Forget the idea that a multi-party system is needed to bring in fresh ideas and alternate viewpoints. The PAP remains in power because it delivers.
(kelvinteowrites.wordpress.com)
It is the timeless but clichéd PAP boast: the transformation of Singapore into a rich metropolitan city from an Asian backwater with few resources. Singaporeans from young are administered a steady diet of Singapore’s past success under the PAP. The PAP unabashedly does so because it speaks the truth.
In power since independence, our party leaders have a reputation for their detached intelligence and cool-headed foresight. Their style of governance is uncompromisingly analytical and consummately logical; they have been labelled as politically-correct cookie cutter workers. They emphasise pragmatism even if it upsets the electorate; consequently, the people feel that they are ”Ivory Tower” elites who do not understand the people. This ‘Great Affective Divide’ as Catherine Lim aptly put it has tragically worsened over the years, to the point that the people feel disillusioned by a party which has only worked for the nation’s betterment. For now, the resentment is limited to cocktail parties and coffee shops but the government should take heed to address these problems. Many Singaporeans often bemoan the fact that the only thing Singapore lacks as nation is an opposition.
Genuine support for the ruling party has dwindled, which has serious implications for the country. The PAP is stereotyped at worst as a heartless dictatorship, and at best treated merely as something to be tolerated grudgingly since it delivers. What is bizarre is that despite a lack of heartfelt support, the PAP constantly romps home to electoral victories, making the PAP the only party in the world to keep winning elections though the people clearly grumble often about them. Catherine Lim summarizes it neatly when she says “Singapore [is] often seen as the creation of the PAP, made to its image and likeness”, and lacking the political activism needed to mould a citizen-directed identity. Hence, dislike of the PAP, even though it does not translate into dislike of Singapore, effectively blocks out any sense of loyalty to both the PAP and Singapore. Nothing is more frightening than having citizens who are loyal merely for the sake of a good life. Their loyalty is based on being able to maintain this good life, their energies redirected to acquiring Singapore’s infamous 5 Cs, their aspirations entirely banked on the greener side of life. Should Singapore’s prosperity one day vanish, one wonders if citizens might simply seek their fortunes elsewhere.
The PAP delivers. Translation: "The results of four years of development. Crushing corruption, lies, and traitors." (National Heritage Board)
Little wonder, then, that the PAP provokes complaints about constructing a paternalistic ”nanny” state; though only a very small number of the population takes part in active political discourse. Yet, elsewhere in the Middle East, people fight passionately for political viewpoints they stand for. Americans fight feverishly for gay rights. Rumours of a ”Jasmine Revolution” by politicized Chinese bloggers frighten security chiefs. Why does such a vibrant economic hub as Singapore have a lacklustre political scene dominated by one party?
The PAP wins every election in its way, despite a dearth of genuine support, leading many cynics to suspect a rigged system. They denounce the OB markers they ”see” everywhere, protest what they perceive as state control of media and decry the ”conspiracies” taken to stamp out opposition. Singapore’s governance is based on democracy, with a smattering of authoritarianism that critics like to exaggerate. But this is more twaddle than truth; the opinion that Singapore is a dictatorship is laughable and absurd: to compare Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew with the likes of Hitler, Stalin or Mao seems more like a bad gaffe than anything else. Elections are fair, there is an increasingly viable opposition and the government does not clamp down harshly on political activists, unlike countries such as China and Russia. Singaporeans often ‘act’ like the PAP are oppressive political leaders. Yet Singapore ranks highly in the Transparency Index. Clearly the system is not rigged.
In truth, Singaporeans feel that they are constrained by the existing system, that the status quo is permanent due to rigging. But these feelings, more than anything, are the result of a myth that Singaporeans have created for themselves: they are contrived phantasms that we willingly perpetuate.
Singaporeans have a strange view that the government has a 1984-esque agenda, constantly scrutinizing the population for the first signs of dissent, so it can clamp down on it hard and fast. They fear jeopardizing their lives, careers and societal positions. They are paranoid that if they speak up against the PAP or campaign against them, it might incur the government’s wrath, leading them to be placed on a so-called ”administrative blacklist”. As pragmatic people, they prefer to carve out a good untroubled life for themselves than get tangled up in the vines of politics. A large proportion of Singaporeans tend to grumble about local politics, yet most are only armchair critics, just in case it reaches the attention of officials. They might direct much flak to the government in private, but in the end it’s merely rhetoric.
