This seems to summarise the position of any politician/political organisation in power – especially if they’re making what by most reasonable people would be taken as considerable effort to deal with a difficult problem. An opposition, it appears, must find, willy-nilly something to nit-pick and criticize, regardless of the overall good of the proposals being offered.
Currently we have two important proposals that are making news – one internationally given its massive impact on global security – and the other locally given it’s impact on local elections.
Obama’s proposals regarding troop deployment in Afghanistan appears to me to be the best possible course of action in the face of an intractable problem. Given a diffuse, well armed and highly motivated insurgency combined with an ineffective and corrupt central government, he has decided to greatly increase the resources on the ground to enable rapid military action and set a clear timeline so that all the players are aware that they have to get results within a definite period and things cannot be allowed to drift interminably.
The Republicans, unable to fault anything else in the plan and needing to find fault in something, I presume, latched onto the “definite timeline” as a blunder and now are banging a drum about how this will play into the hands of the Taliban who will lie low till the Americans leave and then come back.
It’s not like the strategy of bombing them in 2001 and skirmishing aimlessly till 2008 because resources were diverted to a grand shock and awe display in search of dreamed up WMD (Bush’s strategy) worked. I’d think setting a clear timeline will help the Afghan government and NATO forces in the country work with more purpose and so actually do more good than their just hanging about forever without a clear path to a peaceful future.
Strikes me that no matter how sensible the proposal, the opposing party simply has to find something to fault.
The other issue, of course is the Singapore government proposal regarding the “cooling off day” before polls.
Predictably there’s been a hullabaloo raised by the opposition who claims vary from it being “a sign of the lack of confidence of the PAP” (Mr. Desmond Lim Bak Chum of the SDA) to it being “designed to hurt the opposition” (Mr. Gandhi Ambalam of the SDP) – not to mention the usual vitriol by the anonymous hordes online who randomly spray venom at every government move from behind pseudonyms.
I don’t see how the move is particularly advantageous to the PAP (or any single party). One argument being touted is that the fact that political broadcasts and news reports are allowed is unfair as the media is “in the hands of the government”. Well, if we assume that is the case, then by the same measure, the population will disregard anything the media puts out in that period, and moreover, it would actually be incensed by any blatant misuse of the media – and hence vote against the PAP rather than for it. Hardly a disadvantage. If I was an opposition candidate I would rubbing my hands in glee at the prospect of being able to ride the crest of such an anti-government wave.
Unless of course the opposition mouthpieces are insinuating that the average voter is either (a) not intelligent enough to see blatant misuse – which I think is a rather arrogant (and incorrect) opinion to have about the voter, or (b) couldn’t care about it and will vote for the PAP anyway – in which case, it hardly matters what the opposition does, because apparently the voter will choose the PAP regardless.
What if the government had decided to allow campaigning on polling day? Given that the opposition believes that a 24 hour cool-off period from campaigning is disadvantageous, it stands to reason that doing the opposite – allowing campaigning all the way on polling day should be feted by them. However if such a move were made, I am sure the opposition would be up in arms, claiming that the superior manpower that the PAP can bring to bear on polling day outside the polling stations to campaign for the “last minute” vote would be an unfair advantage. Thus, no matter which direction you move the “stop campaigning” deadline, the opposition will find a way to claim it to be “designed to hurt the opposition”.
I don’t see how the 24 hour cool-off period is designed to bolster the PAP and damage the opposition. Elections – at least where there is no vote-rigging and the voters are not bought or commandeered – as happens in several “democratic” countries- are not won on the eve of polling nor even in the 10-day campaign period – but in the 5-6 years prior to the day of voting – on the basis of progress achieved by the incumbent and alternatives on offer by the challengers.
Besides, the rules for the election have to be seen in an overall context. There will be more freedom in the coming elections – podcasts will be allowed, the internet will be abuzz – and the government is also putting in place measures to ensure the presence of at least18 non-PAP members or about a fifth of the house in the next parliament regardless of election results. That is remarkable by any standard. No other country gives losing parties anywhere near as much voice.
Taking it all as a package, the coming election will give opposition parties and voters a lot more room to create and consume “sound and fury” in the 9 days before the cooling off day – and also lead to a real increase in plurality in the parliament afterwards. As far as I can tell, far from designing the process to harm plurality and democracy in Singapore this is a move that significantly helps it – and such unilateral measures from a party in power is unthinkable except in Singapore. So instead of constantly finding fault with every measure or decision taken by the government– almost as a knee jerk reaction – where the default is “oppose” and then some reason is found to justify it, it would be good to see politicians being more discerning – supporting initiatives that are good for the people and opposing those they see are harmful – rather than just opposing everything.
Cursed with an insatiable curiousity for the world around him and an unquenchable thirst for exploring any horizon he finds himself looking at, Fredric fervently hopes that being a commonsensical Jack of all Trades is still a useful survival skill in a world that is incredibly specialized. He may be found online hopelessly plugged into Wikipedia or Google Earth, and in life usually astride a Suzuki Vstrom headed to yet another godforsaken corner of Southeast Asia .