VOTING RESPONSIBLY

21 May 1996

With the impending general elections have come the expected 
sermons about responsible voting (for the latest in the series, 
see Tan Sai Siong's 'Too much opposition may not be a good thing', 
Straits Times Interactive, 19 May 1996).

These political homilies implicitly charge that voting against the 
PAP is irresponsible. Singaporeans' concerns are dismissed 
condescendingly as 'flea-like minutiae' unconnected to the all-
important 'big picture'. We are told sagaciously that 'we've never 
had it so good', and warned that a 'freak election result' will 
damage investors' confidence and lead to all sorts of dire 
consequences. Apart from insulting the approximately two-fifths of 
electors who voted for the opposition at the last general 
elections, the charge of irresponsibility glibly assumes that 
there are no 'good' reasons to desire political changes. It is an 
assumption that does not withstand even mild questioning.

Calls for more checks and balances should not be cavalierly 
dismissed as irresponsible or idealistic. For some Singaporeans, 
MP Peter Sung's breathtakingly smug advice on HDB upgrading (He 
said: '[I]f you want your blocks and precincts to be upgraded 
earlier, you know what to do at the next election.') sharpened  
unease about the lack of constraints on the PAP Government. 
Similarly, the decision to build, but not open, the MRT station at 
Potong Pasir and the HDB's abrupt decision to terminate the 
provision of emergency and maintenance services to opposition town 
councils made Singaporeans wonder about the lengths to which the 
incumbent party would go to preserve its dominance.

In this light, can the desire for more checks on the PAP 
Government still be regarded as irresponsible? The greatest 
irresponsibility and complacency is to trust blindly in 
politicians. Contrary to what some may think, Singaporeans who 
argue for more constraints are realists about the ultimately 
corrupting influence of power. It is their critics who are 
idealistic believers in the everlasting integrity of the PAP.

Ms Tan avers that 'it has become inevitable for the fortunes of 
Singapore to be read in conjunction with those of the PAP'. Her 
argument is specious because the PAP's interest may only partially 
overlap the larger interest of Singapore. Is it not in Singapore's 
interest to develop greater political resilience away from the 
present psychological dependence upon a single political party? 
That it is impossible to achieve this without denying the self-
interest of the PAP in maintaining its dominance proves that the 
PAP's interest and Singapore's long-term interest may diverge. It 
would appear that Ms Tan, who laughed silently at the parochial 
concerns of Singaporeans, has herself failed to transcend the 
PAP's interest to appreciate the bigger picture of Singapore's 
long-term interest.

Moreover, Ms Tan's fixation on her smallish big picture has 
blinded her to the simple fact that even the biggest picture is 
composed of tiny pixels, in this case, individual Singaporeans. It 
is the same problem with 'helicopter vision': you can't see much 
detail from a helicopter. To argue thus is not to advocate 
provincialism, but to remind Ms Tan that much of politics is 
local, and not to be dismissed.

What about the risk of a 'freak' election result? That the PAP 
lose power as a result of a wave of protest votes would be 
unexpected, but not at all freakish. To label any outcome other 
than the PAP returned to power 'freak' is to accept that the PAP 
has a natural right to rule. What _is_ freakish for a professed 
democracy is that valid political differences should be 
obstinately denied and critics denounced as irresponsible. 
Ironically, it is the complacent denial of the need for more 
checks and balances that could generate the alienation leading to 
the 'freak' result so feared by Ms Tan.