Fear No More
by Dr Ang Yong Guan
(Extracted from a book A Nation Awakes: Frontline Reflections 2011)
“Politics can withstand a lot of apathy;
indeed when the
normally apathetic person suddenly becomes
greatly interested
in political questions, it is often a sign
of danger.”
~
Bernard Crick, In Defence of Politics.1
Soon
after the 2011 General Election (GE2011), whenever I met friends and former
classmates, most of them would congratulate me for standing as a candidate in
the watershed general election. Many of them would go on to remark: “You are a
retired SAF colonel and ex-grassroots leader and doing fine in private practice
as a psychiatrist. There is no reason for you to come forward unless you sense
something is fundamentally wrong with the present PAP (People’s Action Party).”
Yes,
these friends are right. Why would I, having spent 23 years with the SAF and
more than 15 years in grassroots work, have bothered to step forward if I
didn’t see something was amiss (in spite of the feedback I had given to them
over the years) and feel strongly the need to prevent the stifling political
situation from worsening?
When
Jee Say had lunch with me on 6 March 2011 to share his 45-page economic
regeneration paper and his dissatisfaction with the way the PAP government was
handling the economy and managing the nation, he disclosed his interest in
taking part in GE2011. He wanted to walk the talk, to translate some of his
ideas into action, and asked if I would like to join him. He said he would
focus on economic issues while I concentrate on the psychological and social
impact of economic policies on Singaporeans. I told him that I was interested
but would like to have a bit more time to mull over it.
A
Prophetic Dream?
That
night I had a dream which I shared with him and some close friends the next
day. “It was a packed auditorium. All were seated as usual. The space between
the first row and the stage was filled with wounded people on wheelchairs and
stretchers. I was one of them lying on a stretcher. On stage was our first
Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew delivering a speech. Halfway through, he suddenly
said “regrets, regrets, regrets” three times and started to tear as well. Then
he paused. Everybody expected him to walk out through the back of the stage.
But he closed his file and climbed down the steps and walked down the central
aisle out of the auditorium. There was no applause, just dead silence as the
audience was visibly stunned. As soon as Mr Lee left the auditorium, I got up
and when the nurse nearby asked whether I needed assistance, I said no and with
my arms up in the air, I remarked: “I am free! I am free!”
This
dream was prophetic on many counts; most of it came true two months later.
Throughout the nine-day GE2011 campaign, words like “repent” and “we are
sorry”, were used, and tears were shed by some PAP candidates and soon after
the election, Mr Lee, who personified the PAP, stepped down from the cabinet
and left its Central Executive Committee.
What
was more poignant about the dream was that those who were in wheelchairs and
stretchers were mostly psychologically wounded, and as soon as Mr Lee walked
out, the sense of being free from fear was palpably felt.
Community
Work
Jee
Say and I were schoolmates at Raffles Institution. He was one year my senior
and we were editors of the school newspaper Rafflesian Times in consecutive
years. We have always been interested in politics since our school days. After
I returned from my overseas post-graduate psychiatric studies in Edinburgh,
Scotland in 1986, we met frequently together with other like-minded Rafflesians
to discuss the nation’s affairs.
It was in fact Jee Say who introduced me to
ex-minister George Yeo in 1988 and I had the opportunity to work with Mr Yeo to
serve residents of Kembangan (and Aljunied Group Representation Constituency) as a community leader
from 1988 to 2004. At the height of my community involvement, I was appointed
Chairman of the Punggol Community Club and Secretary of the Kampong Kembangan Citizens’
Consultative Committee. I have had no regrets devoting time and effort to help
the residents. I see doing community work as a meaningful activity which allows
me to repay the nation what it has given me.
