Karen Tse /

“You believe the Workers’ Party is in Parliament to help the good of Singaporeans or to oppose the PAP?” – Straits Times, 9 May.

Before I answer MM Lee, I would like to pose MM Lee and anyone who shares a similar concern a question. Which person is more useful to you: the one who imagines why your idea will work, or the one who articulates why it won’t? As a prologue to this article, I must state that I continue to find the approach of voting out of plain party allegiance, blind loyalty and gratitude irrational and reprehensible*. Hence, my answer to MM Lee’s question outright: both.

In politics, it is dangerous to be looking for heroes; we should be looking for good idea. MM Lee’s statement necessitates an omniscient notion that white is the only colour that will help the good of Singaporeans. The PAP’s primary operating philosophy seems to be: all other parties hold illegitimate and evil reasons for pursuing seats in Parliament. Despite his experience and intellect, I doubt that anyone is all-knowing with the capacity to know everything infinitely. An objective person should hold any political parties to the same standard, and judge them with the same scrutiny – incumbent or otherwise. Blind faith to either sides results in subjectivity. For this reason, one could even ask the analogous: is the PAP in Parliament to help the good of Singaporeans or to oppose the opposition?

Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard once wrote, “Once you label me, you negate me.”  The primary problem that Singapore is facing is not one of the ideological differences between the PAP and any of the opposition parties. The problem is that PAP has established itself to be the sole party capable of running the country with good intentions. A cursory glance at the state-controlled media reveals how labelling of “the opposition” by the PAP is problematic because it suggests an unruly quality in all opposition parties.

As witnessed in the past decades, either PAP runs on a deeply fused party line or they are used to settling their disagreements behind closed doors. Is there indeed true consultation of matters or do PAP members fall under the first archetype I raised in my question, a person who does not question and hence raises no objections? I do understand the motivation of an autocratic political system: to be fast, free of stalemate, and efficient. But I cannot comprehend the need to isolate immediately any alternative voice as dissent. On the contrary, I believe that sightless subservience by any members of Parliament will be unhelpful for the good of Singaporeans.

Let us evaluate some possible approaches of how the Workers’ Party could function in Parliament:

i)              The scenario that the Workers’ Party opposes the PAP on every count for the sake of opposing is not quite likely. Firstly, it is simply not in their interest to do so. If their inputs are not constructive and do not reflect sentiments of the masses, voters will almost certainly remove them from Parliament come 2016. Secondly, based on my cogent grasp of mathematics, 6 against 81 carries relatively little weight. So even if the tenacity of the hammer is used for the wrong reasons, resistance is futile.

ii)             If in the event that the Workers’ Party does not abuse its power, it is likely that unlike their PAP counterparts, they will not toe the glaring white party line. This would result in more ideas and alternative views, less groupthink. Their contributions would be beneficial to the good of Singapore.

I do not believe that any party sets out to be intrinsically evil. There is a need for MM Lee and the PAP to stop placing opposition members immediately in the ideological box of radicals who are essentially anti-PAP and anti-establishment. There is a need to pull away from autocracy, to eradicate this belief that “white is good, colours are bad”, and to ease over control to constructive members of the opposition. At the end of the day, one does not have to be pro-PAP to be pro-Singapore.

—————

*Note:

See the brilliant note “Thank You, Sir! – On the Politics of Gratitude” by Desirée Lim http://www.facebook.com/notes/desirée-lim/thank-you-sir-on-the-politics-of-gratitude/10150178935113774)

The writer is a sociology undergraduate. Her favourite Chinese proverb: 司马昭之心,小人眼里皆为小人.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

一次脸部护理4445元? 家属恐祖父被骗上门理论

广告宣传单上写脸部护理一次收38元,岂知一年长者在美容院进行面部护理后,却被征收4千445元!事件还惊动警方到场调查。 网民Ho向新闻与媒体网站《Stomp》指出,他87岁的祖父于上周四(9月17日)早上,到淡滨尼巴士转换站的E.Zone美容院,进行脸部护理。“我的祖父看到广告牌上写着,脸部护理只要38元,因此就进入店内。” “一名美容院女职员在脸部护理中途,告诉他每除去一个油包就要花费20元。” “作为一名老人,我爷爷所理解的是花费总额不会超过100元。但是在护理后,他却被要求缴付4445元!……该女职员甚至没有给他任何发票或收据。” 美容院指出,老人家去除220个油包,总计4440元,加上158元的脸部护理,所以总账单才打到4558元。而且他们澄清并没有“拉客”,更指老人家没有一次性付费,所以没有收据。 消协指涉事美容院被投诉多达四次 不过,根据消费者协会表示,有关美容院及它的分行,今年已被投诉多达四次。诉内容大多涉及该美容院使用高压推销手法,诱导顾客购买额外的美发或美容配套。 网友指出,他的祖父不想引起麻烦,所以通过星网电子付款(NETS)缴付了2000元,这也是他电子付款的顶限,因此他必须到银行提款,缴交剩余2445元。“女职员跟祖父到银行,银行出纳员在发现祖父曾进行2000元的交易后再次提款,就好言提醒他小心堕入骗局。” 网友重申,这只是一次脸部护理的费用,不是一个配套,也因此才令他们感到难以接受。 家属找上门理论 据周日(9月20日)的《新民日报》报导指出,Ho曾多次到该美容院索取收据,却都无济于事,于是周日再到美容院要求,却引起争执。 女职员表示已经向老人家分析有关的收费,且还分析给网民听,更对网民找上门的行为表示不了解。…

因不明机尾撞击事件 新航一班机滞留仰光维修

新加坡航空公司一架飞机尾部于上周一(11月25日),在缅甸遭受“可疑的机尾撞击”导致损坏,目前正在仰光国际机场进行维修。 新航昨日(3日)致函《亚洲新闻台》时指出,新航的SQ998航班在阳关着陆,机尾似乎在起飞或着陆时,与跑道发生撞击。 惟,新航发言人表示,该航班平稳地滑向航站楼,全部的乘客都安全下机。 发言人指出,目前工程师们正在评估该架空客A330-300的损坏情况,并向仰光机场申请派遣一架救援飞机,负责SQ997航班的返程,有关的飞机已经在当地时间下午6时23分起飞。 “新航将会持续按时提供新加坡往返仰光的服务。” 当局也表示,该事件正交由缅甸航空事故调查局(AAIB)调查,而该局也将会和调查局密切合作。 一班机悉尼着陆意外 上周四,新航一架货运飞机在悉尼机场着陆时,飞机的发动机吊舱撞到了地面。 新航也在昨天的邮件中回应有关事件时指出,事件肇因乃该波音B747-400型号的货机因拒绝着陆而执行复飞。 目前,澳大利亚当局已经对此事展开调查。