Either side of the political divide, PAP or SDP  can predict a win for their party in the Bukit Batok by-election. The PAP is still basking from the strong mandate it received at the last general election, the personal popularity of the prime minister, still fresh memories of SG50 and a humble and sincere candidate who had done many years of grassroots service in Bukit Batok. The SDP has in it’s favor the by-election effect, a surprisingly strong mandate for the PAP in the last general election, sympathy for the underdog candidate and Chee Soon Juan’s new image as a moderate and reasonable politician.

For the SDP it is critical to win at the by-election to secure a toe hold in Parliament and have the opportunity of promoting it’s views on how to create a more caring society. The PAP can afford to try a different approach in this by-election. Instead of pummeling the opposition candidate it should take the high ground and run a gentlemanly campaign. This does not imply that the PAP is getting soft but signals that it is confident of Murali Pillai. It is therefore rather surprising the Prime Minister lambasted Chee Soon Juan. Character assassination is a sign of weakness and not strength for the PAP. As the stronger political party the PAP should set the example by steering the debate to issues and policies and refrain from character assassination. By focusing on Chee Soon Juan’s character  the PAP provided the SDP with the opportunity to retaliate and  win many undecided voters.

Murali is a good candidate who has earned the respect of Singaporeans. He last contested in what was perceived to be a no hope GRC and did remarkably well. Lee Hsien Loong himself said Murali would have been an MP if his ward of Paya Lebar had been a single member constituency. The PAP cannot practice double standards here. Ministers should avoid making personal comments and highlighting the racial angle when they speak at PAP rallies. The PAP should just let Murali run the show and win plaudits for running a clean and fair by-election campaign that will surprise even the PAP critics. He stands a fair chance of winning in Bukit Batok and the PAP will win many more supporters in Singapore for the next general election.

Chee Soon Juan would now look good even if he lost the by-election because he persevered against the full weight of the PAP establishment instead of squaring off against Murali. It is flattering to the SDP that Lee Hsien Loong would be concerned if Chee Soon Juan is elected.  The statement is perhaps a tribute to Chee Soon Juan and he should be honored by the Prime Minister’s anxiety. If Chee Soon Juan were to make it to parliament he should not be such a threat to the PAP. The PAP would still have an overwhelming majority of 82 seats out of 89 seats in parliament. There would be more debate in Parliament and a counter weight to the Workers Party as the only opposition voice in parliament. The PAP members of parliament can challenge Chee Soon Juan in parliament and expose the weakness of his ideas if they are poorly constructed.

In the long-term it is inevitable that there will be greater diversity in Singapore politics and the dominance of the PAP will be diluted. The PAP had done a tremendous job in the last 57 years. Even if not as dominant in the future it can continue in government for many more years. It is time for the PAP to prepare for this eventuality. It must  reinvigorate the party with new members who uphold it’s core values and can  effectively engage a stronger opposition. That was the PAP in it’s early years when it prevailed against formidable forces who had very different ideas for the future of Singapore. It appears that the success of the PAP had sown the seed of it’s own weakness. The PAP should not be threatened by a strong and credible opposition. It must be a party of dedicated and capable leaders  who are able to effectively connect with the ground. They must get buy in for the PAP’s roadmap even when there is a plethora of choices facing the electorate. The opposition parties must also be able to attract leaders of calibre  who are able to present different ideas. The voters are sophisticated enough to discern which candidates have integrity and can deliver the promise.

For the long term good of Singapore the inevitable battle between the PAP and resurgent opposition parties in future must be a clash of ideas and approach and not a battle between the only good guys and the bad.

Regardless of outcome the 2016 American election will be a watershed. Contrary to the myth it will not be a flawed outcome for an American Presidential election. The purpose of the American election is to choose a President that has the support of the majority of the people. In reality it is decided by the electoral college votes and a candidate can win the Presidency even without the majority support of the people. However a minority of wealthy and influential stakeholders appear to influence the outcome of recent elections to perpetuate a system where the President appears to be beholden to vested interests. It appears that successive governments have enabled a system that perpetuated the interest of a narrow 1% while the majority do not enjoy the benefits of progress in the economy.

How is this possible when the majority have elected the President? Invisible barriers have created a sense of alienation especially for the young and the middle class. The mainstream media plays a part here. By skewing their coverage they influence the outcome of the election. Money politics is another big factor. The ridiculous sums needed to get the message across makes it but impossible for any candidate without the support of wealthy lobby groups and the financial industry.

The unhealthy result is an increasingly wider gulf between many Americans and their elected government. Some feel that despite the considerable pain they suffered in recent years and widening inequality of income the government does not act in the interest of the majority. Despite rhetoric by all candidates during election time the inequality has only widened. The middle class is becoming increasingly skeptical of the establishment in both parties and the promise to work towards a fairer system.

What has changed in 2016? Social media and demographics. The mainstream media is in a dilemma. If they reflect only the views of the establishment leadership they will concede legitimacy to the social media. The millennial population also refuses to buy into money politics and show remarkable independence untainted by the strong lobbying efforts of the Wall Street institutions. The establishment leadership is in a quandary. It is difficult to defend a system where 1% of the people have been able to accumulate great wealth legitimately. But can they truly act for the interests of the majority who elected them when they are funded by the 1% who are gaining disproportionately in the new economy?

It is hysterical to believe that a group of discredited politicians in the GOP can put up a better candidate and expect Republicans to support their candidate in the general election. Trump got to be the front-runner because he has the support of millions more than his rivals and not because of a flaw in the system. The other candidates represent all that is abhorrent in the Old Order. Ted Cruz hopes to win because he is less disliked than Trump. There is an inherent flaw in the logic by electing a President who does not have a mandate but because he is less unpopular than the alternative. John Kasich is delusional to believe that an arcane rule of the GOP will give him legitimacy to win the nomination and he would be electable in the general election. Kasich will be a far greater disaster than Trump as the President because he is so blind sided by his personal ambition that he cannot think rationally. It will destroy the spirit of democracy in America and perpetuate the belief that the system is stacked in favor of vested interests. Trump is where he is because compared to the politicians he is seen as a real person regardless of his many shortcomings. It is a statement of the low standing of establishment politicians than high regard for Trump.

The Democratic race appears more civil but only on the surface. The undercurrents are just as strong. It is analogous to the competition between a start-up and a successful company. The successful company fails to see that the market has changed and does not offer a compelling value proposition. The initial reaction is to ignore but as the noise gets louder it says the right things. But real change will hurt it’s interests. It is only truly willing to change when the competition is too strong to ignore. But by then it lacks credibility. Bernie Sanders represents the start up company. He may not be the most talented candidate but he represents the sentiment of many Americans who feel that they have been taken in by politicians working in cahoots with the 1%. This might not be the moment for Sanders but the movement he started will not disappear. Hillary Clinton is the standard-bearer for the Old Order while Sanders or whoever may take the mantle from him represent the evolving future of American politics. The issues that have been festering for such a long time and boiled over in the 2016 elections will not disappear. The next American President must take heed and cannot repeat the mantra after the elections that old jobs will be replaced by better jobs and free trade benefits all nations when many feel the pain of losing jobs and see even greater inequality of income. It is clear that if the widening gap in American society is not reduced in the ensuing years the 2020 election will produce an even more surprising outcome for the leadership of both the Democratic and Republican parties.

The only real losers in this election are career politicians and frankly they should have seen it coming!