And do note that all thoughts and opinions posted are my own in entirety, and none will be attributed to people/organization around me. I aim to remain neutral and provide factual information, but there are definitely some instances which might prove otherwise. Allow me to apologize, once again, for them, and for any mistakes in statistical figures provided.
To start, I will not discount PAP's success by any bit. They have earned 82 out of 84 seats in the 2006 GE, and have maintained their position as the island's dominant political party since independence. This means that they really have done a good job in governing the country, because if they did badly, could they have garnered so much support that is evident even up till this day? And as we have seen so often in politics, wouldn't the people have stood up against them?
But I must say, even though I pride myself as a citizen of Singapore, that some of this success is attributed to a strongly controlled situation. For example, state controlled media, secret services, ISD, etc.(and probably some means that you and I don't know) But if it worked previously, why did it stop working now?
Here's why, in my opinion. In this era of technological breakthrough, and the extensive use of social networking tools like facebook and twitter, the importance of their tool 'state-controlled media' greatly diminished. It is no longer as easy to present information in favor of the government, nor is it to cover up the many things that went wrong. With this, it is much more difficult to maintain the image of their world-class governance which they have portrayed from the 1970s-1990s. So, in short, PAP 'deteriorated', even though they might have had similar performance.
I do recognize PAP's past performance. It is never easy to accurately predict problems and implement solutions to effectively tackle them, or mitigate them, especially in our turbulent world. In fact, Singapore has been portrayed to be a smooth-sailing ship, amidst tidal waves. This is evident in the Global Financial Crisis in 2008-2009(or less commonly known as the Great Recession). Many economist have considered this to be the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression. But because its effect was mitigated to such a great extent, it simply passed without affecting our general population much. To the leaders who were part of the team which mitigated this financial crisis, I, along with many other previously ignorant Singaporeans, salute you.
But Singaporeans are brought up have a mindset of
One may say, applying the above-mentioned principle to math and science might be apt, but applying it to politics is simply ridiculous! But humans are habitual creatures. I'm sorry if we're just too human. Put my way, it's like saying that one has played floorball since young, and now they have to play hockey. It's not right to apply the same techniques in floorball skills onto hockey, because there are different skill sets, but they are so used to it that they are adopting their previous stance for good! (Apologies, if you don't get this analogy.)
Another issue that might have changed the political scene in Singapore would be education. Singapore has always been emphasizing greatly on the need for education. I am definitely not saying it's a bad thing that our emphasis is on education, but it may well have backfired for PAP, given the way they were operating. People born from 1985 (I do not term them as youths, as definition of youth varies with current date) onwards have been receiving world class education, after the revolution and implementation of technology in our education system. The rise in education standards are extremely evident based on our mean scores for national examinations, as well as the demand for placings in our local universities. You would have probably overheard someone saying something along these lines, "Last time A levels very good liao.. now university degree also not good enough."
But wait, what is the problem? I can only say, informed people make informed choices. Without control over the information that flows citizens, PAP was unable to place their successes on a pedestal, nor were they able to cover up their failures. So, when people begin to see the clearer picture, they soon realized that PAP is not as great as they thought they were (I'm not saying they're not great, just not as great. This is akin to the 'deteriorating effect' as mentioned above.) Coupled with underlying concerns, such as accountability and rising cost of living, which are not addressed by their representatives (MPs), who wouldn't call for change? Especially when people come knocking on their door (not literally), saying that they understand the problems they are facing, and promising to change existing policies to ease these burdens.
Also, along with the improvement of the education systems, our Gen Y citizens were able to exercise democracy in their respective institutions/organizations. Put simply, their voices are louder than before. They are so used to choosing the things they are in favor of, and they are not afraid to change existing situations. This is evident in our Gen Y army. I hope the following is able to illustrate this change.
"Previously, when I tell you to jump you ask how high. But now, when I tell you to jump you ask why?"
And when these people dare to voice their opinions and ask for change, they become what our society would call 'radicals'.
Now comes a very fundamental question. what is democracy? It is a BIG word, and it seems that everyone have a different perception of this word. Some of us even conveniently assumed the meaning of the word based on context, and never knew the real meaning. And there is a stark difference, definitely, in some of our understanding of the word. You may have your own perception of this word, but this is what democracy means to me:
Democracy is not about who is the right party and who is the wrong party; it is not the competition. This is too often a misconception. And it is definitely not the fact that people get to vote. What good is it to be able to vote, yet being told that you will be executed, should you vote for opposition. . But instead, in context of General Elections, it is being able to choose who we want to represent us citizens, in the COMMON GOAL of making Singapore a better country. (A 'better country' is made up of various factors, and GDP is but one of the factor. It, definitely, is not the ONLY factor.)
This brings me to my next question, "Are we truly democratic?"
I'm sure many other youths, like me, respect PAP for what it have done, for its impressive track record and capabilities. But why the arrogance? Why the scare tactics? This just don't resonate with us. We really don't appreciate you considering opposition losers, nor do we need to know that you will mobilize the military the moment PAP loses its dominance in the government. Is this really the democracy you have been talking about? Because, as I see it, along with many of the readers, this would definitely fall under the category of coercion.
Here is an analogy that change might not be as bad as what PAP have painted it to be.
