I attended my very first rally today (or rather, yesterday). As a West Coaster eager not to waste a single scrap of my chance to vote this elections, I attended the Reform Party’s rally. I was also there as a volunteer of The Online Citizen, live-tweeting and taking photos.
It wasn’t quite the rah-rah rally that I was expecting, but it’s the party’s first-ever rally, so I’m willing to cut them some slack. I do hope, though, that they will be able to spruce up their speeches, make them more engaging and motivational, as opposed to seminar-like presentations. At one point I thought Kenneth Jeyaretnam was going to whip out some pie charts.
Also, keep to simple language. The beng behind me was confused with the sentence “the government makes facetious arguments”. Not really rally-type words.
Anyway, that wasn’t what I wanted to blog about. What I really want to blog about happened after the rally.
In my previous post on the candidates of West Coast GRC, I raised my concern about Burma issues and Singapore. I thus took this opportunity to speak to Mr Frankie Low, a candidate in West Coast GRC who does some business in Burma (signage). I summarise the main points of the conversation below. I do not quote exactly or directly, but paraphrase.
Me: So how do you feel about doing business in Burma, when other nations are calling for economic sanctions to put more pressure on the regime?
FL: Singapore does not oppose doing business in Burma…
Me: Yes, but do you think that we, as part of ASEAN, should be applying more pressure on the Burmese government, instead of being one of the biggest investors?
FL: Business is different from politics. For business, you are in it to make money.
Me: Yes, but what do you think about the economic sanctions? Don’t you think we should be putting more pressure on the Burmese regime?
FL: Well, I am a businessman, and I think the business is separate from the politics.
Me: I know, but I’m asking you because you want to get into Parliament. So if I vote you in to Parliament, it’ll be politics, right?
FL: Yes. We’ll think about it at that point. Right now we are just talking about and focusing on West Coast GRC.
To a certain extent I get where Mr Low is coming from. April 27 – May 7 is a very short campaigning period, and The Reform Party is a very young party with not a lot of resources. With the focus on bread-and-butter issues for GE 2011, it is highly unlikely that the party has sat down to discuss something like Singapore’s foreign policy in relation to Burma. Although I had hoped for more coherent, insightful answers, I am willing to give RP the benefit of the doubt, and hope that if they do get into Parliament they will be willing to listen to a constituent like me and bring up the Burmese issue eventually. (After all, this is more than I can hope for with the PAP, who have already named an orchid after the current Burmese President and are BFFs with the regime.)
However, his answer highlighted something that I want to talk about.
Mr Low said that he (and by extension, his team) were only focusing on West Coast GRC. And although a devotion to serving the constituents of West Coast is most appreciated, and admirable (and definitely I agree that those who kena SERS against their wishes need help), I can’t help feeling that it is a little short-sighted.
The thing is, I have no real problems with how West Coast GRC is taken care of by the incumbent. The estates get fresh coats of paint, the void decks are swept and cleaned, the rubbish taken away and the grass cut. If I were to vote based on just an assessment of what is happening in my GRC, I don’t think I would have problems voting for the PAP.
But it’s more than that.
When you vote at this elections, you are not just voting for the person who keeps your neighbourhood clean and pretty. You are voting for Members of Parliament, people who will go into Parliament and (hopefully) be your voice and be part of the legislative process.
To be honest, anyone can cut this cake. Alternative parties also can. Just change the party logo on the cake.
After all, if you wanted to reward the people who keep your estate running, you can always give the workers who wash the floors, take away the trash, cut the grass and maintain the lifts an ang pow. They will be there no matter which political party is in power, and they will continue to clean, sweep and maintain. Similarly, the civil servants in the town councils will continue to deal with the logistics and administrative work.
It’s not like your PAP MPs are personally re-painting your block or pruning the trees, you know.
Which is why when I make a decision about who to vote, I will be looking beyond my GRC. I will be thinking about national policies – bread-and-butter issues, as well as policies like the death penalty or foreign relations with Burma. And I don’t think I am the only person who thinks this way. This is why it becomes really quite short-sighted to say that one is only focusing on a particular GRC.
If I vote against the PAP on May 7, it will not be because my MP didn’t do a good job running the estate. I think West Coast has been pretty well taken care of, for the most part. (I don’t know about whether those who go to Meet-the-People Sessions for help are satisfied, but on the whole when I look around this area it’s pretty all right.)
If I vote against the PAP on May 7, it will be because I feel that the PAP should not have such an overwhelming presence in Parliament. I don’t care about whether they have groupthink or not – I just want there to be more groups. I want there to be more groups so that the PAP can no longer just bulldoze through policies that do not really address the needs of Singaporeans. So that the PAP will be forced to get in touch with the people again, instead of being complacent in their ivory towers, ignoring the needs of the lower-income. So that I will be able to feel that I have a voice in my country once again, instead of being brushed off as “noise”.
When I wake up on May 8, I want to find out that the PAP has less seats, and that there are more alternative parties in Parliament. And the only way I can contribute towards that is to vote against the PAP in my GRC.
