Click the words ABOVE (NOT below..) to get around !!!
ABOUT {what i've}
LINKS {been looking for}
TAG {all this time}
bold italic underline link
I most certainly do not see myself as a wonderfully self informed person capable of making critical judgements and comments on what is going on in the political scene right now.
I have often thought of myself as being a rather politically apathetic person.
Maybe it's because without any choices, people assume apathetic-ness.
Afterall, getting too caught up in something which seems unlikely to change could be a troubling way to live.
(On the other hand, being apathetic could very well feed the cycle of nothing being changed and therefore remaining apathetic... yadda yadda)
But with the election drawing close, we are forced to make a stand.
Apathetic or not, I have to vote.
And only a few weeks back, I admit that I had no idea who to vote for and yet it didn't bother me all that much.
I've come to accept the fact that with or without me (since I've never voted before), life goes on.
Since I've always lived in an area where PAP was and is in power, I don't know of a life where this has not been the case.
I've come to accept a lot of things going around me like GST hikes, ERP hikes, housing hikes, car ownership hikes as facts that would occur, whether we like it or not, whether PAP is in power or not.
But I have since then heard a lot from the opposition parties.
Thanks to facebook and enthusiastic friends, I have heard a lot of slamming of PAP. Internet noise and bias-ness aside, it reminds me that the life I know of may not be the only life out there.
There is no guarantee that the opposition will do better, or that the PAP will do any worse, but is change really so bad?
Over the past few years, I've been overseas more than a couple times, and somehow, it has made me appreciate Singapore and indirectly, the government more.
I've even became quite convinced that PAP wasn't as bad as certain people made them out to be.
At some point in time, I could have even be a PAP supporter.
But this image (illusion maybe) seem to be fading these days.
Talk may be cheap but talk is often all we have to judge certain things and based our decisions upon.
Over the past few days, I have heard some really good opposition speeches, some not so good ones but unlike the PAP, nothing they have said have irked me.
The things PAP have been saying are splashed over the local news and the papers, both of which I believe would not have any intentions of portraying them in a bad light.
Which means whatever that are being published are most likely things PAP want the people to hear and NOT slips of the tongue.
And yet the things I am hearing baffles me.
Surely any rational being could see through the threats and often nonsensical analogies?
Analogy of the country being a car and the goverment as the driver? And PAP's claim that having 2 drivers is dangerous and inefficient since drivers going in 2 directions will translate to slower decisions being made etc etc.
Isn't this as good as saying that things should be done in one and only one way? PAP's way? In what universe is having more than ONE school of thougth, more than ONE opinion a bad thing? Back to the car analogy, what if the ONE driver is a reckless one?
And the threats to Aljunied voters that they WILL regret their decision should WP come in power? And all those age old threats on delays in upgrading and developments should opposition come into power.
Using one of the retorts from the opposition, whose money is the PAP using? Why should certain people be made a lower priority when they are paying and contributing the same amount as the rest of the population? Certain amounts may be subsidised from the parties but doesn't this money eventually trace back to the people? And anyway, why does the party have so much reserves to threaten the people with?
And even if these accumulations of reserves are justified, why the threats? Why threats instead of promises?
All through my school life where I have seen people running for clubs and societies, for representations in schools and competitions, never have I ever seen people use threats as a tool to garner support.
Maybe the generation has changed. Haven't people heard that the youths of today are rebellious and possibly difficult to control or fit conventional norms?
Threats don't make us back down.
They could very well wake us up from the political slumber we have been taking for so long.
As of right now, either parties in my GRC has yet to convince me why I should vote for them.
But one side is definitely set on giving me more and more reasons why my vote should not go to them.
Even with nothing being done, every supporter one side loses is a gain to the other.
I wonder when PAP will realise that.
Update: after reading numerous notes and links online, with many solid analyses and number crunchings, I am thoroughly convinced I am not as critical as I could and should be. And I am sure there are many others like me out there. But I guess my general stand still remains - it is difficult to judge capabilities based solely on words and over such a short period of time. And I believe attitudes largely determine success and a party which resorts to threats only portray a lack of confidence and the inherent tendency to undermine the very people they claim to be serving.
I believe formulating policies is something which can be learned and improved upon.
But attitudes and behaviours? They tend to stick around.
And funny thing is, why are citizens making these analysis and rebuttals for the political parties which seem so incapable of doing so themselves?
