I am an ex-Aljunied GRC resident. I voted in Aljunied GRC in 2006, for the ruling party no less, because I really thought that Minister George Yeo's team was the better team overall despite some rather negative personal experience with a particular member of his team. But it was a GRC (and still is), and I had to consider the team instead of the individuals. But I digressed.
I will also add that I have been under three different GRCs, as far as I can remember, even though my address remains unchanged for almost 20 years. I suppose it is my blessing that I am relieved of this burden to make the tough decision of choosing between two highly qualified teams in this coming election.
Now before Ms Huang accuses me of telling her who to vote for, I will state categorically that I am not. In fact, I have no doubt that even if I do, she will not be pressured into doing so since she has demonstrated her free agency by writing the note, still in support of the incumbents despite the supposed calls by others to vote for the opposition. But I suspect she suffers from the well known third-person bias in communication research; she probably thinks that other Aljunied residents, unlike her, will be prone to such social calls to vote for the opposition. I will like to assure Ms Huang that her worries are probably unfounded. At the end of the day, voters will still have to make their own decision. We will cast our vote ourselves. No one else can or will cast it for us.
Cognitive bias aside, let's address some of the issues Ms Huang has raised in her note.
1. The battle for Aljunied GRC is NOT the battle for "Singapore's future".
Ms Huang wrote that the battle for Aljunied GRC is a battle for the welfare of the Aljunied GRC residents. I agree. But I believe that is only partially correct, for the lack of a better word. In fact, I believe the battle for Aljunied GRC is a battle for the welfare of the Aljunied GRC residents, AND a battle for "Singapore's future." I think it is myopic of Ms Huang to see it purely from a constituent perspective. In fact, every battle should be a battle for the constituency and (ultimately) the country. Doesn't matter if it's Aljunied GRC or Ang Mo Kio GRC. Even PM Lee says that we should vote for the ruling party to secure our country's future, not just for our constituency's future.
With that in mind, it becomes a question of moral value. More specifically, it is a question of what each voter values. And we know that the values we hold can be, and often are in conflict. It is therefore, for each voter to decide (for themselves of course) the value that holds a higher priority over other values. Ms Huang has obviously stated her priorities. It is now incumbent on the other voters to decide their own. Without stating who to vote for, I will like to remind everyone, especially Ms Huang, of what ex-Major General now-MP Chan Chun Sing (yay!) said in his introductory video. And I quote,
"先有国， 后有家。 First, there must be country before family. And by extension, there must be family before self."I suppose the constituency comes somewhere in between the country and the family. ;)
And Ms Huang continued that
"the truth is: Aljunied GRC residents should have the freedom to vote for themselves, and not bear the responsibility for “Singapore’s future” (emphasis hers).I would, in principle, agree with Ms Huang that every resident should have the freedom to vote for themselves. But as I've stated above, we already do.
To all the people who do not live in Aljunied GRC, but who are pressuring Aljunied GRC residents to vote WP:
- If you really want opposition members in Parliament that badly, go vote the opposition at your own wards.
- Even if you do vote the opposition in your own wards, it still doesn't give you a right to tell residents from other GRCs or SMCs who to vote.
- And if you are one of those people who are voting PAP in your own wards, but are aggressively pressuring others in Aljunied GRC to vote WP... then you are about one of the most selfish Singaporeans out there."
Moving on to her first bullet point, I think she is actually pointing to a more fundamental problem within any democracy. We all want the best people who can represent us. But unfortunately, not everyone who steps up is the best (assuming that we can objectively measure who are the best candidates). And this problem is exacerbated by the fact that our country is divided into constituencies, both group and single member. Indeed, this was the problem I faced during the 2006 election; I had to choose the best team instead of the best individuals.
But even if we abolish the GRCs, the problem remains. It becomes a case of strategically fielding candidates to maximize the chance of winning. For example, if all the constituencies are single member constituencies, we may still end up with a battle between an average member of the ruling party and a mediocre member of the opposition in one SMC, and a battle between a very good member of the ruling party and an equally good member of the opposition in another SMC. In that case, the average member of the ruling party will, rationally, still enter the parliament while the very good member of the opposition may still be denied the place. Unfortunately, I have no solution to that. Philosophically, it reminds me of Foucault's critique of the institutionalization of popular justice. In his article, "On Popular Justice: A Discussion with Maoists," he asked,
"Is not the setting up of a neutral institution standing between the people and its enemies, capable of establishing the dividing line between the true and the false, the guilty and the innocent, the just and the unjust, is this not a way of resisting popular justice? A way of disarming it in the struggle it is conducting in reality in favour of an arbitration in the realm of the ideal? This is why I am wondering whether the court is not a form of popular justice but rather its first deformation" (2).Similarly, I wonder whether any institutionalization of democracy is not a form of democracy but rather its first deformation. And this deformation is perhaps relevant to Ms Huang's second and third bullet points.
