The PAP’s campaign seems based around:
- Track record
- Misrepresenting opposition figures’ statements,
while on the other hand, the Opposition camps are high on:
- Popular discontent
- PAP-slamming.
But when i overhear conversations at rallies going like, “Actually we should just vote give XX party a chance la, not happy then vote them out next time lor”, and “I know i’m voting for XX party, I just don’t want PAP”, etc. People aren’t bought in by rhetorical assurance; they’re voting on the hope that something will change, not on any surety that the parties will fully deliver what they say they will now.
With regards to the Driver and the Co-driver analogy.. Personally I hated backseat drivers (They are irritating as hell in real life. :P) but in truth I’m not really concerned about that. I understand the need for a devil’s advocate (aka Co-driver) but I wonder if this election will have any bearing on it. I’m just worried that people are being illogical in their decisions. Just look around and see the contradictions in people’s arguments. They are so against the PAP (I have many friends in that mould) that they’ll happily choose the opposition and turn a blind eye to deficiencies of the opposition. (Please do not ask me to quote them, I’ve no obligations to do that)
Exercise your free will and power in choosing apples from apples. Enjoy your unpredictable environment by adding to its unpredictability, and have fun with a representative in parliament who will seemingly ignore you because he has to listen to another group of Singaporeans with more pressing needs.
Of course, I could be wrong. Anyone and everyone could be wrong, but I’ll still hold firmly to this opinion that choices are already made for us. Changing political leadership will hardly address the concerns at the moment other than on an entirely superficial level.
Btw, here’s an extract from a friend doing a Political Science Major, which i felt is probably a good read.
i’ve not been attending rallies, generally not following the news and not intending to vote. quite weird for a ps major i reckon, but i guess one chilling fact i’ve learnt in the 4 years as a ps major is that political parties exist only as vehicles to get elected and attain power, and will do anything to retain that power.
now, i’m not saying that they do not represent the interests of people - far from it. they definitely represent the people, otherwise why would we vote for them? however, everyone has different interests, and while a party may represent your interests or the majority’s interest, what about the minority? what happens to them then?
of course, we may say that it’s the tyranny of the minority at the moment as the elites constantly govern over us and appear to have ‘the emperor’s mandate’, and i do agree that it’s generally not healthy to combine wealth with political power for reasons that i’m sure i don’t have to state, but are divisions only based on wealth and social class? or are there other divisions that we deem as unimportant?
take for example the issue of 377 and the attempts at repealing it. how many parties have come out and said they intend to fight the issue? why bother when it’s only a small percentage that is affected? will that get them to power? or would it be more prudent to be ambivalent about it? i note one party responding to it by saying they ‘don’t intend to address it now, but MIGHT do so in the future’. if that’s not a catch-all party, i really don’t know what is.
in the end, i’ve had no choice but to pick up snippets about the elections from all the newsfeeds on facebook and the inevitable chats as a ps major, and to be honest i find this to be an example of schattschneider’s ‘conflict of conflicts’ (thanks to Erik Mobrand for that article) where the parties simply play up certain aspects in the public sphere and give little attention to others for their benefit.
not just the pap, but the opposition as well. from what i’ve gathered so far, everything seems extremely vague, and the population is just lapping up anything that’s not PAP. how many times have we heard things like ‘giving them a slap’ and making them serve the people? rather than focusing on real issues, it’s just a smearing campaign as seen by things like ‘100,000 against Vivian Balakrishnan’ on facebook for his references to homosexuality of a candidate making him an unworthy one.
don’t get me wrong, i’m not Vivian’s greatest supporter. not at all in fact. it’s just that the rallying cry of most opposition parties is to fight against the PAP and provide an opposition so they’ll be less arrogant. i’ll admit i’ve not looked through their party manifestos as i frankly don’t believe a word from political parties these days, so anyone who has can correct me if i’m wrong.
in any case, they’re giving the people what they want, aren’t they? they’re opposition to the PAP and according to the worker’s party, that’s part of a ‘first world parliament’. well, more deliberation in parliament is a good thing because the people’s voices are heard - but what happens when you have governmental gridlock? when the system freezes over and decisions can’t be made? and even if they’re made, they’re not the most efficient?
do we remember what the collective-action problem is? the problem of sacrificing short term gains for long term ones is never supported by the people. i’ll argue that the PAP has been successful in this so far, and there are various scenarios we’ll see in the future:
1) the opposition gains more votes due to greater exposure and aggressive disagreement with unpopular PAP-introduced policies - eg. ERP, GST, FTs. so we have govt gridlock and gradual growth of support for the opposition parties due to short term incentives: 5 years after all. lots can change in that time, and from there it branches out into 2 more directions in GE2016:
1a) opposition takes power as a single party majority - will we really see a new governing style for sg? will they still be as responsive to the people? or will they be like the PAP in advocating the most efficient strategies for the future?
1b) coalition party? - very unlikely due to our political institutions, but we’ll see more interest mediation and articulation by the government. more arguments definitely so stability might be an issue - just look at japan. hard but necessary decisions won’t be made because the important thing is to retain votes and power
2) the PAP remains in power with the opposition in place but not with enough power to cause governmental gridlock. i think this is what most people want. to scare the PAP into thinking they’ll lose power and force them to be more accountable. however, will this really change very much?
think of it this way. do we want a democracy or do we want affluence? are we as singaporeans truly post-materialist? if you’re voting for ideals, i applaud you. if you want democracy to express the interests of the people and bring equality, you have my respect. but think carefully - how many of us express our discontent because of rising prices - ERP, GST, various taxes etc. and lessening job opportunities - FTs? in the end they are just economic problems that many are discontented with.
so what do we want? do we want the PAP to be more accountable while economically things remain pretty much the same? would we be happy if they justify their position and ‘ask us first’? or do we want them to lower costs by cutting COE, ERP gantries and placing restrictions against the free flow of labour? are we just concerned with ourselves and being the ‘rational actor’? think about the social costs of removing all these and think again before you vote - be sure of what you’re voting for.
i don’t know what i’m voting for, so i choose not to vote.
