Debunking the “constructive opposition” illusion

http://temasekreview.com/?p=5662
A reader posted a comment on our site lately castigating us for only knowing how to criticize without coming up with any “better solutions”. Another emailed us imploring us to offer “constructive criticisms” instead of ranting relentlessly at the government.

What exactly is “constructive criticism” ? I have searched through all major dictionaries and can’t seem to find a definition for it. The term itself is an illusion concocted by the PAP to limit the boundaries in which they can be criticized and to preserve and perpetuate the myth about their “capabilities”.

In the PAP/SPH, jargon, “constructive criticism” must fulfil the following criteria:
1. The identity of the critic must be known so that: he or she can be easily threatened, sued, bankrupted or fixed into submission which will take the sting out of the rest to exercise ’self-censorship’ when criticizing the establishment.
2. Criticize them in subtle / diplomatic / friendly manner in order not to make them look bad so that they can continue to justify their exorbitant high salaries simply by proclaiming themselves as the best talents that Singapore will ever produce. Have a live debate in public between PM Lee and Dr Chee and the fake aura of invincibility which the PAP has so cleverly enshrouded itself will vanish into thin air instantaneously.
3. Offer better alternatives and solutions so that they are able to demolish you if your proposals are unsound or steal your idea to become theirs in the future without giving due acknowledgement or recognition.

An old dog is incapable of new tricks. It is the same old “divide and conquer” strategem employed over the years to split and weaken the opposition camp.

Opposition politicians who give the PAP a “passing grade”, defend its laws as “fair and just” and express their pride in voting for them in previous elections are “constructive opposition” to be given a positive spin by the state media to increase support for them amongst unsuspecting opposition supporters.

Those who dare to “call a spade a spade” and criticize them are hauled up in courts, sued for defamation, bankrupted and demonized by the state media as “destructive opposition” bent on destroying the nation.

How can an opposition politician destroy the nation by shouting ‘where is the money’ in public ? Or does one do so by really losing tonnes of money overseas and still dare not account to the public ?

The primary purpose of an opposition is to check on the ruling party, not to make life easy, nice and cozy for them to run the show with impunity. In fact, they are supposed to make life difficult for them to ensure that they are accountable to the people.

The opposition exists for the sake of opposing. This is the eternal truth everywhere else in the world, but under the distorted “spectacles” of the PAP and the state media, it is wrong to “oppose” for the sake of “opposing”. Then what is the role of the “opposition” ? To be a flower vase to wayang in Parliament so that the PAP can continue to masquerade Singapore as a democracy to the world ?

Under the PAP dictionary, the word “opposition” has become a dirty word because they do not like to be opposed. The Longman dictionary defines the word “oppose” as “to regard a suggestion or planned course of action with strong disapproval.” Is there anything wrong in disagreeing with the PAP ? Must we always see eye to eye with its actions all the time ? If what they have been doing are perfectly free from blame, will there be any grounds for us to oppose them ? Is the opposition opposing them because of their party’s name or logo ?

It is not the duty of the opposition to come up with alternative policies to challenge the government for it does not have the manpower, finance and most importantly, the necessary information made available to them in order to do so.

Can anybody tell me there is any opposition in the world, be it the Conservatives in the United Kingdom, the Republicans in the United States, the BJP in India or the Pakatan Rakyat in Malaysia which exists to not to oppose the ruling party, but to be a “constructive opposition” offering alternative policies without embarrassing the government?

If the PAP government, with the entire civil service at its disposal still needs a “constructive opposition” to help them in policy-making and formulation, then perhaps they are redundant after all and undeserving of their high salaries.

An opposition leader who dare not confront or challenge the ruling party out of fear of offending them and yet call on Singaporeans to vote him into Parliament to be a “watchdog” of the PAP is in fact a “running dog” which has betrayed the trust of the people !

Over here, we do not mince our words when we criticize the establishment and it is for our readers to judge for themselves the merits of our critiques, not the PAP, the media or its proxy blog TOC to pass summary judgements and teach netizens a lesson in “credibility”.

If what we post here is complete hogwash without any meaning, you can be sure that our faithful and astute readers will cruxify us immediately on the spot without mercy.

A real tested political leader will be able to pass through the baptism of fire and withstand any bullets shot at him by his detractors. If you cannot take the heat, for goodness sake, just leave the kitchen !

Nobody force you to be in politics. You are in the game because you claim you want to serve your family…oops, I mean the people and so stop whining like a faggot and threaten to fix your opponents when they expose your inadequacies because they are just doing their job.
A “constructive critic” if there is such a term, is one who points out the follies, mistakes and oversights of the government directly and fearlessly so that it is held accountable for them.
Very soon, the state media will come up with a new definition for “credible bloggers”, those who are known in real life, plays around with semantics to attract official attention and prostitute themselves for cheap media publicity. You bet that these shenanigans will be constantly promoted, appraised and adulated to dilute the influence of vocal blogs which dare to criticize the establishment.

