The opposition has far more at stake than the ruling party at these elections. The PAP risks its strong mandate, but even if the opposition pulls off victories in Potong Pasir, Hougang and Aljunied on Saturday, the PAP will still retain more than two-thirds of the seats in Parliament. Even though they chant anti-PAP slogans at opposition rallies and choose to like Nicole Seah’s Facebook page (instead of George Yeo’s), Singaporeans ultimately support the PAP. Even if the PAP do (relatively) badly, they will respond by building more flats, opening more MRT lines, restricting the influx of foreigners and quickening the pace of upgrading, and in five years, reclaim the seats they lost.
Rally-goers examine the National Solidarity Party's brochures. The opposition, including the NSP, has higher stakes this election. (Liyana Yeo, Channel NewsAsia)
On the other hand, the opposition has a unique opportunity to kindle an opposition renaissance, capitalizing on the deluge of hot-button issues and the impressively talented candidates it has attracted. The opposition is more desperate to win because they know that if they miss the boat this election, favourable circumstances may be hard to come by in the future.
Because of this, the opposition has said a lot during the campaign to garner our votes, but their words may be far from what they can actually deliver. We must recognize that criticisms of the PAP come from an ungrateful public too caught up in populist rhetoric to appreciate our able leadership. Vote with your head, not your heart, because emotions can be swayed, but logic is immutable.
May 6th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
IMHO, I believe that the opposition is capitalizing on the people’s dissatisfaction with the government in order to garner more votes for themselves. The WP for example, has not responded with any agendas of their own, of what they plan to do for the Aljuined people should they be elected in the recent General Election. One candidate for the WP even commented that having a ‘blank cheque’ is not something that is bad for the people. -.- Like hello?! I’m definitely not voting for a party with all talk but no action, that’s for sure. (although I’m still not old enough to vote, but that’s beside the point)
Yes, it must not be forgotten that there is a risk of losing all opposition in the Parliament should the voters sway towards PAP this GE. However, if the purpose of the opposition is to have their voices heard in the government, why do most of the opposition heavyweights say they will refuse the NCMP seats if offered to them?
And I just wanted to ask the people who so fervently support the opposition: In what way do you think the opposition can serve you better than the PAP? Have you seen any parliament in the world who is as efficient and productive as the PAP? What will happen to this track record if the opposition’s stronghold grows? What about in countries where there are strong opposition, are they even progressing as well as they should?
You say “past records are no assurance for the future”. I ask you, so would you choose someone who has no past records at all?
May 6th, 2011 at 7:22 pm
“We must recognize that criticisms of the PAP come from an ungrateful public too caught up in populist rhetoric to appreciate our able leadership.”
I am disgusted at the elitist attitude you take in this article. Leave that somewhere else if you want to write a balanced piece. Because of that line, the neutrality of your article is cast into doubt.
VFC is dedicated to “strong, sharp, sensitive commentary written by fine writers from 4 JCs”. This is hardly fine writing.
It appears that you are a Rafflesian graduated in 2009 – as a Rafflesian 5 years your senior, I am extremely disappointed.
May 6th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
‘our able leadership’ refers to the PAP’s track record of good governance. It is a known fact that party leadership played a pivotal role in Singapore’s transformation from third world to the first. Are you insinuating that the PAP is elitist, or suggesting that mere mention of PAP’s role at the forefront of Singapore is elitist?
Perhaps the use of the word ‘our’ may be the source of ambiguity, referring to certain elite schools. That would, I feel, be a rather far stretch of imagination. A single sentence in an otherwise non-partisan article shouldn’t determine the author’s – my – attitude.
The purpose of this article remains analytical. If anything, exhort voters to vote wisely and not take things at face value.
May 6th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
@Octopus, with regards to your question about why opposition figures have refused NCMP seats: http://veryfinecommentary.tk/articles/non-constituency-members-of-parliament/
May 8th, 2011 at 1:38 am
A single sentence can make or break an article. A single sentence can reveal an author being careless with his attitude. Never underestimate the value of a single sentence.
Consider this:
We must recognise that criticism of the PAP often stems from populist rhetoric, and the track record of the party remains proven.
Versus what you wrote:
We must recognize that criticisms of the PAP come from !!! an ungrateful public !!! !!! too caught up in populist rhetoric !!! to appreciate our able leadership.
I never disputed the PAP’s role in getting Singapore to where she is today. I disputed the tone you took with your readers – the public, or, as written, the ungrateful public – and the insinuation that they cannot think further than populist rhetoric.
That is an elitist attitude. If you want to exhort voters to do something, that is not the way to do it.
May 8th, 2011 at 10:47 am
Dude election is over. Continue lambasting this article if it makes you any happier. But my advice to you is to criticise IDEAS, not people. Show some maturity by avoiding personal attacks. If your point was to suggest that the particular sentence in question be paraphrased, then say so! Instead you went about criticizing the author which is of no help at all. You mentioned the high ideals of ‘sensitive commentary’ by VFC. Is this how you display sensitivity?
