One would have thought that's typical the world over for almost all age groups, but it's headline news in Singapore.

What is unique about the political scene here is that, "about 40 per cent said political freedom issues would influence their vote, compared to 89 percent who said costs would." This was revealed 9 paragraphs down.

This is unique because in many other countries the question of political freedom is not even a concern. It is enshrined in their constitutions and earnestly protected by various independent institutions. They can take political freedom for granted where we can't.

However, one voter whom the newspaper quoted may typify the other 60%. "I just want to have a job, have enough money, live in a safe country," Lina Salimah, 26, a restaurant hostess, said. "I will support whoever can promise me that and deliver on the promise." [2]

While her yardstick may be fair and unremarkable in most other countries with open elections, it isn't really meaningful in the Singapore context.

First, let's put aside the question whether any government short of a communist one running a centrally-planned economy can deliver jobs and money to every citizen. In Singapore at best our government can only create the optimal conditions for a healthy economy, rather than directly find you a job and send you a weekly paycheck.

However, our opposition parties aren't even in a position to be an alternative government. That being the case, it is absurd to expect them to make promises about delivering jobs and money in your pockets. So how does one apply this yardstick to opposition candidates when they are in no position to form the next government?

But if not that, then what other yardsticks are more realistic to measure opposition candidates by?

Singaporeans need a more sophisticated understanding of where we stand politically, and therefore what choices, realistically, are before us.

One unique feature of our political landscape is that some 80% of Singaporeans live in government-built flats. Unlike those living in private condominiums who have to form their own management committees and maintain their common areas, the 80% who live in public estates look to the political authorities to maintain the common facilities (e.g. lifts, covered sidewalks, exterior repainting) and oversee sanitation matters.

As a deliberate measure to reduce the average Singapore voter to myopic small-mindedness, the People's Action Party (PAP) government, from the 1980s onwards, has made each Member of Parliament increasingly responsible for the municipal affairs of his constituency. The implied threat is that the sanitation and upkeep of your housing estate, and thus the resale value of your home, is contingent upon who your MP is. If he is managerially incompetent, or if he is not a PAP man and therefore gets no co-operation from other government agencies, the general condition of your housing estate will deteriorate and the value of your property will fall.

One has to admit that this has been a rather successful weapon, even if the intentions behind it were less than admirable. It has made voters ever so conservative when it comes to how they vote.

It has heavily skewed our parliament in favour of the PAP, but also created in many voters' minds the notion that the "right" person to send to Parliament is an efficient estate manager. It does not matter if the man (or woman) has no views on trade globalisation, environmental degradation, educational reform, healthcare or human rights, so long as he can ensure the estate is swept every morning, blown bulbs changed promptly and shrubs pruned, then he's "my man".

The PAP having made this their selling point for several elections in the past, the result you can see: we have some of the dullest "debates" in one of the world's most emasculated parliaments. Many observers have noted how even the Nominated Members of Parliament ask better questions than PAP members [3].

Yet, what is seldom realised is that by many accounts, the opposition-held wards of Potong Pasir and Hougang have so far compared creditably with the PAP wards. Even the Straits Times reported that,

In fact, so dominant is the PAP's association with efficiency and quality that one young voter, interviewed by one of my colleagues recently, had no clue she was living in one of only two opposition wards in Singapore.

Hougang was so clean and well-run that who else but the PAP could have been in charge, was her assumption.

-- Straits Times, 17 March 2006, Why PAP's
report card is glowing, by Laurel Teo

So, by this measure, it appears that even if estate management skills is all you want out of your MP, it doesn't mean that the PAP candidate is necessarily the better one.

The second main area of contact between voters and their MP is when voters want help in their struggles against the bureaucracy. That's where the weekly meet-the-people sessions come in. MPs can advise what help schemes are available for people who find themselves in a bit of a fix, or perhaps write a petition letter to give a little boost to the constituent's case.

Conceivably, a PAP MP may have more influence over the bureaucracy than an opposition MP. Bureaucrats may take more notice if the appeal letter is written by a PAP MP. Though this may be a fact of life, it would be a sorry fact, for one of the key principles of a democratic state should be the political neutrality of the civil service. They are not supposed to favour one political party over another. To expedite appeals from PAP MPs and turn a deaf ear to letters from opposition MPs would be malignant to the integrity of the civil service.

Rather than be a reason to vote PAP, this should be cause to watch eagle-eyed the way our bureaucrats do their jobs, in the longer-term interest of Singapore.

Now let's come back to jobs and the cost of living.

As I mentioned above, the reality is that the PAP will form the next government. They will be the only ones with the ability to determine economic policies. Asking opposition candidates what they're going to do to secure jobs and lower the cost of living is a moot question.

But this doesn't mean that whom we send to Parliament has no impact on jobs and the cost of living. What we need to ask ourselves is whether the best possible economic policies come out of a legislature with 84 PAP members (100% of seats), 74 versus 10, or 64 versus 20.

For many of us, intuitively, we believe that decisions are better when facts, assumptions and rationales are robustly challenged. The most dangerous form of decision-making is when everybody is in group-think mode, combined with too much deference to rank. Nobody dares tell the emperor, as sometimes must, that he has no clothes.

Yes, ultimately, it's a matter of faith rather than specifics. The opposition candidates can't tell you exactly what questions they are going to ask in Parliament over the next 5 years of the legislature's term. Their role must necessarily be reactive. Nor are all opposition candidates of equal calibre (but then neither are all PAP candidates of equal calibre). The voter has to ask himself: is this particular opposition candidate standing in my constituency more likely to ask searching questions and speak up for my concerns in Parliament than the PAP candidate? 

Because if your MP doesn't speak up courageously in Parliament, he is throwing away your voice. And he is not doing his job to ensure that our government designs the best possible policies.