Old Versus
New PAP
The
old service-driven, people-connected PAP was able to deliver and people did not
mind the tough policies it implemented. Singaporeans were prepared to tolerate
living in a nation that is largely apolitical but economically vibrant. “The
PAP began as a multiracial grassroots party. Its largely English-educated
leadership was supported by the ordinary man in the street, clerks, postmen,
technicians, small businessmen, carpenters and barbers. Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his
cabinet colleagues were seen by the electorate as selfless men, sacrificing
promising careers for an uncertain future in politics,” said former Permanent
Secretary and Head of the Civil Service Mr Ngiam Tong Dow.2
The
emergence of the new PAP in recent years, driven by profits, obsessed with
economic growth and disconnected from the people, has led to complacency at the
top and anger and a sense of helplessness on the ground. Since the announcement
of paying ministers hefty salaries based on prevailing market rates and the
implementation of several policies which showed lack of consultation with the
people, I began to observe a distancing of the PAP government from the people
and the emergence of an unhealthy climate of complacency within its ranks.
“When the gap between the highest and the lowest paid is excessive, the rank
and file become disgruntled. Insolence sets in. Morale goes down,” added Mr
Ngiam.3
The
situation got worse after the 2006 General Election as political leadership
with clear values and direction seemed to be absent. It was more of the same: a
pragmatic, legalistic, paternalistic and economically-driven leadership lacking
in ability to feel and connect with its people. The PAP’s brand of pragmatism
is sometimes carried to the extreme to the point that when it formulates
policies, the end often justifies the means. The dictum seemed to be: “Never
mind how we do it, just get it done; never mind the process, just focus on the
outcome.”
My First
Brush With The Government
One
example of pragmatism was the medical bond issue in 1978. The problem then was
that there were not enough doctors in public hospitals. The PAP government’s
solution in 1978 was to bond all new medical students for five years to serve
in government hospitals upon graduation. If the bond was broken, the penalty
then was $81,000. These new students came in with their eyes open and they
could opt to do another course if they were not keen to sign the bond.
Meanwhile, all existing second-year to fifth-year medical students were told
that they too had to serve in government hospitals from one to four years
(depending on their year of study) and had to sign a similar bond, with a
$81,000 penalty in cases of default, regardless of the duration of their bonds.
This is an example of how the end justifies the means: never mind how the
existing medical students feel, just bond them because we need them to serve in
government hospitals and forget about paying an equitable amount (just impose a
flat penalty for all existing second-year to fifth- year students!).4
The
principle that one could not bond students in mid-stream was ignored, and to
have a flat rate of liquidated damages regardless of the bond duration was
grossly unfair. Of course, we did not take the whole issue sitting down. The
existing medical students, led by the final years, challenged the government
for 88 days and managed to make the compulsory bond an option because we
presented an alternative: a Declaration of Intent to serve in government
hospitals without having a bond of $81,000 hovering over our heads which, in
the first place, was not there when we first joined medical school.
That was my
first brush with the PAP government. I was the final-year class representative
who led a delegation to see the then-Health Minister Dr Toh Chin Chye, a
meeting which lasted nearly two hours before he finally accepted our
Declaration of Intent as an option. I knew from that encounter, as long as we
are truthful, clear and principled, we should have no fears.
For
the sake of pragmatism, values had been relegated by the government to second
place. This is just one example of the ends justifying the means. I am sure you
can think of many more.
Lack Of
Inter-Ministry Coordination
Besides
pragmatism, there seems to be a lack of inter-ministry coordination. The
impression created is that one ministry does not seem to know or does not seem
to care what other ministries are doing. For instance, the Electronic Road
Pricing (ERP) gantry at Central Expressway (CTE) for homebound vehicles was in
operation until 10.30 pm, which defied common sense–why tax Singaporeans for
going home before 10.30 pm? What message is being conveyed by having such a
policy? The Ministry of Transport failed to
see the psychological and social consequences of such an illogical timing and
how it impacted on the ideals of work-life balance and family cohesion actively
promoted by the Ministry of Community, Youth and Sports.
I raised this ERP
issue during the election campaign5 and am glad that recently the authorities
shortened the operating hours of the CTE’s ERP gantry to end earlier at 8.00
pm.
This
is just a simple example to illustrate the disregard of the impact of policies
on Singaporeans. It also shows complacency at the top as civil servants and
ministers cease to think deeper and question the illogicality of some policies
which may, on the surface, appear logical.
