Vote opposition? Certainly not.

A short while back, some oppositional elements wrote articles providing quite a number of reasons why people ought to vote for the opposition and not the PAP. Just as a rifle needs to be relieved of a simple firing pin for it to be rendered useless, all I require is one simple and most significant reason, despite the weight of all the rest of the arguments, to not vote for the opposition - and i’d really like to see how the opposition is going to weasel out of this one, or perhaps, as usual, they are simply going to ignore critique as good little Confucians do because they have the numbers on their side.

Speaking with V, Sim, amongst others, I argued my case.

If we are to vote for the opposition now, and if they were to get a significant numbers of votes, whether or not it delivers the parliamentary seats to their posteriors, it will be perceived as a significant mandate for the opposition to carry on along their course. It will be seen as a vindication of all their stances and views. The PAP themselves have similarly used such a ‘mandate’ as a validation of all of their policies and institutions, such as the ISA, for instance. Lee senior had himself said that if the people are not happy with the ISA, they can vote them out, whilst appealing to the individual self-interests of the masses, for instance, in housing or economic matters, to vote them in. Every one of their policies is thus assumed to be given the thumbs up by association. The question is, is there any reason to believe the opposition won’t do likewise.

That is very easily answered. Just ask if the opposition are open to critique before the vote is ever cast. Just look at how they all gang up in an orgy of mutual validation. You don’t really see attempts made by party stooges such as Carlos Abdullah, Gerald Giam, Seelan, Jacob69er, Utopia8787, amongst others, second guessing their own do you. And you don’t see them taking any notice of critiques amongst the oppositional elements such as myself, amongst others, for instance do you. If they are this arrogant before they get the votes, how do you think they are going to be thereafter? Don’t you think that is reason enough, despite the umpteenth + 1 reasons other oppositional elements can give for ‘voting for change’ (you can keep your t-shirt Alex) and voting out the PAP?

The opposition has finally come of age after being nursed by the PAP for half a century. They are Confucians in that they expect conformity and subservience within the ranks. Oh, they talk the seemingly ‘democratic’ talk about not being on ‘bended knee’ before the government, but expect nothing short of that from their own congregation of blinkered zealots. They, like the party in power, appeal to the individual self-interests of the people (along individual and racial lines) to get their bums onto the seats of parliament. They aren’t attempting to rear an ethos of collective empathy amongst the people but are just relying on the self-absorption the party in power has brought about after half a century of rule. Hence, from these, it is to be expected that their approach is quite thoroughly fascist and racist (by numerous oversights on their part when it comes to the interests of, say, the ethnic minorities).

Just look at one instance out of numerous, Temasek Review puts out an article on the last day of the ‘River Hong Bao’ (one of the nationally celebrated festivities for Chinese New Year) is marked for ‘National Integration Night’ whereby ‘foreigners’ are welcomed into Singapore. They whinny about how foreigners are outnumbering ‘singaporeans’, but take absolutely no issue with the fact that this is yet another instance of associating the entire nation with the Chinese as opposed to its multicultural/ethnic make up. In this, is indicated that when the ‘opposition’ uses the term, ‘singaporeans’, they aren’t truly including the other ethnic groups. No other oppositional blogger, or political party has said anything about this event, or TR’s approach. Hence, in perspective, we can conclude that they are complicit in this self-absorbed view of reality. I can cite numerous other instances, which I have discussed in previous observations, but I'll leave the reader with this recent instance for consideration.

Don’t tell me how bad the PAP is. That is indubitable as they have provided the bases upon which the likes of the SG version of ‘opposition‘ and ‘democrats‘ can emerge. However, do tell me how transfigured the Saviour, that is purported to be the ‘opposition’, is. The masses congregating around the opposition is no proof of their Messianic value. Were there not masses around Mao or Hitler, were there not millions who wept at the demise of the murderous Stalin? Were not millions upon millions in support of the patriarchal system of the past? Don’t show me mere numerical numbers who support you. Give me numbers, in IQ, that is. We can all postulate on the evils of the PAP, but can we prove that we aren’t simultaneously apostles of an evil confused for good because it is not as evil as the one in power? Ask yourself if this is not a democratic movement in Hades that whilst seeking to overthrow its existing overlord, does not seek to extinguish its fires.

In the last elections, I made it a point to vote for the opposition in Hougang. V, who was hospitalised at that time (for concussion), made it a point to have herself discharged and rushed in a cab to the ballot box to cast her vote for the opposition, whilst being aided by 2 policemen as she couldn’t walk without help. My argument then was, ‘yes, the opposition are quite fecal in quality, but if we don’t show that there is a demand for them, we aren’t going to get supply of better quality in the future. You can’t the current generation of an Ipod if we shunned the first right?’

But, from hereon, i’m compelled by tyrannous reason to state, ‘if the opposition are as fascist and racist as they are today, would not our casting a vote of demand for them lead to their being validated in their current stance and view of things?’ Would i not be guilty of validating them as they are as opposed to what they can be in opposition to what they are? All evidence points to this being true.

I don't want to vote for an 'opposition' purely on the basis that they are against the government on a number of issues. I want to vote for an opposition that are a clear and egalitarian alternative to the government in power. Vote for Change? No, i'd rather vote for a true alternative than to make a fashion statement by voting for mere change.



postscript: the only question that remains now is to determine if the vote ought to be ‘spoilt’ or if we ought to vote for the PAP. Reason is beginning to point to the latter. Further thought is required. Will write on that anon.

1 comment:

The Inquisitive venture is a collaborative one. Let's collaborate.

Ad hominem is fine so long as it is accompanied with an argument, as opposed to being confused for an argument. In the latter case, deletion will follow.

Blogger Template by Clairvo