I don’t think my estate will fall to pieces if the PAP were to lose. As I’ve said, the people who are there to maintain the estate will still be there, because it is their job to be there, regardless of whichever political party is in power.
It is then extremely important to remember that we are not voting for administrators, but for legislators. People who will determine the direction of the country for the next 5 years in all aspects: not just housing and cost of living, but also healthcare, education, trade and foreign policy (and much, much more).
These people will make decisions that will have an impact on what you can buy, where you can live, who you can love, which hospital you can go to, when you can have kids (if you can afford kids at all), what you can watch and listen to on TV and radio, even what you can do or say in public.
When you realise this, it becomes obvious that this is more about who gets an upgrading project, or new government-issue cast-iron gates.
Yong Wen
April 29, 2011
Well said. I am facing the same dilemma in my own GRC. And I am yet to decide.
A pity I am not in Singapore right now and cannot attend the rallies. Would love to go for one though.
kirsten
April 29, 2011
Well, TOC volunteers are trying out best to give live updates either on FB or live-tweeting the rallies for those who can’t make it.
This doesn’t always work, though – I understand that so many people were at the WP rally that the network DIED. No 3G. Nothing. Which is super-impressive.
What GRC are you in?
bookjunkie
April 29, 2011
I vote in someone based more on their moral convictions and those who will take our concerns seriously. I can’t wait to be consulted on future legislative matters.
Michael
April 29, 2011
Nice post Kirsten. Don’t think that you can’t do more than just vote – you can. One of the issues in Singapore is that there are too many opposition parties, too many voices and too many people spread too thinly. They need to come together. However in the meantime, you can select one party, one voice, who you feel will be most effective in office and whose views are closest to your own. That voice doesn’t need to be in your GRC. You can volunteer for them, donate to them, campaign for them even if you can’t vote for them because they’re not in your district. Singapore will still benefit.
While I think its important to have opposition voices in parliament if there are two many voices instead of bulldozing through policies you can end up stuck in endless discussions. There needs to be a balance so that some progress will be made but not without the will of the people.
As a blogger, and particularly someone blogging during an election, your articles can have an influence. So use it wisely. Pick the party you think will make the most difference and support them in your articles. Don’t blindly support any opposition because its an opposition voice.
Not sure if you had a chance to watch the televised speeches by the parties last night. I was fascinated and disappointed. To me, most of the opposition parties said the same thing. There was little to differentiate them because they didn’t discuss solutions or plans for the future. Instead most were a mixture of blame and platitudes, “We will listen,”…”We’re here for the people of Singapore.” Anyone can say those things. Not everyone can be effective in office.
Personally, of all the opposition parties I was most impressed by SDP. They came the closest to offering plans and details.
And I know many will argue that they only had 3 or 4 minutes. That’s no excuse. A lot can be accomplished in 3 or 4 minutes. At the minimum – you can do something to make yourself stand out.
Glad to hear that you’re a conscientious voter. Voting isn’t just a right, it’s a responsibility. It’s good to see that you take it seriously.
Michael
April 29, 2011
Oops, small mistake on my part! Meant to say, of the opposition parties I was most impressed by NSP. Too many party acronyms in my head at the moment.
Either way it doesn’t really matter. Choose the party you like, believe can be effective and give them your support.
Qzact
April 29, 2011
No offense but when you suddenly sprung up that conversation on doing business with Burma with the RP candidate, I think he was probably not prepared to answer you on that due to the fact that it isn’t one of the key issues that people in Singapore are concerned with. Perhaps when all the other more critical bread and butter issues are settled, then they might have some time to consider the morality of doing business with Burma or not. To be frank, as a Singaporean, this is nowhere near the top of my list of things I want the government to work on, or even the bottom.
kirsten
April 29, 2011
Yes definitely, and I said in my blog post that I understand that issues like foreign policy are not on the top of the list right now. I have no problems with that, and that’s why I also decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and trust that this is something that will be discussed, and suggestions put forward, when the time comes. I only said that I had hoped for more coherent answers because I felt that given he does do business in Burma (and therefore should probably understand some of the context of the issue), he could have said something a little more substantial than “business is different from politics”.
I understand that this is not an issue that most Singaporeans are concerned with (although I would strongly suggest that you at least keep it on your list, even if it’s not at the top
!) and that is why I decided not to discuss the Burmese issue further in this blog post, but to highlight the wider issue about voting parties in not for the logistical everyday running of our neighbourhood estates, but for the legislative voices necessary for more robust national policies.
kirsten
April 29, 2011
For GE 2011 I am very impressed by both WP and SDP. They are putting themselves forward very well with interesting candidates.
Personally I find myself leaning more towards SDP because of their championing of civil liberties and human rights issues. As an anti-death penalty/human rights campaigner myself I appreciate and respect them for their willingness to stick to their principles on human rights issues – even if the stance might not buy them votes.
Of course, I am also personally acquainted with some of the SDP candidates, and that helps too, because I know that these are good people who are dedicated, talented and more than qualified to be a voice for Singaporeans.