I quote: ” as a Rafflesian 5 years your senior, I am extremely disappointed.” Like ex-minister george yeo said, the PAP needs to talk with and not talk at. I think you would do well to learn from him.
To set the record straight, I maintain my stand that anti-PAP rhetoric during election season is unwarranted and excessive. It is too focussed on immediate grievances. Such short-sighted criticism does not do justice to the amount of good work PAP has done and will continue to do for Singapore. The public in general is caught up with the blame game, and does not even bother with constructive criticism. This much is obvious online and at opposition rallies. This is why I used the word ‘ungrateful’.
As far as I am concerned, the above represents my p.o.v, firstly one that I am definitely entitled to and secondly one that, I assure you, is well-considered, not loosetalk.
May 8th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
“Ungrateful public” and “too caught up in populist rhetoric” was neither sensitive nor correct – a hideous generalisation, and those were personal attacks, albeit directed at the public, by insinuating that all of us are, apparently, too stupid to consider what the PAP has done, and too stupid to look past emotional appeals. (Apparently you consider someone making personal attacks immature – if so, then your writing has been immature.)
I will accept your assurance that the rest of the article is well-considered – which is why I mentioned that because of that one line, the neutrality of the rest of the article is cast into doubt.
Next, election being over has nothing to do with it. I am addressing the standards displayed by VFC and its authors; holding an article and author of VFC to the standards it purportedly set for itself, stated in writing. That is the question here, not my standard, so the points about me and my comments in relation to VFC’s standards are red herrings that do not address the question.
Next, “criticise ideas, not the author” – by extension, then the author must be held completely blameless for expressing something that may not be correct or expressing something that fails to meet stated standards?
Next, my criticism appeared of no help to you, because you could not see where you might have been wrong. Was my criticism that unhelpful? I quoted one specific line, linked it to an elitist attitude and mentioned VFC’s ideals – yet you could not pinpoint where that sentence went wrong, until I explained further, and provided a neutral counterexample for the sentence.
That further vindicates my observation, because if you truly did not display such an attitude, you would have seen it immediately, or used a neutral sentence in the first place in adherence to VFC’s ideals – being strong and sharp, in this case with an observation about criticism stemming from populist rhetoric, is not mutually exclusive with sensitivity – VFC’s ideals themselves say as much, by including them all together.
Finally, expressing disappointment both as a reader – for VFC’s disgraced standards – and as a senior having been in the same school as you subscribing to (hopefully) the same ideals taught in said school – which I felt have also been disgraced – is there something wrong with that?
May 9th, 2011 at 12:19 am
You must, in the name of fairness and mutual respect, not equate your accusation (or observation for want of a better word) with fact. Obviously I do not agree with what you said about my line being elitist.
In addition to that, I did not harbour any elitist thoughts when writing this article at all.
I have tried to explain to you the thinking behind that line but if you must insist on your interpretation, I’m afraid nothing can make you change your mind. I’m not about to re-try. I have done what is necessary to defend my point of view.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and in this postmodernistic culture of ours, it is futile to impose your values upon others. I hear you, and I sincerely hope that you have heard me. It is most unfortunate that we cannot agree. But the very least that you can do, if the fine ideals of VFC are any guide, is to agree to disagree.
May 9th, 2011 at 12:58 am
Very well.
If you sincerely insist that you did not mean to come across as elitist, then I’ll let that charge drop.
As for the writing itself, I still urge you to reconsider for future pieces, to refrain from using such words as have been written for that line, because it can only paint a negative image of your writing – and by extension, you. As has been said, you can be strong and sharp and still be sensitive. In this case and which has been suggested, you can mention criticism often stemming from populist rhetoric, but need not slander the whole public.
I am very sure you have readers, or friends, that both recognise the work the PAP has done yet have considerations against the PAP that are valid and well-thought out – unless you consider them also ungrateful and too caught up in emotional appeals.
May 9th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
“Vote with your head, not your heart, because emotions can be swayed, but logic is immutable.”
I see shades of Mr Yang’s class in this essay
Well written – our politics don’t agree, but well written. Did haupman fall under WP boundaries this year?
May 15th, 2011 at 11:33 pm
defending your opinions is one thing; trolling your critics is another. that aside, the elitism of your second last sentence may escape you, but let’s just say that i usually only see dismissals of the public’s ingratitude in the straits times – and we all know how objective that paper is.
i suppose i should go repent for having said that.
May 15th, 2011 at 11:34 pm
to the editors of vfc: providing a ‘balanced’ perspective of current affairs shouldn’t come at the expense of publishing poorly written articles. i see that you’re trying to show the ‘for’ and ‘against’ wrt various issues…but that carefulness borders on mindlessness and a lack of editorial standards sometimes.