Post GE 2011 Analysis – Part Two: Singapore Democratic Party

Pre GE

The Singapore Democratic Party had the most outstanding online campaign; Its short videos such as “Time for Change” and “SDP loves Singapore” especially caught the eye. This would be definite vote-getters if political parties could buy airtime on national Television. This closest any other party came to competing with the quality of short videos put up was the WP’s “For People. For Nation. For Future.”

In the build up to the elections, SDPs trump card was a certain Dr Vincent Wijeysingha whose claim to fame was his father Eugene (a popular ex-principal of Raffles Institution). Dr Wijeysingha was to come into his own in the elections through the force of his personality and his powerful and emotive rally speeches. His appearance in the national forum caught many Singaporeans by surprise, who found his lively and dynamic challenges to the then Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam either refreshing or rude. SDP’s campaign revolved around the Dr Wijeysingha until the appearance of Tan Jee Say and Dr Ang Yong Guan. The presence of the latter two was in some sense a lucky break for the SDP especially after the “Gay Agenda episode” that then Minister for Community Development Youth and Sports Dr Vivian Balakrishnan insinuated. While many were revolted by the low blow from the medical doctor, others were turned away from voting for the SDP because of prejudice against Dr Wijeysingha as a result of the incident. The presence of Tan and Dr Ang, helped to neutralise this. Tan was a professed Christian who acknowledged that his entrance to politics was pushed by his impression that the PAP had lost its moral compass. Dr Ang and Tan through their Curriculum Vitaes provided the SDP with an air of respectability that previous lawsuits against the party had diminished.

The SDP was also possibly the first party in releasing its alternative economic policy, although this was not given very much airtime. Its manifesto “The SDP solutions” was overshadowed by the SDP’s 10 promises. This caused many to see the 10 promises as the same as the SDP solutions, and it hence seemed to be a weak response to the PAP’s colourful and WP’s detailed manifestos. Had the SDP played up its manifesto, it would have had a first mover advantage – first of forcing the PAP to engage it, second increasing its time in the media before the elections.

GE 2011

The most memorable rally that the SDP had was its lunchtime rally in the city. This was an important way of catching an audience that would come to form an important voting bloc in the current elections and future elections. The simple fact that the SDP rally drew more people than the PAP rally in the same location 2 days before said a lot about its draw. Even though the rally site was located in Tanjong Pagar GRC the symbolism of the rally site was that its target audience was businesses, it was a way for political parties to show that they had concrete proposals for the economy and were not afraid to bring them to the heart of business in Singapore. At the same time, the SDP claimed for itself a sensible first mover advantage in Tanjong Pagar GRC for the coming elections. For the many parties that did not rent this slot, it was a missed opportunity.

SDP was given a lot of support by the online media, this was especially important for it considering the supposed ‘smear campaigns’ waged against it by the traditional media sources. This online defence helped neutralise the bad press (or no press) that it received in the main news sources.

One mistake that the SDP made was in its calls for a televised debate with the PAP. Then Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan explained why the SDP called for it “because they have not done ground work”. The SDP was silent on this, and this is obviously something the SDP needs to work on in future elections.

SDP’s GE results were relatively good, a jump to 36% for Alec Tok in Bukit Panjang up from the previous low of 23% and a similar jump for the group in Sembawang GRC, a similar percentage of votes for Yuhua SMC and almost 40% of the valid votes in Holland-Bukit Timah GRC.

Post GE

SDP’s online activity continues to be the most active of any political party. A cursory look at its main website shows that they have continued to post news items on its activities and views. The SDP could consider a policy education series using its superior online presence (now rivalled by WP[1]) to maintain its presence and brush up its credentials as a credible party.

In print though, the SDP has not seen much news on it, as can be expected. Its greatest attempt would be to grant interviews and call press conferences on its own terms to allow its name to be placed in the traditional media.

Commentary

The relative victory of the SDP despite previous years of attacks in the print media has proved the success of its online engagement. The fact that the SDP managed to win a respectable average cannot be understated, this was the same party that won a paltry 23% of the popular vote when the rest of the opposition parties in Singapore won at least 33% in the 2006 elections. One potential problem that the SDP needs to overcome though is its appearance as catering to the English speaking elite[2]. Most of its candidates were obviously not comfortable in speaking their mother tongues, and the SDP themselves conceded that the vote in Holland-Bukit Timah GRC was lost because the SDP could not win over the lower-middle class mother tongue speaking voters. Its candidate in Yuhua SMC, Teo Soh Lung could have gained even more votes if she was more fluent in mandarin, one positive though was that despite her difficulties in speaking mandarin she managed to collect even more votes than Yip Yew Weng (NSP) and Sin Kek Tong (SPP), this is good evidence of the quality of the SDP brand.

In order to shore up the SDP brand, it is vital that SDP recruit into its ranks accomplished PR people. The way in which party propaganda is conducted will be vital in the intervening years. One possibility would be for the SDP to call for press conferences regularly with their views and challenges to current policy, doing so would allow the SDP to be seen as a responsible party with concrete alternatives and to get it in the news regularly. Rights and freedoms are important to people, but this is something Singaporeans have been indoctrinated out of being interested in. The SDP’s continual focus on these rights while consistent to its principles must be tempered with practical issues. Simply put, if the people are asleep to their political rights, you don’t pour cold water on them to wake them up; you gently prod them until they rouse from their slumber.

Dr Chee Soon Juan is still a polarising figure in local politics, although if he is exonerated in the court of the public mind the SDP’s image will soar due to the perceived unfairness dealt to him in previous years. Dr Chee is hence the SDP most powerful ‘weapon’ if managed carefully. If not managed carefully, Dr Chee’s reputation could be the spear that thrusts into the heart of SDP and halts its development.

SDP has another challenge that is must change. A read into the party’s manifesto shows an anti-PAP streak stronger than its pro-Singapore image. It conjures up images of a party of angry people joining the party out of hatred for the PAP than of love for the SDP and Singapore. This may not be the reality, but in order to convince Singaporeans to give it a chance, the party must play up its pro-Singapore credentials and tone down its anti-PAP credentials. It should consider engaging in positive politics, showing how its policies are better for Singapore and how it is ideas a better for Singapore. A party can only be taken seriously if it aims to challenge the existing government because it feels it can do a better job, being a conduit for people to give vent against the PAP will not help the SDP in becoming a serious alternative.

As mentioned in the segment on the WP, SDP will have a much harder time trying to get into government because its basic ideology has a wider gap from the PAP than the WP does. If it improves in its image as a serious party, then it is highly possible that it could be a coalition partner in a WP led government. Like the Liberal Democrats in the UK, being government outside a coalition would be a further step yet.

Introduction

Part One – The Worker’s Party

Part Three – Singapore People’s Party and National Solidarity Party

Part Four – People’s Action Party

---

[1] The SDP has fewer eyes but a more responsive online presence, in contrast to the WP which has more viewers on its Facebook pages but is slower responding to online activity.

[2] For the optimist, the SDP can take comfort from the fact that this was the exact same image that the early PAP had when it first tried to make inroads into parliament.