I would love to volunteer for SDP, or maybe even WP, but I am already volunteering for TOC as a photographer/live-tweeting, and if necessary, even a writer.
mackinder
April 29, 2011
I would advance the point that while Burma is led by a very unpalatable regime, having a business venture in Burma does also mean you are hiring Burmese citizens for jobs et al, and that in return is one way of contributing to their local economy. As a signmaker, it is probable that he does more on-the-ground business than anything with strategic concerns.
Sanctions are a nice word, but do they actually hit rogue leaders where they hurt? A mix of economic engagement might actually provide more benefit to the average Burmese by keeping them employed and also a promise of a better life.
kirsten
April 30, 2011
I would definitely agree with you that not all businesses in Burma are unethical businesses that prop up the regime. I personally am not against ALL business in Burma. There are certain businesses that engage the locals and pay them a fair wage, and that’s actually something that I support. For example, something like this might actually work, AND benefit the people: http://theohcampaign.org/2011/03/05/doing-business-in-burma-%E2%80%93-is-it-always-bad/
However, it is a sad truth that many of the bigger industries in Burma have links to the junta. Which is why I sought clarification with Mr Low with regards to his business. In the signage business he has done the architectural signs for hotels and malls. I will make no assumptions about whether these hotels and malls that he has built the signs for have links with the junta or not.
I believe that economic sanctions do not actually cut of ALL business with Burma, but just certain targeted industries. I don’t believe in lifting the sanctions to help the Burmese people, because I have my doubts as to whether the Burmese government actually lets that money go to the people in the first place. However, companies around the world (including Singapore) still have no qualms about invalidating these sanctions by doing big business with the junta, indirectly providing them the funding for their huge military, which is mostly used to oppress the people.
nz
April 30, 2011
that is the reason why the kiwis supported the national party of nz in their last ge.
Qzact
April 30, 2011
I went home to rethink about why I was so nonplussed by your post. It led me to think of an example. Treat it like an analogy.
What if you asked a similar question to Obama when he was campaigning for presidency. Imagine you asked something like….sir, what do you feel about working with Singapore? Should we stop it on the basis that they do not have strong support for human rights, what with their lack of minimum wages and being governed by an autocratic monarchy-like government etc. etc…..shouldn’t we due to this lack of respect for human rights, stop working with them?
I can so imagine….Obama too would be stumped by such a question and would also probably give you replies similar to the RP candidate’s.
Firstly, it is not so easy to reply assent or dissent to such a question
There are many aspects to look at for such a question….for example, did you know that Singapore’s NOL owns America President Lines (APL), their huge (once nationalised) global containerism service?
If Obama said yes we will stop working with Singapore, then what happens? America loses millions or billions of dollars in business overnight?
Up til now, we have yet to know the full facts of how much collaboration we have with Burma. What if they owned one of our power stations? Then if this RP guy gets elected, and since he agreed to not work with Burma, Singapore would suddenly lose a power station? How do you expect this RP candidate to answer yes or no to your seriously curveball type question and then for you to use this conversation as a basis of stating you would much rather be voting in legislators than administrators is seriously not a good example or indicator of whether this person would be a legislator or an administrator at all. It is not a wholistic view at all.
kirsten
April 30, 2011
I understand your point.
To clarify, I only asked him about Burma because I wanted to find out if he had any particular opinions or views about the issue. Since he does business in Burma, I was interested to find out his perspective. I certainly did not expect Burma to be specifically addressed in RP manifesto, or expect him to promise any particular cause of action.
Although my personal stance is that we should stop being one of the biggest investors in an oppressive regime (that is also known for its connection with drug lords – so much for our “tough stance against drugs”), I understand that there is a lot more to look at and consider, and that things cannot just happen overnight.
I was prompted to write this entry not because of his views (or lack thereof) on Burma, although I have to admit that I was a little disappointed, but because of what he said at the end – that they were ONLY focusing on West Coast GRC at the moment. I just felt that they should not focus only on the GRC in which they are contesting, because ultimately many people will be voting for them based on what they can do for the country as a whole, and not just the GRC.
outside looking in
May 1, 2011
Read your post and bravo to your intelligent decision about the need to get the incumbent back onto the treadmill. They need a hell lot of sweating to trim the oversize bums lol.
Do not worry about your estate ending up in shambles, because it won’t. Just take a look at Potong Pasir. It has not become the slum of Singapore. The party representing Potong Pasir has not dropped the ball once in the 15 or so years. The reason? They have to be on the treadmill since the day they were given the opportunity to represent the citizens in that constituent. Sure the governing party has resorted to fear tactics (the only skill they know) but hey the MRT line went ahead did it not.
My point is that Opposition in parliment is a necessary element. It is paramount to ensure that the citizens of the country has the ultimate power in deciding who stewards the ship. That power is lost, disjoint, and needs to be realised again.
Time is short between now to polling. I can only hope many others share your sentiments to make it a reality on 8th May 2011. I congratulate you on your work and hope to be reading more of your post in the future. Thank you for taking the time to read this comment.