from 75.55% at the 1980 GE to 62.94% at the 1984 GE (Singh, 1992, pp. 16, 9495 and Figure ) Dr Leong’s questioning attitude with respect to specific policies led him on a personal journey that has ended with him becoming an opposition supporter and an occasional participant in SDP demonstrations. Dr Leong’s main objections to PAP policies were in relation to the financial squeeze being placed on the working-class by James et al. 143 the Government and by the Government’s increasing involvement in many spheres of business activity. He objected to the tendering process for the tendering out of stalls at Government-owned hawker centres (food-courts) and to the Government’s control of most residential and industrial properties in the country. Dr Leong was also personally offended by the ideology of eugenics behind the controversial “Graduate Mother Scheme” which was launched in April of 1984 (Lydgate, 2003, p. 125; Singh, 1992, pp. 16, 94-5). Under this scheme, a dating agency, the Social Development Unit (SDU), was set up for graduates only and graduate mothers were given priority allocations of their children to preferred primary schools. Non-graduate mothers were offered grants of SGD10,000 if they agreed to sterilization after the birth of their first two children (Lydgate, 2003, p. 125). Journalist Chris Lydgate (2003, p. 125) has termed this policy “almost Darwinian” (The Graduate Mother Scheme is widely held to be a major reason for the sharp drop in the pro-PAP percentage of the valid votes from 75.55% at the 1980 GE to 62.94% at the 1984 GE (Singh, 1992, pp. 16, 94-5 and Figure 2, p. 5). George (2000, p. 94) writes that “there is no denying the significance of the 13-point crash that occurred in 1984”. The 1984 GE also saw the number of opposition MPs increase to two, namely the WP’s J. B. (Joshua Benjamin) Jeyaretnam in Anson SMC and Chiam See Tong, then of the SDP and now of the SPP, in Potong Pasir SMC (George, 2000, p. 83)). Likewise, Dr Leong could not accept, in his words, “the encouraging of one particular group” and could also not accept, presumably, the ideology of the nation’s first postindependence PM Mr Harry Lee Kuan Yew that intelligence is a fixed and innate trait perfectly handed down from one generation to the next. It is Harry Lee’s steadfast belief in eugenics that underpins, even today, the ideology of meritocracy in modern Singapore (Barr, 2009; Barr and Skrbis, 2008). Facebook activist and SDA candidate Patrick Lee Song Juan, also of the senior generation (age 65), writes as follows of Harry Lee’s “stop at two” policy: “in amodern [sic] society like S’pore [sic], family bonding and cohesion is important. With LKY's policy of stopping at two, it forever changed the demographic pattern of family life. Smaall [sic] families are deemed not as warm in terms of family celebration. My parents has [sic] 9 siblings and it is a great affair when we celebrate family occasions” (http://www.facebook.com/leesjuan#!/?ref=logo [posted 7 July 2010, accessed 7 July 2010]). Dr Leong also comments that the Government’s ventures into business, such as the National Trade Unions Congress (NTUC) supermarket, were begun with “good intentions”. NTUC was originally designed to be a low-cost alternative supermarket but now the dialectic of history has progressed too far and the NTUC has, in Dr Leong’s words, “become giants by themselves”. Furthermore, in many cases you cannot get Government contracts unless you partner with Government firms. A former Straits Times (Singapore) journalist Rodney King (2008) also documents the PAP’s ownership of key businesses in nearly every sphere of economic activity which caters for cronyism, encourages inefficiencies and poor decision-making, and crowds out the local privatesector SMEs which are then routinely castigated for their poor performances. King (2008) argues convincingly that, as in the former Soviet Union during the Stalin era, the Singaporean “economic miracle” since independence is largely the result of the application of more and more factors of production (labour and capital) to Singapore rather than the result of increased productive efficiency per unit of input. Productivity in the construction sector, which is strongly reliant on foreign labour, is particularly poor compared to the largely unionized construction industry in Australia (King, 2008, pp. 58-61) (See Leung and James (2010, pp. 14-23) and Leung et al. (2010, pp. 489-92) for historical overviews of trade unionism within the Australian construction industry). The CIA World Fact Book states that Singapore’s overall productivity growth rate has been a troubling 1% per year for the past decade (See URL cited in Footnote 1 [accessed 4 May 2011]). Dr Leong now perceives himself to be a committed opposition supporter who is attracted to the ideas and the political demonstrations of the SDP. He lives in the Potong Pasir SMC where Mr Chiam See Tong (詹时中), formerly of the SDP and now of the SPP, held the seat for the 27-year period from the 1984 GE until 7 May 2011. Dr Leong attended court on the Monday following our Tuesday interview (2 March 2010) for illegal assembly protest in front of Parliament House with the SDP. Now, after having introduced Dr Leong to readers, we move on to a discussion of the topic of poverty in Singapore (Research Question 1). Dr Leong had nothing specific to say regarding opposition party policies on poverty since election campaign policies had not yet been announced as at March 2010 (Research Question 2). Perhaps partly because of his age, Dr Leong could be said to socially conservative in relation to certain issues. For example, he supports the PAP’s stance on using social engineering mechanisms to prevent the development of “ethnic enclaves” in the city-state, for example, upper and lower prescribed percentages of each ethnic group permitted to live in a block of flats or neighbourhood. Despite this, Dr Leong qualifies for inclusion in this paper as an opposition activist as he is very concerned about the poverty issue in Singapore and he has a strong working-class consciousness. When our interview was nearly over, the researcher asked him for his view on the PAP’s dominant ideology that Harry Lee and his first-generation cabinet colleagues (such as Goh Keng Swee, Toh Chin Chye, and S. Rajaratnam, George, 2000, p. 29) deserve the credit for building up modern Singapore. Very quickly, Dr Leong responded that it was 144 J. Res. Peace Gend. Dev. the forgotten Chinese labourers of 100 years ago, those men who carried ship cargoes on their backs at what is now the restaurant precinct of Boat Quay, who truly built up modern Singapore. Fourteen-year-old activist Renarda Yoch (name changed) made a similar comment (group interview, 4 March 2010), referring to the “samsui” or Chinese construction workers in Singapore before World War II as those foreign workers who “really came and built up Singapore”. As the first-mentioned author has been strongly influenced by Karl Marx’s “labour theory of value” (Marx, 1976a, chaps. 6-9), or, as accounting professor Tony Tinker (1999) of the City University of New York calls it, the “value theory of labour”, Dr Leong’s and Renarda Yoch’s words struck a chord with him. In Dr Leong’s words: “The working-class is very affected by vote-buying, bonuses, etc. They legalize it, we ‘share wealth’, but I call it pure vote-buying. The older ones still believe in LKY [Harry Lee Kuan Yew] ‘setting up Singapore’. I stopped believing in it, I saw people slog their hearts out and PAP says: ‘They don’t save money’. Ideology is propagated in the schools. People work for a few cents. Singapore prosperity is built on the backs of those unloading cargoes on their backs in what is now Boat Quay. These are the people that really built Singapore”. Da Cunha (2010, p. 163) makes it clear that, regardless of one’s opinion on the Marxist labour theory of value, “Singaporeans owe a considerable debt of gratitude to foreign workers for doing jobs largely spurned by Singaporeans”. We now move on to discuss the issue of internet activism (Research Question 3). Dr Leong is very supportive of the younger generation of Facebook internet activists associated mostly with the SDP’s Youth Wing. For example, Mr Chong Kai Xiong, a self-declared “anarchist” (in personal conversation with the firstmentioned researcher, 30 February 2010), and 25-yearold Mr Seelan Palay (who served short prison terms for political activities in 2010-11) are young internet activists, associated with the SDP, who communicate its ideas online and network with various interested parties through Facebook. A day does not go past without Kai