In a society that is is characterised by widening income gap and increasingly polarised political views, the focus of political parties on "target group" is not an ingenious strategy (think Thailand, read ‘Winning Chinese-speaking heartland key for WP’). As much as we are asking for better representation in the Parliament and Government, and democratic desion-making being practised, I guess we are also trying to avoid parties/groups taking complete different directions, causing segregation and further splitting the society into halves (think Thailand again).
The gist of the debate for an effective two-party system has always been the introduction of checks and balances into the current system and increased in cluster (race, age, income groups etc.) representation that would ensure all voices are heard, taken into account and integration is ensured. The debate on the effectiveness of a two-party system has always been cut short by the incumbent, inducing fear by making references to chaotic political systems around us (Thailand, Taiwan, etc.) and doubts by emphasizing on the lack of sufficient talent. What they do not highlight is that some of the systems are encumbered by corrupted officials and an inefficient public service sector, both we are presently free of; that the current ruling party did manage to attract talents who, due to disagreement in direction and vision left and would have contributed better to national development by forming a coalition of their own that is not hampered in its operation.
What really perturbed me is not the foul play in politics (which is natural for a party that has been in power for 5 decades and the incumbent is not shy about), but the usage of national resources (including human resources) for party development (think scholars); the use of brain washing methods (through education, mainstream media, government initiatives) to increase the incompetency to make rational political decisions and decrease the population's sensitivity to political issues; and to deprive us of our right to information, freedom of thought and freedom of opinion and expression.
How much of pre-PAP politics do we know? What exactly is the objective of our national education if the principles of good governance is introduced through the 'legacy of the PAP government'? How are we to foster sense of identity, pride and self-respect without knowing our civic rights, the Constitution of Singapore etc.? How are we to make informed choices when 20 years on after the amendment to our Constitution that people are still questioning the role of the President?
No comments:
Post a Comment