Gaius, your reply here.

Because google say  Your HTML cannot be accepted: Must be at most 4,096 characters. So here it is!



Ya i read this. (the note was written by a dhs teacher btw!). was pretty struck by this guy's comment too.

pt 1. i have read through (briefly) the WP manifesto and compared it to the PAP's. interestingly, they do not deviate very much on substantial matters, so much so that it should not be called opposition party but rather improvement party. WP tends to stick with what the PAP has in place and merely suggests how these existing schemes can be improved. Although i disagree with a few of their policy proposals, (e.g. removal of ethnic quotas), I do see some useful proposals (e.g. Informal workers should receive their WIS payments without any preliminary Medisave contributions. A portion of their WIS payments should be in cash) such that i dont think they warrant being called "idiots". So in that sense, i dont think the WP's only contribution is to "slap the driver". it does bring interesting suggestions to the table that improves the policies that PAP suggests rather than seek a complete overhaul of these policies. Also, his imagery of an endless cycle of slapping belies reality. checks and balances work in a mutual not transitive manner(i.e. the PAP and the opposition serve to check each other - that's why it's called checks & BALANCES). lastly the role of incumbent is not to account for the work of civil servents, esp if these politicians are the ones who set the policy direction in the first place as ministers are want to do.

pt 2. he's assuming that ppl only focus on short term self-interest which is debatable (but i will not debate that here). even assuming this is true, the job of the government is to manage the different interests of various sectors and come up with the best possible solution. "Every rational citizen under 8k income dont want the ceiling raised. Every rational citizen from 8k-11k income wants the ceiling raised" - but if HBD is intending to build more flats to accommodate the rise in numbers from raising the income ceiling, this will make both groups happy hence the issue is govt policy. Furthermore, the raising of ceiling is also argued upon the fact that cost of living has increased while the ceiling has not and therefore surely there should be a readjustment of that ceiling to take in inflation, esp if incomes are not rising as fast. "Every rational citizen who owns a home wants prices to go up faster, every rational citizen without a home wants prices to stay still." things are not so simplistic. homeowners who are happy with their homes (much like your family if i can be presumptuous and assume so) will not be affected by price changes. homeowners who are looking to downgrade when they retire (let's say from a 4 room flat to a 2 room flat) will also not be affected much. it is only homeowners who wish to upgrade (presumably to private housing) who will want hdb prices to go up. private housing homeowners will not be directly affected either way. So, as in the case of conflicting interests of different sectors(which btw, is not a condition unique to singaporeans but applies to every freaking country) it is the govt's call to ensure that policies serve the interests of the majority and to really question what the purpose of public housing is (to make housing affordable or to allow ppl to make profits off it?). hence, it is NOT "a shouting competition where the loudest "opposition" is heard and automatically becomes right later". it is not the loudest opposition that matters, but the most in number. which also explains why  democracy is largely called the rule of the majority.

pt 3. this point is just plain stupid."Before elections, the younger singaporeans want a young voice in govt. Elections came, they clinically disected the 1st under 30 pseudo-politician that was presented" we did not clinically disect the 1st under 30 pseudo-politician because she's under 30. we disected her because she seemed immature and (in my case) cos she said that income inequality was not the responsibility of the govt which made us highly doubt her ability in representing the people in parliament. thanks guy-who-wrote-this-note for your condescension towards the youth of Singapore and for dismissing very valid arguments. i dare say if she shows herself worthy over the next 5 years we will retract our criticism. yes for some people, there is an inherent bias against whatever the pap does. however, this is limited to a percentage of the population (young and old) and stands around say 30%(?) and there is a corresponding percentage of die-hard PAP supporters. so they effect cancel out. the opposition's job is not "easy". it has to work arduously to sway the 40-50% of swing voters if it every hopes to get a majority (which is all that matters in this first-past-the-post system). So yes, they may be able to "do nth and pull 33% of the votes" but if they cant pull the other 18% there is no point.

conclusion (1) singaporeans dont hate other singaporeans, singaporeans hate a govt that is unable to reconcile the needs and interests of singaporeans and come up with a policy that satisfactorily benefits the general population of the country. and that is the job of the govt of EVERY 1st world country.

(2)not substantiated. over generalisation. while this may be true of some, it is definitely not true of the whole population as there are ppl who have done volunteer work/donated. besides, while i cant say i buy into unfettered socialism, i will say that such acts of charity cannot systematically help the poor and there is a need for a "system wide measure" this is also sth that the PAP recognises which is why we have People Assistance schemes. it's not a matter of should or should not, it's a matter of how much.

(3) YES! FINALLY A POINT I CAN AGREE WITH. THANK YOU.

