What's going on?

What exactly does it mean to vote for opposition?

The elections really lai liao. And this time, more seats are being contested, and more opposition parties forming. But what do all these mean for Singaporeans?

I mean, sure, everyone believes that we cannot have one party in power for too long because power corrupts, especially when held for too long by one party. The PAP may become complacent and start to think they will be in power forever and just do whatever they want, and make our lives a living hell. But actually if we were to be objective about it, how hell-ish have our lives truly been?

We have no war, no economic downturn, no civil strife, low crime, no natural disasters. Most of us lead lives which are comfortable; we have a job, a roof over our heads, nice parks and a generally good public transport network. I don’t know how many countries can say all that.

And yet, when I hear all the opposition parties kao peh kao bu about the changes they want to make for Singaporeans, I wonder if they really have thought this through very carefully. You want to put Singaporeans first all the time? Chase out all the foreign workers? Who is going to build your roads and flats? Who will look after your kids when you go to work? Will the MNCs still come into Singapore? Who will still want to come and invest if our labour costs are super high? How will that affect Singaporeans’ jobs? Haven’t they realised that many things we have today are a result of the strong economy we have? If not you think other big countries will give us face and respect?

If we didn’t have a stable country and government you think the investors will pump in money here and open their Asian headquarters here? I get very irritated when people make short-sighted comments and criticisms on our policies, just to rile the voters, but forget to put logic into it.

Ok yes, having some opposition may be good. But what do they really do or what do we expect them to do? Look at WP. They have been in Parliament for the past term. Yes they have joined in the debate on policies, opposed to maybe a handful (or less), but largely they have supported the government’s policies because they also realised the policies are sound and good for Singaporeans.

I think WP is still quite a responsible opposition, who doesn’t oppose for the sake of opposing. The rest of the opposition I am not so sure. I mean look at Chee Soon Juan and Kenneth Jeyaretnam. What are they saying?!

I can accept that we want some alternative voices in Parliament who would raise issues which are close to Singaporeans’ hearts. But I wonder if Singaporeans even pay attention to Parliament. If they did, they would realise that PAP MPs raise quite good questions too, and the ministries pass some very good policies. What other improvements or difference do we expect the opposition to make? Do our opposition parties have the same foresight and big picture to bring us forward to the next 50 years? I am not sure. Yes, some of the parties like WP and SDP have attracted higher calibre candidates this year. But that doesn’t mean they will necessary make very different changes if voted into Parliament. Why are we so anxiously trying to fix something which isn’t really broken to begin with? To what end?

Let’s not push our luck too far.

*This was submitted by one of our readers.

1 Comment

  1. dontthrow facepls

    This is a very biased and based-less article with intents to sway the uninformed minds.

    Notice how the author tries to begin each statement of any opposition with somewhat positive remarks but later disparages them on their capabilities, but this does not happen when it comes to the PAP.

    Also, look closely at how the author attempts to disarm the opposition members by depreciating them or labelling them so they do not seem sane or competent to even be considered.
    This can be related to how newspapers label black people who commit an offence as serial criminals, arab as terrorist, etc. Or how by simplying labeling people as “insane” they becomes institutionalized in mental hospitals. You get the idea.

    This is a form of ‘linguistic turn’ abuse, that reduces the power of one party in the interest of another under the ‘Grand Narrative’, thus marginalizing them. Only by deconstructing these discourses then can we identify the ‘true intent’ of the author.

    An objective and fair article would have proper citations and balanced judgement on both arguments before coming to a sustained conclusion. None has been witnessed here.

    Please keep an eye out for similar articles such as this, for the next several days of the elections. Thank you.

Comments are Closed

Theme by Anders Norén