Xiong and/or Seelan and/or Jarrod Luo and/or Rachel Zeng and/or Martyn See posting at least one political post on Facebook. A room with three computers is set up in the SDP’s offices, located in an upstairs shophouse in suburban Jalan Gelenggang (just off Upper Thomson Road in Singapore’s north), for this specific purpose. Dr Leong admits to not having had much personal contact with this young SDP group because of the, in his words, “generation gap”. However, he admires them from a distance. He says to the researcher (personal interview, 2 March 2010) that he himself is “tainted goods” within Singapore because he is known to be an opposition supporter. He implies that this “tainting” may be partly responsible for his present unemployed status (although he works part-time as a security guard). He admits that: “Even me, I don’t dare to say I am SDP”. The PAP tactic is, in Dr Leong’s words: “They send people overseas who are a threat to them, they sent Tommy Koh as Ambassador to the UN; they neutralize you, give you an offer you can’t refuse” (Tommy Koh and his Ambassadorship to the United Nations as well as other details of his iconoclastic and colourful career are referred to in George (2000, pp. 116-7)). Dr Leong suggests that young voters were responsible for increasing marginally Chiam See Tong’s share of the vote in Potong Pasir SMC at the 2006 GE (up from 52.43% or 8,107 votes out of 15,463 to 55.82% or 8,245 out of 14,772) (For 2001 GE result see http://www.singapore-elections.com/parl-2001-ge/potongpasir.html and for 2006 GE result see http://www.singapore-elections.com/parl-2006-ge/potongpasir.html [both accessed 5 August 2010]). This is the same GE that the WP’s book Days of being Wild has called Singapore’s first “internet election” (Lam, 2006, p. 24). Dr Leong cites the one percentage-point increase in votes won by Chiam at the 2006 GE (in actual fact the increase was over two percentage-points). He claims that this increase, while small, is important because it reflects “younger ones coming of age” in an electorate which actually lost registered voters between 2001 (16,616) and 2006 (15,888). Dr Leong mentions that, prior to GE 2006: “I was worried where [i.e. who for] the younger ones will vote”. The key question, for Dr Leong and for his lifelong friend Dr Wong Wee Nam, is whether the opposition’s online support will translate into more pro-opposition votes in coming elections. No-one the researcher spoke to claims to have an answer to this question as yet. Dr Leong and another of this study’s interviewees, the 35year-old NGO and civil society activist Roderick Chia, put forward the view, yet to be confirmed by empirical evidence, that the “new Singaporeans”, mostly from China and India, are a pro-PAP demographic. Dr Leong comments that: “The Government is trying to target this group and get them involved [in politics]”. The former NCMP Mr Steve Chia of the NSP posted online about his house visits in Pioneer SMC in the lead up to the 7 May 2011 GE: “From my house visits of around 100 blocks now in Pioneer since beginning of March [2011], I can confidently say that there is at least 20% new citizen[s] from China. Also, 1 out of 2 households I speak to request me to speak in Chinese, Teochew or Hokkien [rather than in English, the business language of Singapore]” (For 2001 GE result see http://www.singapore-elections.com/parl-2001-ge/potongpasir.html and for 2006 GE result see http://www.singapore-elections.com/parl-2006-ge/potongpasir.html [both accessed 5 August 2010]). These new immigrants are generally quick to offer support to the PAP Government that granted them admittance into the country. Furthermore, the Chinese immigrants are familiar with a neo-Confucian authoritarian state in China James et al. 145 (Deng Xiao Ping’s Selected Works Volume 3 indicates his view that economic development should be the number one priority for post-Mao China and, according to Deng’s ideology, social and political stability are necessary for this goal to be achieved (Weil, 2006, pp. 223-30). This is a very similar view to PAP ideology in Singapore. For example, the PAP’s veteran Wong Kan Seng has said: “Our experience is that economic growth is the necessary foundation of any system that claims to advance human dignity, and that order and stability are essential for development” (cited in George, 2000, p. 50)). The opposition parties cannot depend on the mainland Chinese migrants for support as the mainland Chinese have not been a naturally left-wing demographic since the era of Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai (who both passed away in 1976). Rather than market themselves to the “new Singaporeans”, the opposition parties have decided to aim to win over the younger generation of internet users who may become increasingly politicized over the internet. Dr Leong remarks that 20% of voters are with the opposition “for sure” while he gives a figure of “at least 50%” as “hardcore PAP” supporters. Other interviewees give a lower figure (Eric Tan suggests 30%) and it must be said that 50% is a somewhat depressing statistic, from an opposition perspective, as it suggests that the combined opposition will never win another seat or do so only by the most slender of margins. The WP did win Aljunied GRC with an impressive 54.71% of the vote at the 7 May 2011 GC (72,165 out of 131,897 valid votes) and the WP’s share of votes in Hougang SMC increased from 62.74% to 64.81%. George (2000, pp. 38, 92, 95) talks of a hardcore opposition support of 25%, hardcore PAP support of 30% “at most”, and swinging voters of 45%. The hardcore opposition support is now more likely around 35%. Then Dr Leong says that “[t]he next 20% will give you a chance”, referring to the second 20% most likely to vote for the opposition. He adds that: “The fight is for the next 10%”, i.e. 20% plus 20% plus 10%. Dr Leong reminds us of the so-called “shouting match” between the SDP’s Chee Soon Juan and the PAP’s Goh Chok Tong during the 2001 GE campaign. The mainstream media used this incident to yet again demonize Chee. As Dr Leong recalls, many voters “thought it [Chee’s behaviour] was very rude, and they still remember this”. A large number of voters, especially those from the senior generation, felt that it was important that an enthusiastic young challenger such as Dr Chee demonstrate public respect for the more senior incumbent Goh Chok Tong. The reaction to this incident reinforces the point that, on balance, Singapore remains a socially conservative Chinese majority society (da Cunha, 2010, p. 85). Dr Leong concludes that “[t]he [second] 20% are still not impressed by his sincerity [referring to Dr Chee], let alone the 10%”. Dr Leong points to the 2001 GE result in Jurong GRC where Chee’s team scored only 20.25% or 21,511 votes out of 106,253, suggesting that no-one but the rusted-on hardcore opposition/ SDP support was willing to vote for the SDP on this occasion (Dr Leong cites Hong Kah GRC but his memory fails him here. Dr Chee stood in Jurong GRC in 2001 but the pro-SDP vote was between 20% and 25% in both GRCs. This proopposition vote is fairly low by modern Singaporean standards). Dr Leong goes on to offer his perspective on the SDP as follows: “SDP has very small numbers. Because of Dr Chee’s ideas people do not understand him. The press has vilified him and this [vilification] is what people believe. They think he is a clown, he is professing on small parts of the Constitution that are being whittled away, for example freedom of speech. … Dr Chee can win over young Chinese-educated, but the older ones no”. Younger SDP supporters are generally more upbeat about the SDP’s ability to win over the socially conservative Chinese-educated electorate (although Roderick Chia is an exception). The SDP did reasonably well at the 7 May 2011 GE scoring 36.8% of the votes in constituencies it contested which included Bukit Panjang SMC, Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, Sembawang GRC, and Yuhua SMC. The large percentage of upper middle-class and English-educated voters in Holland-Bukit Timah GRC suggests that the SDP is finally making better choices as to where it should contest. The Party ultimate secured 39.90% of the vote in Holland-Bukit Timah GRC (32,322 out of 81,004 valid votes). Dr Chee’s non-involvement as a candidate and his low public profile during the election campaign may well also have been factors that ultimately worked in the SDP’s favour. Holland-Bukit Timah GRC contestant 35-year-old school teacher Michelle Lee is an example of an upper middle-class SDP contestant most suitable for the battle in that particular constituency. She