PS. WP manifesto expressly says "WP’s long-term aim is to form the government"

What this GE means to my generation

Last semester, I wrote a paper on the materialist values that prevail here, and why despite the economic security of most Singaporeans, our people have failed to move beyond such focus on material welfare to pursue post-materialist values. Political Scientist Robert Inglehart theorises that rising prosperity would gradually liberate the publics of advanced industrial societies from the stress of basic acquisitive or materialistic needs allowing them to pursue values that emphasised autonomy and self-expression. This, i argued, was clearly not seen in most Singaporeans because of  2 things. firstly, having an economy that developed within the span of a generation leads to a lack of inter-generational values change. This means that the beliefs (and insecurities) of the older generation still make up a silent majority resulting in continual support for the incumbent. Secondly, the ruling party's legitimacy is grounded in material provision and the institutional dominance of the government has allowed it to sustain this perception through a creation of a society and country which places inordinate emphasis on material welfare and rewards the pursuit of wealth at the cost of other values like equity. This leads to a cycle of increasingly materialist Singaoreans resulting in greater support for PAP which further promotes such materialism.This implies that as long as a majority of Singaporeans live comfortably and benefit from economic growth, the PAP will not find support wanting. I remember concluding (rather pessimistically) that change in Singapore and the Singaporean mindset is difficult and unlikely in the near future. Little did i know then, that the General Elections 2011 could possibly be the fork in the road between a future of the same or one that will prove me wrong.


The General Elections 2011 in significant in 2 ways.


1. there is an unprecedented strength in opposition both in terms of calibre and numbers. on nomination day, it was announced that all GRCs and SMCs (except Tanjong Pagar) are being contested, leaving the incumbents and the opposition to fight for 82 out of 87 seats in Parliament. This is unprecedented in the history of Singapore since the PAP came into power in 1959 (though as someone kindly pointed out, the PAP were once the opposition). We have also seen an increase in high calibre candidates joining the political battle, with defecting government scholars and highly qualified private sector individuals (with degrees to match any ivy-league/oxbridge toting PAP candidate) joining the ranks of the opposition.


2. We have seen online political activism go through the roof like never before. Given the inability for the government to control cyberspace, pro-opposition, anti-establishment advocates have found the internet to be a fertile soil for criticisms against the incumbent and in some cases ideal venting ground for political frustrations. notes have been sprouting up all over the online political, and more importantly social, landscape like mushrooms, spurring debates, be it in comments or in 1000-word counter fb notes and counter-counter fb notes.


There are a few reasons for this change in political climate. Policies in the last 5 years or so has threatened the security of bread-and-butter issues underlying the core of the materialist Singaporean. The single-minded pursuit of economic growth (which has legitimised PAP's rule for so long) has come at very high costs, largely to the lower middle income and low income families. Pro-immigration policies aimed at achieving economic growth penalises a large portion of the population in two ways. On the one hand, it increases inflation as increased consumption push prices up. on the other hand, the influx of immigrants increases competition and the unskilled, lower educated or old people who cannot compete suffers most when their wages are pushed down or rendered unemployed. Training programmes (which is the main PAP solution) have not made this sector of the population any more able to compete and without any social security policy in place, it is inevitable that these people will find it harder to survive as prices go up and their incomes go down. The middle income class too, while do not suffer the effects as much, find themselves sandwiched between not being poor enough to be eligible for subsidies like education bursaries yet not rich enough to make a comfortable home and good education for their children affordable.


Generational change has also slowly eroded the proportion of the older silent majority as they give way to a new generation of more educated youth who have grown accustomed to economic security, leaving them free to develop post-material ideals. Coupled with their dependence on online media for information (traditionally dominated by cynical, anti-establishment sentiments), the potent mix of a rising believe in notions of justice, equality, and political development, and exposure to a few well argued blogs on the flaws of the incumbent explains the exponential rise of pro-opposition sentiments amongst the young.


In 2011, the two social occurrences have converged, resulting in conditions that threaten the mandate of the ruling Party, not merely in terms of its ability to provide materially, but also in terms of the legitimacy of the very ideas and assumptions that have been the cornerstone of PAP rule for so long. This explains the explosion of political activism seen in this elections.

While this heralds greater political awareness and interest amongst Singaporeans, especially the youth, the diffusion of political  discourse from blogs and websites to social media like facebook and youtube is a diffusion of what used to be restricted to the elite and the specialised to the average and the general (demographic biases of social media users not withstanding). Issues of politics and policy making are no longer seen to be confined to the high pedestals of academic experts or political commentators but have crossed over to the domain of the general public. 

We are seeing unprecedented political discourse in Singapore, and this could result in long standing change in the way politics and policy making is carried out here. It is possible that this window in history will lead to a redefinition of the role of citizens vis a vis the role of the government in shaping the country, to a generation that says that we are no longer happy with simply pursuing materialist values but are also willing to fight for post- materialist ones, to a citizenry that stops believing in paternalistic governance and starts believing in shared responsibility and mutual accountability. In other words, this could be the beginning of a leap of faith forward, towards a democracy not merely in name or in institution, but also in leadership and mindsets.

Here, I would like to stress that sustaining a successful democracy is a tall order. The PAP never ceases to bring up failed democracies where divisive politics along religious and racial lines have undermined the fabric of a nation, or  where bi-party or coalition governments have led to extensive inefficiencies in policy making which a small nation like Singapore can ill-afford, where ruling parties yielding to public pressure implement unsustainable populist policies that undermine the good of the nation.

