Why I felt disappointed, and why I almost always will vote for the Opposition
I felt disappointed at the recent GE results, but that feeling's gone now. Let me first explain why I felt disappointed. And then I'll tell you why I don't feel so now. I'll end off by giving a short account of why I almost always will vote for the Opposition.
I felt disappointed for 2 reasons. The first reason is that the opposition contesting Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, the constituency I'm in, had I think favorable chances of winning it. The SPP team had veteran opposition leader Chiam with them. If you went to a SPP rally, you will know he draws many supporters. I'm not sure if he would still draw in as many people 5 years later, if he is even contesting again. Voter resentment was probably at a good level too, with the Mas Selamat incident, widening income gap (encapsulated by the issue of ministerial pay), influx of foreigners and the high costs of living contributing. I'm not sure if the ground will be so sour come the next two elections. This was a good time for the SPP to take Bishan-Toa Payoh. They failed to do so, and I don't know if they will be able to come as close to 43% in the next 10 years.
The second reason is that the results show many people still support the PAP. Since I don't, the results show I'm not on the same wavelength as many people. I will go as far as to say this reflects a fundamental disconnect between me and the society I live in. Political views aren't like preferences for one's soccer team. I might like Arsenal for its style. And I might support Arsenal because I think style is an important aspect in soccer, more important than even wins. The fact that there are many people who disagree with this principle (and they can be supporters of Arsenal as well) doesn't depress me. The fact that so many people still so strongly support the PAP does. This will require some explanation of why I am pro-Opposition. I will cover that shortly.
I said that my disappointment has subsided already. This is because, aside from the momentary buzz during the GE period, I am politically apathetic in general. Why am I politically apathetic in general? Two reasons: the stakes I care about are not there, and because I feel the people had no say in the running of the country from the start. There was nothing to lose.
The first reason. I have never been interested in specific economic issues and policies concerning them. I don't really care what is the best way to raise the income of the poor. I don't really care how HDB units are priced. I don't care because I don't see myself as affected one way or the other.
One qualification and one remark are in order. First, when I say I don't care, I mean that I don't care about the means of policies. I do care at the principles involved. You can think of what I care about as the should/should-nots, not the hows. Should we help the poor? Why exactly? Should the prices of HDB units factor in the price of the land? I have opinions on these matters. When a party says something that goes against the spirit of my opinions, I care. Many debates don't, however, revolve over such concerns. For those debates, I don't care. Now, to be sure, opposition parties do question the principles behind various economic structures or policies the PAP endorses. At one of the opposition rallies (can't recall which already - I went to 3), the speaker questioned if our two public transport providers should be privately owned entities affiliated with Temasek. This is something I care. However, these are issues that are not usually picked up by mainstream voters, the mainstream media, and the PAP itself. Until these issues rise to the forefront of political debates, until there is a real possibility that change supported by my principles is about to come, I am really not deeply affected over which party wins in the end. The stakes that I truly care about are just not there.
That aside, people care about different things. I don't care about housing proposals because I don't envision myself buying a house for a long time. On the other hand, many people ostensibly don't care about the funding cut of Wild Rice Theatre by the National Arts Council. I don't see why not-caring one thing should be any more immature than the other.
The second reason is that the PAP has by and large been a technocratic government from the start, one that has over the decades set the agenda of what matters in politics and governance. Elections aside, it seems to me the common citizen has no substantive power over various big issues. Did you feel you had an influence over the setting up of casinos in Singapore? If the incumbent wishes to enhance the powers of the President do you think the people have any real influence over the matter? If the boundaries of various constituencies were to be redrawn next election, thus nullifying any grassroots work the opposition has done in those areas, do you think anything could be done? I don't want a technocratic government. But a technocratic government is such that if it were to form for a successive term, I would just feel like what I've been feeling in the previous term - nothing at all. It's back to my own private life.
Let me now give a brief account of why I will almost always vote for the Opposition. There is only one primary reason, and it is a simple one: I want Singapore to be something more than the PAP. PAP supporters will claim this is voting for the opposition for the sake of voting for the opposition.