has stated that a return by the SDP to its previous agenda of illegal protest activities would see her leave the Party (Peh, 2011). The Party is now trying to shed its “civil disobedience” image although the leaders see this as a pragmatic shift in the area of methods rather than a shift in fundamental ideology. Dr Leong’s comments on the internet community and the internet vote are also worth quoting here: “The opposition in general has a very small group of th activists, SDP youth at [30 Anniversary] dinner just ten or fifteen, other parties the same; the WP has just around 40 activists [total] who dare to stand up to say ‘I’m WP’. … What I have been told here is that the WP does its own quiet activities. Here the mainstream media vilifies you. … SDP is very strong with the internet. Within the internet community there will be a transfer of votes [towards the opposition] but will that go into the general community? It is hard to say. Not many of us are on the political net. If it is 20% and they are the donkeys [hardcore opposition supporters] it’s no use. My concern is can we touch the [next] 20% plus 10%? When I talk to other people they all still say: ‘Shhhh, there are Government people around’. What you see on the net will 146 J. Res. Peace Gend. Dev. not [directly] transfer to votes. There was euphoria that we can repeat Anwar [in Malaysia]. … Old-timers fail to see [next] 10% are the elitist votes, the best educated. The dissatisfied people are the educated people. As for people who can appeal to this group, I’m willing to sit back and let the younger ones run it. Probably young voters voted for Chiam in Potong Pasir [at GE 06].” Dr Leong looks around the working-class, middleaged and elderly crowd of people eating early lunches this Tuesday morning at Tiong Bahru Food Court. He tells the researcher that “these are PAP people but in Potong Pasir [SMC] these types support Chiam See Tong”. Dr Leong speaks of his own local MP Chiam as follows (speaking prior to the news that Chiam’s wife, Madam Lina Low, would contest the seat at the 7 May 2011 GE for the SPP): “My MP, I’m very worried about him. He had strokes, I’m worried about him; his plan to put someone in that seat is a good idea. If he dies in a seat it will be absorbed into a GRC. After JBJ [Jeyaretnam] was removed in Anson the seat ceased to exist. There is a talk the wife will come in as a successor; no-one is opening their cards yet. It’s time to build up the succession. Tragic if he dies in office and the PAP will not hold a by-election. PAP interprets it [death in office] as [meaning] they don’t need to hold a by-election”. The ongoing and committed grassroots support that Chiam received in Potong Pasir SMC and that Low Thia Khiang received in Hougang SMC are legendary but it has so far proved impossible for the combined opposition to replicate this level of support in other parts of the citystate (This comment arguably no longer holds after the 7 May 2011 GE to the extent that Mr Yaw won Hougang SMC for the WP after Mr Low had gone over to Aljunied GRC to lead his ultimately winning team in that contest). This fact remains the enduring enigma of Singapore politics for not only the authors of this paper but for Dr Leong and the WP’s Eric Tan. When pressed about the reasons for the success of Low in Hougang SMC, the WP’s Treasurer, Central Executive Council (CEC) member (The members of the fifteen-person WP’s CEC can be found on the WP’s official website at the following link: http://wp.sg/our-organisation/executive-council/ [accessed 22 April 2011]), and 2006 and 2011 GE East Coast GRC candidate Eric Tan (personal interview, 3 March 2010) points to Low, firstly, getting into the system before the system had turned further against the opposition due to the increase in the number of GRCs relative to SMCs. As an earlier footnote has pointed out, it is easier for an opposition ticket to win in an SMC than in a GRC. Secondly, Eric refers to the Teochew (as in dialect group) Low attending 90% of funerals in Hougang SMC. According to Eric (personal interview, 3 March 2010), the largely Teochew electorate in Hougang has been deeply impressed by this since, in traditional Chinese culture, attending funerals is associated with bad luck. Thirdly, Eric (personal interview, 3 March 2010) suggests that Low is seen by his heartland in the northeast part of Singapore as being the last link in an oppositional chain going back to 1960s left-wing activist Lim Chin Siong, pro-China businessman Tan Lark Sye, the Barisan Sosialis party (The Barisan Sosialis (Malay language meaning “Socialist Front”) is not connected to the new Socialist Front formed recently by Chia Ti Lik. However, old-time left-wing activists would appreciate the resurrection of the name. The original Barisan merged with the WP in 1988), and the socially and politically radical Chinese-medium Nanyang University which was closed down forcibly by the Government in 1981 (Mr Tan Lark Sye was a Hokkien businessman whose citizenship was revoked by the Singaporean Government in September 1963 because he was felt to be too close to the People’s Republic of China and was, therefore, a “front man for the communists” in Harry Lee’s words (Visscher, 2007, pp. 154-6). The WP’s Low Thia Khiang in 2011 spoke of the Nanyang University closure as follows (Ye, 2011, translated by Tan): “Media bias-ness [sic] is one key reason why I am in politics. When the PAP government first announced its plan to shut down Nanyang University, we wrote in a lot of letters to the media about it, but none of the letters were published. How do [sic] one not feel sceptical [sic] about the Media after that experience?”). George (2000, p. 90) writes about Low Thia Khiang as follows: “Low, by all accounts, was hardworking and effective at the grass-roots, as well as sharp and quick-witted in parliament, where he was a master of the follow-up question”. At our interview, Dr Leong remarked that the younger generation has no memory of Operation Cold Store (1963) or the detention of left-wing radicals without trial for years that resulted from it (Operation Cold Store took place on the night of 2 February 1963. It resulted in 115 arrests (Visscher, 2007, p. 152). Visscher (2007, p. 152) comments that: “The action removed some of the ablest and most experienced left wing leaders, including Lim Chin Siong and 23 Barisan [Sosialis] members from the scene”). As a result they do not live in the same fear of the PAP Government as do their seniors. He concludes by stating: “The future of Singapore politics still depends on the Old Man [Harry Lee]. His threats still carry a lot of weight especially amongst the older ones”. Regarding the 7 May 2011 GE, Dr Leong expressed his hope to the researcher (on 2 October 2010) that the combined opposition could win ten seats, i.e. two GRCs, presumably in addition to the two SMCs that they already held, making the total twelve elected opposition MPs. The opposition did well but was unable to reach this target, falling short by six MPs. Ms Jaslyn Go (SDP activist) If WP candidate at the 2006 GE in Ang Mo Kio GRC, Glenda Han, is or was the glamour woman of the WP, then Jaslyn Go must fulfil this role for the SDP (but Jaslyn goes far beyond the provision of glamour) (Glenda Han’s James et al. 147 profile can be found on the WP’s official website at the following link: http://wp.sg/our-organisation/executivecouncil/glenda-han/ [accessed 22 April 2011]). Jaslyn, a 37-year-old married mother-of-two, is a committed SDP supporter and activist who has been a regular participant at SDP protest activities since World Consumer Day, 15 March 2008. Jaslyn has been charged and given the option of a substantial fine or a short jail term for illegal protests in a public place, on more than one occasion, alongside other SDP leaders Chee Soon Juan, Gandhi Ambalam, Chee Siok Chin, and John Tan. She is associated with the SDP Women’s Wing. Jaslyn was one of the speakers at the SDP’s (legal) rally at Hong Lim Park on 13 November 2010 and presented the Party’s official Chinese New Year message which appeared on the SDP’s website www.yoursdp.org in February 2011. Jaslyn is very interested in the ongoing problem of poverty in Singapore, especially among the working-class and elderly, and in this sub-section she discusses her experiences growing up in a poor family in the Bukit Merah district of Singapore in the 1970s. Jaslyn’s parents were among the first generation of government flat residents following the PAP Government’s physical demolition of the organic village “kampongs” as a result of which the former village residents received sub-par compensation