More on Ms Huang's second bullet point, I believe that her underlying principle is that we do not have the right to force people to vote according to our wishes. Of course we do not. But not having the right to force others does not equate to not having the right to tell others who they could/ should vote for; there is a not-so-fine line between telling and forcing. Unfortunately, Ms Huang conflated the two in her argument.
In contrast, I actually do advocate sharing personal viewpoints and perspectives. That way, we can have more varied perspectives, and then think calmly before we make our own decision. As Sir Isaac Newton famously said,
"If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants."Surely Ms Huang does not believe that one is capable of knowing everything on one's own.
On Ms Huang's third bullet point, I believe it is an amalgamation of the issues I have stated above. We can't vote for the best candidates because the current system means that we can only choose between those who are contesting in our constituency. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss, hypothetically, who we will vote for if we are in a certain constituency. In fact, if we do, it is because we care for Singapore, as Singaporeans. As such, I do not agree with Ms Huang's ad hominem attack on whom she perceived as "selfish Singaporeans." In fact, if we define selfishness, according to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, as "[being] concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself, seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others," Ms Huang's concern with her own welfare as an Aljunied GRC resident, as opposed to the nation's welfare, may more likely be seen as selfish than not. But alas, it is not selfishness on Ms Huang's part, but only the difference in the priorities we have placed for the different moral values we hold. As such, I believe it is as much Ms Huang's right to write about why we should not tell others who to vote for, as it is her right to decide for herself if she's more concerned about her own GRC or the nation in which her GRC resides. Then again, the latter is but a false dichotomy. Perhaps what is best for the nation IS what is best for the GRC. =)
2. The WP is only ensuring its OWN survival, not the survival of the opposition.
On the second main point of Ms Huang's note, she argued that the opposition needs to convince residents of Aljunied GRC of their potential contribution to the GRC instead of just championing the "broader national concerns." This is not unexpected given Ms Huang's priorities. And we should not expect Ms Huang to be alone in this. Thus, I fully agree with her on this front. The opposition needs to tell the residents of the GRC what they can do for them!
However, I take issue with her claim that "very few residents in Aljunied GRC have the honour of claiming that you visited them, because the truth is, you've hardly stepped into Aljunied GRC the last five years. That is, apart from making token appearances at certain market places." As an empirical social scientist, I call upon Ms Huang to substantiate her claim of truth. If she is using herself as anecdotal evidence, I'm sorry to say, the singular of "data" is not "anecdote" (it is "datum" by the way). I have resided in Aljunied GRC for the past 5 years (my area is no longer under Aljunied GRC for this election, but it was for the past 5 years!), and not once I've seen the MPs whom I've voted for. Not even token appearances at certain market places (not face-to-face that is, I see them on TV. And we won't expect the mainstream media to cover walkabout by non-elected opposition members will we?). But I will not recklessly conclude that the truth is, they've hardly stepped into Aljunied GRC. If Ms Huang is unable to substantiate her claim, it will be in the question of her integrity that she produces a retraction.
On her bullet point on the People's Association, I do not think it is fair to fully blame the opposition for not working with PA; PA needs to take some responsibility for not working with the elected member of parliament too. As civil servants, employees of PA should be non-partisan. It is unfortunate that the grassroots advisor in opposition ward, is not the elected member, but the candidate of the ruling party who lost in the previous election. Having said that, I do not discount the contribution made by the organization.
As for the remaining of her bullet points, I will acknowledge that she has made valid arguments (even though some of her arguments can be applied to the candidates offered by the ruling party as well, but we're comparing within the GRC, so I'll leave it as that).
At the heart of the issue, whether or not non-Aljunied GRC residents need to stop telling Aljunied GRC residents who to vote for (the opposition or the ruling party), is a question of whether one believes in the freedom of expression as a fundamental human right. Ms Huang must realize that by her writing to tell others to stop telling so, she is exercising her freedom of expression right to attempt a removal of the same right for these others.
Edited: I also want to reply to a comment by Mr Chris Chen on Ms Huang's note. Chen asked "if you vote oppo... why should i spend PAP resources on you??? Sure PAP will take care of you.... just get to the back of the queue."
The resources do not belong to the party. It belongs to the people. The government, which is formed by the ruling party, is entrusted to manage it by virtue of the mandate, for the best interest of the people. I have less issue with the queuing part though, as long as all Singaporeans get what they should ultimately.
Reference List:
Foucault, Michel. "On Popular Justice: A Discussion with Maoists." Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. Ed. Colin Gordon. New York: Pantheon Books, 1980. 1-36. Print.
"Selfishness." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2011. Merriam-Webster Online. 30 April 2011 <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/selfishness>.
