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

NEA: New S$1.76 million fund to help organisations with costs of treating and recycling food waste

Singapore’s National Environment Agency (NEA) will devote an investment sum of S$1.76…

面对营业困难 摩拜将撤出狮城

又有共享脚踏车业者将撤出新加坡市场。 陆路交通局证实,共享脚踏车业者摩拜(Mobike)日前已经提出退场申请,要求归还在新加坡的共享脚踏车执照,并于昨日(3月11日)归还营业执照。 陆交局表示,目前正在评估摩拜的申请,并且将和摩拜合作,为减少对消费人的冲击而进行全面探讨,其中包括由摩拜所建议的,将现有的资产或运作转让给现有的执照持有人等。 在现有的停车处法令(Parking Places Act)下,归还执照必须获得由陆交局发出的书面同意。 陆交局表示,摩拜退出新加坡市场的申请一旦批准,摩拜必须按照规定,将停放在公共场所的脚踏车移走,并且把抵押金和预付金归还给消费者。 第三家业者退出市场 一旦申请通过,摩拜将是第三家退出新加坡共享脚踏车市场,面对营业困难的业者。首个退出市场的业者为Obike,第二家则是ofo,已经于今年二月被勒令暂停营业。 Ofo受到陆交局的限定,最迟必须在明天符合所有的营运条件,否则营业执照将被撤销。

红色淤泥流入人工河内被网民拍下 公用事业局将采取行动

红色淤泥流入人工河内,疑似是由附近建筑工地释放,公用事业局(PUB)则证实有关工地未能做好管理措施,且将对涉事公司采取行动。 网民Ed BKL在12月8日与朋友经过后港大道2号时,发现一股红色淤泥流入人工河内,疑似从附近建筑工地中流出,通往人工河可能流向实龙岗岛或榜鹅。 网民在拍下视频后边上传至Nature Society (Singapore)’s page,希望相关建筑工程单位能够停止污染行动。 “我希望相关工地部门能够停止对我们水路进行污染的行为”,网民表示。 另一方面,据了解针对此事公用事业局回应Stomp媒体,表示已积极介入调查,并追踪到污染水源来自附近一个建筑工地。该工地未能在现场提供足够的控制措施,目前承包商已纠正行为,而公用事业局也将会对该公司采取执法行动。 公用事业局也表示将会对所有污染行为严正以待,并会采取严厉的执法行动,打击非法排放污染物至公共排水沟或人工河。 同时,公用事业局也呼吁将民众若发现任何污染行为,立即拨电通知1800-2255-782,让当局处理。 近年来,水源污染问题受到当局关注,许多工厂或建筑工地为了方便或其他因素,而随意处置排放物,此举也可能导致严重的后果。…

人民协会:加强防疫措施 明日妆艺大游行如期举行

2020妆艺大游行主办单位官方脸书今日(30日)发通告,有关游行仍会如期在明日(1月31日)指2月1日举行。 通告称人民协会将监督情况,并与相关机构合作和更新资讯。当局表示将根据本地新型冠状病毒进展,酌量更动或取消活动。 人协表示现场将进行体温检测、投入更多医护人员到场协助。 “我们呼吁群众保持警惕,并维持良好个人卫生习惯,如有不适应立即就医和呆在家休息。”当局也指出如在活动现场有人出现不适,可立即寻求现场工作人员求助。 根据《8视界》报导,人协总执行理事长陈国明则表示,希望透过设立体温检测站等措施,能给观众安全感。表演者也每天有接受体温检测,表演当天也会量体温。 预计明后天的妆艺大游行,一天人流量可达到逾万人。