for the seizure of their homes and land (Jarrod Luo, group interview, 22 September 2009). Li (2011) even suggests that lingering discontent over the forced demolition of the kampongs may have been a factor behind the WP’s 7 May 2011 victory in Aljunied GRC. Government flats, administered then and now by the Housing Development Board (HDB), were mostly rented out in the early years but the balance shifted in favour of “purchases” (actually 99-year leases) in the period 1971 to 1975-76 (SDP, 2010, Table 10, p. 42). We now move on to discussion of Jaslyn, Jarrod, and Seelan’s responses to Research Question 1, perceptions about poverty and income inequality in Singapore. Jaslyn explains (group interview at the SDP’s offices with Jarrod Luo, Seelan Palay, and the first-mentioned author, 22 September 2009) how she developed a social and political consciousness at a early age by growing up in a poor family which was “alienated from” (Marx, 1975) the fruits of the city-state’s growing prosperity (Jarrod Luo contested as part of the SDP team in Sembawang GRC at the 7 May 2011 GE. This team, which consisted of John Tan, James Gomez, Mohamed Isa Abdul Aziz, Sadasivam Veriyah, and Jarrod Luo, scored 47,578 out of 131,763 valid votes or 36.11%). Jaslyn became very aware of income inequality while still very young and she began to view the elite as people with privileges, privileges that were not being shared fairly with the working-class. Poverty was very evident although the PAP Government tended to focus its attention on the needs and desires of the elite and the business community while denying that poverty remained a problem in the country. This continues to be the case as Minister Mentor Harry Lee denies that there are beggars in Singapore (according to Mr Yap Puay Tong, group interview, 4 March 2010) when in fact there are beggars in his own inner-city constituency of Tanjong Pagar GRC. Hyper-capitalism, as practised by the PAP Government since independence, certainly has produced its own discontents. Jaslyn was perceptive enough as a pre-teen to observe that the Government’s official discourse was not necessarily the reality as experienced by the workingclass or by Karl Marx’s “lumpenproletariat” (For Marx on “lumpenproletariat”, also termed “dangerous classes”, see Marx (1976a, p. 797)). Jaslyn describes her childhood years as follows, unconsciously slipping into the present tense for dramatic effect and perhaps because the memories still remain vivid (group interview, 22 September 2009): “I grew up in a very poor family; we stay in a one room flat. There are six of us in the family; [we] stay with Grandma as well. Our place is very cramped with so many people living under one roof. I grew up sleeping on the floor without a mattress. Because my parents could not afford electricity; me [sic] and my sister went to the Community Centre to have a bath. It was an HDB rental flat, most of the citizens lived in a rental flat, this was the 1970s. My father was on and off working, he was a compulsive gambler. There were many families in this situation. ... All my neighbours were living in these conditions, all staying in one-room flat[s]. ... We saw a lot of quarrelling at that time – mostly it is due to the money or the lack thereof”. Jaslyn explains that one factor that led to her early politicization was the sight of the legendary opposition politician JBJ (i.e. J. B. Jeyaretnam) JBJ won the seat of Anson on a WP ticket in a 1981 by-election, the first opposition MP to be elected in the country since 1963 and the first to sit in Parliament since 1968 (Lydgate, 2003, pp. 87-97). He won the seat again in the 1984 GE (Lydgate, 2003, pp. 124-9)) selling political newspapers in the bus interchange and hawker centres (again Jaslyn slips into the present tense here): “I live near where JBJ lived; the [grassroots] opposition sentiment for JBJ was quite strong. I saw him at the interchange selling books and newspapers. This was the 1970s/ early-1980s. I remember seeing him in the train station. Even though we were very poor my mother tried to dig up money to buy a newspaper from him”. Jaslyn then went on to describe her schooling years and the part-time jobs she took to support herself through school: “I was even too poor to go to school. I was very fearful in regards paying school fees as I was afraid my teacher would ask for school fees. My school was far from my place. Walking to school took 30 to 40 minutes. Public transport was out of the question. I had to walk through the factories and was chased by dogs. In my secondary years, I had to support myself. I worked as waitress [and] 148 J. Res. Peace Gend. Dev. in factories and McDonald’s. I worked six to eight hours a day, seven days a week. Whenever I went to school I was always tired. I remember in school that none of my friends went through what I had gone through. They seemed to have no problems buying in the canteen. They are seriously not as poor as me. I was just surviving”. Moving on to today’s Singapore, Jaslyn, Jarrod, and Seelan contrast the one-room rental flats and the fiveroom flats that stand opposite each other physically in Bukit Merah but which represent a vast social divide. SDP activist Seelan Palay describes living conditions today in the one-room rental apartments in Bukit Merah (group interview, 22 September 2009): “It’s very depressing. There are no walls; it is eight metres by six metres. There are two different worlds [standing opposite each other in Bukit Merah]. When the loan sharks want to target you, they throw the red paint on the door. Many [flats] have red paint on their doors. Just opposite are the expensive HDB flats. You can see how unjust it is. You can see each other from each other’s windows. Grandma, father, girl, mother, [and] two boys [might] live in a room six metres by seven metres. You can survive; they have a roof over their heads. What about the kids? They will think study is no good for them [i.e. because of their harsh living conditions and lack of prospects]; many social problems multiply from there. This is [Harry] Lee Kuan Yew’s constituency. He said ‘show me a beggar’; [well] this is Tanjong Pagar GRC”. These are living conditions in modern Singapore where the country’s Gross Domestic Product has reached USD57,200 per capita (2010 estimate), sixth highest in the world, and higher than many developed nations including the United States (USD47,400), Australia (USD41,300), and New Zealand (USD28,000) (CIA World Factbook, 2011) (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worldfactbook/geos/sn.html, Singapore, Australia, and New Zealand pages [all accessed 18 March 2011] and the United States page [accessed 4 May 2011]). However, 14-year-old opposition activist Renarda Yoch comments perceptively that: “True standard of living, where everyone has proper housing, is more important than GDP per capita” (group interview, 4 March 2010). One lesson of the 7 May 2011 GE, even acknowledged by Straits Times journalists, is that many people believe that the PAP’s traditional (economic) “growth-at-all-costs” strategy should be replaced by a more inclusive growth policy where growth is balanced against other social objectives (see, for example, Chan, 2011a and Chia Tok Whee, Letter to the Editor, The Straits Times, 10 May 2011, p. A22). Paragraph 8 of the NSP’s 2011 Election Manifesto states: “The focus of our economic policies is not so much GDP growth, but wage growth and better quality of life. In our pursuit of economic growth, we need to pay due attention to social costs” (http://www.scribd.com/doc/53562332/National-SolidarityParty-Manifesto-2011 [accessed 13 May 2011]). Seelan Palay’s above description, whilst not wanting to overdramatize, brings to remembrance the passages describing 19th century Manchester and London in Friedrich Engels’ (1987) The Condition of the Working Class in England, Karl Marx’s (1976a) Capital Volume 1 (see especially Chapters 10 and 15), and Jack London’s (n/d) The People of the Abyss. Singapore’s mega-city that is Changi International Airport frequently wins awards for world’s best airport and yet, only 25 to 30 kilometres away, the poorest of the poor live in Dickensian living conditions, a world away from prosperity, in Harry Lee’s Tanjong Pagar GRC. Jack London in The People of the Abyss wrote similarly about the massive poverty he observed in the East End of London in 1902 and contrasted it with the wealth and power of the then mighty British Empire (of which Singapore was then a remote outpost): “From the slimy, spittle-drenched, sidewalk, they ... picked up stray bits of bread the size of peas, apple cores so black