From ‘Voting for opposition doesn’t signal a mature electorate’, 14 May 2011, ST Forum
(Tan Ying San): OF THE comments on the General Election, none is as wrong as that which proclaims that an increase in the opposition vote shows an electorate coming of age or maturing.
A mature electorate would not dismiss five candidates who served their constituency and Singapore, in some cases, with great distinction. Mature voters would not have voted in a team which has made no real contributions to the country.
…A mature electorate would compare the individual candidates and their party manifestos and would study the programmes for their constituencies. How many did?
A mature electorate would not go ga-ga over a pretty face in the advertising industry with good speaking skills but with an unknown grassroots record, and would not viciously flame a candidate who has seven solid years of service to the community.
…This is not to say that all who voted for the opposition did so without thinking diligently. I am certain many did. But to equate voting for the opposition with political maturity is just silly.
Thankfully, over 60 per cent voted for a party with a brilliant record and a solid slate. So, perhaps, we do have a mature electorate after all.
A mature voter would also look at the implications of his decision beyond just Aljunied GRC, Nicole Seah and Tin Pei Ling, which is what the complainant is focusing on to imply that opposition supporters are an immature lot who cast votes instinctively, without seeing the forest beyond the trees. It is also not the voters’ fault that the loss of 5 PAP members in one feel swoop was due to the PAP-invented GRC system, nor was it the first thing on voters’ minds to sack George Yeo out of cabinet. A mature voter would also stop harping on the loss of prominent ministers days after the results have been posted and wondering if it would have been any different if people had read manifestos instead of being swooned over at Opposition rallies, but instead focus on testing and accessing the newbies over the next 5 years and hope that they prove him wrong. In other words, safely assuming that Tan Ying San here voted for the PAP, he/she should, in the spirit of the very moniker of the PAP, turn words into Action rather than crying over spilled milk.
It’s hard to imagine what, exactly, in our one-party dominant political system, would constitute a ‘mature’ vote, whether it’s for Opposition or PAP, because we have distinguished, intelligent, rational individuals in both camps. It’s erroneous to equate ‘maturity’ to one’s personal opinion of what’s ‘right’. Would an old auntie casting a vote for the ruling party based on HDB upgrading or just because her politician visited her house when she was lonely constitute as a ‘mature’ vote? How about those who voted based on the ‘track record’ argument, without really studying this ‘track record’ and judging it to be impeccable only because we haven’t faced starvation or civil war, without considering that perhaps we were just, well, ‘lucky’?
Politics always has been mostly histrionics and tugging of emotional heartstrings, whether it’s proclamations of ‘winds of change’, heartfelt ‘apologies’, promises for ‘reform’ and unabashed tears exhibited during the campaigning trail. Even manifestos, as concrete as their plans appear to be, are narratives deliberately steered to grab our attention and hit us where it hurts the most, and what’s written on paper may not translate into reality as any ‘mature’ person would know. Ultimately, every action made in the past elections were out of vested self-interest, an interest to retain Parliamentary seats, or an interest to get into it, and even we the voters have been urged to vote for what’s ‘best for us’. Because we forget that politics isn’t rocket science, though it should be. Behind all the visages of constitutions and hierarchy, the smiles and waves, the elaborate parliamentary structure and all the other niceties, diplomacy and laws that keep it together, lies a very primal, powerful human desire to form tribes, lead them, and go to war. We have ‘matured’ sufficiently to not collapse into riotous dissent, chaos and flinging random objects at the Istana, our pathetic internet grousing notwithstanding. With 52 years of PAP dominance and lacking any experience of a multi-party system whatsoever, it would be asking too much for Singaporeans to be ‘more mature’ in their voting. It’s like handling a child a roadmap for the first time when he’s been driven around by Mommy and Daddy for far too long.
If we can’t even trust our public to be reliable in voting, and accuse them of not studying what the respective parties’ plans have to offer (as if we have the time), if we’re so fearful of freak results leading to PAP poster boys losing their jobs, then what’s the point of holding elections then? Why don’t we just have one man, one team, choosing what’s best for every Singaporean in some customised autocratic system, then we don’t have to argue over whether voters are ‘mature’ or not, or whether George Yeo should be brought back into Parliament as if there were a ‘reset’ button in this election system? In the case of Singapore politics, one man’s maturity (voting for a successful ruling party) is another’s complacency. ‘Maturity’, thus, is an unhelpful virtue similar to ‘Perfection’, ambiguous, unattainable, hopelessly subjective and merely an ideal to motivate us to think twice before voting. Even I was unsure up till the point of voting, but that only means I care enough to ponder on the consequences, that I give due credit to both parties without rushing into what’s currently fashionable and gets you ‘in-the-crowd’ (PAP-bashing), and to have that effort downplayed by some ‘I-used-my-vote-better-than-thou’ writer is a slap in the face of the whole spirit of ‘freedom of choice’ in elections.
Filed under: 2011, Campaigns/Elections, Politicians Tagged: | Campaigns/Elections, george yeo, nicole seah, Politicians, tin pei ling
