Alternative views, different perspectives useful

I WOULD like to define what I mean by "a strong and credible opposition."

For the term "opposition", I take it to mean a vehicle of views and opinions, alternative to that of a political party that forms the government. Alternative views does not mean opposing for the sake of opposing. It means to see a problem and its solution from a different perspective.

Next, to define the term "credible". Firstly, to be credible, the must be a good motive. Anyone who holds alternative views and opinions must have the interests of the country and the people at heart. He must also be responsible as well. For example, it would be irresponsible and not having the interests of the country at heart to incite racial or religious hatred just to gain some votes.

However, at the present time, it is not easy for people having opposite views to that of the PAP to show that they have the interests of the country and the people at heart. This is because the PAP has ruled Singapore for so long and has such an overwhelming presence that PAP has become synonymous with Singapore. Thus to hold different views from the PAP is almost seen as an incorrect act of citizenship.

Being critical of the PAP does not make one unpatriotic. In fact, by doing so, it shows one has more passion for the country than his friends who are apathetic and unconcerned about the affairs of the country.

Just imagine, if ordinary citizens can feel the pangs of such "anti-national guilt", how much more psychological barriers must a credible person overcome if he wants to express his views through an alternative political party!

Secondly, to be credible, there must be a willingness to understand problems and conflicts facing the country and try to find solutions to solve or minimise them. Politics should be a contest of ideas. Of course, it would be easier to capture media attention by getting involve in clashes of personality. However, personal clashes only cloud issues and they do not help to clarify problems. They only turn politics into interesting spectator sport and nothing else.

An opposition can be strong only if enough responsible people can come forward, try to find a common ground, present the people with a clear agenda and give the political party a direction.

When there is in-fighting in a party or when the various political groups cannot work to find a common ground and have a broader platform or when people go into politics for their own personal agenda, the opposition can only remain fragmented, non-credible and weak.

Will a strong and credible opposition give us a better country? Will it make our people a better and happier people?

Some people believe opposition politics are not good for economic growth. As we have seen rapid economic growth, such an argument sells well. If this argument is correct then countries like US, Great Britain and Japan should be very poor and Romania, Yugoslavia and Soviet Union should be extremely rich.

Some people believe that opposition politics only bring instability to a country. They often cite countries where there are trouble and public disorder as examples of such instability and chaos. But when we examine those countries closely, we will invariably find that it is precisely because of the denial of alternative voices in the first place that had led to such troubles and threw up those kind of violent opposition.

The troubles is these countries are not lessons why we do not need to have a strong and credible opposition but are good reasons why we need to develop a strong and credible opposition, because it can act as a safety valve to avert such situations.

If we look at in countries where there are the healthy checks and balances of responsible politics eg US, UK, Western Europe, Australia, Japan , Canada, New Zealand etc, there is definitely more stability there than, say, in Yugoslavia.

There is also this argument that our country is too small to have an opposition.

Israel is a small country, perpetually at war, and yet they can have a parliament of diverse views.

Hong Kong, New Zealand and Denmark do not have a population bigger than us. So was ancient Athens, the cradle of democracy.

So size does not really matter.

Some people may argue that opposition makes governing tedious and difficult. because of too much checks, debates and the need for the ruling party to give satisfactory answers when implementing policies.

But if we want transparency and accountability, then this is the only way to ensure it.

All these arguments for not wanting an opposition are therefore very weak.

What then are the reasons for the need for a strong and credible opposition?

As we move into the 21st Century and we have a more educated and thinking population, active citizen participation is a pre-requisite to nation-building and a strong and credible opposition is a crucial factor in promoting this active citizen participation.

If we want active citizens to make a difference to society, to offer ideas and get involved in the affairs of the country, as recommended by the S21 Committee Report, then, all the more, there is a need for such an opposition. Just as not every Singaporean will want to vote for the PAP in an election, not every Singaporean may want to or is able to offer ideas through the PAP-officiated channels.

Without the alternative of a strong and credible opposition to harness and represent the ideas and opinions of these group of citizens, a large proportion of our people will remain passive citizens or even switch off totally.

Without a robust exchange of opinions, there is a danger of in-breeding of ideas and we will all be poorer for it. Without alternative viewpoints, there can only be a monopoly of ideas and we would not be able to look at problems and solutions from a wider perspective.

With greater participation there will be a richer pool of alternative ideas and there will be a healthier cross-fertilisation of ideas. This means more accurate feedback for the government and a more equitable implementation of policies.

With an alternative viewpoint, from a strong and credible group of people, the ruling party will have to listen more closely to the people otherwise they will get less votes.

When the ruling party is prepared to listen more closely to the people, policies will more likely to benefit a wider cross-section of the population and hardships for some quarters avoided.

