my new theme song.

Not doing anything at all, nah uh.

The 7th of May

I am just another voter. I do not claim to have the most enlightened take on the elections, but my vote counts as much as yours at the ballot boxes. Over the past few days I have seen a wide range of views, from well-reasoned critiques of policies and manifestoes, to good statistical analyses of figures quoted in rally speeches, and finally petty bitching, which I find the most fun to read.

It all adds to the colour of these elections. We should embrace everything about these times, the passionate rallies, the name-calling, the incessant news coverage, and all the election-related humour that has sprung up.

The discourse online is actually something to cheer about, because it makes me realise that Singaporeans are actually more intelligent and discerning politically than we often give ourselves credit for. One only has to look at the quality of some of the material posted online to see that.

For me, the PAP is a victim of their own success. Decline is inevitable in any political party, especially one that has ruled unchallenged for about 50 years. Historically, Singapore has done exceedingly well, going from third-world poverty to almost first-world living standards in the space of a generation or two. But as with any nation that experiences such rapid change, systems and institutions can struggle to keep up.

As much as the PAP fancies itself as adaptable, the harsh reality is that in any institution, practices both good and bad become enshrined, and often it takes someone outside of the party to point that out. The PAP holds forth to an oft-repeated “track record”, believing that if the system is not broken, why change it? However, this is the very danger of a party that has become too comfortable. It loses the ability to critique itself fairly.

It took rallies involving thousands of voters and possibly the most intense outpouring of negative sentiment towards the PAP seen in years for it to wake up to a reality check, and for the PM to say “sorry”. In any other government, immediate apologies would have been issued for missteps like the flooding of Orchard Road (twice), the escape of Mas Selamat, and the gross overspending on the YOG.

We are not asking that ministers get sacked, we are asking that when mistakes happen, the PAP has the political maturity and humility to recognize that it is fallible too. A discerning electorate will recognize that no government gets things right all the time. It is not the missteps that sting, but the way the PAP acts like it does not have to be accountable to us that does.

The standards of accountability have slipped, because the PAP presumably does not have to worry about its survival. The ill-will that they are facing now is simply an amalgamation of pent-up frustration. In hard times, people move for parties that can connect with them. A party that takes a top-down approach is hardly that. If we do not enjoy taking shit from our bosses, why would we enjoy taking it from our leaders? It is why we always put forth the argument for representation. We are really looking for a voice that can speaks for us, and not at us.

The internet has also been a game-changer. The name of the game is now involvement, but for years, the PAP has practiced paternalism, which comes across as patronising. Attempts by leaders now to connect with the ground are a good sign, but if the party were not an institution chained to practiced ways of behavior, if competition were the name of the game, do you not think the PAP would have realized this glaring weakness sooner?

The admission by our PM that he is unable to keep up with the hordes on Facebook only drives home the fact that he is woefully out of touch with the younger generation. He is a newbie, and personally I give him kudos for trying. We should be fair and realize that it is very difficult for a person of his age to actually take the initiative and engage the citizenry in an online chat. But what about the rest of his party, his supposed third and fourth-generation leaders, who are a good deal younger? Why is it that of all the ministers, only Mr George Yeo actively maintains a Facebook page?

I view the development of a stronger opposition as a natural progression of the political scene in Singapore. As educational levels rise, they provide a more stringent challenge to the incumbents. Singaporeans should not be alarmed at what appears to be the presence of several Davids attempting to take down the hegemony of the PAP Goliath. Rather, we should recognize that it is a natural part of any system.

Competition is healthy, and necessary. And despite all the rhetoric about drivers, pilots and goalposts, the endgame is simply that only the fittest will endure, barring a few caveats because the GRC system still allows otherwise weaker and untested candidates to breeze into Parliament. But sacred cows have to be slain one at a time.

The biggest takeaway from all this is, the PAP now realizes that it has to work a lot harder. And that is a good development for all of us.

Go away you shoveller.

This is the first election I will ever vote in. And I think I speak for some when I say that really, many of us are very sick of the coverage on the elections. Not because we don't want to listen to what others have to say, but because of the way people are saying things.

I like it when people agree with what I say. But I like it even more when people disagree. As much as it is uncomfortable to meet an opposing view, for a person to disagree, it means that they were listening to what you said. They have something new to offer you, a viewpoint to exchange and ponder over. After all, if the people around you agree with everything you say, you need new friends.

And I often find that I learn most from those who disagree with me. The mistake in dealing with such people is to shut out what they have to say, believing steadfastly that one is right, a misguided stance in the name of pride. The person who thinks he has heard it all, or learnt all there is to learn about the elections, he is someone you should be wary of. All of us work within the limits of bounded rationality, but it is important that we are humble enough to realise that we are fallible, and not omniscient. For the future of Singapore, I think it is our responsibility to make the most informed decision we can.

However, this does not mean that my willingness to partake in discussing others' views should be taken for granted. I believe that in any mature discussion, it is a two-way process. This means that as much as I respect your views, I do not want them shoved down my throat, especially since I am not doing that to you.

And one of those places where it is becoming most prevalent is Facebook, a social medium that aggregates the like-minded. Often, the moderate rational voice finds it difficult to share, for fear of being shunned by the partisan crowd. Peter Yeo, the deputy digital editor at TODAY says it best in this article "Dont fall into the populist trap this election", especially in this paragraph.

"It is my observation that social media (not all of it, of course) breeds bullies. As the thread builds, it creates a hive mentality. Any dissenters are quickly dispatched and chased out of the swarm, no matter if they make a reasonable argument. More often than not, newcomers are viewed with suspicion until they corroborate the hive's mentality. This makes the argument even more one-sided as all other views are not welcomed or are sanitised in favour of the group."

And there are many such bullies on Facebook. So many, that I've decided to take a break from the medium till sanity resumes.