Your examples are flawed. You have reduced national voting to a parochial exercise in barter – I vote for you and in return you give me the goodies. I suppose because many sadly have the same view the progress packages have delivered the votes too. Just try and bear in mind that all the constituents in HG and PP are included for taxpaying purposes and that state and not party funds are being used for upgrading. By your logic, only the PAP voters should have their flats upgraded!

Just imagine if you have voted for the PAP and they have promised you with a flat upgrade. And after the GE, the government (for any reason, e.g. wanting to win some opposition vote the next round, etc.) decided to ask you to WAIT and upgrade those in the opposition ward . How would you feel?

In this real world, we will always return our favour or be more generous to those who supported us or are our alliance. Let me illustrate this by using a non-political example. Mr A has always supported you to be the student council chairman, or has always helped you with your school work, or has supported you to be the managing editor, versus Mr B who did not support you at all. Who then is your friend? Who will you help first if they both approach you for the same assistance?

Flat upgrading is a “good to have” and not a “must have”. If there is one day where the opposition ward’s flat “must have” and upgrade else it would endanger life. I am 100% certain the government will not have a second thought to getting it done.

So we should expect our opposition to be First World in sophistication and resources before you would grant them legitimacy in an electoral/political system that has more in common with the Third World?

Again, perspectives should be relevant to the context of the current state of political/electoral affairs in Singapore. Unfortunately your points seem to posit views that are too absolute and ungrounded in reality, the result of which rationalizes the entrenchment of an already dominant ruling party.

Have you seen our parliamentary debates? All you see is three oppositions, made of two opposition MPs and one NCMP. Yes, you may want to argue that nominated MPs can form the opposition, but sad to say, nominated MPs don’t come from the opposition ranks. There is no such thing as a shadow cabinet consisting of opposition in our current system. In many sense, a shadow cabinet should form the government in the event that members of a current government meet with an unfortunate end (touch wood). The thing is that there is no such appointment of a shadow cabinet in our government.

Secondly, ask yourself this question. Do our opposition get sufficient exposure via the media? A case in point is the SDP’s extensive use of podcast during the elections. What happened? The government restated podcast is also covered under the banlist. Even if the opposition has some alternative ideas, chances are that a reader of the mainstream media might never hear of it. Secondly, have you seen the elections hustings on TV? Compare the time dedicated to opposition rallies as opposed to PAP rallies.

Lastly, I don’t think that you are a blind pro-PAP supporter, but just that the contents of your posts are a hyperbola, far from current realities.

Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee

But returning to the question on organ donations: If nobody agrees to donate organs, there will be no prospect of a transplant even if you donate one.

The phrase “even if you donate one” should read “even if you need one”.

The alternative you present is complete one-party dominance with all its potential pitfalls – temptations of abuse of power, entrenchment of the mediocrity, pursuit of privileges, dislocation from the wider public, intellectual inbreeding, ec, – that may be detrimental for the nation in the long-run.

(You wouldn’t be the legendary Francis C., would you?…)

I agree that single party rule without checks and balances can be a problem.

I do not, however, think that it is impossible for a high quality Opposition team to succeed.

While no party can claim a track record without being in power, many First World Oppositions do not wait to come into power before assembling their Shadow Cabinet and Shadow Team. This helps convince the electorate of their competency. Over time, their views on policy and current affairs can be judged — by the electorate and by history.

…you make extensive assumptions that presumes only a binary outcome, which is far from the reality of the state of politics in Singapore.

As mentioned earlier, when an Opposition candidate wins, he does not decline the result because some votes were protest votes.

In fact he welcomes any vote in his direction and sees it as a vote for himself, whatever the voter’s intention in the polling station.

If even Opposition candidates (not just in Singapore, but around the world) take this view of voting, why is it suddenly a travesty when an incumbent says the vote is about choosing MPs and choosing an administration?

Your statement also assumes that any success in Singapore is completely credited to the PAP. A completely arrogant view that downplays the contributions of members of the entire civil service – stat boards, govt agencies, public services, etc. – who are apolitical and contribute a tremendous share of the country’s social and economic progress.

Wrong.

There are many good men and women working in the civil service — I will be first to agree with you on this.

But the two go hand in hand. The best political administration will find its ideas stillborn without a good civil service.

And even the most competent civil service can be undone over time by a poor government.

I do not know what to make of your e-mail on scholarships. Will ponder about it — it is clearly heartfelt.

I do think the Civil Service can have more incoming recruitment from the private sector — and not just at junior levels. Some two-way flow is beneficial.

“If you’ve paid for your right to an organ transplant, should you not receive priority if you subsequently need a transplant?”

Doesn’t the PAP purportedly work for all Singaporeans?

Yes.

Which is why (if I may repeat what has been said previously) Hougang residents do not get an extra toll, or extra utilities fees.

That’s why Hougang residents also still are covered by the SAF, have policing, have water supply, have buses and MRT.

Hougang residents got the Progress Package, and will get GST rebates in the same way as residents in other areas.

Or does all this not count? In fact not everybody in an HDB block may be in favour of upgrading, so why present it as an entitlement?

But returning to the question on organ donations: If nobody agrees to donate organs, there will be no prospect of a transplant even if you donate one.

The deeper theme behind the question is for all of us to ask ourselves: Are we happy to benefit from a system, while taking an action that might prevent that system from continuing to provide those benefits?

There is no right or wrong answer, but it is important to understand how one has come to a viewpoint.