I guess not managing my blog for a long long long time has its drawbacks. Made an elememtary error resulting in tjhan’s riuva not being linked properly. jh, its been fixed. 
In any case, I’m supposed to be leaving home now to meet yl, but first I need to pen down some thoughts churning in my head for quite some time, and it has got to do with the political scene in Singapore.
Lets talk about the one thing everyone is clamouring for: The need for more opposition.
1. “We need an opposition because an opposition provides alternative views to a policy.” Fair assessment. However, lets start with the macro aspects of having an opposition, a strong opposition to boot in a government. Lets look at say, Taiwan, where the so-called government is formed from a slight/no majority party. How many policies implemented are actually beneficial to the country? With a deadlocked parliament, party interests always take the fore so as to gain the high ground with supporters. The ideal of country first takes a back seat. On a micro level, look at our political scene. Alternative views and proposals? How often in parliament, have we seen alternative views from the 2 opposition party members? Point to note.
2. “The PAP is creating an unlevel playing field for the opposition.” GRCs, elaborate set of rules and regulations, clampdown on podcasting and blogging (hmmz will I get arrested for this), all these, the public members and opposition cry, are just ways the PAP are taking to ensure their continued power. I would like to know any country, where the ruling political party never tries to retain an advantage in the upcoming polls? Come on, get off it, in an election, only one thing matters: winning it. In any case, there are pretty strong grounds for the implementation of GRCs which cannot be ignored.
3. “If there are no contests, where is the mandate for the PAP from the people?” When a party wins an election via numerous walkovers, there are two ways to view it: a) The party is so popular no one dares to contest them; b) While the party may not be well-liked, the populace is generally satisfied with the policies, in addition, there are NO qualified opposition members they feel are deserving to form the next government. So, does it matter? If there indeed exists an opposition party whom the populace believes is better than the PAP, do you not think that the opposition will win?
Now, for my thoughts:
1. Singaporeans are dumb, generally. Why? Those who speak up are shallow in their thoughts. Lets look back to the dialogue session with MM Lee. What was the whole debate about? The need for an opposition. Is that the only thing on Singaporeans’ minds nowadays? Or are they too well taken cared of by the government? Where were all the questions on economic policys, foreign policies, plans for the future, PAP’s vision of Singapore 20-30 years down the road? Why CONCENTRATE ON OPPOSITION AND UPGRADING? I believe Singaporeans have all taken bread and butter issues like the economy and foreign policy for granted, after all upgrading and opposition are minute affairs compared to the above-mentioned issues. What is important for Singapore to have is an EFFECTIVE government, not a fair/democratic government. Would you care about the presence of an opposition in parliament if you have no house to stay in, or no money to pay your bills? On the other hand, there are intellectuals that definitely are well-aware of the political climate in Singapore, yet they choose to enjoy the fruits while keeping silent, choosing to let the PAP do the dirty job. So we have two types of people in the political scene: People who are dumb (in the brain), and people who are dumb (literally by not speaking up). The latter is also the main reason why the opposition is finding it hard to recruit good members to challenge the public. To all those clamouring for an effective opposition to the PAP; I say don’t just complain, step up, and contest the elections against the Goliath. Talk is easy, as always.
2. To the PAP: While there is claim that the party whip will not be imposed if the PAP does indeed sweep the elections, however, to date, I have not yet seen any party member contesting the election holding a view unique to himself. Seems that everyone is toeing the party line. As such, how am I to believe the PAP about the internal opposition? More convincing evidence is needed.
3. Politcal apathy/immaturity. A point I already touched on in point 1. Most post-65ers tend to take our current status for granted, choosing instead to focus on minor issues during an election. In addition, despite the MM’s claims that Singaporeans are not apathetic to the political scene, the fact that only the PAP and not the opposition being able to recruit “able” contestants already points to the fact that alot of Singaporeans do not really care. Yes, while of course the opposition’s recruiting policy is not faultless, however, if Singaporeans are that passionate about politics, I believe, many more would have taken the step forward and staked a claim, insteading of whining through the Straits Times forums etc. Immaturity refers to the lack of depth in thinking when discussing issues, evident from the dialogue session. I ahve to admit though, that the dialogue is not a fair representation of young Singaporeans, after all, look at the cross section of the people selected. All journalists/new presenters (people working in the amss media), except for 1 civil servant (institute of strategic studies, whom I think asked the better questions) and 2 undergrads (SMU, and again, not reflective. Where was NUS and NTU?). Where was the businessmen, the heartlanders, the high flyers, the low wage workers?
A long post….. I have to run now, its very late. I guess studying history and its associated skills have some use after all….
Post a Comment