I don't deny that. We should, however, look at the statement more closely. What exactly does it mean? I think a reasonable interpretation is this: that one has no positive and specific reason to support the Opposition, yet one still does so anyway, simply because one doesn't like the dominance of the PAP. Many pro-opposition voters are guilty of that. But I think at least some of the pro-PAP numbers are guilty of voting for the PAP just for the sake of voting for them as well. When asked why exactly they voted for the PAP, they probably can't give you a specific policy the PAP proposed. Nor, I doubt, can they even give a vague description of some of the core PAP values. They will just wave their hands and say: well, the PAP has got a strong track record so far, there's really no reason to vote for the Opposition. There's really no reason to rock the boat, so to speak. If this is right, at least some pro-PAP people vote for the PAP just for the sake of voting for the PAP. If voters are to be cautioned over voting for the opposition just for the sake of voting for the opposition, I think a caution should be issued on the side of the PAP as well.
I want Singapore to be something more than the PAP. Why is that so? Here I part ranks with many people sympathetic to the cause of the Opposition. Pro-opposition people, and opposition parties themselves, tend to cash out the vague idea in something more tangible. They say we need to have a credible alternative should the PAP one day stumbles. The Workers' Party says we need to get ourselves political insurance, or a co-driver. For these people, Singapore has to be something more than the PAP because of certain practical benefits - that Singapore can still continue functioning or even prospering if the PAP were one day not in charge. Or that the fusion of state and the PAP drives away many citizens, because they feel there is no one to represent their interests if the PAP doesn't.
I do sympathise with such concerns. In fact, I will probably cite these points in making my case to others. But I must say that I want Singapore to be something more than the PAP not for these reasons. I want Singapore to be something more than the PAP just for the sake of Singapore being something more than the PAP. What I'm going after is an ideal even loftier than that of having an alternative voice to represent citizens' interests. Because it's so lofty and vague, I can't give a precise notion of why I exactly I believe in this. What I can say to give you a rough idea is this: 50 years later, when I am 74 years old, my heart will be filled with pride when I look back and see how Singapore has shaked itself from the shadow of the PAP. Singapore has transcended the PAP. She proves to be something more, and that's all that matters to me.
I felt disappointed for 2 reasons. The first reason is that the opposition contesting Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, the constituency I'm in, had I think favorable chances of winning it. The SPP team had veteran opposition leader Chiam with them. If you went to a SPP rally, you will know he draws many supporters. I'm not sure if he would still draw in as many people 5 years later, if he is even contesting again. Voter resentment was probably at a good level too, with the Mas Selamat incident, widening income gap (encapsulated by the issue of ministerial pay), influx of foreigners and the high costs of living contributing. I'm not sure if the ground will be so sour come the next two elections. This was a good time for the SPP to take Bishan-Toa Payoh. They failed to do so, and I don't know if they will be able to come as close to 43% in the next 10 years.
The second reason is that the results show many people still support the PAP. Since I don't, the results show I'm not on the same wavelength as many people. I will go as far as to say this reflects a fundamental disconnect between me and the society I live in. Political views aren't like preferences for one's soccer team. I might like Arsenal for its style. And I might support Arsenal because I think style is an important aspect in soccer, more important than even wins. The fact that there are many people who disagree with this principle (and they can be supporters of Arsenal as well) doesn't depress me. The fact that so many people still so strongly support the PAP does. This will require some explanation of why I am pro-Opposition. I will cover that shortly.
I said that my disappointment has subsided already. This is because, aside from the momentary buzz during the GE period, I am politically apathetic in general. Why am I politically apathetic in general? Two reasons: the stakes I care about are not there, and because I feel the people had no say in the running of the country from the start. There was nothing to lose.
The first reason. I have never been interested in specific economic issues and policies concerning them. I don't really care what is the best way to raise the income of the poor. I don't really care how HDB units are priced. I don't care because I don't see myself as affected one way or the other.