Fear and self-interest aren’t good enough reasons when one observes authoritarian countries (one only has to think of the detained Nobel Peace Laureate, Liu Xiaobo), that have rallies and protests despite the more grievous punishments the people are threatened with. The real blame for lack of political change should thus be pinned more on their unwillingness to act upon their self-righteous criticism than on a seemingly fixed system.
Not about to happen. (TIME)
There is also the peculiar notion that the PAP will always be triumphant at the polls. ”My one vote will not make a difference, the PAP will always win.” is the single hapless line that occupies the minds of many around voting time, the 2011 General Elections being no exception. This misguided line of logic essentially lynches any nascent political movement, for it might lead to general disillusion. The result is that Singaporeans are constrained, but not by the electoral system, but by the barriers their minds throw up. If Singaporeans don’t believe that the opposition can win, and subsequently vote for the PAP, how are they going to garner any support? The Opposition will simply wilt if Singaporeans insist on associating the PAP with the idea of perpetual runaway election winners. Perhaps they should confront their own lack of confidence before criticising the system as unfair.
Apart from fixed mindsets, ironically success is the Singaporean government’s most cursed blessing; the root cause of the disease of apathy so virulent in Singapore. Hackneyed images of politically brain-dead citizens spring to mind. More worrisome is that our youths are clearly affected, youths that we must rely on for our future. The New Paper recently been reported that 2 out of 5 youth voters would not vote if it was not compulsory. Increasingly, Generation Y Singaporeans are more self-centred and materialistic, actively pursuing the good life; talk to any teenager these days and he’ll likely go glaze-eyed once the subject moves to the General Elections. On the other hand, mention Justin Bieber and he’ll likely launch into an impassioned angry tirade. As our youths focus on their myopic self-interests they care less about the big issues in life, about Singapore’s survival, assuring themselves that the government can solve anything. This is particularly distressing; they grow up with a sense of entitlement, taking things for granted and hence losing a sense of responsibility in securing Singapore’s progress. With such an attitude, it’s not at all surprising that the political scene in Singapore grows all the more lifeless, ensuring a meek submission to the PAP.
But let’s face reality. In the short run would Singaporeans be better off with a stronger Opposition? It has too little talent and manpower to manage such a dynamic country; a sudden shift in governing methods might throw Singapore into disarray. Why rock the boat then?
Idealistic Singaporeans have become so enamoured with true blue Western democracy that they have forgotten a single party system can work just as well, if not better. And the PAP has been demonstrating that for the past forty years. It is a challenging enough task governing such a fragile island nation without having to deal with a rude cacophony of opposing voices. It is a lucky thing then that the PAP takes a more hard-nosed approach when it comes to governing, pushing for decisions that are deemed best even if it incites violent objections. America, the UK, Sweden, Australia are prime examples, the last three victims to hung parliaments. More often than not, the democracies with the most vigorous elections suffer the most inefficient governance. Singapore is so successful precisely because it can plan with foresight, without having to proceed timidly for fear of public backlash; this is possible only if the government does not keep shuffling. Singapore’s one party system enables it to focus entirely on governing and not winning votes.
What the PAP can and should do is not so much try to incorporate the opposition as promote active discourse within its own ranks. It needs to prove to the people that they are not snobbish disconnected intellects, and that they indeed care about the typical Singaporean’s wellbeing. The Great Affective Divide can be healed if the mindsets that hinder political development are put at ease and steadily eroded. In time perhaps the people will genuinely appreciate that fact and mellow their criticism, understanding that alternative opinions need not only be voiced through an Opposition.
So for now, forget the idea that a multi-party system is needed to bring in fresh ideas and alternate viewpoints. Trash the idea that a one party system is corrupt and inept. The more pressing issue is this: it is high time that Singaporeans finally learn to break free of their prejudiced notions, that the PAP is not as tyrannical as commonly thought, and for the PAP to ease its Victorian image. 
April 17th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
1. Can you fully deny the existence of a climate of fear in Singapore?
2. Singapore lacks the talent and manpower for a strong opposition? What evidence exists to suggest so?
April 17th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
This is surely the worst ever piece of writing ever published on this otherwise excellent website. In essence, it’s one huge, cliche-ridden straw man argument, devoid of both style and substance. I’ll elaborate in a bit – maybe after dinner.
