Ah. What a period of time. I'm tired of hearing the banter, the chants and the rhetoric. It's elections talk talk talk and debates everywhere and although I see some good arguments here and there, ultimately, I'm tired of it. I will quote Mr Tan Chuan Jin. "Let's agree to disagree." Over the past week, day in day out, i see people post notes or essays to criticise or voice their opinions. I'm fine with that, for your opinion is yours. What I have contention with, is the fact that many posts winds up with a persuasive slant. Otherwise, the comments that follow, serves to give that persuasive slant. Let my decision be mine. I would like to have the chance to know what i think, before you come and tell me what to think please. Another problem that i feel greatly about, is that many posts, though not all, focuses on only an issue or two wrt.... national policies, for example. And now, based on their feelings about that issue or two, people formulate their logical conclusion. But my question is: can we really do that? Is it wise?
Say, if one feels strongly about housing and immigrants, and based on policies pertaining to these 2 areas, one formulates their judgments about an entire political party. Is that necessarily a sound conclusion? When we vote an entire party into the parliament, it affects more than just these 2 issues. How about the other issues that interplay with these? How about economic progress for example? Without that, where are we gonna find the money to talk about subsidising housing?And to talk about that economic progress, what are the engines necessary to drive it? What about those? What are the repercussions of these new policy on those factors? Can that party provide for all these factors as well? It's bound to be a huge mess of factors all tying in together, and personally, i find it really hard to stand forward and say that i think any policy is a good policy to follow, because i havent considered everything that ties in along with it. And i find it hard to stomach arguments that expresses strong opinions, but fails to give the depth of analysis that i feel, is a prerequisite of strong convictions.
On to another big issue: If we talk about First world parliament, what are the repercussions of that? i feel torn apart to be honest. By sound logic, i'd say yea, debates are good, balanced parliament must be good. Debates will bring about better ideas, that much, i think not many can argue against. But in practicality, what will these healthy debates give? For a tiny instance, debating means longer decision making time. Thinking about it, if we make 10 quick decisions and 4 turns out to fail. We have succeeded in 6. But if in that same period of time, we make 5 slow well debated decisions, of which only 1 turns out to be less than ideal, we would have succeeded in only 4. Is that necessarily good? So am i advocating lower quality, higher efficiency govt? Neither. i think a balance needs to be struck. Various voices will need to agree to disagree. There need to be provisions to regulate these exchanges, someone to put their foot down and highlight the need to make a compromise/conclusion when it's necessary.
To fuel my considerations: i went a looking at the Obama administration and their recent crisis of nearing a shutdown of the federal government yesterday. Reason for the crisis? Republicans and the govt cannot agree on budget funding, and neither is budging. (Not very well researched, so pls dont shoot me if it's not 100% accurate) Really extreme example, but this is potentially what happens when u have opposing voices in a decision making body isn't it? Sounds bad? but is it really? On face value, when i first heard this news, i didnt get the best impression of the government, regardless of which slant i chose to take. but to dig deeper, republicans were forcing the govt to tax cut***. Now that's not really bad is it? Somewhat of a necessity right? What I'm trying to say, is that opposing voices can be a potential threat, but it might just be absolutely necessary.
Now, although our system is not the same as theirs, there are still some lessons to be learnt from here. So really, first world parliament, healthy debates. Is it necessarily good or bad? If i have to make a decision now, i'd give my usual pc answer- neither. Because i truly believe in it. It all depends on the 2 parties involved. It calls for people involved to genuinely act for the good of the nation, and it calls for people who will ultimately be able and willing to reach a compromise. Judging by the lines of incumbent vs opposition right now. I'm not sure i think they will make healthy opposing partners who will agree to disagree and come to a compromise. but we have never seen them do anything other than try to mudsling each other though. So i'm not 100% sure.
----
At the end of the day, i just want to say that i think there is a lot a lot a lot more to consider to the arena of politics. It's definitely not just about charisma. On policies, we need to understand that they are sometimes not logical. But weigh it all out, some parts of it might just be necessary evil. So we cant base our decisions on just plain good logic either. We gotta consider the practicalities of it as well, among other things. We will need to observe other country's administration as well, learn from their merits and avoid their failures. i don't find it entirely sensible for us to view Singapore and make our decisions based on what we see in Singapore alone. As a young person with so much power granted to us at our finger tips, i expect us to do better than that. Just to clarify, I'm not agreeing on all past policies or the coming ones- I havent reached that point in my thinking yet. im just asking that should anyone have sth to say about a policy, i hope you've thought it all through. So my conclusion after the long banter, is that i cannot very firmly decide who to vote in this election yet. I don't understand how people can, but if they do and is wholeheartedly convinced by it, i feel happy for them. When i make my decision, i sincerely hope for it to be wholehearted and unfallable as well. But yea, this time around, i think any decision that i make is going to be an unsatisfactory one because i simply do not know enough. But to take it as a responsibility that i take on myself as a responsible Singaporean, i hope i will be much better thought through, and much better prepared for the next election. Hopefully, i would have read more and learnt more, sufficient for me to make a satisfactorily informed vote.
wah. that was shiok.
I haven't blogged for a long time, but this is a really good rant. For the first time in a few days, i think i got my thoughts out and straightened, without needing to try to convince people to open up their mind, and without needing to defend myself against close-minded persuasions that are not very persuasive. Thank you blog! ok. back to work.
sk
***(i quote the case above just to illustrate my point. Please note that it's not the whole truth. to put things back in perspective: the Republicans were forcing the govt to take away funding for this organisation called planned parenthood (puny part of the budget i would imagine). If they dont agree before the end of the fiscal year, that's gonna be a shutdown. it seems mildly ridiculous to me considering that they resisted tax cuts on more pertinent issue like defense or corporation taxes. But yea, who am i to say? i don't know that much about them either. Once again, this is not well researched, please dont flame meee!!)
Comments