Haven't we always known that healthy competition is essential in the constant strive for improvement. Didn't the success of Apple make Microsoft strive to improve, even though the latter have dominated the market since we knew of the existence of Personal Computers? (We actually saw Microsoft through Windows 92, 95, 98, XP, ME, Vista, and now Windows 7) When Microsoft released Windows Vista (which we all know is really bad), consumers were dissatisfied. When Apple released its many products that we as consumers needed, we conveniently switched to their product. Did we really bother about the past success of Microsoft? No, we didn't. We simply said (not literally), "Thank you Microsoft for your hard work and effort in serving us the past 10 odd years. There is another out there who can serve us better. But if you do produce something better, we will not hesitate to return to you." Track record is definitely great, but the word of mouth, and meeting the needs, is a greater influence on consumers.
Wow, dramatic, yet similar enough? But this is not the end. Didn't Microsoft subsequently develop Windows 7, which really brought back the faith of many consumers whom they lost after Windows Vista was released? I really don't have to say this, but for the record, isn't healthy competition the way to go if we are looking at the common goal of improvement? Apple did not aim to defeat Microsoft in terms of sales, nor revenue, nor anything else close in terms of crushing Microsoft. Apple simply aimed to provide for their customers things that they needed. They aimed to integrate the consumer's daily necessities into their products. Their sincerity in addressing the needs of their customers won them over, whole-heartedly.
Looking back when Windows Vista failed, there was a competition in the market with their growth substantially surmounting Microsoft's. What was Microsoft's call? Did they undermine the success of Apple using their market power which they still possessed (i.e. price war, scare tactics)? No, they didn't. They aimed to keep up with Apple, in the process learning where they went wrong. You see, for one, or both to go up, neither have to go down. This is what I would classify as healthy competition. Aiming to improve themselves with the COMMON GOAL of providing for the people.
If you say that people losing their faith in the PAP and switch their support towards opposition parties is a betrayal of trust, have you, yourself, actually committed a mistake of similar nature? And please, do not judge another for exercising their democratic rights. You are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine, as they are to theirs. Now this is democracy.
**The information provided here might not be accurate. If it really disturbs you, treat this as a hypothetical scenario. Anyway, we should be looking beyond them, on the similarities of our 'companies', and the idea of healthy competition.
If I could provide some feedback for our dominant political party on how they can earn their votes back, because I really want the government of my beloved country to improve, they would be,
1) Re-orientate yourself. You are a representative of your respective community.
"You are moving down the wrong direction. You are so focused on retaining power that you have made the people serve you, and not the other way around. You are too focused in crushing the opposition and maintaining power that you forgot that your job was essentially to improve Singapore or, at least, your community. You are too good in creating strategies to maintain power, but you forgot what really matters to the people."
"When there is no opposition, you win the power but lose some trust from your people. But when you beat an opposition, you lose some power, but you win the trust of your people."
2) Fight hard, fight fair. People have minds of their own. The last thing they want is to be equated to a monetary value, to be a statistical figure.
"Money is important to people, certainly. But in comparison to sincerity and true concern, it really isn't even close. In fact, it arouses suspicion of its real purpose. If you reveal your grow and share package on May 8th, I'm sure almost everyone would be less, or not at all, skeptical of your political motive. But then again, would you be inclined to share our GDP growth after the GE? That is one question that only you, yourself, can answer."
"Once again, people are smarter these days. They would rather their needs be addressed for the next five years, than to live a slightly more comfortable life for the next few months."
3) Fight hard, fight fair. The notion of voting out of fear, no longer resonates with the people. In fact, it never did.
"Do not 'win' your vote by striking fear in your people when they vote for others. The people simply want a say in where their beloved homeland is moving towards. Be truly democratic. Everyone is looking at(in fact, scrutinizing) your every single move, and with the advancement of social media, the people can see for themselves who you are. Be who you truly are, and if you truly represent your community, people will not be hesitant to vote for you the next GE. Don't we see such a scenario in Singapore?"
"If you are truly capable, you will not fear competition."
4) Fight hard, fight fair. People don't like to be lied to. They love to know everything.
"People these days have more platforms to obtain information sources as compared to just SPH publications in the past. (Surveys conducted on Singapore's mainstream media, SPH publications, indicated that our media is 'not-free') And because you are feeding the citizens biased information, wouldn't they, naturally, be more cautious, more skeptical of what you say? "
5) Listen to your people. Merely recognizing what they are saying could do more wonders than you ever imagine.
"This is evident in the PM's recent apology to its citizens, recognizing the many aspects that the government have been lacking in. Did the apology not appeased some of the angry opposition supporters? You see, not everyone who supports the opposition is really out against the many policies that you made, or your ability to make good policies in the future."
To some of them, it is simply
"If you are still not going to listen to me, I am going to show you that I have a voice by casting my vote for the opposition. Just you wait and see."
6) Be accountable.
"Singaporeans wants to know what happens in Singapore."
*I don't really want to touch on this point, because it is largely debatable when it is brought down to individual issues.
Note:
1) I am terribly sorry for generalizing PAP as a whole, even though I recognize that PAP is made up of individuals who operate on different values. For one, I see Chan Chun Sing from Tanjong Pagar GRC engaging the citizens of Buona Vista and other areas constantly. But even so, what I hope is that he don't stop the moment GE is over, but keep up the good work of truly representing the people in his constituency.
2) I have conveniently assumed that our media is state-controlled. But we all know the truth, don't we?
**I recognize that my stance here is kind of against the PAP, but it is more of how PAP could improve, instead of 'vote opposition because they can do better'. I am truly sorry for making nonconstructive criticisms, as some of you would say.
Times have changed. Change with times.
No comments:
Post a Comment