Jason Z. Li

You should cast your vote for the opposition, even if you absolutely love the PAP. There is definitely reason for affection – their policies, in general, have brought more good than harm to Singapore (as a whole). You want to vote for policies you believe in, and that might be the PAP.

But doing so would completely miss the point. This election cycle affords us a rare opportunity – to fine-tune our system of democracy without undermining the stability of our country. Unlike other countries pursuing democratic transition, we don’t have to shed one iota of blood to see something change. In this sense, we’re extremely blessed. All we have to do is exercise our vote to make our government more representative. To do that we have to vote for the opposition, even if we don’t necessarily agree with all their positions.

Theoretically, Singapore should be more democratic than it really is. We follow a parliamentary electoral system, where we vote MPs into government who make (hopefully right) decisions for our country. Each MP represents 50 to 60 thousand people, far better than the congressman-constituent ratio of roughly 1:700,000 in the US. Our unicameral legislature (a one chamber legislature, as opposed to two chambers in most other Western countries), works for a small country like us. In this respect, we could have a more democratic government than, say, Canada where one chamber is entirely appointed by the Prime Minister for life.

Yet, in the rest of the world and in political science literature, Singapore is described with words like ‘authoritarian’ and ‘dictatorship’, befuddling many (including us) because we’ve totally and wholeheartedly embraced capitalism. In schools, students pledge to “build a democratic society/based on justice and equality” during morning assemblies. We have elections. How could we not be democratic?

Because democracy is more than just elections. Democracy is a commitment to a process where multiple voices are taken into account as decisions are made and bills passed. It should ensure that a small sliver of the population (the rich, educated and the PAP) does not monopolize decision making. Whether you drive a taxi or have someone chauffeur you around, you should have someone in government that represents you.

That is not the case now. Our press sits regularly with the PAP to set the media agenda during election times (I know this for a fact). Eighty-two out of eighty-four seats in parliament belong to the PAP, which contradicts the very ideals  of democracy and equal representation. We have essentially one voice in government speaking for an incredibly complex society. There has never been substantive debate in government, because every bill introduced is passed. Individual PAP MPs may offer some resistance during debates but they are obliged to vote together with their party. That the PAP can reform the government is a fallacy; MPs are accountable to their party leaders before their constituents.

Overwhelming PAP presence in the legislative branch affects other arms of government too, including the judiciary. It’s no secret that we have a judiciary that is compliant to the legislative branch, which is in part because our parliament has successfully accrued so much power that checks and balances fail to work. But you can change that.

Too often I hear people complaining about the opposition’s lack of competence, that they don’t offer viable alternatives to PAP’s policies. People lamenting that they have no choice. Well, we have ourselves to blame. If the opposition is always excluded and left out on the periphery, how can it be expected to deal with the intricacies of government? We owe it to ourselves to create and grow viable alternatives to the PAP. And part of doing that is to strengthen the opposition and give them the necessary experience in government so that if the time comes when we decide as a country that the PAP doesn’t have all the solutions, we have options. Are we going to wait for some time in the future until the PAP makes a mistake (and they will eventually; they’re only human), and then realize that we have no one else to turn to because we were too afraid to vote for the opposition when things were fine?

The good news is that we don’t have to overthrow the PAP to see change. All we have to do is increase the presence of opposition parties in government so that it gives the PAP more incentive to consider other options and viewpoints seriously. And who’s going to do that? You. The youth, the technologically savvy, the people who rallied behind Obama even though we can’t vote in America. We have more at stake in Singapore’s future than the older generation. The PAP was our parents’ solution, so they will (rightfully?) continue voting for them. To them, there is no alternative. Some are paralyzed by fear: fear that things would return to the way they were; fear that democracy in itself is a bad thing.

But we are not bound by such fears, and it’s time for us to march on to the next chapter in Singapore’s political story, a society closer to its ideals of democracy and equality.

In a couple of days, you hold Singapore in your hands with your vote. Will you vote as you pledge?

We, the citizens of Singapore,

pledge ourselves as one united people,

regardless of race, language or religion,

to build a democratic society

based on justice and equality

so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and

progress for our nation.

The world seemed, for a moment, a better place as we went to sleep last night. The US has finally obliterated the face of 9/11.

But what has changed, exactly? Nothing for the better. It’s not like Osama orchestrates every, or even the majority of, terrorist acts. Security levels are heightened again, and it seems everyone’s bracing for a reprisal.

I’m not convinced that Osama’s death counts even as a symbolic victory. It did take almost a decade to find him, and instead of capturing him to stand trial and answer for his (I want to say ‘alleged’) crimes, an innocent woman used as a human shield was killed in the operation, which apparently happened without knowledge and consent of Pakistani authorities. The only right observed is religious – a speedy burial at sea, because Islam dictates that the dead are buried within 24 hours. Of all the rights to protect, this one seems really convenient for the White House, and inconvenient for everybody else. No one else can see the body, making any investigation into the White House version of events practically impossible. I think we should call it for what it really is – a body dump.

That Obama called the assassination “the most significant achievement to date” when no terrorist attack has struck US soil since 9/11 is too much of an overstatement. His grand announcement, late last night no less, reeks to me of political masturbation – overly indulgent, maybe even premature. Reminds me of Bush’s victory speech in Iraq.

What’s clear is that Osama’s martyr dreams are finally fulfilled; he’s publicly said that he wants to die in American hands. It is he, and not the US, who is enjoying the last laugh.