and dirty one would not take them to be apple cores, and these things these two men took into their mouths, and chewed them, and swallowed them; and this, between six and seven o’clock in the evening of August 20, year of our Lord 1902, in the heart of the greatest, wealthiest, and most powerful empire the world has ever seen” [London, n/d, p. 48]. The poor citizens of the Bukit Merah one room rental flats also have not been able to cast their votes with the constituency (now called Tanjong Pagar GRC) not having been contested for the past four general elections. The opposition in 1991 was partly to blame for this because of their collective implementation of the “by-election strategy” (George, 2000, pp. 86, 93; Lydgate, 2003; Singh, 1992) whereby the opposition agreed to contest fewer than half the seats so that the PAP could be returned to power on Nomination Day, leaving discontented people free to lodge a protest vote without inadvertently voting out the Government. The by-election strategy was strongly criticized at that time by opposition figurehead the late J. B. Jeyaretnam (the WP Member for Anson SMC 1981-86). Jaslyn bemoans the way that the elderly poor and the homeless are marginalized, forgotten, and put, in Jarrod Luo’s words, “out of sight [and] out of mind” in modern Singapore with its emphasis on career success, upward mobility, and consumerism. George (2000, p. 23) writes that: “Today, most Singaporeans judge people, institutions and policies on their bottom-line contributions to material wellbeing”. The same author also states that: “Similarly, policy-makers looking through the filters of the Asian values debate tend to be unsympathetic to appeals for state welfare from down-and-out Singaporeans – since Asians are supposed to believe in self-reliance” (George, 2000, p. 55). Jaslyn believes that there is little gratitude paid to the senior citizens for their role in building up modern Singapore in the 46 years that have passed since independence. On this point, the SDP’s Ms James et al. 149 Chee Siok Chin, sister of Dr Chee Soon Juan, political candidate, and Central Executive Committee (CEC) member (The members of the SDP’s twelve-person CEC can be found on the SDP’s official website at the following link: http://yoursdp.org/index.php/the-party/whowe-are [accessed 22 April 2011]), has written (in personal e-mail communication with Jaslyn Go dated 20 May 2010 and forwarded to the first-mentioned author) that: “There’s not just little gratitude paid to senior citizens. The govt continues to use them by not returning them the full CPF [Central Provident Fund], increases the retirement age, [and] is implicit [i.e. complicit] in their being hired to clean toilets, clean tables at food centres, and other menial jobs”. In almost dialectical Marxist fashion, the SDP’s promotional literature brilliantly highlights the contradictions inherent in Singaporean hyper-capitalism as many of its photos depict smiling PAP politicians on advertising billboards or modern city street scenes with the photographs shared by impoverished elderly persons selling cheap goods on the footpath, looking in dumpsters for food or pushing makeshift carts. Jaslyn states (group interview, 22 September 2009): “It pains me to see old people treated like that. I can’t forgive the Government for treating our elderly [in] this way. They are the ones who built the country up. We went to a nursing home and it is sad to see some of them living like that – forgotten. The elderly in Singapore are not living with any type of dignity. Is that how we reward our elderly? This should not be the way”. Jaslyn made the following comments about poverty during our group interview at the SDP’s Jalan Gelenggang offices on 22 September 2009: “In Singapore, the poor are the forgotten ones. Every day I see poor people in my neighbourhood [Bukit Merah]”. Jarrod Luo added at this point, turning the topic from poverty in general to homelessness: “It is more of a case of out of sight, out of mind. Homeless people are actively rounded up. Recently one guy was arrested and fined SGD800 for sleeping on the beach. Our social justice here is totally lacking. ... Now, in order to stop people sleeping on the [park] bench, they put handles, pretending to be armrests ... although it is public property. They redesigned the benches so [that] no-one could sleep on them. ... Some [people] say the Government is doing right, ‘homeless are a blight on society’. The whole society has been decompassionized [Jarrod admitted that he has invented a new word here], brainwashed. They [the homeless] are disenfranchised. Singaporeans don’t question what causes led them to become homeless”. The reference to putting armrests in the middle of benches to prevent the homeless sleeping on them reminds us that the British Government in Jack London’s era had a policy of erecting sharp spiked-iron fencing around all public parks (such as at the park, which still exists today, next to Christ’s Church in Commercial Street, Spitalfields, in London’s East End) so as to prevent the homeless from sleeping in the parks at night (London, n/d, p. 39). Harry Lee spent some time in the UK as a young man and the impressions he took with him back to South East Asia regarding how to administrate a country may not have been the most balanced. Seventeen-year-old opposition activist Yap Puay Tong (group interview, 4 March 2010) comments: “The homeless people in Singapore do not want to see PAP screw their life up again, they cannot vote as they have no address[es]”. Jaslyn supports and identifies with the SDP’s proactive political activism which includes peaceful protests and demonstrations. She has strong relationships with the twenty-somethings in the SDP’s Youth Wing including the Facebook activists mentioned earlier. When asked about her motivations for being politically active, Jaslyn refers to leaving behind a better country for her two children. If we can summarize her political position, the conclusion is that she is most obviously against the “culture of cruelty or indifference” that has been an inevitable by-product of the PAP’s elitist eugenics ideology and myopic economic development emphasis. Her views could be described as centre-left humanitarian. Like the SDP’s leadership, she is in favour of workers’ rights but sees the issue within the broader context of civil rights and the right to freedom of association. She is a liberal-democrat rather than a socialist. Jaslyn discusses her introduction to activism and her female perspective as to why the PAP, by focusing on the rich and successful, has created a culture where the working-class get little financial or moral assistance and are generally blamed for their own predicament: “Even though now I’m not that poor – but not rich either – I remember the poor days and what I went through. I hope the children of our future will not go through what I went through. ... I am quite an accidental activist. I protest against the rising cost of living in Singapore. Since I brought up children I realized that bringing up children is not cheap in Singapore, my first child cost SGD12,000 to deliver him. The support is lacking for new mothers. ... Not much is given to first-time mums, nothing is done for you. Confinement nanny/ midwife – Chinese cultural thing – costs SGD2,000 of salary plus confinement levy. No assistance at all is given. ... The Government subsidy is so miserable for child-care, it is a paltry sum, it costs SGD500 per month; the Government pays SGD150 per month if [mother is] not working and SGD300 if working. ... Being a mother made me realize that bringing up a kid is not really cheap in Singapore. The Government does not give enough help and still blame the problem. When SDP had a rally, I was charged in court and facing a lawsuit. It was 15 March 2008, World Consumer Day. That was my maiden protest”. Jaslyn’s two children, then aged five and four, were involved in the SDP’s demonstration and were “among 150 J. Res. Peace Gend. Dev. the youngest protestors” (Jaslyn Go, group interview, 22 September 2009). Jaslyn states that: “I was not arrested on the spot because my children were there” (group interview, 22 September 2009) and Jarrod Luo added that “it would cost too much politically to do so [i.e. to arrest Jaslyn on the spot]” (group interview, 22 September 2009). Jaslyn states that her family were very anxious on reading of her court troubles for political demonstrations but she has found a new support network in the SDP activist community: “Last time I did not know SDP that well. I was being charged [and] it gave me an opportunity to know them better. I think