The
Mas Selamat escape was the biggest act of complacency that had tarnished the
image of our country. Some civil servants and highly-paid cabinet ministers had
become ineffectual. Jee Say had said during GE2011 that “the heavyweights have
become lightweights”.
One
Central Message
Throughout
my nine days of campaigning, my central message was: “Complacency at the top,
helplessness on the ground”. In recent years, the PAP government had lost the
art of listening to and connecting with the ground. Grassroots leaders were
feeding what their PAP Members of Parliament (MPs) wanted to hear.
Singaporeans
felt that whatever they said did not matter; decisions had already been taken
and feedback was a mere perfunctory exercise. Alternative views on, for
instance, the influx of foreign workers, , the overpriced new HDB flats, the congested
public transport, issues of transparency (especially regarding our national
reserves) and accountability of government policies seemed to have fallen on
deaf ears.
In
the presence of an over-domineering, over-powerful, omnipresent and increasingly
complacent PAP government, Singaporeans felt more powerless and helpless. This
quickly led to suppressed resentment, as the channels for legitimate expression
were heavily controlled. The restless, especially amongst internet-savvy young
Singaporeans, turned to social media to vent their frustrations. It is no good
for a nation to have great economic growth, but its citizens feel helpless,
apathetic and unhappy.
One research scientist-turned-monk, Dr Matthieu Ricard,
said in a recent interview in Singapore: “If a country is rich and powerful but
everyone is unhappy, what’s the point?”6
Mr Ngiam also commented that “politics
is about winning the hearts and minds of the people. Trust is the cornerstone.
This election (GE2011) shows some chipping away of the trust that past
generations of Singaporeans had in the PAP. This was shown, for example, in the
way Aljunied voters did not heed the statements from senior PAP leaders warning
them against choosing the opposition,”7
During
the GE2011 campaign, I came across many Singaporeans who told me: “Forget about
the upgrading, the CPF top-up, the goodies the PAP is dangling in front of us;
they are not listening to us. We want to send more opposition members into
parliament to wake them up.”
Token
Opposition
The
PAP, which was in opposition in 1955 (occupying three out of twenty-five seats
under the Labour Front government), knows that having no opposition in
parliament is not good for the country; hence, it came out with several measures
including the NCMP (Non-Constituency Member of Parliament) and NMP (Nominated
Member of Parliament) schemes. But Singaporeans remain rather sceptical about
how effective such MPs without constituencies and no voting rights are in
influencing policies. In any case, how much can they,
being in the minority, do to bring about real change in policies?
In spite of
the PAP’s effort to have token opposition in parliament, the fear created in
the early 1960s, and intensified during the 13-year period of one-party rule
between 1968 and 1981, has already taken root in the minds of Singaporeans.
This fear was and still is made worse by the Internal Security Act. In fact, Dr
Catherine Lim, a political commentator for the past 17 years, opined that the
PAP’s “systematic use of fears as a strategy to silence critics was so
successful that it had become a permanent feature of the Singapore political
landscape.”8
Even
though the historic win by Mr J B Jeyaretnam in the Anson by-election in 1981
dented the PAP’s one-sided control and paved the way for victories in Potong
Pasir and Hougang by Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Khiang respectively in
subsequent years, the few opposition MPs (including the 4 opposition MPs in
1991) were mere drops in an ocean.
Although a minimum of more than one-third
opposition MPs is required to deny the PAP the two-thirds it needs to change
the constitution in parliament, a more substantial opposition presence of close
to half is necessary to ensure that the ruling party is ever mindful of having
good and right policies, lest it loses the majority at a subsequent election.
Even with its dominance in parliament, the PAP has always been hyper-vigilant
and is always on the look-out for potential threats to its hold on power. It
will not hesitate to get rid of such threats the moment it deems fit.