When there is a free marketplace of ideas, people will feel that they are being listened to and hence will be more likely to participate in peaceful exchanges rather than become apathetic or vent their frustration in an anti-social way.

The presence of a strong and credible alternative would encouraged the growth of greater political space and promote a better environment for the growth a civil society. Such a civil society would allow more citizen's participation in the affairs of our country.

In the final analysis, the main aim of good government is to remove kinks and reduce frictions in society and in a democratic country, the only way to do this is through contests and exchanges of ideas and a robust climate of citizen's participation.

Some people believe that we do not need to have a strong and credible opposition now as we have been having political stability and economic progress without one. With a strong and credible alternative, not only do we get a better government and the people get a real choice, we would also not be faced with a leadership vacuum in times political crises.

Some people believe that under the present circumstances, it is not possible for a strong and credible opposition to emerge. Many people believe that a strong and credible opposition will only come with a split in the PAP. Should we wait until then? Is that a good way to have an opposition? Will such a split benefit the country?

My answer to all the questions is: No! Just as a fragmented opposition is not good for the country, so is a split in the ruling party. A split in such a big political party is likely to leave bitterness and acrimony on both sides. With such bitterness, the fractured factions are likely to be engaged in protracted quarrels leaving political confusion in the country. It would be better for a strong and credible opposition to evolve as an alternative to the PAP rather than through a split in the PAP. Moreover, the presence of such an opposition would discourage a split and give rise to more political stability.

For all these reasons, therefore, we should encourage the evolution of a strong and credible opposition when there is no economic problem or political instability rather than wait till all of us are suffering from bad times.

Having seen the need to have a strong and credible opposition, the most important question is: What needs to be done ?

There is no doubt that a lot of Singaporeans would like to see a strong and credible opposition in Singapore. At the same time, there are also a lot of Singaporeans who like to have upgrading for their flats.

It is not rare to come across many people who grumble a lot about the state of the opposition but will not do anything to change the situation. Many people just hope that the situation will change by itself. They just hope that a credible opposition can be realised from thin air.

Just as a cake cannot be baked without a baker, the oven, the ingredients and the utensils, a strong and credible opposition cannot come about without enough credible and concerned citizens coming forward to do their bit. Not only do people want opposition in other people's ward, they also want other people to form strong and credible opposition.

I have come across many people who are vehemently critical of the PAP, yet when asked, confessed that they voted for the PAP in the elections.

It is also for this reason that I hope we will be able to see a strong and credible opposition in Singapore. With such a opposition, we would be able to increase the political awareness of Singaporeans.

If we can, through the presence of a strong and credible opposition, cultivate people who can stand on their principles, then we would definite have a better nation.

To realise a strong and credible opposition, enough Singaporeans must decide whether we want to have alternative ideas in Singapore. To nurture a strong and credible opposition, our people must decide whether they really want a free marketplace of ideas to flourish in our country.

If we really want a more vibrant political climate, then people must be prepared to come forward and help build a more credible vehicle and not keep on lamenting at the lack of credible candidates come every election.

For those of us who really feel that a strong and credible opposition is good for our country, then we must decide whether we want to remain passive or to be a constructive participant.

If we remain passive, then we are treating this country as a hotel to sleep in, a work place to earn a living, a shopping centre to spend the money earned and a country club where membership can be given up at our whim.

If our citizens choose to be indifferent to the idea of a strong and credible opposition and at the same time remain cynical towards the PAP, then this country will just become a tree for a lot of migratory birds, whose residents will flock and remain here while the fruits are in abundance and leave when the climate becomes harsh.

We should not wish this for our country, that is why, as good citizens, we have a duty and responsibility to do our part to avert such a situation.

The S21 Committee Report has also addressed the problems of citizen's apathy. Since the government has accepted the S21 Committee Report, it should give clear signals that it wants active citizens to make a difference to society, to offer ideas and get involved in the affairs of the country.

Our citizens cannot be very active citizens if they have to continue to hold on to the belief that the MRT trains would not stop at Potong Pasir and Hougang if they vote for Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low Thia Khiang.

Since the media has also given rave reviews to the report, it is hoped that the media would also help to implement the ideals of the report and promote active citizens by at least giving alternative views their due.

Without the existence of a strong and credible opposition, Singapore risks becoming a one-party system. A one-party system not only creates apathy in the people, it also breeds selfishness. Let me make money and get a good job - let someone else take care of the problems in the country: this will be the general attitude.

In the end we will just breed a nation of materialistic individuals and mercenary shopkeepers with a cursory attention to current affairs.

The existence of a strong and credible opposition will bring balance to this state of affairs. It is through open debates of social justice and equality that we can become aware that we are not living alone in this country and that what we do affect our neighbours and what our neighbours do affect us. It is through such open debates that the rich in our society will be aware of the poor in our midst and the poor in our midst will not feel that they have been abandoned by society.