SDP are voices for the people [and they] raise issues that concern us. ... My family are not very supportive still [of my activism] but I try to reassure them that I know what I am doing. I start my children young, one is four, [and] one is five [as at 22 September 2009]. ... Because they charge us together, there is a certain bond among us [SDP community]. It gives us the opportunity to know each other better. Before the protest, I did not know them very well. Now I know them very well - on the personal level very well - as an activist, a politician, and a friend”. We now move on to a discussion of Research Question 2, opposition responses to the poverty problem. This sub-section does not further explore Research Question 3, the role of internet activism, other than to briefly note Jaslyn’s strong relationships with the twentysomething SDP internet activists including Jarrod and Seelan. SDP policy includes a minimum wage and unemployment insurance as well as certain other measures designed to tackle the extant poverty problem (SDP, 2010). New and minor opposition party the RP, which contested only in Ang Mo Kio GRC and West Coast GRC at the 7 May 2011 GE, also supports a minimum wage (Chua, 2011). At the press conference on election night 7 May 2011 at Singapore’s Quality Hotel in Balestier Road, Dr Vincent Wijeysingha, who contested with the SDP’s team in Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, pointed out clearly and forcefully that the SDP will continue to remember the poor regardless of results in the current or any other election. The PAP’s granting of two casino licences also suggest that the Government has allowed its Chinese majority social conservatism to take second place to its neo-liberal economic rationalism and money-making prerogatives (da Cunha, 2010). The SDP’s Jarrod Luo says that: “It is a huge loss of self-esteem to know you are jobless. There are huge social disincentives to be unemployed [in Singapore] so you cannot say that giving unemployment benefits leads to laziness” (group interview, 22 September 2009). Jaslyn adds that: “Singaporeans are brought up in such a way that unemployed people are [perceived to be] lazy. Unemployment is not by choice in the current situation. People don’t choose to be unemployed. There is social pressure to work. Here the social pressure to work is very strong” (group interview, 22 September 2009). The social pressure to work suggests that unemployment benefits will not create a widespread culture of laziness in the city-state as the PAP leadership fears. The SDP has proposed a minimum wage of SGD6.80 per hour or its equivalent of SGD300 per week for a standard working week (SDP, 2010, pp. 23-4). This proposed minimum wage may not seem like much compared to the extent levels of AUD14.31 in Australia or GBP5.80 in the UK but it is important for the SDP to start somewhere. Furthermore, living costs, apart from housing and motor vehicle costs, are generally lower in Singapore than in those other two countries. The SDP’s proposed retrenchment entitlements are generous at a proposed 75% of last drawn salary for the first six months, reduced to 50% for the second six months, and then to 25% for the third six months before the benefits cease. A cap will be placed on maximum entitlements (SDP, 2010, p. 25). If the cap is fairly high, then the first six month benefit may be higher than Australians would receive if they had no retrenchment payouts from their ex-employer (for example, where a period of casual employment ceases or a graduate looks for her or his first job immediately after graduation). However, an Australian is entitled to unemployment benefits in perpetuity if she/he continues to actively look for work and participates in “work for the dole” and/or community service programmes (Nevile and Nevile (2003) provide a detailed critical analysis of Australia’s “work for the dole” programme). The WP also favours an unemployment insurance scheme. Point five of the “Income” section of Labour Policy in the 2011 Manifesto states as follows: “5. An unemployment insurance scheme should be introduced to help workers cope during the difficult period of unemployment and retraining while seeking a new job. The premiums can be covered by both the employer and employee contributing a percentage of the workers’ monthly income. The insurance funds should be managed by third-party corporations. Employees will be eligible to make a claim if they are retrenched. The payout will be a proportion (e.g., 75%) of their last drawn salary. This would be reduced by 7.5% each month until the payout is zero” [The Workers’ Party of Singapore, 2011, p. 47]. It is important to note that under the WP proposal the employee pays part of her or his own future retrenchment benefits. The NSP contested the 7 May 2011 GE with HDB flats as a main campaign priority. The NSP’s SecretaryGeneral Goh Meng Seng argued that new flats should be sold by the Government using the “cost plus profit” method with the profit margin being small instead of the current PAP Government practice of selling the new flats at market value minus a discount. Paragraphs 12 to 15 of the NSP’s 2011 Election Manifesto deal specifically with housing issues and they are reproduced in full here: James et al. 151 “12. Discounts to be given to first time buyers of new HDB flats so that they pay slightly above the cost of building the flats plus a discounted land price. More HDB flats needs to be built to support the growing population, and to shorten the waiting time for new flats. High prices of HDB flats and long waiting time directly impact our total fertility rate (TFR) by delaying marriages and having children. Due consideration must be given to the social cost of maintaining high HDB prices and the longer term economic cost of a rapidly aging population. 13. A total review of HDB rules and regulations that make it difficult for Singaporeans to continue to have a roof over their heads when they run into problems financially, or their families break up. 14. PRs [Permanent Residents of Singapore] must hold their HDB flats for a minimum period of 8 years. If they wish to sell before that, they must sell their HDB flats back to HDB at prices based on the lower of market price or cost price (the price at which they bought the flats) plus interest. 15. Upgrading of HDB flats to be delinked from votes. It is highly unethical to use public funds to gain political advantage. Our party’s interest is subservient to Singaporeans’ interest. Upgrading decisions should be made based on the condition of the building”. The PAP’s Mr Mah Bow Tan, whose team narrowly defeated Goh’s team in Tampines GRC at 7 May 2011 GE, failed to provide strong or logical answers to the NSP proposal. Mah’s response that “cost-plus-profit” would mean that all flats would have to be built the same and that top-floor flats could not then command higher prices was nonsensical and failed to address the spirit of the NSP’s concerns. Mah’s assumption that rapidly rising HDB flat prices is unambiguously a good thing is naïve and offensive since people buying flats to live in them are more interested in entry than in exit prices. Peh (2011, p. A7) is also clearly wrong when he claims that the NSP had “no clear platform” during the 2011 GE campaign. Goh specifically chose both to challenge Mah in Tampines GRC and base his campaign there around housing issues because Mah is the minister responsible for HDB housing as the Minister for National Development (Mah’s Wikipedia entry is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mah_Bow_Tan [accessed 15 May 2011]). The NSP’s relatively unknown team (apart from M.-S. Goh) of Goh Meng Seng, Syafarin Sarif, Raymond Lim, Gilbert Goh, and Reno Fong scored 54,337 out of 127,001 valid votes in Tampines GRC or 42.78%. Mah had told The Straits Times that he hoped to score above the national average pro-PAP vote (Chan, 2011b). The fact that his team scored only 57.22%, compared to the national pro-PAP average of 60.1%, suggests both that Mah failed on his own terms and that HDB housing remains an issue of discontent in Tampines. To regain standing among the 43% of Tampines GRC residents who voted for the NSP, Mah will certainly need to heed his own advice as follows: “Whether it’s public housing or social policies or physical infrastructure, there’s always something better that we can do and we will do” (cited in da Cunha, 2010, p. 170). The WP proposes that flats prices should be pegged to median income levels of those households eligible to buy HDB flats. The first two of the ten points listed by the WP in its 2011 Manifesto in relation to the housing issue are reproduced in full here as well as point eight: 1.The prices of new HDB flats should not be pegged to the resale market price and then discounted to take into account overall median salaries, as is the current practice. This formula fuels inflation as resale prices climb. Instead, the prices of new flats should be pegged to median incomes of Singaporean households who qualify to buy HDB flats. This will ensure that new flats are always affordable for the majority of Singaporeans. 