Direct
Fear of the PAP Government
Given
the PAP’s overpowering and ubiquitous presence in every stratum of society,
many Singaporeans have grown accustomed to its iron rule and its disapproval of
dissent. Parents would tell their children not to say anything against the PAP
government in case something unpleasant happens to the family. People avoided
expressing their political views openly, especially those touching on
controversial topics and critical of the PAP government.
The
presence of serial numbers on ballot papers worsened the fear because Singaporeans
felt the vote was not secret and the PAP government could trace who voted
against them. This fear was unfounded because many residents in Potong Pasir
and Hougang had repeatedly voted against the PAP and had not been adversely
affected. The positive side of having serial numbers is that it ensures the
authenticity of the ballot papers which are destroyed six months after each
general election, a process witnessed by representatives from the ruling and
opposition political parties. GE2011 ballot papers were destroyed on 12
November 2011.
In spite of these assurances, the fear remained because it arose
from a deeply-held perception (i.e. “no matter how you convinced me, I still
feel the vote is not secret”) in the minds of many Singaporeans, and as a
result they still dare not vote against the PAP.
Fear
is a conditioned response, developed as a result of learning.9 Fear has been
instilled in us for many decades by the PAP machinery propagating the belief
that a) Singapore is a small country, b) we do not have natural resources, c)
we cannot afford to make mistakes (one mistake and we are forever doomed), and
d) there is no place for a two-party system.
Singaporeans
have been conditioned to believe that if we don’t have the PAP to rule us,
Singapore will be worse off or may even perish. The perception that the PAP can
do no wrong and has the best brains to rule the nation has become entrenched in
the minds of Singaporeans. The PAP, Singaporeans are made to believe, has
combed through the nation to identify the best to be its candidates.
The
opposition candidates, on the other hand, are always depicted as second or
third rate, and that only unsuccessful Singaporeans with a personal axe to
grind would want to be associated with the opposition. Under such a perception,
anyone opposing the PAP is deemed to have done something wrong and must be
taken to task. Such fears of “opposing the PAP equals doing something wrong”
become entrenched in the minds of the citizens and get deeper with time.
Fear of
Government: Kia Zhenghu
Singaporeans
are already well known for being kiasu (a Hokkien term, now included in the
Oxford Dictionary, defined as “afraid of losing”). Added to this kiasuism is
the prevailing attitude of kia zhenghu (another Hokkien term which means “afraid
of government”). This kia zhenghu attitude is more prevalent amongst the older
generations who have witnessed how the nation went through turbulent times and
how the PAP government reacted to dissenting voices. The kia zhenghu attitude
further intensifies the climate of fear.
Fear of
PAP government-related agencies
Fear
can be generalised from one object to other similarly-related objects. If a
child is fearful of cats, he will also be fearful of any furry animals (such as
a small dog) that resemble cats.10 In our local political context, fear of the PAP
government is generalised to fear of other PAP-related agencies such as the
civil service (including the military and the police), the tightly controlled media,
the People’s Association and other statutory boards.
As an exgrassroots leader,
I realised that because of PAP’s dominance, Singaporeans have equated PAP to
Singapore. The line between the PAP government and People’s Association, and
between the PAP government and the civil service, has always been blurred. The
perception that PAP equals to Singapore was made even more pronounced during
the 13 years of one-party rule.
Indirect
Fear
Fear
can be acquired by observing others going through a traumatic incident. There
is no need to directly experience the trauma to feel the fear. Observing others
facing the incident and seeing the consequences is enough to induce fear.11 The
PAP government instils this form of indirect fear in the minds of Singaporeans
by periodically exposing certain individuals, especially those who are seen to
be a threat to the PAP, for wrongdoings and then suing them in courts. This
kind of indirectly acquired fear is in response to observing what happened to
others if they don’t toe the line. It is as strong as directly acquired fear.
To
further reinforce the siege mentality of Singaporeans, certain exercises in the
past, to expose certain individuals to be communists or to have Marxist
connections and then arresting them under the Internal Security Act without
trial, further intensified this climate of indirect fear. So far, as this is
being written, nobody has been arrested or sued after GE2011. This augurs well
for the political landscape of Singapore.