April 17th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
In the course of this article, which features claim after claim about how Singaporeans perceive the PAP, how the PAP governs, and politics in Singapore, the author relies on almost no substantial evidence whatsoever: a Catherine Lim essay here; the Transparency Index there; a New Paper article and a brief mention of politics in four Western countries a little later on together do not amount to very much. (The Justin Bieber reference, alas, does not count.) This lack of examples, given the sweeping nature of the claims themselves, is sloppy, dishonest, and lazy, especially since it’s not actually hard to locate evidence to flesh many of them out. Let’s highlight and call into question just a few of these claims:
1) “Many Singaporeans often bemoan the fact that the only thing Singapore lacks as nation is an opposition.” [What about a clear and distinct national identity? Where's the evidence ]
2) “What is bizarre is that despite a lack of heartfelt support, the PAP constantly romps home to electoral victories, making the PAP the only party in the world to keep winning elections though the people clearly grumble often about them.” [How do you distinguish between "heartfelt" support and lukewarm support? And really: the "only" party in the world to manage this?]
3) “But this is more twaddle than truth; the opinion that Singapore is a dictatorship is laughable and absurd: to compare Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew with the likes of Hitler, Stalin or Mao seems more like a bad gaffe than anything else.” [Is this a widely held view? There are also structural similarities between the organization of the PAP and the communist parties of Russia and China, but I don't have time to elaborate on this.]
4) “Singaporeans have a strange view that the government has a 1984-esque agenda, constantly scrutinizing the population for the first signs of dissent, so it can clamp down on it hard and fast. They fear jeopardizing their lives, careers and societal positions. They are paranoid that if they speak up against the PAP or campaign against them, it might incur the government’s wrath, leading them to be placed on a so-called “administrative blacklist”. As pragmatic people, they prefer to carve out a good untroubled life for themselves than get tangled up in the vines of politics. A large proportion of Singaporeans tend to grumble about local politics, yet most are only armchair critics, just in case it reaches the attention of officials. They might direct much flak to the government in private, but in the end it’s merely rhetoric.” [The last clause sums up the article pretty well.]
5) “Idealistic Singaporeans have become so enamoured with true blue Western democracy that they have forgotten a single party system can work just as well, if not better. And the PAP has been demonstrating that for the past forty years. It is a challenging enough task governing such a fragile island nation without having to deal with a rude cacophony of opposing voices.” [Wait: I thought Singaporeans were politically apathetic, as the author asserts in his previous paragraph?]
I could go on, but I think you get my point. The author, in order to justify his support for the PAP (whom he even helpfully provides policy advice to), has attributed to detractors of the ruling party all manner of supposed opinions, but without actually showing that people hold these opinions. In short, it’s one massive straw man pseudo-argument. And we haven’t even delved into the ideas featured here yet. That’ll have to wait until tomorrow. Stay tuned.
April 18th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
totally agree with Consider up there. this election has surfaced many talented individuals who have chosen to join the Opposition. on credentials alone, these people are by no means untalented. and you shouldn’t dismiss credentials, it’s something the pap seems to value greatly judging from the new people they’re introducing. so how can you say that there aren’t talented people in oppo?
and fear-mongering is definitely present in society. ministers use it in their speeches. my 80-year-old grandma thinks she’s going to get arrested for voting oppo. if there isn’t this climate of fear (and the covert efforts to maintain such a climate), why not the pap come forward and clarify this once and for all.
April 18th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
“Fear and self-interest aren’t good enough reasons when one observes authoritarian countries (one only has to think of the detained Nobel Peace Laureate, Liu Xiaobo), that have rallies and protests despite the more grievous punishments the people are threatened with. The real blame for lack of political change should thus be pinned more on their unwillingness to act upon their self-righteous criticism than on a seemingly fixed system.”
seems to contradict the point
“This is particularly distressing; they grow up with a sense of entitlement, taking things for granted and hence losing a sense of responsibility in securing Singapore’s progress. With such an attitude, it’s not at all surprising that the political scene in Singapore grows all the more lifeless, ensuring a meek submission to the PAP.”
Maybe we should look at it from another point of view. It could be a chicken and egg thing where its this “fixed system” that inculcates in the electorate an unwillingness to look beyond the wondrous miracles brought about by the PAP.( think National Education in schools and to a smaller extent, the PA). Do not ignore the wide reaching ISA that still arrests so-called activists in this day and age. Do not ignore the law-suits that threaten should your words be even a letter out of line with what the PAP deems appropriate. Do not forget to watch your back. Wait- is this 1984 or 2011 I am confused.
