On upgrading, again

Anyway, I wanted to respond to comment no. 3 of the previous post [on the previous incarnation of this blog, hosted on a different site].

also, i think the issue with upgrading becomes problematic because doesn't the money that is used to upgrade belong to the state and not the ruling party? so how can a constituency be denied upgrading solely because they're not voting the "right" way?

Start of response:

.: Yes, you're right, that's the first order argument one would make. But the PAP could respond to that argument by saying, well, it's not like we're denying them upgrading; they don't want upgrading to begin with, as demonstrated by their vote for the opposition. It was that argument I was responding to.

And while I'm at it, I might as well say: right up to yesterday I was going to draw two unhappy smiley faces against both boxes on my ballot slip. But judging from the response of the crowd at the Aljunied GRC rally yesterday, the opposition has to fight for the bread and butter vote just like the PAP does if they are to have the ghost of a chance at winning. So as much as I don't like the anti-foreign worker and anti-free market noises coming from the WP, I sort of understand why they have to make them. What's important is what they say and do while in Parliament, when nobody is watching anymore, and for that we will have to wait and see.

By the way, a surprisingly large number of people seem to think that "Your vote is secret" means you can't tell anybody who you're voting for. You can!