As an aside, it is important to note that unsustainable populist policies and sustainable economic policies are false dichotomies (populist policies can be sustainable and economic policies unsustainable - there is nothing in either economic or populist that logically results in sustainability or non-sustainability); and people really need to stop throwing about the assumption that any populist policy is inherently unsustainable and should be avoided at all cost while any economic policy is definitely sustainable and should hence be encouraged without giving a convincing argument on a case by case basis. 

Nonetheless, because of PAP's incessant fearmongering, I am sure most Singaporeans will be familiar with examples of democratic countries that illustrate the possible flaws of democracy and i think at the heart of every Singaporean is the insecurity that for all the benefits of a liberal political system, democracy is inherently ill-suited for our unique conditions and would undermine all that we have and all that our founding fathers have worked hard to achieve. 

A successful democracy assumes a discerning electorate which makes the effort to seek out information and who are willing to at time put long term national interest above immediate self-interest. The diffusion of political discourse from few and expert to mass and public means that political debates and judgments are more susceptible to trends and fads. For every person who carefully argues and thinks through his case, there are hundreds of people just willing to bandwagon on the trend of the moment just because it is easy and popular. It is crucial that citizens take the time to fact-find, think critically about issues and understand the policy making process in place.

As a sidenote,  in Singapore, parliament does not actually make policies, it simply debates  policies that are selected by a cabinet committee. A large portion of everyday policy making is done within ministries and do not even make it to parliament, so all the wayang of PAP going on and on about the lack of concrete proposals from the opposition is moot. Policies are important as it shows us what the party believes in and interests they take into account going into parliamentary debates but all the fears about unsustainable policies, horrendous earth shattering effects that may "tear the house down" is all fearmongering because unless the PAP loses majority or an opposition party takes over the government which is unlikely in this elections, the policy making powers of the parliament is severely curtailed.

The other prerequisite is the ability to at times, put national longer term interests ahead of individual short term interests. Giving up HBD upgrading in your constituency in favour of stronger opposition in parliament as a form of check and balance is a good example, after all we're not Aljuniedites or Tampinesians, we're Singaporeans.

Furthermore, the line between individual short term interests and wider national interests are not as clearly demarcated or mutually exclusive. Giving up upgrading in an estate to put a stronger opposition in the parliament, not only acts as a check and balance, but also serves to realign government action to the interest of the common Singapore citizen. If this results in actions taken by the incumbent to curb rising costs of living, this too benefits individual self-interest. So at the end of the day, if we cannot fall back on patriotism, we can at least hope to fall back on foresight.

Singapore has lived for so long under a paternalistic dominant government which has in many ways disempowered the people (how skewed is our mainstream media? how many walkovers have we had?). Now, people are calling for greater accountability, greater freedom, greater political choice, yet how many realise that they are also calling for greater responsibility? People can no longer complain and blame the ills of Singapore, the world, their lives on the PAP, but instead will have to accept responsibility for their actions and choices. Are Singaporeans ready to do this? Can we have an electorate that is discerning, well-informed and cares for the wider national interest? I would like to think so and some well written notes floating around in cyberspace have convinced me that there is at least a portion of Singaporeans who will give democracy in Singapore a winning chance. 

Someone asked me a few days ago why I was taking this so personally. Why my reaction to the happenings of GE 2011 seems to include the emotional and not just the rational. I think the elections for me, and if i dare say, many of my generation, epitomises the battle between what we've grown up believing and what we want to believe in. it epitomizes the battle between materialism and post-materialism, between idealism and pragmatism, between the hope and the fear. We have been brought up in a society that rewards materialism and we've been told that focusing on pursuing wealth and individual self-interest is the pragmatic thing to do. We've been brought up in a society that tells us that values beyond the material like justice, like patriotism, like human dignity are idealistic and not worth pursuing. We've grown up in a society that has taught us to be risk adverse, to stay within the lines and to "not rock the boat". We've been brought up in a society that instills in us a sense of fear, of self-censorship and taught us that the best solution to that fear, was apathy. Yet, for many of us growing up in such a society, we feel a sense of emptiness, a sense that something is not right, and in our search for something more than individualism and pragmatism that has been too long conflated with materialism, the opposition cause inspires in us a hope in everything we want to believe in. however, the opposition cause also asks of us, to take a risk in the hope of an idealistic future. As we decide in this elections what is important to us, whether hope or fear wins, whether we walk down the path of the same, our beliefs and the character of my generation will be affected not only by the results of this elections, but also by the longer term responses and the effect of our political activism.


"When we wake up on 8 May, parliament may be represented by 87 PAP MPs and no opposition members. This may happen, especially if you consider how many obstacles are placed before the opposition in Singapore.

But whatever happens, please, especially the youth of Singapore, do not give up on this country."

- Pritam Singh, in his rally speech on 5 May 2011