Fixing the Opposition
I think I'm a bit too anti-opposition for my own good, but then, people want balancing voice, so I have decided to take on the task of the balancing voice amidst all the pro-opposition voice. Or should I say pro-WP and pro-Chiam voice?
Today I want to comment on this particular issue of snap election. I have heard comments that the PAP had been relatively unfair to the opposition, sometimes only allowing the campaigning period to be the bare minimum and not allowing the opposition to prepare for the election enough. Indeed, that has been the charge in 1963, and I dun think that had ever diminished over time. The main issue is that the PAP knows when's the election, and therefore will be prepared way beforehand to run the GE.
My disgust at such an argument is that people who make this argument dun understand the politics in Singapore. I would argue that politics in Singapore, or elections in Singapore, are won primarily by excellent grassroot relationship with the people. This has a few implications. Firstly, this means that shouting on the street and declaring that the government has cheated our money does not tend to work that well, as if people on the street are interested in broad issues. If the politician is unable to make sense for the people how broad issues affect their lives, they would most likely be disinterested. Likewise for smart people who go around proclaiming abstract democratic ideas... I had wanted to say 'shame on them' but then I decided that it's a bit too extreme. The more politically correct term for me to use on them is that they are simply too deluded by abstract theories that they had forgotten that it's people who are voting, not the books and articles they are reading. Ultimately, things have to be made sense to the people, abstract or not abstract.
This leads on to imply that an excellent groundwork is necessary to win the hearts and minds of the people. Through my observation and experience, I can safely say that this is not done during the election period, but throughout a long period of time. I would be willing to bet that in Hougang and Potong Pasir, the opposition had had an excellent groundwork with the people and had had excellent grassroot relationship with them. This I believe is not done in an overnight fashion.
This further leads on to the third implication. The process of running election does not start and ends with the election itself. What this means is that political parties should stop giving excuses that the government is trying to hold on to its hegemonic power and start getting to the ground and work. To put it in a simple example. I'm living in a SMC, which is supposed to be an area which the opposition stands the most chance of running. From the last election until now, I have yet seen any opposition in the area doing grassroot works here. Compare to the PAP who have been doing a lot of grassroot liaising with the people on the ground, getting ready for the next election. The worst excuse I can ever receive from this is that the grassroot here is too pro-PAP therefore not worth the opposition effort. I would shove the argument back to the mouth it comes from and say that it will take years but it doesn't mean you dun start now, even if the ward is smacked in the middle of a GRC.
That brings back to my point on a snap election. In that sense, all political parties which are serious in running election should be ready anytime to run an election cos the election never ends with the result of the poll. If you are not ready, then blame yourself and dun blame the government. My prescription for the opposition would be to stop printing newspapers and newsletter and gets the hands dirty and start working on the grassroot relationship.
Today I want to comment on this particular issue of snap election. I have heard comments that the PAP had been relatively unfair to the opposition, sometimes only allowing the campaigning period to be the bare minimum and not allowing the opposition to prepare for the election enough. Indeed, that has been the charge in 1963, and I dun think that had ever diminished over time. The main issue is that the PAP knows when's the election, and therefore will be prepared way beforehand to run the GE.
My disgust at such an argument is that people who make this argument dun understand the politics in Singapore. I would argue that politics in Singapore, or elections in Singapore, are won primarily by excellent grassroot relationship with the people. This has a few implications. Firstly, this means that shouting on the street and declaring that the government has cheated our money does not tend to work that well, as if people on the street are interested in broad issues. If the politician is unable to make sense for the people how broad issues affect their lives, they would most likely be disinterested. Likewise for smart people who go around proclaiming abstract democratic ideas... I had wanted to say 'shame on them' but then I decided that it's a bit too extreme. The more politically correct term for me to use on them is that they are simply too deluded by abstract theories that they had forgotten that it's people who are voting, not the books and articles they are reading. Ultimately, things have to be made sense to the people, abstract or not abstract.
This leads on to imply that an excellent groundwork is necessary to win the hearts and minds of the people. Through my observation and experience, I can safely say that this is not done during the election period, but throughout a long period of time. I would be willing to bet that in Hougang and Potong Pasir, the opposition had had an excellent groundwork with the people and had had excellent grassroot relationship with them. This I believe is not done in an overnight fashion.
This further leads on to the third implication. The process of running election does not start and ends with the election itself. What this means is that political parties should stop giving excuses that the government is trying to hold on to its hegemonic power and start getting to the ground and work. To put it in a simple example. I'm living in a SMC, which is supposed to be an area which the opposition stands the most chance of running. From the last election until now, I have yet seen any opposition in the area doing grassroot works here. Compare to the PAP who have been doing a lot of grassroot liaising with the people on the ground, getting ready for the next election. The worst excuse I can ever receive from this is that the grassroot here is too pro-PAP therefore not worth the opposition effort. I would shove the argument back to the mouth it comes from and say that it will take years but it doesn't mean you dun start now, even if the ward is smacked in the middle of a GRC.
That brings back to my point on a snap election. In that sense, all political parties which are serious in running election should be ready anytime to run an election cos the election never ends with the result of the poll. If you are not ready, then blame yourself and dun blame the government. My prescription for the opposition would be to stop printing newspapers and newsletter and gets the hands dirty and start working on the grassroot relationship.
Comments
Post a Comment