In my humble opinion, a “constructive” opposition / critic / blogger should posses the following attributes:
1. Courage to criticize, challenge and confront the establishment based to the best of one’s knowledge reasonably and truthfully as far as possible.
2. Magnanimity to concede and admit one’s mistakes if proven wrong.
3. Fortitude to withstand barrage of counter-attacks and to inspire others to join in the fray.

Critics exist to criticize the government, just like the opposition exists to oppose the government. If the government wants us to based our criticism on substantial evidence, then it must be forthcoming with the information in the first place. It is ludicrous to expect ordinary citizens to spend time doing “proper research” before they are allowed to criticize. Maybe MICA should consider muzzling every citizen with a dog mask and only allow those with a “permit” to open their mouths.

This “constructive” opposition / criticism is an illusion which only exists in the dreams of the PAP. They can only play such tricks on the minds of the electorate in Singapore where a majority of the populace has been brainwashed after 40 years of “national education”. If they try to repeat the same bullshit in other modern democracies, they will be jeered, ridiculed and lampooned till they climb of out of their toilet windows and disappear without a trace like Mas Selamat.

Comment 1:

A very good article that reflects the political scenario in Singapore.
The PAP devised the GRC system simply to keep them in power. This is the sole purpose of the GRC. The idea of “minority representation” is simply a myth concocted by the PAP.
But the sword will cut both ways too. A GRC may also fall to the opposition. In the 2006 GE in LHL’s Ang Mo Kio GRC the WP fresh and unknown candidates even won 33.9% of the votes. What does this say? It says 33.9% of the voters in AMK even want to get rid of LHL by putting their trust in WP.
Let’s hope more and more citizens get disillusioned by the PAP self-serving policies and vote for more opposition MPs into Parliament to provide the necessary checks and balances and to keep complacent PAP multi-million Ministers on their toes.
Our dream is to have more than one third of MPs as opposition so that the PAP do not amend the Constituton as they wish.
Democracy can be alive in Singapore. It is the duty of all citizens to ensure this.

Comment 2:
one of the most amazing thing about Singapore is that action is already been implemented or in the process of implementation by the government after which the “subservient” opp party will then debate, which is kind of effective because there is nothing to revert those decision and action anymore. CPF life,GST, job credit etc… all implemented then debate. Uniquely Singapore, no wonder all issues raised by opp party all move on since it already been implemented. In Singapore, if the gahmen already plan for it, it means that it already “officially” implemented, no need for action to prove it.

Comment 3:
I must say that this article puts forward some quite extreme views, such as “the opposition exists for the sake of opposing” and “they are supposed to make life difficult for [the ruling party] to ensure that they are accountable to the people.” Also, “It is not the duty of the opposition to come up with alternative policies”.
The opposition is not supposed to just “oppose for the sake of opposing”. There has to be a reasoned analysis — one should concur with good policies, question policies that one has doubts about, and oppose policies that one disagrees with. These are means to an end — bettering the lives of the people.
Independent observers may not have access to the civil service machinery, but there is a lot of information and research available in the open. If people blindly criticise without bothering to read up, then they are just speaking without basis. And that is why such discussions lack credibility and are not fruitful.
It’s just like your criticism of the phrase “constructive criticism”, which is very well established in the English language. You may want to look harder before saying that the “term itself is an illusion concocted by the PAP”. Name calling also does not help matters.

Comment 4:
Those who insist that opposition parties must offer better alternatives and solutions don’t know how policies are made.
In the ministries, all the minister has to do is to provide an idea or direction and the entire ministry will work on making it into a policy. What do you think the thousands of staff in the ministries are for?
It is ridiculous to insist that opposition parties, with their limited resources, offer BETTER solutions than the minister and his ministry.
If you want to know if the opposition party can do better, simple - vote them in and let them run a ministry with the same amount of resources

Comment 5:
As I’ve mentioned in another posting, the notion that the govt should retain part of our salaries in order to “protect us from our own folly” (so that we won’t “foolishly” squander our money) is fundamentally flawed & it limits our freedom.
To say that we should have part of our money retained by the govt in order to prevent us from squandering it away is like saying u should be put into jail to prevent u from committing a crime (even though u have not committed any crime thus far). Every individual has the capacity to commit crimes just as every individual has the capacity to squander money.
Having said that, I’m not opposed to the idea of CPF per se. I’m just against the idea that the govt should be the one doing it.
If there’s a social need, you can be sure that the pte sector would come in to serve the need. An individual, if he so wishes, can buy an Endowment Insurance policy, “save” his money for the next 20 - 30 years & have his money returned to him with interest when he retires. It works in a similar way with CPF but an individual has the freedom to choose whether he wants to contribute. Most importantly I don’t want the govt retaining my money & running my life. Everyone should have the freedom to enjoy the fruit of his labour & decide how much he wants to save, how he wants to spend his money, etc. Also, CPF money is NOT risk-free. Countries can go bankrupt too & there’s no gurantee that inflation will remain low.