The Third
Fear
Against
a background of a climate of fear, some Singaporeans practise what I call
self-censorship by preempting what the PAP government would do in response to
certain scenarios or actions. They would automatically refrain from saying or
doing certain things for fear that the PAP government would react negatively
towards them. After GE2011, the media responses to me have been mixed. The
print media (i.e. two Chinese evening papers, the Straits Times and The New
Paper) and the radio stations (i.e. 93.8 FM and 95.8 FM) continue to interview
me on professional and political issues. It was a different story for TV news
and current affairs programmes, of which I used to be a regular guest and
interviewee. For at least seven months after the general election, the TV
stations stopped interviewing me.
For a moment, I thought I was going to be
proven wrong. One day, I received a phone call and an email from a producer inviting
me to appear on Channel 8’s Good Morning Singapore on 7 December 2011 to talk
about the topics of depression and schizophrenia. I was psychologically geared up
to be at the ‘live’ morning show but on the eve of the show, I suddenly received
a phone call to inform me that I was no longer required as they had decided to
change the topic to aesthethic medicine. I was naturally disappointed;
throughout my earlier association with the Good Morning Singapore show, I had
never encountered such last minute cancellations.
Out of curiosity, I tuned in
to Good Morning Singapore on 7 December 2011, only to find another psychiatrist
speaking on the same subjects of depression and schizophrenia. There was
nothing on aesthetic medicine. If this is yet another example of
self-censorship, then it has done more damage to the current PAP government
which has openly declared itself to be more inclusive and
tolerant
of diverse views.
GE1991:
PAP’s Loss of Four Seats
The
PAP had a scare in GE1991 when it lost four seats - three were won by the
Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) and one by the Workers’ Party (WP)- and
managed to get only 61% of the votes. This significant breakthrough by the
opposition in GE1991 was not carried through to the following elections in
1997. The PAP had, by then, reorganised itself and managed to regain the two
seats it had lost (securing 65% of the votes) and conceded only two seats to
the opposition.
I
hope GE2016 does not suffer the same fate as GE1997. The joy and euphoria
arising from the GE2011 results need to be translated into sustained enthusiasm
that will see us right up to the next general elections. We need to ride on the
psychological breakthrough achieved by the opposition winning a GRC for the
first time just as with the 1981 Anson breakthrough after 13 years of 100% PAP
rule. Mr Ngiam asserted that “the greatest value of the WP win in Aljunied is
that it breached a psychological barrier, giving a boost to the opposition and
its supporters”.12
The
momentum needs to continue. It is only natural for the PAP to take a good look
at itself and to study in depth the criticisms levelled at it during GE2011. The
opposition parties likewise need to consolidate and grow together for the
nation. New issues will crop up and we need to be ready to face them.
Emboldened
Electorate
We
are dealing with an emboldened electorate which is no longer cowed by the PAP.
Politics is coming of age in Singapore. GE2011 has contributed to it. Even Dr
Catherine Lim admitted that GE2011 proved her wrong. “But the climate of GE2011
was far from fearful. I saw to my amazement, in the days leading up to the
election, the emergence of a large group of young Singaporeans who were
articulate, confident and bold, speaking their minds freely, fearlessly, in the
mainstream and social media, and showing open, unabashed support for the
opposition.”13
The Director of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Mr K
Kesavapany, put it aptly: “The political assertiveness of citizens will need to
be recognised as an asset in the next phase of Singapore’s development.”14
Presidential
Election 2011
The
strength of the empowered electorate’s sentiments was put to the test three
months later on 27 August 2011 when it had to vote for Singapore’s seventh
president. Only 35% voted for Dr Tony Tan, the candidate unofficially endorsed
by the ruling PAP government. The remaining 65% showed no qualms in voting for
the other three candidates. One in four Singaporeans supported Tan Jee Say, a
man who was clearly identified with the opposition as he had contested in
GE2011 just three months earlier. This augurs well for Singapore as it shows
that Singaporeans dare to stand up and think for themselves and choose freely
without necessarily opting for the PAP-sanctioned choice.
