When considering who to vote for, please ask youselves these questions and answer them as rationally and as sincerely as you can.
1. Is a monopoly in government sustainable? It has probably worked in the past, but will it work in the future? Will the government, perhaps, change the constitution such that elections are now only held every 10 years? Would one day the goverment will only award lucrative government projects to government linked corporations? Or that dissidents are locked up in prison? Or that minister salaries will now be pegged to 2x the salary of the highest paid resident in Singapore?
2. Ask yourself who you trust more, one who has to fight and contest for a seat, or one who sails into paliarment on the back of connections, good luck or good grades?
3. Who really runs the day-to-day of the country and works on policy proposals and other documents? Our MPs or our civil service? Are our MPs really that indispensible?
4. And finally the most important question in my opinion. Please think of the future. Not just of the next five years, but of the next 10, 20, or even 50 years from now. Will you be short-changing yourself for an upgraded flat in the next five years, and giving up a balanced government in the further future?
Think carefully people, and do the right thing.
Monday, May 02, 2011
Saturday, April 30, 2011
My views on Singapore General Elections 2011
Being a blog post (as opposed to an article on the straits times or the online citizen), I have no need to appear unbiased. So I will start off with some pro-PAP arguments and try to debunk them with my, hopefully rational, reasoning.
"There will be political gridlock, similar to whats happening in America, if the opposition wins a few seats."
Yawning Bread refutes this with a very well written and detailed post. If you're lazy, the gist of that post is that outcome is very unlikely. In my opinion though, even when there is true democracy in Singapore, comparing what might happen here to what is happening in America is a little inaccurate. Its like if I compare the current one-party state system to Cuba or Syria.
"I only see opposition candidates around during election time"
I can just as easily say, I only see PAP candidates around during election time. Notice how as election draws nearer you see more and more photos of MPs with babies in their arms, or smiling and shaking hands with residents at hawker stalls, or say five of them lining up for a ceremonial ground-breaking event?
Also, give the opposition a chance. They dont have the mainstream media to rely on. If they are not MPs, how else would you hear about them? Also, rallies are illegal until only during the campaigning period. And then there are other laws regulating crowds. Being so suppressed, is it any wonder that many people are unaware of the opposition? An analogy to this is like having your throat cut and then being accused of not being able to speak up.
"PAP means stability"
I agree with the general concensus that Singapore is stable. However, that doesn't mean we cannot make it better. Going along with PAP and its one party system may have been good in the past and for the future, but who knows what the future may be if we have a viable opposition? I would argue, in fact, that competition in politics always good for the populace, just as consumers benefit from competition in the economy.
"Singapore will fail if the oppposition runs the country"
We need to be very aware that the civil service is separate from the government (currently the PAP). All the staff that are running the various ministries would still turn up for work. The police, healthcare, transport etc that are currently running will continue to run. My friends who are civil servants will still continue serving the nation. Maybe in the longer term, the opposition may impose some policies that are unfavourable to the country, but what check is there that the PAP will not do the same?
"The PAP is doing a good job so far"
The UBS report that many people have been refering to has Singapore having a purchasing power of 33.3% of New York. I know some Malaysian friends complaining that KL has a purchasing power of 33.8% (which is still higher than us). Singapore is an expensive place to live as well - we are ranked 12th in the world in that same report (90%), below London(91%), New York (100%) and Tokyo (105%), but above HK (80%), Paris (89%), Rome (83%) and of course, KL (48%). So while we do have comfortable employment levels, decent healthcare and transport, we need to keep in mind that we are in continuous competition with the rest of the world and we should not be content with the current standards. Besides, we are looking for improvement, not stagnation.
"One party democracy works well"
To me, one party democracy is an oxymoron. Democracy implies choice for the people. No choices, no democracy. Googling "one party democracy" returns the results "single party state" instead. The list of these states includes China, Cuba, North Korea, Syria. I suppose we are not looking forward to have a government like these countries. Again, the point is that we need to build a check on the current government - as the risk is that it is so easy for the government to turn bad. To be honest, I was quite disappointed reading what PM Lee said in the NUS forum, that we cannot afford to have two parties. I was thinking then, whats the point of the election then? Why do they even bother giving us the opportunity to vote? Should we just be content and leave the decision making to the pros?
"The PAP has the resources to best serve the nation."
These resources belong to the nation, the government (which can be run by different political parties), but definitely not the PAP. The PAP has implemented hdb upgrading projects in PAP wards, but this is national money, not PAP money. Any party in power should have access to the same resources as the PAP, including government scholars whether currently studying or serving their bond.
"All opposition candidates are the same."
Like how Tin Peh Ling is different from Chan Chun Sing, Nicole Seah is different from Chen Show Mao. There may be some opposition candidates who are just anti-PAP, but there are some who are of high caliber and genuine intent.
"What is the agenda of these opposition members, some of whom are so young and on paper, looks so unqualified?"
What could their agenda be? Imagine a candidate running for the opposition. What are some of the obstacles he would face? First he would have to convince his family and friends that is ok to run for the opposition. Then he has to contend with an uphill battle with all the odds stacked against him. And then he has to deal with questions on his agenda? What could it be? If he wanted a route into paliarment, or if he was after the money, or if he was after the fame, he would have joined the PAP. Who would you rather trust is in it for the good of the country - one person who is guaranteed a seat, or one who has to fight for it? Remember Lee Kuan Yew was also in his youth, fighting for a seat against the ruling party.
Other observations that no PAP supporter can refute convincingly.
- Gerrymandering. This is painfully obvious and wrong but as its been done in the past and in other countries, do we accept it as the norm?