April 21st, 2011 at 12:45 pm
“Do not ignore the wide reaching ISA that still arrests so-called activists in this day and age.” ?
Do they? To quote kungfuzi “Where’s the evidence?”
America, the UK, Sweden, Australia are prime examples, the last three victims to hung parliaments. More often than not, the democracies with the most vigorous elections suffer the most inefficient governance. Singapore is so successful precisely because it can plan with foresight, without having to proceed timidly for fear of public backlash; this is possible only if the government does not keep shuffling. Singapore’s one party system enables it to focus entirely on governing and not winning votes.
Good Piece. The ugly truth of democracy that everyone is hard press to admit.
April 22nd, 2011 at 1:12 am
Yawning Bread’s (http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/deadlock-bogeyman/) latest article should be required reading for Singaporeans like the original author and RPGmouth whose simplistic conceptions of democracy seem to be drawn exclusively from the PAP’s playbook. (Additionally, it would seem that RPGmouth hasn’t bothered reading my initial critique very carefully.) To YB’s piece, which shows that this coming election cannot possibly produce a hung parliament, I can add little, but let at least me rebut the particular excerpt (“America, the UK, Sweden, Australia…”) quoted by RPGmouth.
First, it cherry picks its case studies to prove its point, ignoring examples of successful democracies without hung parliaments, as well as democracies with coalition governments that have been able to enact important legislation. The author’s case would have been strengthened significantly if he had zeroed in on a specific country and explained how exactly a hung parliament there had compromised the effectiveness of government decision-making. He would also have to demonstrate 1) the structural similarities between that country’s political system and Singapore’s, in order to argue for the inapplicability of a multi-party democracy to Singapore, and 2) that the policies being stymied would be unquestionably beneficial to everyone.
But there are never such policies. This leads to my second criticism, which is that the author presumes governmental infallibility and that a government’s timidity for fear of “public backlash” is a bad thing. (Were the first presumption true, then why bother having elections at all?) But this is not the case: more so than at any time in recent memory, many Singaporeans are seriously unhappy with the ruling party, precisely because they perceive it to be unresponsive to their concerns — about housing prices, foreign talent, the death penalty, censorship of the media, S377A of the penal code, et al. That’s why alternative political voices are desperately needed.
The question now is: might these alternative voices come from within the PAP, perhaps from its younger, more liberal members? (By “within the PAP,” I mean from within its highest echelons, not its rank and file.) I’d like to think that these members exist, but evidence is sparse. There might not be Groupthink within the party, but self-censorship certainly exists, due mainly, I’d argue, to the PAP’s secretive, self-perpetuating, Communist-style cadre system. Under this system, originally conceptualised by Lenin in order to prevent infiltration of Communist ranks by non-Communists, only cadre members get to vote for the party’s top leadership, which in turn decides who to admit into the cadres. New PAP members are thus beholden to party elders from the outset; to both get admitted into the party and rise through its ranks, in other words, one must necessarily toe the party line. But it may be a moot point, since PAP MPs are almost always compelled to vote according to the party line, not according to conscience. This is why opposition MPs are needed.
April 25th, 2011 at 2:06 am
Oh my Lord, what have they been teaching our generation?
This is a miserable article; kungfuzi has very graciously picked apart its many flaws. Without even going into the content, the article is written in a typical Singaporean-student essay manner: rigid, overly-structured, unvaried sentence structure and a limited vocabulary.
That aside, though, my biggest question is, how are we going to expect the next generations of our electorate to make wise decisions when they are so terribly unaware of the real context? I sincerely hope there will be some form of awareness creation, and soon.
April 25th, 2011 at 10:22 am
A very myopic view of things. Typical S’pore education style, where things are black or white, right or wrong. Where’s the reasoning, debate instead of just concluding on the result?
Yes, PAP has done a rather good job of HELPING building the nation. Yes, they’ve got the country out of recession rather quickly and bounced back well. But at what cost?
- Foreigners influx – its NOT only construction and service staff workers BUT middle level managers S and C pass holders that are coming in en-mass, stealing jobs from Singaporeans.
- This spirals into diluting the country’s racial cohesion as foreigners haven’t been
- The recent influx coincides with rising property prices, with the rich buying more properties to rent (to foreigners, most locals don’t rent let’s be honest); while dual income families with children haven no access to affordable homes or a chance to upgrade.