I
would have preferred Dr Tony Tan, who represented the PAP elite, to have a
direct contest with Dr Tan Cheng Bock who embodied the values of the PAP
grassroots. If this had happened, it would have forced a split down the middle
for the ruling party and I am certain who the victor would have been. When this
did not happen and the other two Tans decided to have a go at it, I threw in my
lot to support Jee Say. I spoke in Mandarin and Hokkien at Jee Say’s rally at
Toa Payoh Sports Stadium on 23 August 2011.15
I
likened the elected president as sitting on the upper deck of a double-decker
bus with the prime minister as the driver and the leader of the opposition as
the co-driver. The elected president will not interfere with the day-to-day
running of the nation, which is the responsibility of the prime minister and
the cabinet. But whenever he deems fit, he will call the prime minister to the
upper deck to discuss certain issues that he feels is vital to the unity and
prosperity of the nation. I urged Singaporeans to vote Jee Say as he is the man
who has the ability to protect our national reserves, connect with the people
and unite the nation. To secure 25% of votes in a short space of nine days of
campaigning was indeed remarkable.
Mature
Politics
At
the SDP press conference on 22 April 2011 when I was introduced as a candidate,
I remarked that “taking part in politics here should be like playing a game of
soccer. The PAP in their white jersey and the opposition in their
multi-coloured jerseys thrashing it out in the field and when the game is over,
drinking coffee or sipping coke and shaking hands with each other, remaining
cordial and friendly. This is what I would call First World Politics”.16
Fear
has no place in mature politics. It is heartening to read in the press recently
that newly-elected WP MPs Pritam Singh and Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap were
playing alongside PAP MPs in a soccer match against a team of reporters from
Singapore Press Holdings and MediaCorp. Mr Singh told the press: “It’s
important not to get lost in partisan politics. We are all Singaporeans. We
have to be united.”17
There
is no doubt that the opposition sees itself as pro-Singapore and is ever ready
to provide constructive feedback to the government for the betterment of
Singaporeans. The ball is now in the PAP’s court. Having been so used to a
dominant position, it takes courage, humility and magnanimity to shift its
paradigm and consider the opposition as a patriotic force that will assist the
party to shape the nation. To talk about spending time fixing the opposition
will not be keeping with the current electoral mood.
When
Lord Peter Mandelson reflected on the Labour Party’s loss in the United Kingdom
after 13 years in power, he told the local media, on his visit to Singapore in
September 2011, that “the trick for any party long in office is to recognise
that with this power comes great responsibility. It must find ways to give away
more power to the people, rather take more power into itself ”.18
I
am glad that GE2011 has helped to remove a lot of the stigma associated with
opposition politics. Out of every ten MPs in the current parliament, one is an
opposition MP. As the climate of fear erodes further, it is my hope that the
ratio will improve further.
When Dr Vivian Balakrishnan (then Minister for Community,
Youth and Sports) was asked by the press about the trend of former civil
servants such as Jee Say and myself joining the opposition, his reply was: “I
think this is part of the natural evolution of the political scene. As people
become more educated and as people have more varied careers, you should expect
that more people may want to throw their hat with the opposition.”19 The day
when more successful Singaporeans readily step forward to join the opposition
to speak their minds without fear is the day Singapore politics has truly come
of age.
GE2011
saw the beginning of this fearless opening up and this trend, I firmly believe,
will continue. For the sake of future generations of Singaporeans, all of us
need to remove the fear – of associating with opposition parties and that the
vote is not secret – from our minds and elevate our politics to the highest
plane.
Politics
Is Civilising
Singaporeans
no longer need to have fear of getting involved in politics. In fact, GE2011
has proven that with the greater participation of more creditable opposition,
and once Singaporeans were given good choices, they truly could show their
political maturity. But in some quarters, the fear remains. We hope in the
coming GE2016 this fear will further be eroded.
