- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
What Opinion Are We Voting For?
March 30th, 2011 |
Author: Contributions
I watched with great interest the unveiling of PAP’s new candidates. The great thing about new media is the ease at which content has been uploaded and Razor.TV has been indispensable in their coverage of the press conferences with new PAP candidates, uploading the entirety of it online.
While I am willing to admit that all the PAP candidates have been pretty well spoken and articulate, I was taken aback by their unwillingness to express their personal opinion about issues or outright admission that they do not have much of an opinion about it.
This was particularly evident among the 2nd batch of new candidates that the PAP unveiled last week.
When Foo Mee Har was asked about how her international exposure might help her ability to contribute, she says… and I quote “I do struggle in thinking exactly what are the policies on either welfare, employment, you know that we can learn in a very significant way.” Is she really saying that Singapore cannot draw any lessons from other nations in terms of how we govern? Are we that perfect that there is nothing at all that they can glean? Do you, the voter, agree with this? After all, we cannot stop her from believing that Singapore is so perfectly serving every sector… all we can do is show her that we disagree.
This only got even more alarming when, in response to a reporter’s question about how her Malaysian roots might inform her opinion of Singapore/Malaysia relations, Foo’s reply was that all she knows of Malaysia is where the good food is.
When asked about what policies they wanted to change, the first batch of candidates sung the same tune. I agree with the PAP policies, but maybe have an issue with the implementation.
I am not writing this to fault their views – of course they’ve joined the PAP because they believe fundamentally in what the PAP stands for… that makes perfect sense. But other than towing party line, do they possess independently formed opinion about how our nation should be run?
If you study the voices that the PAP is putting up to stand for elections, it isn’t a leap of logic to say that they represent more of the same. The voices of dissent or diverse opinions that the PAP has touted is absent. They might be diverse occupationally, but definitely not in terms of their mindset. This just entrenches the idea that the PAP as a ruling party is going to be filled with yes men.
Perhaps we can rely on them to find a voice when they enter parliament and have been shown the ropes by older parliamentarians… but how guaranteed are we of this outcome? I personally believe that this underlies the inadequacy of the GRC system once again. It allows PAP candidates with no unique or victory worthy opinion to slide through the system… if they are so strong, why aren’t they being put to contest in single seats?
The idea that politics is something you get elected into, and then learn about is preposterous to me. It should be something the individual has an in depth understanding of, or at the very least, has a clear vision about BEFORE running. “Greenhorns” as Foo Mee Har put it, should learn the ropes and then run in the subsequent election.
My personal opinion is that candidates should have a clear idea of what they are fighting for, what they can do for the constituency… and run on that message. If they win, it is because voters agree with that message, if they lose, the opposite is true. The PAP has appeared to have gotten the order of things wrong.
An important caveat that I would like to add is that I in no way intend for this article to be pro-opposition. The criticisms that I have made can similarly be applied to some opposition parties/people who have given nothing but vague notions of their stance. I think everyone needs to step up this election and provide the electorate with concrete ideas of how they intend on moving the nation forward, and let us vote on them.
People shouldn’t vote based on the Symbol or Name on the ballot sheet, they should vote based on the policies that they represent.
.
John Lim
I watched with great interest the unveiling of PAP’s new candidates. The great thing about new media is the ease at which content has been uploaded and Razor.TV has been indispensable in their coverage of the press conferences with new PAP candidates, uploading the entirety of it online.
While I am willing to admit that all the PAP candidates have been pretty well spoken and articulate, I was taken aback by their unwillingness to express their personal opinion about issues or outright admission that they do not have much of an opinion about it.
This was particularly evident among the 2nd batch of new candidates that the PAP unveiled last week.
When Foo Mee Har was asked about how her international exposure might help her ability to contribute, she says… and I quote “I do struggle in thinking exactly what are the policies on either welfare, employment, you know that we can learn in a very significant way.” Is she really saying that Singapore cannot draw any lessons from other nations in terms of how we govern? Are we that perfect that there is nothing at all that they can glean? Do you, the voter, agree with this? After all, we cannot stop her from believing that Singapore is so perfectly serving every sector… all we can do is show her that we disagree.
This only got even more alarming when, in response to a reporter’s question about how her Malaysian roots might inform her opinion of Singapore/Malaysia relations, Foo’s reply was that all she knows of Malaysia is where the good food is.
When asked about what policies they wanted to change, the first batch of candidates sung the same tune. I agree with the PAP policies, but maybe have an issue with the implementation.
I am not writing this to fault their views – of course they’ve joined the PAP because they believe fundamentally in what the PAP stands for… that makes perfect sense. But other than towing party line, do they possess independently formed opinion about how our nation should be run?
If you study the voices that the PAP is putting up to stand for elections, it isn’t a leap of logic to say that they represent more of the same. The voices of dissent or diverse opinions that the PAP has touted is absent. They might be diverse occupationally, but definitely not in terms of their mindset. This just entrenches the idea that the PAP as a ruling party is going to be filled with yes men.
Perhaps we can rely on them to find a voice when they enter parliament and have been shown the ropes by older parliamentarians… but how guaranteed are we of this outcome? I personally believe that this underlies the inadequacy of the GRC system once again. It allows PAP candidates with no unique or victory worthy opinion to slide through the system… if they are so strong, why aren’t they being put to contest in single seats?
The idea that politics is something you get elected into, and then learn about is preposterous to me. It should be something the individual has an in depth understanding of, or at the very least, has a clear vision about BEFORE running. “Greenhorns” as Foo Mee Har put it, should learn the ropes and then run in the subsequent election.
My personal opinion is that candidates should have a clear idea of what they are fighting for, what they can do for the constituency… and run on that message. If they win, it is because voters agree with that message, if they lose, the opposite is true. The PAP has appeared to have gotten the order of things wrong.
An important caveat that I would like to add is that I in no way intend for this article to be pro-opposition. The criticisms that I have made can similarly be applied to some opposition parties/people who have given nothing but vague notions of their stance. I think everyone needs to step up this election and provide the electorate with concrete ideas of how they intend on moving the nation forward, and let us vote on them.
People shouldn’t vote based on the Symbol or Name on the ballot sheet, they should vote based on the policies that they represent.
.
John Lim