- Casinos to build jobs – How many singaporeans work as croupiers/chamber maids? Gambling and it’s related vices will increase, gambling and social issues WILL surface. So what is the price we’re going to pay?
April 25th, 2011 at 10:32 am
Sorry, too many points, forgot to finish some…. =)
- This spirals into diluting the country’s racial cohesion as foreigners haven’t been brought up to value racial harmony.
- Huge ministerial salaries – seriously, how does this justify? Overly paid ministers, elitist government are evidently disconnected from the plight of the poor. We CAN get more for less, sieve out those who aren’t there for public service but more for $$.
- Gerrymandering – My estate doesn’t need upgrading, but for the PM to say that you don’t get upgrading unless you vote PAP?! It’s MY tax money too, I WANT potong pasir and hougang residents to be treated fairly. They deserve it too, more so than other constituencies.
- Other countries VALUE their citizens over PRs and work permit holders. Here, our forefathers have built this nation, our men serve 2/2.5 years national service…but the govt welcomes foreigners, made it too easy. They’re not the prodigal sons of singapore, not my brother.
April 25th, 2011 at 9:27 pm
@Irenaeus in particular, but also in response to other comments:
As much as I don’t agree with Fabian’s conclusions, I don’t think the criticisms of his style are valid. Yes, you’ve described the stereotypical Singaporean student’s essay, but this article is quite far from it, and I believe that’s why it warrants inclusion in Very Fine Commentary.
If by “rigid” you mean that he sticks to his stand, then I can’t agree that that constitutes a flaw. Nor does he ignore our potential points of contention – indeed he deals with what he anticipates we will say. If by “overly-structured” you mean that he merely lists his arguments in point form, I don’t think that’s the case. Even if you don’t accept these more subjective measures, I think it’s unfair to describe his sentence structure as “unvaried” and his vocabulary as “limited”. These characterisations are highly inaccurate, and they lead me to wonder whether this is the real issue we have with this article, or whether we simply cannot separate our judgment of style from our (dis)agreement with an author’s views.
It may be presumptuous to suggest, but I have a feeling our antipathy towards Fabian’s views has distorted our judgment of his presentation as well. I’m quite glad this article has attracted more than its fair share of criticism, because I think our readers have been provoked into responding to it, and perhaps (in time) will take more seriously the points that Fabian has raised, myself included. The response in itself shows, in my view, that this article was of value, and has already contributed, in JC’s words, to the “debate”.
I only wish the debate were more centered on the content of the arguments put forth.
May 6th, 2011 at 11:23 pm
I have to take issue with the things raised by “kungfuzi”, though I’ll start by saying I think that’s a cool name to choose. Anyways, I’m not entirely sure what he’s trying to prove; yes, he points out a bunch of areas where the article could have been better supported and where the author made sweeping assertions. So what? All he does is point out a bunch of areas where the author should have “zeroed in on a specific country and…” because this would have let his case be “strengthened significantly”. Yes, I agree. But unless you are going to point out why exactly it’s wrong, and not how it’s not necessarily done well, I don’t believe those critiques deal with his ideas at all (in the sense of proving them false).
Furthermore, who in the world can back up everything? If the author were to back up ever statement and assertion he makes with a detailed case study, he’s be better off writing a novel than a short article. Failing to back up every single line is not in and of itself a sin; if you just took a look at The Economist or something (yes, appeal to authority is a fallacy; no, it doesn’t mean the point is wrong), there’re plenty of assertions in there. I mean, even when it spends a couple of pages dedicated to discussing Californian democracy, it doesn’t really explain to us everything about it and show how the poor, populist policies it produces are systemic. Instead, the article throws up the Initiative which limits property tax, gives us some shock and horror, and assumes it’s point concluded. I don’t see what’s wrong with that.
Next, I want to talk about this dude called JC, who sounds to me to be guilty of the very thing he accuses the author of: a myopic view of things. No, deigning to mention the progress the PAP has achieved (or helped Singapore to achieve, if that phrasing better pleases you) does not qualify as considering both sides of the issue, especially since you only wrote about what this progress might have cost without explaining what it has gained for us as a nation.
Essentially, the tirade he attempts to disguise as a ‘critique’ is no more than a classic list of Opposition grievances: foreigners, rising property prices (due, funnily enough, to foreigners), loss of social cohesion (due, once again, to foreigners), unfair treatment of citizens (foreigners again), ministerial pay, the casinos and gerrymandering (which are not due to foreigners, though I’m confident that situation can be swiftly remedied).
