Why the PAP needs to upgrade its arguments and its integrity

The argument for denying constituencies that vote for the opposition upgrading is so bogus that surely even those who make it know full well that they are talking rubbish. Not the argument from political expediency, of course; that's a perfectly valid (though unsound) argument. [A valid argument is one whose conclusions follow logically from the premises. A sound argument is one that is valid and has true premises. But I digress.] But that's not the argument that has been made.

The argument is roughly that the denial of upgrading is justified because residents in SMCs or GRCs who vote an opposition candidate into power are thereby showing that they do not like the ruling party's policies, including upgrading. Therefore, these residents should be denied upgrading.

The sleight-of-hand should be obvious. Yes, when you vote against a party you show that you like its policies less than at least one alternative. But, more specifically, you like the package of policies the party promises to put in place or maintain less than you like the next best alternative package.

In fact, if you believe the argument, may I suggest that in the coming election we deny those who vote the opposition the privilege of our defense policies? After all, wouldn't they have clearly demonstrated that they do not like the ruling party'a policies concerning national defense? So, declare to neighbouring countries indicating that their armies should be free to rape and pillage Potong Pasir because they do not want their government's protection and their government is more than happy to oblige.

Rubbish. Unless you are willing to hand over the entire business of governing a particular constituency to whoever is voted into parliament by that constituency (or, in the case of countries that operate on a federal system, the business of governing that is within the domain of the state or relevant political sub-unit), you do not get to make that argument. You do not get to withhold upgrading or national defense while continuing to tax and in other ways impose your model of governance on the residents.

Oh wait. Of course you get to. What I mean is that you don't get to make the argument and make sense at the same time. And who gives a shit about that sort of thing, right?

***

Did you know that in Singapore, undischarged bankrupts cannot speak at political rallies? Or have messages read at rallies on their behalf?

Did you also know that, in Singapore, taking pictures of people standing next to each other wearing T-shirts that have the names of organisations on them alongside other people wearing other T-shirts with names of disgraced organisations on them may be illegal, because in so doing you assert that the un-disgraced organisations are in disgraceful ways similar to the disgraced organisations?

I mean, just FYI.

***

Let me just say that I'm not any more disillusioned with Singapore politics than I am with politics elsewhere. It's just that I'm disillusioned with politics in general. The difference is that, here, it actually affects me, and one naturally holds those closer to them to higher standards. And, being a citizen and all, I may actually have greater power to change things here. But that, we have seen, is in question.