Skepticism for Oppositions

Given Singapore's political environment, it is taken that PAP is currently attempting to maintain its own political hegemony while students all over the place, especially in NUS and NTU and whatever place, or even other people (God knows who they are) are arguing for a viable opposition in the government for check and balance. The common excuses are that single party rule is not good in the long term, that other countries strive as well with opposition, that whatever whatever whatever, no transparency, blah blah blah, that the PAP might become corrupted, blah blah blah, that the PAP is losing its hold, etc etc etc, whatever.

This is what I call the skepticism of the ruling party. And I dun see any basis for such arguments. Again I must emphasize that I'm not against these people and these views, but these views can better stand if provided with more evidences.

That's why I come out with my theory of opposition, called the Skepticism of the Oppositions. Shoot me if you want, but I am here today to shoot down the Oppositions (not entirely though).

Virtually it can be guaranteed that the quality of the Oppositions these days cannot be gauged by the crowd you see in the rallies, although I believe sometimes the points they raise in the rallies are quite relevant. However, I find it stupid to go to an Opposition rally and see the crowd and 'WOW, the Opposition got chance!!!' or 'WOW, I think the PAP is losing it'. Of course I'm not saying that everyone is saying that, but sometimes, it's just stupid to see that. I sincerely believe when the people make their votes, they make it quite clear who they want in their constituencies. In Hougang and Potong Pasir, it is clear that they wanted the opposition, that's fine. Before I carry on my argument, it has to be bear in mind that every country has its own systems, and Singapore is no exception. We cannot expect Singapore to adopt the same election policies and model from other countries.

However, their (the opposition) quality will still be critically questioned by me. Let's start with Chiam See Tong. It is undisputed that he is a great opposition who has held his own against the PAP leaders. However, in these years, it has been argued that he is way too old to continue holding on to Potong Pasir and he ought to groom a successor, which he didn't. My speculation based on last election's data, is that unless he grooms a successor, he will lose it and I believe he's losing it (so why bother about him). And furthermore, an Opposition party which depends on its G.S's face on its campaign posters wouldn't even deserve a mention in my list of opposition.

As for WP... still have much to be seen, although I must say that under the leadership of Low Thia Kiang an Sylvia Lim, it has potential. But let's just put it in this way, there is no evidence that a strong opposition would bring Singapore to a greater height, while there are plenty of evidence on the ground that suggests that allowing opposition to blossom would have allowed social de-cohesion. This is corroborated by the amount of progress in the country under a one-party rule. It remains to be much criticised about the viewpoint that what they have in other countries can be carbon-copied into the context of Singapore, and also the viewpoint that a western idea of governance and running a country is the best way of running.

This is an article that expresses skepticism for the push for an opposition in Singapore. It is by no mean a complete and comprehensive one, and also by no mean an article to put down the opposition and promote PAP hegemony. It is however written to challenge the skepticism for a one-party rule in Singapore, and to purposely debunk some people who view everything as an attempt of PAP to maintain hegemony.