For
Singaporeans who have been brought up in a climate of fear with a certain siege
mentally, let us take heed of the words of Bernard Crick: “Politics deserves
much praise. Politics is a preoccupation of free men, and its existence is a
test of freedom…. Politics, then, is civilising. It rescues mankind from the
morbid dilemmas in which the state is always seen as a ship threatened by a
hostile environment of cruel seas, and enables us, instead, to see the state as
a city settled on firm and fertile ground of mother earth.” 20
Fear
of the PAP government is no good for Singapore.
Fear
no more.
Notes:
1 Crick, Bernard, “In Defence of Politics”
(Pelikan, 1964), p152.
2 The Straits Times, “Winning back public
trust after GE”, 2 Jul 2011.
3 The Straits Times, “Winning back public
trust after GE”, 2 Jul 2011.
4 Tang Kok Foo and Ang Yong Guan, “Days of
our lives” (Singapore Medical Association News), Vol 43, No. 06 June 2011.
5 Ang Yong Guan talks about ERP at a GE2011
rally:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmH__HoZkvw&feature=player_embedded
6 The Sunday Times, “The mind can be wired
for happiness”, p52, 6 Nov 2011.
7 The Straits Times, “Winning back public
trust after GE”, 2 July 2011.
8 Lim, Catherine, “A Watershed Election,
Singapore’s GE2011” (Marshall Cavendish, 2011), p15.
9 M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones
(Eds.) “Handbook of emotions” (New York: The Guilford Press, 2000), pp.573–593.
10 Bracha, H. “Progress in
Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry”(2006) 30 (5):pp 827–853.
11 Bracha, H. “Progress in
Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry”(2006) 30 (5):pp 827–853.
12 The Straits Times, “Winning back public
trust after GE”, 2 July 2011.
13 Lim, Catherine, “A Watershed Election,
Singapore’s GE2011” (Marshall Cavendish, 2011), p15.
14 The Straits Times, “Redefining success
Singapore style”, 22 June 2011.
15 Ang Yong Guan spoke at Tan Jee Say’s
Presidential Election Rally:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toXaYH6DDwc
16 The Straits Times, “SDP unveils its
‘star’ candidates”, 23 April 2011.
17 The Straits Times, “Rivals in politics,
mates on football field”, 5 Nov 2011.
18 The Straits Times, “Diversity is the new
normal: Mandelson”, 22 September 2011.
19 The Straits Times, “Objection raised but
rivals stay cordial”, 28 April 2011.
20 Crick, Bernard, “In Defence of Politics”
(Pelikan, 1964), p152.
About the writer
Dr Ang Yong Guan is a psychiatrist in
private practice. He graduated from the National University of Singapore in
1979 and did his postgraduate training in psychiatry at the University of
Edinburgh between 1984 and 1986. He served as a psychiatrist with the Singapore
Armed Forces between 1986 and 2003, and retired, with the rank of Colonel, as Head of Psychological Care Centre,
Military Medicine Institute, SAF Medical Corps.
Dr Ang was the president of Singapore
Psychiatric Association (1997-1998); chairman of the Chapter of Psychiatrists,
Academy of Medicine (2001- 2003); and member of National Council on Problem Gambling
(2005 - 2011).
He is currently founder-chairman of Action
Group for Mental Illness (from 2004 to the present), a national advocacy group
championing for the mentally ill. He is a member of the Clinical Advisory
Committee for Chronic Disease Management Programme, Ministry of Health (from 2009
to the present); Member, Board of Visitors, Mental Health (Care &
Treatment) Act, Ministry of Health (2009 to the present) and Special Visitor,
Board of Visitors, Mental Capacity Act, MCYS (2009 to the present).
Dr Ang was awarded the Public Service Medal
in 1995 for community work and the Public Administration Medal in 1996 for military
services.
He contested, together with Mr Tan Jee Say,
Dr Vincent Wijeysingha and Ms Michelle Lee, under the SDP banner in the
Holland-Bukit Timah GRC in GE2011. The team polled 39.92% of the valid votes
cast, compared to the People’s Action Party’s 60.08%.
