In today’s Straits Times forum page, there was this letter about how the opposition’s scholar candidates are a worry.

Opposition’s scholar candidates a worry

AS AN older citizen, I am uncomfortable about the presence of former government scholarship holders in the opposition.

To me, it seems as if they are abandoning their parents who paid for their excellent education.

Yes, one could argue that these candidates were in fact supported by taxpayers and will now serve all Singaporeans, and not only the People’s Action Party. But, are they really sincere about helping Singapore achieve a better society by joining the opposition?

Can they effectively check the Government or will they create more fighting or quarrelling like the parliamentary sessions in Taiwan?

Aren’t there enough ways of giving feedback to the Government? I can contact my Members of Parliament any time; I don’t even have to make an appointment and can e-mail them when I need help.

It takes time to know these scholar opposition candidates and I wonder if I should risk the four to five years it will take to know such a candidate’s ability, and compromise national progress.

A better answer for me is not to vote them in for this General Election and see if they continue contributing.

I would even apply my answer to the Workers’ Party’s star candidate, Mr Chen Show Mao. I would like to see if he really relocates his family to Singapore, as he has told the press he would, if he fails to win the election.

A candidate like Workers’ Party chairman Sylvia Lim is too academic for an average voter like me. She makes good speeches but rarely champions a voter’s bread-and-butter needs.

A good MP to me must not only act as a check on the Government, but also serve the ground and offer effective solutions to the Government.

I would prefer a few good opposition MPs than many who are merely interested in the glamour of being in the opposition in Parliament.

Ho Lei Gi (Madam)

The first assumption made is that a government scholar is the same as a ruling party scholar. This is not the case. Contrary to popular misconception (and a rather reasonable misconception in Singapore), there is a dichotomy between the government (which includes its opposition MPs) and the ruling party that forms the majority of the government. Simply put, a PSC scholar is not a PAP scholar. The funding is from the Public Service Commission and not any political party. A government scholar is hence not beholden to any specific political party. Otherwise, by your logic, they will then also have the obligation to vote for the incumbent. The central argument is stupid, therefore wrong.

Apart from the eye-catching headline-making point, several other points are made as well — but they’re rather self defeating in that they don’t only apply to these new opposition scholars. They apply to many other non-opposition members.

Self defeating argument 1: There are enough ways to feedback to the government, hence there is no need for opposition members. Let’s not even question the efficacy of these avenues — but by her logic that feedback channels are already sufficient, there is no reason for people to join politics, regardless of whether it is the incumbent or the opposition. Clearly, joining parliament is more than just about feedback. It’s about playing a direct role in influencing policy and bridging the rulers and the ruled. It is ludicruous to compare actually being a member of parliament with SENDING AN EMAIL TO ONE.

Self-defeating argument 2: These scholar candidates are new, and therefore should not be voted in. Let’s not even question whether experience and youth matters — this argument is self-defeating because it applies to the new members of the ruling party as well. By her logic, we should never ever ever vote in any new members of parliament. Keep the members of parliament the same year in and year out — because that is the most stable.

Self-defeating argument 3: We should not vote for the opposition, and see if they continue contributing. Let’s not even question how many opposition members do in fact continue their work even when not voted in. But this point fails to take into account that it also applies to members of the ruling party — would they still contribute otherwise?

Self-defeating argument 4: We should not vote in people who join because of the glamour.The questionably glaring flaw here is that there is generally more stigma than glamour in being in the opposition. There is instead more glamour in being part of the ruling party (a higher chance of winning too!) In other words, people who join because of glamour are more likely to be from…..

Essentially, the writer here is biased. Bias is fine, but not to the point where it clouds judgment. She assumes that the act of joining the opposition is insincere and with the intention of being a troublemaker. More blatantly, she blocks out the flaws of one side, failing to realise that these flaws can also apply to those she has such great faith in (in the manner of a staunch christian fundamentalist).

The more pressing question is perhaps: why the hell was this silly piece of argument even published in the newspaper? Was it supposed to convince anyone not to vote for opposition scholars? Even if it was to serve a political agenda, they could have at least picked a more cogent analysis.

***
The PAP Scholarship
On a side note, the idea of a PAP scholarship sounds quite interesting. It needs to be distinct from ministry scholarship — so maybe it can focus on the grassroots, rotation among unions and community groups, campaigning preparations ….and then later get seconded to ministry and then run for politics proper (of course). It will truly be about the people directly (rather than some indirect and impersonal policy)

Additional requirements can be like: 1. overkill local community service track record 2. local university 3. ability to speak all three out of four of the languages plus dialect. 4. coming from the lower income brackets/ with family problems. 5.  I’ll hand out this scholarship to psychology/literature/singapore history/malay studies students rather than to the conventional engineering and economics students. Wa, if I could put this experiment in place, maybe true servants can be ENGINEERED muahahaha.

In which case, I think it’d be as atrocious (as judas iscariot) to join as an opposition scholar — only if you received grooming direct from the party.