Hi readers, today I would like to talk about the upcoming general elections. This year, 82 out of 87 seats in Parliament are being contested, up from 47 out of 84 seats in the previous 2006 General Elections, and a record high. Undoubtedly, this election is shaping up to be the most heated ever since the 1965 General Elections. Now, I would like to voice my opinions on my take on the PAP up till now, and my views on the election.
Firstly, a little background information about my GRC. My family is under East Coast GRC, and The Workers' Party is contesting in this GRC. I have not actually been to any rallies, so my opinion is based on the many news reports I read on the Internet, articles in the newspaper, and videos of various rally speeches.
Many complaints have been levied against the PAP recently, ranging from laments on the constantly rising cost of living to the lack of help given to the needy and elderly. These complaints have fueled much discussion, with many people questioning PAP's ability to continue leading Singapore.
I admit, in the past I was actually supporting the PAP. Whether it was because of the so-called propaganda known as education, I was pretty staunch in my support for the PAP, as in my opinion, they have actually built up Singapore from the slums of 1960 to the metropolis of 2010. However, my once firm support started to weaken, when I read this article, talking about how Dr Lily Neo openly questioned Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS), Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, in Parliament over the PAP's assistance schemes for the elderly. Even though I was merely reading text, I could sense her frustration, the frustration of wanting to do something but being unable to do so. Dr Vivian Balakrishnan has been criticised for the overshot of the YOG budget, not by a little, but to a whooping S$387 million. Worse still, the allowance for the recipients of public assistance have increased from $260 a month in 2007 to $400 a month in 2010, a mere $140 more per month after 4 years. That also means, approximately the recipients have received a mere $3.50 more a day. $3.50 is not even enough for someone to buy a full meal (food & drinks) at a hawker center. This begs the question: Is Singapore's progress actually beneficial to the citizens? Although the government has boasted of the country's excellent GDP growth rate despite the 2008 recession, is this economic growth at the expense of the people? The citizens form the backbone of every society, and if the government is sacrificing the wellbeing of the citizens in order to continue progressing, what is the point of continuing ruling Singapore?
The above examples actually question whether the PAP has become more materialistic in their goals, and opt for materialistic gains like money instead of the welfare of the citizens. Not only this, the PAP has also been slammed for being increasingly complacent. For example, pertaining to the escape of Mas Selamat, instead of issuing any formal apology, the government instead tried to provide many excuses to cover up this incident, until PM Lee recently apologised to the public for the mistakes that PAP had made, including this.
Now, let me give my two cents on this elections, and the possible implications or benefits that it may bring. No one can deny that the opposition stands an extremely high chance in this election than ever before. But does the high number of opposition candidates mean a definite improvement in lifestyle for Singaporeans? Does a change in government bring along more benefits for the country? Now, let me try to express how I feel about the election.
Please note that I will not have any extremist views, neither will I openly voice my preference and support for any one political party.
Firstly, I do agree that the standard of PAP has been on the decline. I am personally appalled at how the price of everything, from GST to housing to COE, has been constantly on the rise. There is a sad but true joke: The price of everything has all increased. Only one thing has remained the same. Wages. The higher standard of living, coupled with some of the ministers' poor attitudes towards handling issues (Mah Bow Tan with housing prices, Wong Kan Seng with Mas Selamat, etc) has stirred up much unhappiness in the community. This could possibly be the result of much complacency on the PAP's part. Think about it; the PAP has dominated Singapore's political landscape for over 40 years; inevitably, PAP would have taken this for granted, and over the past few years, many policies of theirs have been met with much criticism. For example, the green light for the casino was greatly debated upon, and many analysts have voiced their worries on the possible future social repercussions, in spite of the short-term economic benefits (jobs, revenue, tourism, etc).
Workers' Party chief Low Thia Khiang had made a great analogy on the importance of opposition members in Parliament. To quote him, "Bear in mind that just putting on a safety belt and hope that the driver will drive you to your destination is not enough. A co-driver is essential, especially as (the) road gets tougher to navigate. The co-driver is there to slap the driver when he drives off course or when he falls asleep or drives dangerously." Indeed, Singapore needs checks and balances in order to prevent PAP from remaining complacent and implementing policies that might not be very beneficial. With more opposition members in Parliament, as compared to a mere 2 seats occupied by opposition parties previously, the opposition members would likely be able to question some of PAP's policies. Hopefully, when there are checks and balances, the policies that PAP have in mind would be properly thought out and vetted by different parties, so as to ensure that not only one party dictate how the country is run. Undoubtedly, different perspectives on how to run a country would help to provide insight for the government, so that they can pick out the best suggestions and implement them to help benefit the country best.
However, will having more opposition members in Parliament help improve Singapore? K Shanmugam questioned this analogy, saying, "Do you really want a co-driver who will be fighting with the driver to take over the wheel and slapping, kicking him? Is this the way forward?" This is an extremely valid point. I am sure that no one would want to see Members of Parliament constantly bickering about how to run Singapore. What is the point of having checks and balances if the two parties have different viewpoints and cannot get along together? What the Members of Parliament must understand is, they are no longer fighting with each other for seats in Parliament. Instead, they are working together, so as to help Singaporeans. Therefore, in order for this driver and co-driver analogy to work, there must definitely be a compromise between the members of different parties. If not, the whole point of having more opposition members in Parliament is rendered useless.
