| Yawning
Bread. November 2007
Flat jokes and dumb remarks
|
|
|
There are times when reading the news about what our ministers said makes
me sick to the stomach. There were two occasions within the last few days.
According to the Straits Times, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong told his party members on Sunday that, "Our (People's Action Party) five men are working hard, but the opposition's five have scattered like monkeys when the tree fell." [1] He was using a Chinese proverb to refer to the 5 election candidates from the Workers' Party who had contested the Aljunied Group Representation Constituency in 2006. Screenshot of the online Straits Times article:
I don't know where the
error originated from, but someone The Straits Times helpfully explained to its readers that,
It so happened that barely a week earlier, I was having lunch with Sylvia Lim herself, having brought a member of parliament from a European country to meet her. One of the first questions the European MP asked her was what she saw as some of the biggest obstacles the Workers' Party faced in opposition. Virtually top of her mind was the difficulty in recruiting candidates. Unlike those chosen by the PAP to be its candidates, she said, anyone contemplating standing for election for an opposition party faces extremely difficult personal decisions. The chances of winning are low; one can go through 3 or 4 elections in a row, losing every time, before one can hope to get near success. But more than that, there's the question of one's economic livelihood to consider. Most people will find that their employers frown on them standing for election as opposition candidates. This is obvious if they're working for a government-linked company -- and GLCs are ubiquitous in Singapore's economic landscape -- but even if they're working for a private company, the concern may be that much of the company's business depends on government contracts. The Singapore government is such a large player in our economy that this is almost an inescapable factor. Hence, it tends to be that the people who find the way open to participating in opposition politics are those who are either working for themselves or for foreign companies. In the latter case, their bosses are more likely to see participation in politics as normal, or the employee is actually based overseas -- thus not complicating the company's business. That we have such a situation in Singapore, so dissuasive of all other people participating in politics, speaks to the vindictive nature of the ruling party.
|
||
|
For the Prime Minister to say that the Workers' Party candidates have gone 'Awol' (meaning: away without leave) is hitting below the belt. Not only is the high chance of a foreign posting a natural outcome of the thuggish style of politics established by our government, but using the words "ran to Sweden" and 'Awol' is grossly unfair. It suggests a dereliction of duty. What duty did the Worker's Party guys have if they weren't elected to be MPs for Aljunied? Come to think of it, by imputing an abdication of responsibility, lack of commitment and untrustworthiness, when the facts (see box on right) don't support it, the Prime Minister may have defamed the Workers' Party candidates. * * * * * "Many people are asking us to dumb down our political system. Lower the hurdles, lower the standards, lower the penalties, lower the deposits, so that we can have apparently more contest," he said, as reported by the Straits Times. [2] "I'm not so obsessed with whether or not the PAP wins the election in 2030. What I'm more interested in is the quality of candidates who will be available for the electorate to choose and the quality of the leadership." Available for the electorate to choose? Hold on a minute! This is exactly why the present system is dumb. The hurdles now prevent people from contesting even when they feel like doing so. To stand as an opposition candidate would mean fighting against media bias, unpredictable constituency boundaries, restrictive electoral rules, the climate of fear that makes people think their vote isn't secret, and the risk of being sued to bankruptcy on the slightest excuse. This is on top of the big question about economic livelihood and providing for one's family, as Sylvia Lim described. Here is a system designed to suit the ruling party, but which in fact deprives the country of political vibrancy, and the electorate of any real choice. At most general elections, about half the citizens do not get a chance to vote simply because opposition parties can't find enough candidates. And you don't call this already dumb? Balakrishnan's reference to "quality of candidates" is a red herring. Even if one can define what is meant by "quality of candidates", the hurdles impede all classes of people -- from the young passionate novice who has to think about looking for his first job after an election, to the senior executive or professional who may have to interact with government bodies in his work. Readers will no doubt spot that there is an implied assumption in Balakrishnan's reference to "quality": It is that the PAP's candidates are, merely by virtue of their association with the PAP, "quality", and other parties' potential candidates, who are deterred by the hurdles, can't therefore be "quality". I hope the electorate is not so dumb as
to buy that kind of argument. © Yawning Bread
|
|
|
|
Footnotes
Addenda None
|
|
