GE2011
This GE made me rethink a lot of issues, not only about the opposition and PAP, but also about the voters. I'm pretty impressed by the lineup of the opposition this time round, yet I think the sentiment can be a bit misleading or even confusing at times.
There are several terms which I think the world is sprouting that are not immediately obvious and necessarily true. The first is the term 'First World Parliament', as sprouted by the WP. It may be true that having a 'co-driver' will help to slap the driver when the driver falls asleep, but what makes them so sure that the 'co-driver' will not fall asleep together with the driver? I take issue with this because from what I have sensed in the new media, it seems that the generally accepted definition of a FWP is that with a strong opposition. But is it immediately obvious? This is a democracy. People vote with their pens and signal with their votes. I asked the question, if the PAP wins all 87 seats, is it still a FWP? AEV (refer to my previous posts) will forever deny that it is not, but the people have voted. To me, rather than such a narrow definition, I would see a FWP as one which is truly voted in by the people, regardless whether there is opposition or not.
Next is this term 'true Singaporeans' that was sprouted by Lina Chiam, which pissed me off. How on earth does she define 'true Singaporean'? So a true Singaporean is one who vote for the opposition? By what standard does that mean a true Singaporean? Does that mean that if I vote for PAP, I am not a true Singapoeran,after serving NS and doing all those things for the nation? I think Lina Chiam is therefore greatly mistaken. A true Singaporean is one who is willing to lay aside his interest and be willing to work for the nation, making sure that the nation ticks. This is a true Singaporean and I think this is regardless whether that person voted for PAP or opposition.
I think the term 'alternative voices' is a highly overrated term in a democracy. I have read blogs which ask voters to vote in opposition for the sake of having alternative voices and opposition in the parliament. But may I ask this question, which law on earth states that a democracy needs to have opposition or alternative voices in the parliament? If there is one, it is again not an immediately obvious one and one that is truly defined by man. I shall not dwell too much on this issue but I believe we should all reconsider what we really mean by all these terms.
A lot of people (PAP inclusive) are also sprouting this term 'vote wisely' and 'vote for the future'. I seriously think that while we are voting for the government which will govern Singapore for the next 5 years, the different parties seem to have this idea from their perspective that voting wisely means voting for them, a highly inadequate definition. My favourite assessment again: not immediately obvious. If people can really think through what is at stake and are willing to take the step of faith, I think their vote should be respected regardless whether they vote for PAP or the opposition.
Of course, halfway into this GE, I have come to believe that some people (the AEVs) are volitionally ready to vote against the incumbent government for the sake of voting against them. And a lot of people are sprouting the idea that it is good to vote for the opposition. This is where I think I'm most worried about. Give Singapore a few more years, and I am sure that the opposition can start challenging for government seriously. But the question is the conditions of the voters. Some are like pure atheists, who insist that God does not exist, and keep asserting claims like such without really examining the evidences for their claims. A lot of time, it even seems that it is out of their self-interest that they decide to cast such anti-establishment votes. Today, if a freak election result happens, then I need to ask myself, is it the quality of the candidates, or is it the volitional will of the voters? Is it a rational vote? Or is it an emotional vote, without really thinking what is at stake? To that end, it is where I fear for the future of the nation. Equally frightening is the fact that opposition candidates can switch parties as and when they like, therefore I cannot be sure what these people really represent, Singaporeans or their self-interest and complaints?
A lot remains to be said but I'm running out of time. Akan datang, I may say more but look out for my comments on facebook instead.
There are several terms which I think the world is sprouting that are not immediately obvious and necessarily true. The first is the term 'First World Parliament', as sprouted by the WP. It may be true that having a 'co-driver' will help to slap the driver when the driver falls asleep, but what makes them so sure that the 'co-driver' will not fall asleep together with the driver? I take issue with this because from what I have sensed in the new media, it seems that the generally accepted definition of a FWP is that with a strong opposition. But is it immediately obvious? This is a democracy. People vote with their pens and signal with their votes. I asked the question, if the PAP wins all 87 seats, is it still a FWP? AEV (refer to my previous posts) will forever deny that it is not, but the people have voted. To me, rather than such a narrow definition, I would see a FWP as one which is truly voted in by the people, regardless whether there is opposition or not.
Next is this term 'true Singaporeans' that was sprouted by Lina Chiam, which pissed me off. How on earth does she define 'true Singaporean'? So a true Singaporean is one who vote for the opposition? By what standard does that mean a true Singaporean? Does that mean that if I vote for PAP, I am not a true Singapoeran,after serving NS and doing all those things for the nation? I think Lina Chiam is therefore greatly mistaken. A true Singaporean is one who is willing to lay aside his interest and be willing to work for the nation, making sure that the nation ticks. This is a true Singaporean and I think this is regardless whether that person voted for PAP or opposition.
I think the term 'alternative voices' is a highly overrated term in a democracy. I have read blogs which ask voters to vote in opposition for the sake of having alternative voices and opposition in the parliament. But may I ask this question, which law on earth states that a democracy needs to have opposition or alternative voices in the parliament? If there is one, it is again not an immediately obvious one and one that is truly defined by man. I shall not dwell too much on this issue but I believe we should all reconsider what we really mean by all these terms.
A lot of people (PAP inclusive) are also sprouting this term 'vote wisely' and 'vote for the future'. I seriously think that while we are voting for the government which will govern Singapore for the next 5 years, the different parties seem to have this idea from their perspective that voting wisely means voting for them, a highly inadequate definition. My favourite assessment again: not immediately obvious. If people can really think through what is at stake and are willing to take the step of faith, I think their vote should be respected regardless whether they vote for PAP or the opposition.
Of course, halfway into this GE, I have come to believe that some people (the AEVs) are volitionally ready to vote against the incumbent government for the sake of voting against them. And a lot of people are sprouting the idea that it is good to vote for the opposition. This is where I think I'm most worried about. Give Singapore a few more years, and I am sure that the opposition can start challenging for government seriously. But the question is the conditions of the voters. Some are like pure atheists, who insist that God does not exist, and keep asserting claims like such without really examining the evidences for their claims. A lot of time, it even seems that it is out of their self-interest that they decide to cast such anti-establishment votes. Today, if a freak election result happens, then I need to ask myself, is it the quality of the candidates, or is it the volitional will of the voters? Is it a rational vote? Or is it an emotional vote, without really thinking what is at stake? To that end, it is where I fear for the future of the nation. Equally frightening is the fact that opposition candidates can switch parties as and when they like, therefore I cannot be sure what these people really represent, Singaporeans or their self-interest and complaints?
A lot remains to be said but I'm running out of time. Akan datang, I may say more but look out for my comments on facebook instead.
Comments
Post a Comment