Another concern I have over opposition members in Parliament is their lack of experience in running a country. When people vote for the PAP, they know that at least PAP's policies would not be so disastrous, as most of the politicians have experience being in Parliament, and therefore have a first-hand experience in managing Singapore. On the other hand, none of the opposition members, barring Chiam See Tong, Low Thia Khiang, Steve Chia (ex-NCMP) and Sylvia Lim (NCMP), have been in Parliament before, and thus, there is a worry that they are not competent and are thus not able to manage Singapore well if voted into Parliament. I share this worry as well, as I am personally not so sure if they will be able to step up and walk the talk, if they are voted into Parliament. With PM Lee, I have a certain level of confidence in him, that with him in charge, at least Singapore's policies would not go haywire and would not 'screw up' too badly. However, in 1963, PAP was part of the opposition, and although Lee Kuan Yew and the rest of the candidates had no prior experience to running a nation, they still managed to step up and deliver, making Singapore the first-world country that it is right now.
Recently, PM Lee made a public apology, where he apologised for the mistakes that PAP has done. This display of humility and remorse is indeed refreshing, and something different from how the different parties have been slamming one another for the past few days. I myself am quite impressed by PM Lee's courage to step up and publicly admit that the PAP has indeed made mistakes. Barack Obama himself had publicly admitted that he had made a mistake quite some time ago, and seeing how PM Lee himself is willing to admit his mistakes, perhaps the PAP is not as arrogant and complacent. However, seeing how he had made this apology only 4 days before Polling Day, one can't help but wonder if this is merely a last-minute attempt to arouse sympathy from the public and to win back votes. Nevertheless, as I have mentioned before, I am not on either side, and I cannot find myself to just doubt PM Lee's intentions just because he is under PAP.
This election has also been significantly different from previous elections, due to the prevalence of social media as a form of communication. For example, many politicians have their own Facebook pages, where they post pictures and posts of what they are doing. Currently, Nicole Seah has a whopping 75,000 people 'liking' her Facebook page, coming in second only to MM Lee, who has 81,000 'likes'. In my opinion, this is due to the increased number of Gen Y voters this election, and therefore the politicians have to use social media, so as to more easily reach out to these young voters. A few comments about social media suggest how the PAP has not done enough with social media to reach out to younger voters, and this could possibly reduce their support. PM Lee had participated in a webchat with around 5,000 people over the Internet, which, I suppose, is a good start to utilising social media.
Despite the strong opposition, there is still a possibility that all the opposition have done would be wasted, and PAP might still have a landslide victory. If this happens, I fear that the PAP may become even more arrogant, as even a high level of opposition proved to be useless in reducing their dominance. Potential opposition members might also be dissuaded to join opposition parties. In the worst-case scenario, the PAP might ignore all the criticism directed at them, and continue implementing their policies without thinking for the people. If the opposition loses by a large margin, we might never see such a strong opposition ever again, which might have severe repercussions for Singapore in the future.
Although I cannot possibly cover everything in the GE, I hope that I have brought up the key issues of this election, and helped to provide thought-provoking arguments. Tomorrow is Polling Day, and I am extremely excited for the results of this election, and I hope that this would be a new turning point in Singapore's history.
Cheers,
Roystan
Hi Roystan :D
ReplyDeleteAWESOME POST. LIKE AWESOME.
I felt that this post was very thorough and well-thought out. And very lengthy :c Good job with the wall of text (:
I do agree with your view that the opposition need not be a solution to Singapore's problems. However, they need not get into Parliament to do check and balances. I think it is their presence though that will cause the PAP to improve, for Singapore to progress.
Therefore I am actually quite satisfied with the results of the election. The results bordered along 60% and I truly hope that the PAP would feel the presence of unhappiness of Singaporeans and reflect.
PM Lee has recently apologised for the mistakes that PAP has done. I think this show a sense of fear that the opposition parties may potentially make history in this election. He may have also seen the growing distrust of the PAP among Singaporeans and therefore feels that there is a need to work even harder. Whatever the case, I think the opposition parties serves as a voice to help Singaporeans voice out their discontent with the current government and policies, and therefore I think it is important for them to be around.
Take my GRC for example. The PAP team at Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, who had never been contested for 19 years, only won 56% of the votes. This discontent may or may not have been existing in Bishan-Toa Payoh for the past 19 years, but if it did, then without the opposition party, would the voices of the residents in Bishan-Toa Payoh be heard? Would the PAP care about the discontent?
I think even though it did not seem like the opposition parties had made history, I still think that nonetheless, it was significant in the political situation in Singapore. I think the General Election of 2011 should have served as a wake-up call for PAP and I do look forward to the improvement of PAP in the coming years.