If you’re gay and you speak out against pap, are you opposing for the sake of opposing? If you’re a single mum and you speak out against pap’s ‘pro-family’ policies, are you opposing for the sake of opposing? If you’re a pacifist and you speak out against pap’s high defence spending, are you opposing for the sake of opposing?
Yet when political parties say the same things, pap labels them as ‘opposing for the sake of opposing’. And what’s sad is that many Singaporeans seem to be buying this pap brainwashing.
Amazing isn’t it? If a party speaks up for its convictions, it’s “opposing” the pap for the sake of opposing. I don’t think that’s the case. But that’s what the pap and its fans would have you believe. Because they say ‘opposition’ parties want to oppose the pap just for the sake of opposing.
Pap’s hidden message is that these parties really have no use at all, because all they do is to waste time.
Pap don’t want people to understand that political parties are formed by people who share certain fundamental beliefs. That these values can be quite different to those of the pap. That these parties can be elected to parliament on a platform that is based on these values. And that having been elected on such a platform, voters expect them to act in accordance with their platforms and beliefs, which are quite different from those of the pap.
No. What pap says is, they are just opposing for the sake of opposing.
Well, Pap too has certain beliefs, which were shaped by its founders. For instance, like the republicans, pap advocates high military spending. Because lky said he never wanted Singapore to be invaded again.
Similarly pap is anti welfare, anti human rights, pro-family, anti gay etc. Pap believes in elitism, self-sufficiency, secrecy, genetic engineering, etc.
Other parties may have different views, different beliefs. There are those out there who believe in more human rights instead of less, egalitarianism instead of elitism, equality instead of discrimination against gays and singles, more welfare instead of anti-welfare, a less hawkish military posture, etc.
So is it fair for pap to say that everyone who opposes pap is opposing just for the sake of opposing? Can we say that when such people form ‘opposition’ parties which encompass such beliefs, they are opposing pap for the sake of opposing? And when they do get into parliament, can pap say such parties are there to wreck the country by opposing pap? Or do they do what they do because that is the platform which such parties were elected on, and thus they have to carry out as they promised during their elections?
The other aspect of pap’s labeling that someone ‘opposes for the sake of opposing’ is even more sinister. It presupposes that pap is right and others are wrong but still want to oppose them.
But in many things, there’s seldom a clear right and wrong, black and white. For example, pro-life or pro-choice, which one is right? Is there such a thing as right? More welfare or less welfare? More defence spending or less defence spending? Elitism or egalitarianism? Streaming or no streaming? 377A or no 377A? Woman’s charter or no woman’s charter. More human rights or less human rights. Transparency or secrecy. Etc.
Can you prove scientifically, without a shadow of a doubt, that one policy choice will lead to superior outcomes over another? Or is the future unknowable and the choice thus driven by one’s fundamental beliefs, such as whether open govt, transparency, human rights, egalitarianism, no discrimination, equality etc are the fundamentally right things to do?
So when a party disagrees with the pap, is the pap always right and the other just opposing for the sake of opposing? Or can we understand that there is no right or wrong, but there is a fundamental difference of beliefs?
How long do Singaporeans want to buy the pap bs?