(some personal thoughts on this whole elections thing..)

What parties are saying to people when they say no to multi-cornered fights:
"A higher chance of a diverse parliament."

What I think they actually mean when they say no to multi-cornered fights:
"We're convinced that Singaporeans dislike the ruling party enough to take whatever opposition party we give them. Even if the opposition is useless and cannot contribute to society."

This whole talk of no multi-cornered fights sickens me. At the end of the day, it feels as though the opposition parties just want the ruling party to have less say in Parliament. That they just want another SMC or GRC as a notch on their bedpost.

In this bid to rid of multi-cornered fights, how do they decide which party to take which constitution? Or do the opposition parties just want the opportunity to equal rights to say "I have a seat in Parliament?"

The division of SMCs and GRCs is more than gerrymandering. I believe that it should help parties decide if they actually have the resources and power to help that particular SMC and GRC that they want.

When parties look at each segment, they should be able gauge the living standards. Whether things are working. Whether decisions made are benefiting the people. During their walkabouts, parties can meet the people they are dealing with. What the people need. What the people want. What they don't realize they are lacking.

Only then should any party decide if they have the ability and capacity to represent that SMC or GRC before they run for it.

The key objectives of these Meet-the-People sessions and walkabouts is not to tell people who the party is. It is an objective. But it is not the key objective. At the end of the day, a parliament discusses issues that affect the people of a nation. Having a nation that knows the members of the parliament is very different from having a parliament that knows the nation.

If anything, I am for multi-cornered fights of 3 parties simply because the votes tell a bigger story than most people think. some examples to think about (non-exhaustive list really but yea...)

eg1. The votes are spilt almost evenly across 3 parties : This actually suggests that 66% of people are desperate enough to throw their votes anywhere other the party that used to be in charge of them.

eg2. The two newer contesting parties lose by a landslide : People are happy with their current party. To the contesting parties, I hope you got your electoral deposit back at least.

eg3. One contesting party loses its electoral deposit : You suck. Please stop.

I can only hope that the opposition parties have thought through all these things carefully. To realize that walkabouts are more than just showing your face but understanding if you can even help residents.

This isn't a fucking game of Risk. This concerns welfare of actual people.



What do I want in a government?

I want a government that's not scared of its people. I want a government that serves its people.

We want faster and more connected transportation network. Give it to us. But don't rush it just to make us happy in 3 years and disappointed 3 years after that when everything breaks down. Tell us the full plan and tell us what we need to know to manage our expectations. Let the poor construction workers sleep and rest enough. They are humans too.

We want cheap hawker food. But don't suppress prices just to make us happy now and depressed 5 years later when we lose more people in the hawker profession and even more depressed when overwhelming amount of foreign labor has to be brought into a workforce that is so uniquely ours. Explain costs to the people. Explain inflation.  Manage the hawkers to prevent unreasonable overcharging but enable reasonable prices. Serve the hawkers too. And really, dear Singaporeans, $5 for a solid bowl of bak chor mee is not expensive. (HAVE YOU SEEN THE AMOUNT OF EFFORT REQUIRED? SO EASY YOU GO MAKE LA.)



So if that is what I want in a government, I must vote for a parliament that will hold the government accountable for the welfare of the people. I must vote for a parliament who will constantly check that decisions aren't just self-serving, but also rational and reasonable within the constraints of logic and resources. I must vote for a parliament that wants a government to serve the people well.

Not a parliament that nitpicks and groans over every small and inconsequential decision just because it was by someone of the opposing party. Not a parliament that seeks to be diverse for the sake of being diverse. Definitely not a parliament with parties that think this is a fucking game to fan their egos.

Saying stuff like "Our journey to the west begins in Tanjong Pagar" sounds like a game of conquest instead of benevolence and integrity.

So give me my multi-cornered fights. Give me the choice to decide who I think is a good voice of reason and of the people in the parliament. If there's one thing that I would like taken away from me right now is the jokers in the system. For the love of the nation, let that one be removed.