2 comments:
Dear Wei Yi,
you have written this posting in an analytical way, with the references and data collections. I agreed with you that my friend, Janice, have make a sweeping statement by lamenting WP's members for not visiting Aljunied GRC until it's during the GE period based on her personal experience. However,I think you may have misunderstand the hidden meaning of Janice's FB post. I think her point is she just hope that people should not vote for myopic reasons (such as "For the Future of Singapore"), but should instead look at a national perspective. When I was reading her post, I do not think she is "exercising her freedom of expression right to attempt a removal of the (others believes/mindset)". I feel that there is nothing wrong in the attempt to influence other people's thought; cause if it does, this means we are violating it everyday. Instead, her post makes me re-think about oppositions (particularly in Janice's case the WP's)current campaign strategy. Are all the proposal they roll out - removing GST, unpegged HDB from market prices, shrinking the manufacturing sector - feasible? Furthermore, her post questioned the credibility of WP's supporters' claims. If you have friends that are extremely anti-PAP (but not necessary pro-opposition), you would see how they slam PAP jsut for a few wrong choice of words and not looking at the big picture. Even if I am only 22 and may not have seen the world , their actions really makes me worried whether they will vote rationally or irrationally. Yet ultimately, people will still vote based on their believes and there is nothing Janice, you and I can do about to change their ideas using a single post.
(*just to state that I am neither pro-pap nor anti-opposition)
In conclusion, I think we should just read Janice's FB post with a pinch of salt. PAP is not perfect, and given the current state of opposition, they are not the best solution to the imperfection of PAP either. We should instead discuss and share concerns that we have for this election, rather than lamenting each other for what he/she have written.
Hi Anon @ 12:13am,
Thank you for replying. =)
But the future of Singapore IS a national perspective, instead of the constituent perspective Ms Huang was advocating (perhaps unwittingly). Correct me if I’m wrong, I believe what you’re trying to say is that we should not vote for vague rhetoric such as “For the Future of Singapore,” but look at the concrete plans offered?
Yes, I'd agree that many of the proposed ideas are sketchy, and probably require more in-depth analyses/ justifications before we decide whether or not to adopt them. But that doesn't mean that they do not have any advantage at all. Without any data (most of which are withheld by the government - https://www.facebook.com/TheStraitsTimes/posts/10150144048317115), there is no way we can know whether or not these plans are feasible.
Let’s just look at the point on GST.
WP's manifesto 2011 does not say anything about GST (http://www.todayonline.com/SingaporeVotes/EDC110423-0001012/WP-returns-salvo-over-PMs-comments). But if you look at their past arguments, they are not advocating a total removal of GST, but the exemption of GST for basic necessities. The counter argument by the ruling party is that 1.) higher income families and foreigners contribute more to GST, and the tax collected is then used for the lower income families, and 2.) it is also difficult to decide what items are basic necessities and what are not (http://www.wongkanseng.sg/downloads/Burning%20Questions%20-%20Cost%20of%20Living.pdf). The second point is moot. Just because it is difficult to decide, doesn’t mean it’s impossible. In fact, that’s the reason why we need capable politicians and civil service personnel. If policy work is easy, then we will not be paying so much for them. Also, many other countries have implemented sales tax with exemption for basic necessities. In fact, tax exemption has been implemented in Singapore before e.g. charities, tax refund for tourists, etc. They’re difficult to implement, but we’ve implemented them anyway. So what makes GST exemption from basic necessities so different and difficult?
On the point that higher income families contribute more to GST, again, we do not have the complete dataset to run our own analyses. We know that currently, the higher income families contribute 75% of GST. But we also need to note that the 75% includes your high-ticket luxury items. And it is likely that a large percentage should come from these expensive goods, if not something is seriously wrong. So what percentage of the GST collected comes from basic necessities?
They say that the amount of tax collected will drop if we exempt basic necessities, but by how much? Bear in mind also that this amount will depend on how we define basic necessities. If we only include very basic items like the house brands of rice, flours, etc., the amount collected will probably drop by a smaller amount. And by doing so, we ensure that the poor people will be better able to afford these items that are necessary for life (you can also read this if you are interested - https://sites.google.com/site/taxingthepoor/q-and-a). Give and take.
So what I’m saying is that the proposed solutions have some pros and some cons. It’s not up to us to just say whether or not they will work. It is up to the government to be more transparent that we can have a more fruitful debate on it.
On your point that there are some people who are irrationally against the ruling party, I’d agree. But there are also some people who are also irrationally against the oppositions. In fact, I think it is fair to assume that the population will follow a standard normal distribution. There will be extremes on both end, but the majority of people are rational enough to decide for themselves. And just because the extreme voters are irrational doesn’t mean the party they support is bad.
Post a Comment