2. The price of new HDB flats should be affordable enough to enable most lessees to pay off their loans in 20 years rather than 30 years. 8. As our society has now attained a level of multiracial integration, the ethnic quotas governing home ownership of HDB flats should be removed to allow all Singaporeans freedom of choice of home locations, regardless of race. The ethnic quota system also contradicts the policy of encouraging young families to live close to their parents, and can prevent young Malay and Indian families from buying homes close to their parents” [The Workers’ Party of Singapore, 2011, pp. 3940]. Point eight does suggest that the WP is keen to move away from the PAP’s obsession with racial classification and race-based policies. This move will be very popular among younger Singaporeans especially and is also the worldview and approach of the SDP. Point eight makes clear that the racial quotas in HDB estates actually harm the Malays and Indians because they very often cannot buy flats from or sell flats to Chinese owners. Being only 7% of the population, Indians are especially adversely affected by the racial quotas as often they can sell only to other Indians (George, 2000, p. 173). Homelessness and poverty are key topics discussed by the SDP people when you meet them in person and/or when you read the Party’s promotional literature. This is somewhat surprising and refreshing for a liberaldemocratic party as traditionally it has been trade unionists, socialists, and communists who have displayed the most systematic concern for the poor. Ideologically speaking, the SDP sees workers’ rights as part of the broader issue of human rights with freedom of speech and freedom of assembly clearly being issues fundamental to both workplace and non-workplace settings. John Tan (personal interview, 22 September 2009) advocates minimum wage because it “help[s] ... the people to be able to stand on their own two feet”; this empowerment argument is clearly compatible with the liberal-democratic perspective (Interestingly, in Singapore today, it is the liberal-democratic SDP which advocates 152 J. Res. Peace Gend. Dev. minimum wage while the traditional labour party, the WP, does not). John was a Christian bible college student and missionary in his former life and concern for the poor may well be a value that John has brought into the SDP, perhaps in part unconsciously, from his Christian heritage. Dr Chee and John Tan see the SDP as a liberal party in the traditions of 19th century liberalism and the modern-day Liberal-Democratic Party in the UK. John (personal interview, 22 September 2009) has said that the Party leaders see the Party as “liberal” but the word “democratic” is preferred in Party discourses by Dr Chee and Chee Siok Chin because “liberal” is a word with negative connotations in conservative Chinese majority societies. John Tan states that the words “confront”, “protest”, and “liberal” “all have become [demonized] dirty words” (personal interview, 22 September 2009) in the Singaporean political discourse. Because of this, these words will no longer be used by the Party within Singapore (but the Party still strongly believes in the concepts which underpin the words). In the spirit of J. B. Jeyaretnam and the British tradition, the SDP leaders believe in a two-party state and confrontational politics. However, illegal protest activity may well become a thing of the past as far as the SDP is concerned. People like Jaslyn give the opposition movement focus and drive as well as badly needed maturity. Like Roderick Chia, she is a member of that oft-ignored “middle generation”, Generation X, which can link the older opposition party leaderships to the younger twentysomething members of the Facebook generation. Jaslyn’s political and social beliefs have been forged during half a lifetime of personal experiences and reflections and they are unlikely to change overnight. Roderick Chia comments that “the opposition needs people like Jaslyn” (personal conversation with firstmentioned researcher, 9 May 2011). Jaslyn might not recognize the name, in this era when Nelson Mandela and Aung San Suu Kyi are the world’s most visible and high-profile democratic heroes, but she is the “Rosa Luxemburg” of the SDP. CONCLUSIONS Using detailed personal interviews as the primary data source, this qualitative research study has canvassed the views of leading Singapore opposition politicians and grassroots activists about poverty and income inequality in Singapore society. The role of opposition internet activism has also been explored. The opposition in general and the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) and National Solidarity Party (NSP) in particular have repeatedly highlighted the growing income inequality and poverty in the country. Pictures in the SDP’s promotional literature skillfully and dialectically present wealth and poverty in Singapore within the same pictorial image. Our interviewees speak of the Dickensian living conditions in the one-room rental flats in Bukit Merah, just a 25-minute taxi ride from Changi Airport, in the Minister Mentor Harry Lee’s constituency of Tanjong Pagar GRC. The SDP’s Alternative Economic Programme It’s about You (2010) outlines the Party’s proposals for minimum wage and unemployment insurance, generous policies directly aimed at poverty alleviation. Interestingly, the SDP, a liberal-democratic party, has more radical pro-worker policies than the traditional labour party, the Workers’ Party of Singapore (WP). This is not altogether surprising. The traditional Chinese left-wing of the 1960s, of which the WP is the modern living descendant, was concerned with Chinese language and cultural causes, in a postcolonial Singapore where English was still pushed as the number-one language of education and business, as much as it was concerned with traditional labour issues (Eric Tan, personal interview, 3 March 2010). The SDP’s strong pushes for poverty to be addressed in radical fashion, and its ideological commitment to the confrontational politics of the Westminster two-party model, mean that the Party is rarely given legitimate space to fully air its views and it is not regarded as positively by the PAP Government as the more moderate WP and SPP. The understanding of how a “loyal opposition” should operate in practice is one area where the PAP and the SDP will surely continue to disagree. The SDP is now attracting strong candidates such as Michelle Lim who are more “mainstream” in their personal and political orientation and who do not want the SDP to go back to its traditional “civil disobedience” approach. The SDP and the NSP will continue to bring Singaporeans’ attention to the fact that, whilst GDP growth rate statistics are impressive, the nation’s working-class is increasingly dispirited since its incomes have risen only slightly but the cost-of-living, incorporating the various Government fees and charges especially in relation to housing and motor vehicle costs, remains high. The younger married professional and supervisory middle-class, in outer-suburban estates such as Tampines (where the NSP team was only narrowly defeated by the PAP at GE 7 May 2011), may well be another demographic that feels financially squeezed and voiceless which opposition parties can reach out to during future election campaigns. The upper middle-class in private housing generally seems to be now largely proopposition which is confirmed by the strong SDP result in Holland-Bukit Timah GRC. Furthermore, WP newcomer and local resident Mr Yee Jenn Jong lost by only 382 votes or 2% in Joo Chiat SMC (9,248 votes versus Charles Chong of PAP’s 9,630 votes), a ward which is 100% private housing. Likewise, private housing residents in Potong Pasir SMC, a group which includes our interviewee Roderick Chia, tend to be largely proSPP. Roderick Chia speaks of a “corridor of malcontents” that roughly tracks the North-East MRT (subway) line from the city which passes through both Potong Pasir and James et al. 153 Hougang on its way to Punggol (personal conversation with first-mentioned researcher, 9 May 2011). The “malcontented” and swinging voters are likely for the most part to be internet-savvy and the SDP and NSP’s internet strategies should continue to bear fruit over the longer term. However, unfortunately, the elderly working-class in the housing estates in Tanjong Pagar GRC again did not get the chance to vote, a democratic right which they have been unable to exercise for the past twenty years because of the combined opposition’s inability and/or unwillingness to field teams in the Minister Mentor Harry Lee’s constituency. On Nomination Day for the 7 May 2011 GE, the SDA team was a mere 35 seconds late in submitting its nomination forms and hence it was not eligible to contest. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank Chee Siok Chin and Bryan Ti for helpful comments; all our interviewees; Jaslyn Go, Wong Wee Nam, Jarrod Luo, and Patrick Lee Song Juan for helping in the arrangement of interviews; Leong Pei Ying for her dedicated research assistance; and Dr and Dr Chee Soon Juan, James Gomez, Roderick Chia, Curtis Lee, and Tammy Ng for constant encouragement and friendship. We also thank participants at a research seminar at Centre for SouthEast Asian Studies, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia (31 March 2011) for their valuable constructive feedback on a related paper by the same authors. REFERENCES Au Yong J, Durai J (2011). “Chiam’s supporters seek petition for byelection”, The Sunday Times [Singapore], 8 May, noon edition, pp. H16. nd Barr MD (2009). Lee Kuan Yew: the Beliefs behind the Man, 2 edition, Curzon Press, Richmond. Barr MD, Skrbis Z (2008). Constructing Singapore: Elitism, Ethnicity, and the Nation-Building Project, Nordic Institute of Asian Studies, Copenhagen. Chan F (2011a). “PM: new govt to seek political support for policies”, The Straits Times [Singapore], 10 May, pp. A1, A5. Chan F (2011b). “Housing woes behind worst showing”, The Sunday Times [Singapore], 8 May, noon edition, p. H14. Chia S (2006). Called to Serve: a Compilation of Parliamentary Speeches and Questions, Steve Consulting, Singapore. Chow J (2011). “SM Goh: the tide was very strong”, The Straits Times [Singapore], 9 May, p. A6. Chua MH (2011). “After the polls, let the policy debates continue”, The Straits Times [Singapore], 10 May, p. A2. Da Cunha D (1997). The Price of Victory: the 1997 Singapore General Election and Beyond, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore. Da Cunha D (2010). Singapore places its Bets: Casinos, Foreign Talent and Remaking a City-state, Straits Times Press, Singapore. Engels F (1976). Anti-Duhring, Foreign Languages Press, Beijing. Engels F (1987). The Condition of the Working Class in England, Kiernan, W. (Ed), Wischnewetzky, F. (Trans), Penguin Classics, London. Engels F (2004). Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, International Publishers, New York. Facio E (1993). “Ethnography as Personal Experience”, in Stanfield, J. II and Dennis, R. (Eds), Race and Ethnicity in Research Methods, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, pp. 75-91, George C (2000). Singapore: the Air-Conditioned Nation – Essays on the Politics of Comfort and Control 1990-2000, Landmark Books, Singapore. Hussain Z (2011). “Chiam factor makes it tough for DPM’s team”, The Sunday Times [Singapore], 8 May, noon edition, p. H14. James K, Otsuka S (2009). “Racial biases in recruitment by accounting firms: the case of international Chinese applicants in Australia”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 469-91. Kim SN (2004). “Imperialism without empire: silence in contemporary accounting research on race/ethnicity”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 15(1): 95-133. King R (2008). The Singapore Miracle Myth and Reality: Brilliant nd Success or Flawed Experiment? 2 edition, Insight Press, Inglewood. Kor KB, Chong ZL (2011). “Voters back WP’s style of politics, says Low”, The Straits Times [Singapore], 9 May, pp. A1, A7. Kor KB, Ong C (2011). “Aljunied win 20 years in the making”, The Sunday Times [Singapore], noon edition, 8 May, pp. H1, H4. Lam D (2006). Days of Being Wild: GE2006 Walking the Line with the Opposition, Ethos Books, Singapore. Lenin VI (1965a) Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Foreign Languages Press, Beijing, available online: http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/IMP16.html [accessed 16 May 2011]. Lenin VI (1965b). The State and Revolution, Foreign Languages Press, Beijing, available online: http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/SR17.html [accessed 16 May 2011]. Leung JKS, James K (2010). Sydney’s Construction Union Strategy and Immigrant Worker Issues: a Roman Catholic-Marxist Perspective, Spire Publishing, Toronto. Leung JKS, James K, Mustata R, Bonaci C (2010). “Construction union strategy at the branch level in Sydney: a Roman Catholic perspective”, Int. J. Soc. Eco., 37(9): 488-511. Li XY (2011). “Reasons behind Aljunied swings”, The Straits Times [Singapore], 9 May, p. A9. London J (n/d), The People of the Abyss, Book Jungle, Champaign. Lydgate C (2003). Lee’s Law: how Singapore crushes dissent, Scribe Publications, Melbourne. Marx KH (1966). The Civil War in France, Foreign Languages Press, Beijing, available online: http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/CWF71.html [accessed 14 April 2010]. Marx KH (1968). “Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy”, in Karl Marx & Frederick Engels Selected Works, International Publishers, New York, pp. 181-185. Marx KH (1972). Critique of the Gotha Programme, Foreign Languages Press, Beijing, available online: http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/CGP75.html [accessed 16 May 2011]. Marx KH (1975). “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts”, in Early Writings, Livingstone, R. and Benton G (Trans), Penguin Classics, London, pp. 279-400. Marx KH (1976a). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy Volume 1, Fowkes, B. (Trans), Penguin Classics, London. Marx KH (1976b). “Postface to the Second Edition”, in Capital: A Critique of Political Economy Volume 1, Fowkes, B. (Trans), Penguin Classics, London, pp. 94-103. Marx KH (1978a). Capital - A Critique of Political Economy Volume 2, Fernbach, D. (Trans), Penguin Classics, London. Marx KH (1978b). The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Foreign Languages Press, Beijing, available online: http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/EBLB52.html [accessed 16 May 2011]. Marx KH (1981). Capital - A Critique of Political Economy Volume 3, Fernbach, D. (Trans), Penguin Classics, London. Marx KH, Engels F (1994). “The Communist Manifesto”, in Simon, L.H. 154 J. Res. Peace Gend. Dev. (Ed), Selected Writings, Hackett Publishing Company, Indiana, pp. 15786. Nevile A, Nevile J (2003), Work for the Dole: Obligation or Opportunity, The Centre for Applied Economic Research through University of New South Wales Press, Sydney. Patton MQ (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Sage Publications, Newbury Park. Peh SH (2011). “Other opposition parties must aim to match WP”, The Straits Times [Singapore], 9 May, p. A7. Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) (2010). It’s about You: Prosperity and Progress for every Singaporean, Singapore Democratic Party, Singapore. Singh B (1992). Whither PAP’s Dominance? An Analysis of Singapore’s 1991 General Elections, Pelanduk Publications, Petaling Jaya. Stalin JV (1965). The Foundations of Leninism, Foreign Languages Press, Beijing. Tay S (2011). “Hello? What’s on your mind?” The New Paper [Singapore], 9 May, pp. 2-4. Tinker T (1999). “Mickey Marxism rides again!” Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 10(5): 643-70. Visscher S (2007). The Business of Politics and Ethnicity: a History of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce & Industry, NUS Press, Singapore. Weil R (2006). Red Cat, White Cat: China and the Contradictions of “Market Socialism”, Monthly Review Press, New York. Workers’ Party of Singapore (WP (2011). Towards a First World Parliament: Manifesto 2011, Workers’ Party of Singapore, Singapore. Ye W (2011). “Low Thia Khiang: I know what’s wrong with Opposition”, Interview with Low Thia Khiang, New Asia Republic, available at: http://www.zaobao.com.sg/ge/pages/ge110409i.shtml, translated by Donaldson Tan for Facebook; translation available at: http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=189425388581 3&id=1525533959#!/notes/new-asia-republic/low-thia-khiang-iknow-whats-wrong-with-opposition/205957782762209 [original article posted 9 April 2011, Facebook translation posted 10 April 2011, accessed 11 April 2011].