One qualification and one remark are in order. First, when I say I don't care, I mean that I don't care about the means of policies. I do care at the principles involved. You can think of what I care about as the should/should-nots, not the hows. Should we help the poor? Why exactly? Should the prices of HDB units factor in the price of the land? I have opinions on these matters. When a party says something that goes against the spirit of my opinions, I care. Many debates don't, however, revolve over such concerns. For those debates, I don't care. Now, to be sure, opposition parties do question the principles behind various economic structures or policies the PAP endorses. At one of the opposition rallies (can't recall which already - I went to 3), the speaker questioned if our two public transport providers should be privately owned entities affiliated with Temasek. This is something I care. However, these are issues that are not usually picked up by mainstream voters, the mainstream media, and the PAP itself. Until these issues rise to the forefront of political debates, until there is a real possibility that change supported by my principles is about to come, I am really not deeply affected over which party wins in the end. The stakes that I truly care about are just not there.
That aside, people care about different things. I don't care about housing proposals because I don't envision myself buying a house for a long time. On the other hand, many people ostensibly don't care about the funding cut of Wild Rice Theatre by the National Arts Council. I don't see why not-caring one thing should be any more immature than the other.
The second reason is that the PAP has by and large been a technocratic government from the start, one that has over the decades set the agenda of what matters in politics and governance. Elections aside, it seems to me the common citizen has no substantive power over various big issues. Did you feel you had an influence over the setting up of casinos in Singapore? If the incumbent wishes to enhance the powers of the President do you think the people have any real influence over the matter? If the boundaries of various constituencies were to be redrawn next election, thus nullifying any grassroots work the opposition has done in those areas, do you think anything could be done? I don't want a technocratic government. But a technocratic government is such that if it were to form for a successive term, I would just feel like what I've been feeling in the previous term - nothing at all. It's back to my own private life.
Let me now give a brief account of why I will almost always vote for the Opposition. There is only one primary reason, and it is a simple one: I want Singapore to be something more than the PAP. PAP supporters will claim this is voting for the opposition for the sake of voting for the opposition.
I don't deny that. We should, however, look at the statement more closely. What exactly does it mean? I think a reasonable interpretation is this: that one has no positive and specific reason to support the Opposition, yet one still does so anyway, simply because one doesn't like the dominance of the PAP. Many pro-opposition voters are guilty of that. But I think at least some of the pro-PAP numbers are guilty of voting for the PAP just for the sake of voting for them as well. When asked why exactly they voted for the PAP, they probably can't give you a specific policy the PAP proposed. Nor, I doubt, can they even give a vague description of some of the core PAP values. They will just wave their hands and say: well, the PAP has got a strong track record so far, there's really no reason to vote for the Opposition. There's really no reason to rock the boat, so to speak. If this is right, at least some pro-PAP people vote for the PAP just for the sake of voting for the PAP. If voters are to be cautioned over voting for the opposition just for the sake of voting for the opposition, I think a caution should be issued on the side of the PAP as well.
I want Singapore to be something more than the PAP. Why is that so? Here I part ranks with many people sympathetic to the cause of the Opposition. Pro-opposition people, and opposition parties themselves, tend to cash out the vague idea in something more tangible. They say we need to have a credible alternative should the PAP one day stumbles. The Workers' Party says we need to get ourselves political insurance, or a co-driver. For these people, Singapore has to be something more than the PAP because of certain practical benefits - that Singapore can still continue functioning or even prospering if the PAP were one day not in charge. Or that the fusion of state and the PAP drives away many citizens, because they feel there is no one to represent their interests if the PAP doesn't.
I do sympathise with such concerns. In fact, I will probably cite these points in making my case to others. But I must say that I want Singapore to be something more than the PAP not for these reasons. I want Singapore to be something more than the PAP just for the sake of Singapore being something more than the PAP. What I'm going after is an ideal even loftier than that of having an alternative voice to represent citizens' interests. Because it's so lofty and vague, I can't give a precise notion of why I exactly I believe in this. What I can say to give you a rough idea is this: 50 years later, when I am 74 years old, my heart will be filled with pride when I look back and see how Singapore has shaked itself from the shadow of the PAP. Singapore has transcended the PAP. She proves to be something more, and that's all that matters to me.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home