“At what point does a vote for a strong opposition become a vote for a different government?” PM Lee asked yesterday in Parliament.
Last night, the media has been abuzz with the description of “free rider” because PM Lee has been insisting on it even after Pritam Singh had explained that “voters who say that they want the PAP in government, but also want an opposition in Parliament, are giving voice to what many Singaporeans feel.”
PM Lee however said: “I think that is wrong thing to teach people to do. You go to the elections, you vote for the person whom you have trust in, who will run your system, who will run your government.”
“And our system is designed so that if you do that, it will be stable. If you don’t do that...you are courting trouble.”
“Therefore, something is wrong when you say, I really want one government but I will vote for another...I think it is necessary that people understand this, and understand what is at stake when you elect a government of Singapore.”
Personally I feel that after Sengkang quite unexpected win in July, and the general dip in percentage of the PAP dominance in Parliament, the mere mention of those who vote with that mindset as being “free riders” misses the point altogether, or worse, trivialises the sincerity of the voter.
In any event, by that logic, you can never vote for the opposition without being characterised as a “free rider”. Because, if you think about it, many considerations go into a vote, and one of them for the earnest voter is that he or she may feel that more competent opposition in parliament serves many purposes other than for transition of governments.
Well, aside from those who give it no thought, waste or destroy their votes, or resign to the fact that PAP will dominate once more, just as the status quo has been so for the last 55 years, any vote cast for the opposition will be a vote with that thought in mind. Whether that thought is dominant or in passing, there is no point splitting political follicle over it.
The reality is, the system is fixed. Democracy is one man (or woman), one vote. Your vote is not weighted with explanatory note. It is basically a binary system where you either vote PAP or you vote opposition. There is no third way, excluding the possibility of destroying your vote of course.
As such, you do not have the luxury of explaining why you vote for one party and not the other. What’s more, I am quite sure some who vote for PAP also didn’t give it much thought, or maybe it was because, like some old folks said quite matter-of-factly, “they give money”.
Anyway, I believe no one is so naive to think that every vote cast is arrived at after much conscious thought and deliberation.
Mind you, in the light of our unique political development and system, mainly one-party dominant parliament since independence, how does the government expect a voter to vote if he or she feels strongly that there is a need for opposition, not in preparation of a change of government like the Tory and Labour, but for the purpose of acting as check-and-balance?
This in turns leads me to ask, why call someone with that mindset a free-rider when he votes for opposition because he wants to guard against groupthink, complacency, or echo-chamber syndrome, or to hold the government to greater account and scrutiny, notwithstanding that he genuinely appreciates what the government has done so far?
And if democracy is about the freedom of choice and expression, can you blame the voter if he prefers to vote opposition from scratch rather than to vote otherwise because he is wary of the surrogate opposition schemes designed from within the party?
And what if the voter is in a GRC where the competition is stiff, where each side fields equally good and honest candidates, and the voter is pressed for choice between the two, and she, after much consideration, casts her vote for the opposition, is she then a free-rider, even though she enjoys the security and infrastructure the government has provided her?
Alas, this may be the case for Aljunied and Sengkang, and it is not that the voters doesn’t appreciate the status quo, but instead they feel that, based strictly on candidate credentials and earnesty, their hard work and sincerity, the opposition tilts the balance just that tad for them. Are they then a free-rider?
My point is that we should give more credit to a thinking voter, who is concerned about the future direction and well-being of his or her country, especially in a Republic where all he or she has ever known are the men-in-white dominating Parliament. Not that credit is not due, or gratitude is not extended, but if our government endorses democracy, and live by its principles, then we ought to allow them to cast their vote in a way their conscience is clear or at peace with.
While I trust there are free-rider or free-loader out there, I nevertheless also trust they are not the ones as characterised by PM Lee, that is, “a Singaporean (who) votes for the opposition, with the assurance that the PAP would still form the government of the day.”
Mind you, that assurance is entrenched since day one, and to presume that that assurance is all a voter ever needs and can rely upon unconditionally or unthinkingly, without resorting to or appealing to his own democratic principles and good conscience is not only naive, but smacks of elitist governance.
Let me end with Pritam’s own words. He said: “I am not desperate for power, Prime Minister, but we have got to get good people if we want to bring this country forward...At this point in our growth, I think, we have to grow our roots as a loyal opposition.”
Well, since independence, power has been residing relatively safely in the hands of the ones who control Parliament. No doubt, looking at world developments elsewhere, and how corruption has torn a country apart, power in our case has been entrusted in good, responsible hands.
Yet, power changes people. Like money, or the love of it, power harnessed and kept over time can lead not just to corruption, but complacency or blindsidedness. It can also lead to a form of unwitting arrogance and/or a sense of self-conceited paternalism.
And all that or any one of that may just be reason enough to put more thought into one’s vote, without being unfairly labelled as a “free-rider”.
No comments:
Post a Comment