- Elections department under the prime minsters office. Surely the elections department has to be outside the jurisdiction of any political influence?
- Linking votes to upgrading programmes. As Pritam Singh mentions, this is despicable as it divides Singaporeans. We all pay the same taxes, we all serve the same national service. Why are some discriminated against based on their constituency or their voting preferences?
- Heavily influenced mainstream media. I don't like the temasek review either, but I do think the online citizen is a viable alternative, and gets you thinking.
- The opposition has arguably already made our lives better. Look at the growth and share giveaways. Look at the upgrading projects. Without the opposition, would you think we would have got these benefits by the PAP in an effort to woo the voters?
"There will be political gridlock, similar to whats happening in America, if the opposition wins a few seats."
Yawning Bread refutes this with a very well written and detailed post. If you're lazy, the gist of that post is that outcome is very unlikely. In my opinion though, even when there is true democracy in Singapore, comparing what might happen here to what is happening in America is a little inaccurate. Its like if I compare the current one-party state system to Cuba or Syria.
"I only see opposition candidates around during election time"
I can just as easily say, I only see PAP candidates around during election time. Notice how as election draws nearer you see more and more photos of MPs with babies in their arms, or smiling and shaking hands with residents at hawker stalls, or say five of them lining up for a ceremonial ground-breaking event?
Also, give the opposition a chance. They dont have the mainstream media to rely on. If they are not MPs, how else would you hear about them? Also, rallies are illegal until only during the campaigning period. And then there are other laws regulating crowds. Being so suppressed, is it any wonder that many people are unaware of the opposition? An analogy to this is like having your throat cut and then being accused of not being able to speak up.
"PAP means stability"
I agree with the general concensus that Singapore is stable. However, that doesn't mean we cannot make it better. Going along with PAP and its one party system may have been good in the past and for the future, but who knows what the future may be if we have a viable opposition? I would argue, in fact, that competition in politics always good for the populace, just as consumers benefit from competition in the economy.
"Singapore will fail if the oppposition runs the country"
We need to be very aware that the civil service is separate from the government (currently the PAP). All the staff that are running the various ministries would still turn up for work. The police, healthcare, transport etc that are currently running will continue to run. My friends who are civil servants will still continue serving the nation. Maybe in the longer term, the opposition may impose some policies that are unfavourable to the country, but what check is there that the PAP will not do the same?
"The PAP is doing a good job so far"
The UBS report that many people have been refering to has Singapore having a purchasing power of 33.3% of New York. I know some Malaysian friends complaining that KL has a purchasing power of 33.8% (which is still higher than us). Singapore is an expensive place to live as well - we are ranked 12th in the world in that same report (90%), below London(91%), New York (100%) and Tokyo (105%), but above HK (80%), Paris (89%), Rome (83%) and of course, KL (48%). So while we do have comfortable employment levels, decent healthcare and transport, we need to keep in mind that we are in continuous competition with the rest of the world and we should not be content with the current standards. Besides, we are looking for improvement, not stagnation.
"One party democracy works well"
To me, one party democracy is an oxymoron. Democracy implies choice for the people. No choices, no democracy. Googling "one party democracy" returns the results "single party state" instead. The list of these states includes China, Cuba, North Korea, Syria. I suppose we are not looking forward to have a government like these countries. Again, the point is that we need to build a check on the current government - as the risk is that it is so easy for the government to turn bad. To be honest, I was quite disappointed reading what PM Lee said in the NUS forum, that we cannot afford to have two parties. I was thinking then, whats the point of the election then? Why do they even bother giving us the opportunity to vote? Should we just be content and leave the decision making to the pros?
"The PAP has the resources to best serve the nation."
These resources belong to the nation, the government (which can be run by different political parties), but definitely not the PAP. The PAP has implemented hdb upgrading projects in PAP wards, but this is national money, not PAP money. Any party in power should have access to the same resources as the PAP, including government scholars whether currently studying or serving their bond.
"All opposition candidates are the same."
Like how Tin Peh Ling is different from Chan Chun Sing, Nicole Seah is different from Chen Show Mao. There may be some opposition candidates who are just anti-PAP, but there are some who are of high caliber and genuine intent.
"What is the agenda of these opposition members, some of whom are so young and on paper, looks so unqualified?"
What could their agenda be? Imagine a candidate running for the opposition. What are some of the obstacles he would face? First he would have to convince his family and friends that is ok to run for the opposition. Then he has to contend with an uphill battle with all the odds stacked against him. And then he has to deal with questions on his agenda? What could it be? If he wanted a route into paliarment, or if he was after the money, or if he was after the fame, he would have joined the PAP. Who would you rather trust is in it for the good of the country - one person who is guaranteed a seat, or one who has to fight for it? Remember Lee Kuan Yew was also in his youth, fighting for a seat against the ruling party.
Other observations that no PAP supporter can refute convincingly.
- Gerrymandering. This is painfully obvious and wrong but as its been done in the past and in other countries, do we accept it as the norm?
- Elections department under the prime minsters office. Surely the elections department has to be outside the jurisdiction of any political influence?
- Linking votes to upgrading programmes. As Pritam Singh mentions, this is despicable as it divides Singaporeans. We all pay the same taxes, we all serve the same national service. Why are some discriminated against based on their constituency or their voting preferences?
- Heavily influenced mainstream media. I don't like the temasek review either, but I do think the online citizen is a viable alternative, and gets you thinking.
- The opposition has arguably already made our lives better. Look at the growth and share giveaways. Look at the upgrading projects. Without the opposition, would you think we would have got these benefits by the PAP in an effort to woo the voters?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)