Hold on for a minute. Why in the world are foreigners such terrible things? “We pay them to do jobs because they’re better at it; shock and horror. They weren’t brought up to believe in racial harmony, so they’ll be a bunch of racists despite being in the minority. Shock and horror. They dilute our racial cohesion (ok I don’t even get this point). Shock and horror. They rent houses. Shock and horror. Worst of all, they don’t need to serve NS. Shock and horror.” What? Come on, it’s not like we suffer from a terrible dearth of jobs. In fact, our extremely foreigner-welcoming policies have helped us to keep unemployment at an astounding 1.9%, far better than the more protectionist and homogenous societies of Japan, Korea and the not-so-protectionist-but-still-more-protectionist-than-us county of America. Why? It’s all to do with attracting not just foreigners, but also foreign companies, which are responsible for a huge percentage of our employment. Foreign companies tend to be less likely to set up shop in a country where their workers are rejected. I won’t spend a long time explaining why, take my word for it.
As for this racial/religious harmony nonsense, all I can say is I’ll pay you a hundred dollars for any reliable study or even noticeable trend in foreigners being racist. I very much doubt a minority, especially those who have steady, stable jobs (which you seem to concerned about, S and C passes) will rail against the majority race, despite their lack of exposure to a racial harmony programme from young. Foreigners are no more racist than Singaporeans, and based on your views I suspect less so than many.
As for renting houses… Well, I’m not too sure about this, so I’ll let it slide. Could be true, could be false, although I very much doubt the claim that Singaporeans don’t rent and only foreigners do.
For the last thing about foreigners, on how the government should protect citizens more than foreigners… true, which is why subsidy scales are tilted the way they are, but if inviting foreigners is a useful way of benefiting one’s own citizens (and you haven’t shown why the past ten years which supports this is wrong) then it makes perfect sense to continue doing so.
Right. Next, ministerial pay and casinos, with a side of gerrymandering. For ministerial pay, I guess it’s fair to say that they are paid too much (or some, anyways), but while not disagreeing with this I just want to propose a way of thinking about the issue which might make it a bit more confusing for you (yes, confusion is not always bad). Imagine you had a new MP who, working in the corporate sector, never rose beyond the position of factory/warehouse manager. Would you want him running the country? I suspect not. You’d probably prefer the CEO, simply because he’d apparently be more capable. That being the case, I fail to see why you want to pay for less, when the people running the country should be the ones most richly rewarded. Of course, I don’t suggest that the PAP candidates are all capable of becoming CEOs of large companies. They aren’t. But in an ideal situation, where all your MPs would be extremely capable and sufficiently hardworking to reach the top if they so wished, we’d happily pay them what they get now. The fact that they aren’t at that level doesn’t mean we should lower the standard: it means we should sack the occupant of the job, assuming of course there’s a better replacement (and I don’t think the Opposition provides better alternatives, except perhaps the team in Aljunied).
On the casino, I’m sure you’ll call me when we’re sunk into a pool of decadence, vice and hedonism in 2020. For the meantime, let’s leave the issue alone.
Finally gerrymandering… uh, yeah OK that’s not very democratic. But it doesn’t tell us why the PAP is a bad governing party. There is a difference between governing and being a democratic party, and I do believe that the the latter is simply a means to achieve the former.
This comment’s a lot longer than I intended. Not all of it is well-argued. Nonetheless, I believe it to be true anyways.
May 6th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
Oops. That was way too long. I should have been studying or something. Never mind. Sorry for the lack of clarity in the previous comment, work it out please. Thanks
May 7th, 2011 at 1:09 am
screw the pseudonyms.
i hate how the stats don’t tell everything, but research becomes so much more inconvenient otherwise.
we need more facts. we’re debating in a vacuum right now. most of the stuff is either bs stats from the department of stats or hearsay.
i wanted to criticize dunbelievethis (and i dun believe you said this, dunbelievethis, i actually know who you are!) but forget it. i’ll shut up until i know more about these issues. i have a gut feel about them, naturally, but it stands to reason that since only the individual knows best the impact on govt policy on his or herself (despite governments knowing more about policymaking in general), the vote will tell us who was right. to a certain extent.
May 7th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
hahas ok adil, sorry if i didn’t live up to your expectations or something. but just want to point out that in all cases, the vote isn’t an indicator of which side makes more sense but an indicator of which side the voters think makes more sense. um, yeah.