Yielding to Temptation and Pride

When you have quasi-absolute power, there is always the temptation to use that power to strengthen one's gameplay, thereby denying loved ones with lesser power, a voice. I see this all the time in families where parents use their power to shut the children up, instead of encouraging their children to speak their mind so that bridges can be built.

On the one side, there was the PAP, with quasi-absolute power. On the other side, there was the electorate. For 5 years, we can voice dissent but if the PAP insists that the PAP is right, the electorate just has to suck it up. The electorate gets only 1 chance to vote its dissent at the end of every 5 years.

With its super majority, the PAP ensured that Halimah Yacob walked over into the Presidential office. POFMA powers were given to Ministers instead of the courts. The GRC system is alive and kicking, even though the electorate has long complained about having new MPs we don't know, foisted upon us... landing a place in Parliament on the coat tails of a Minister.

I am not even talking about opposition political parties, here.

I am talking about the electorate vs the PAP.

Within the boundaries of what is legal and constitutional, the PAP did what it could to grip onto power. Tan Cheng Bock was not PAP friendly. So, an ambiguity was conveniently interpreted, and the electorate was denied the chance to vote for their President. To be frank, if I had voted, I would have voted for Halimah Yaacob. I am angry that I was denied the chance to vote.

The official explanation is that it is time for a minority President. The PAP can try as much as it wishes to cram this explanation down the electorate's unwilling throat, it is not quite going down. This is not unlike how parents justify certain decisions. Their children have no choice but to suck it up, but are not convinced. The ill feeling will come through at the next opportune moment.

So, this is how the PAP lost Sengkang.

Then, there was POFMA. This law gave Ministers (not the Singapore courts of law) the power to take down news. During this election, top Ministry officials used POFMA liberally. It was almost as if opposition parties went up against the PAP in the boxing ring, and only the PAP had the benefit of a party of dwarves wearing knuckle-dusters, coming in to land blows on the opposition. The opposition did not have the benefit of POFMA. These powers were not given to the courts. They were given to Ministers.

Then, there was the matter of Josephine Teo, who has not quite given a clear and adequate explanation of whether separate home quarantine facilities were provided to FWs coming back from China as at 31 January, and had to go on LOA. It really just needs a Yes/No answer. So, why was there no Yes/No answer forthcoming?

If LOA were done in the dorms, then, is it surprising that the dorms exploded with Covid19? It is ok to make mistakes but people would respect you more, if you gave a proper accounting of the mistake before moving onto remedying it. What was done to remedy it was amazingly good. Still... an accounting for how it all started was never properly given. This again, is no different from a parent who inadvertently hurt her child but was too proud to apologise, nor admit. It breeds ill feeling for no reason. It also shows the mettle of the parent.

Now that the PAP is still the super majority in Parliament, nothing stops them from unilaterally enacting more laws and more CONSTITUTIONAL changes without a care for what the electorate thinks. The question is to what extent the PAP is weak enough to yield some more to the temptation to play legal but still play unfair, in the next 5 years. I suppose it thinks itself strategic and smart. To some extent, I do believe it is strategic and smart. Simply, it is unfair. The electorate can see that, you know. We then make certain conclusions about the mettle of those who would play the game like this. Not dishonest. Simply lacking in good sportsmanship. Nothing wrong, but still not worthy of greatness.

Singaporeans are afraid to vote out the PAP because of livelihoods and wealth. It does not mean that there is no steady erosion of respect for the way the PAP has played the political game in full view of the electorate.

Surely the PAP would prefer to win because it commands the respect and the affection of the electorate, no? Can there be satisfaction winning simply because we look to it for wealth? It is much like what I tell my husband, "If all you appreciate in me, is that I am a good housekeeper, good mother... that I wash your face masks, nurse your illnesses with herbs and prepare yummy chocolate snacks for you at night, then let us not stay married. I want your heart and your respect too."

To some extent, the marriage between Singaporeans and the PAP has become one where affection and respect has been eroded, from years of a lack of open communication. We stay together in a marriage of convenience. I need your money. You need my vote.

There is one bright spot: Ong Ye Kung.

This man suffered a defeat at his first election campaign, when he had to ride on someone else's coat tails. However, his performance as Minister of Education, his solo call for Singaporean unity in GE2015, his easy getai manners AND a keen commitment to his own truths has won the hearts of many, including mine. The whole slate of new MPs rode HIS coat tails this time, to a voting result that stands head and shoulders above those of his peers.

Ong Ye Kung would be a Prime Minister we could all follow.

However, the PAP has a super majority again. It will impose the Prime Minister it wishes on us for another 5 years, till the next time we vote.