Clarifications.
I have made some changes to the previous post. On second thought I have to admit that it is quite an over-reaction which requires amendment and clarification. Will be more careful next time :PSo here are my clarifications:
1. To me, with regards to national issues, national interest is tantamount. If the opposition does not make any logical sense in their arguments, is too driven by ideology, and oppose just for the sake of opposing, I will not support them either. If my only other choice is Chee Soon Juan, I am sure I won't support him.
2. Why do I think that we need an opposition to pose challenges to the ruling party? That is because of their intrinsic role: they are at a much better position to view government policies skeptically and tell the government things which they may have missed. It is usually difficult and less effective to challenge yourself: that's why we need editors and peer-reviewers, and that's why I am very happy when I receive comments about my posts! :)
3. Also, I see credible candidates in the opposition during the last election. This constitutes an important part in formulating my view about voting for the opposition, and it is my negligence for missing that out...
4. We need a more mature civil society to achieve the kind of public debate that would be meaningful. If it is a chicken and egg thing, we need to break the cycle somewhere (maybe more NCMPs? But the problem is, they have no actual power. This is a critical difference, but it might be a good start.). It is, again, if it has to have an effect politically, the challenge has to come from a rational opposition. That is because the opposition is a form of power that directly challenges the ruling party, and hence will serve to put the ruling party on their edge. I don't like the idea of lobby groups because they generally do not place public interest before their own (like those in America), whereas the opposition needs to do so to convince people to vote for them (ideal situation).
(Look at Hong Kong... They did it successfully in the latest rational, peaceful Chief Executive elections, though their people do not even have the power to vote at all! But then, it is hard to compare... the political culture there is so different. Maybe that is why I dare to speak out like that because a Hongkonger's blood flows inside me :P)
5. I am not anti-government. I am happy with what they are doing now, the budget makes sense and is good (I told my mother: they are even projecting a deficit this year because of all these... the government is seeing things in a much broader sense, which a typical Singaporean might not be able to see), but as a Singaporean I believe that I should not be completely contended with them, no matter how good they are. To put it simply, I quote Mencius:
...... (remember my previous translated Mencius quote? That is what precedes this.)
人恆過，然後能改；
A person has to make mistakes before he can correct them,
困於心，衡於慮，而後作；
His thinking has to be challenged before he can rise and put forward his cause,
徵於色，發於聲，而後喻。
He has to show it and voice it out before others can understand.
入則無法家拂士，
A state without law-abiding officials and capable advisors internally,
出則無敵國外患者，
and neither is there challenges from other powers externally,
國恆亡。
Is bound to head towards failure.
然後知生於憂患而死於安樂也。
From here, we know that people tend to survive better when constantly challenged,
And will tend to head towards failure when they are too comfortable and contended.
~《孟子》
~ Mencius, ca. 300 B.C.
6. Thanks for everyone's concern... I will be more careful next time :) anyway, yes my scholarship requires me to stay out of politics...
Labels: Policy and Politics
