Voting Responsibly

This is actually a fuller fleshing out of the article I wrote on the train yesterday. Had more time to gather my thoughts and think deeper.

Right now we see messages such as "voting for Change" and "voting wisely" being totted around, when they are actually euphemisms for "vote for the alternative party". But are we really putting much thought into our votes? Yes we may see change, but is it necessary for the better? Makes you wonder why they don't outright say "vote for a better future" or something to that effect.

I previously raised the issue of a unlikely but possible worse case scenario where Tin Pei Ling ends up being appointed to one of the major offices by the Prime Minister's office at the end of this election. Let me review the line of though leading to this possibility.

1. Alternative Parties and representatives are expected to get more seats in GE 2011, though the PAP is still expected to have the highest percentage overall.
2. The possibility that incumbent appointed ministers lay lose their appointments due to not meeting the 1st criteria of being elected. (Appointments can only be given to elected MPs).
3. The Prime Minister's office will have less options to appoint MPs due to the reduced pool size of elected candidates (they can only be selected from the majority party).

The Appointment of Ministers

The first point is very straight forward if ground sentiments are to be believed. The 2nd point needs further elaboration. Elected MPs are those that win the election through the voting process of GE 2011. Appointed Ministers, like Ministers of Finance, or Ministers of Foreign Affairs, are selected by the Prime Minister's office, presumably as these people are viewed as the best available candidate to hold the post. These appointed office are usually grouped into 2 tiers, the actual "head" minister, and a more minor post, usually called "second minister of" so and so ministry. Barring capability, another criteria deciding what post the minister gets also depends on experience. The more senior MPs are eligible for one "head" minister appointment, i.e. George Yeo, or may hold 2 minor posts i.e. Lim Hwee Hua who is second minister for Finance and second minister for Transport. The less experienced MPs will usually hold just one minor post, sort of an understudy for bigger roles ahead. One criteria for eligibility though is that they must first be an elected MP, be it via voting or a walkover.

Its the 3rd point that many voters should actually be considering when they think about their votes. Lets talk numbers first.

Opportunity Costs and Requirements of Smooth Transitions

When an incumbent minister gets voted out, it is not just that one position (or 2 if the person holds 2 minor posts) that gets affected; that figure must be doubled. One also needs to consider the opportunity costs of replacing that minister. The one eventually picked to fill up the vacated post might have originally been under consideration to fill up another post. This is especially true if replacement plans are in place for out-going appointed ministers.

Then we have to consider the capability factor. This is where some alternative party supporters might contradict themselves without themselves being aware of it. Much "credit" is being "given" to individual appointed ministers for doing a bad job in a particular sector. Yet they think that the "machinery" can be kept running smoothly once these ministers are out, since the infrastructure is in place to keep things going smoothly. 2 scenarios they fail to consider is that maybe the infrastructure is good because the problematic appointed ministers did in fact do a good job setting it up and keeping it in good condition to be handed over. Or, there really could be something inherently wrong with the system, whereupon it would not be able to function smoothly without proper guidance. Of course this is not a universal truth. Just some things to consider. The main point is that the choice of suitable replacements may be further limited due to the more capable people having lost their election.

Evaluating the Candidate Separate From The Party

Of course, one may blame the PAP for having such a weak field of candidates in the first place. But is that really the case? It would only be true if the capability of the candidate was the only criteria in the voting process, where stronger candidates still get voted for, and the weaker candidates do not. However, looking at the current social media scape, we can easily see that there seems to be a growing number of people who will simply vote for the alternative party just because they do not trust in the system any more, and want to voice their displeasure, or they feel that the need for alternative voices out-prioritizes everything else. What they fail to consider is that if that is the way they intend to vote, they run the risk of disqualifying the more capable candidates from office, the same ones that are supposed to keep the country functioning smoothly while they introduce their alternative voices. Ideology may well triumph over practical concerns.

The Problem with the "Continue to Contribute Even Without Appointment" Suggestion

One suggestion fielded by alternative party supporters in the event of the more capable appointed ministers being voted out is that they can always continue to contribute in a non-office capacity. What they failed to consider is that it is not always possible. The best example of this is in the case of trade, finance or foreign affairs ministers negotiating with their foreign counterparts. If we send in a less experience minister, we will be at a disadvantage. If we send in a "proxy" representative (the out-of-office ministers now working as negotiators), the foreign counterparts will view that as a sign of dis-respect. Note that even MM Lee does not step in as a proxy for PM Lee, even though MM Lee is instantly recognizable and (though some may disagree) respected. Can you imagine the next ASEAN or some other major world world conference where every country fields their Foreign Affairs (or equivalent) ministers, and we are the only ones to send in someone who holds a different/smaller office?

Voting Responsibly VS Voting for Change

Note that I am in no way proposing blind support for the PAP. I am just cautioning against blind support for ideologies such as "change for the sake of change" and cheapening your vote by treating it as a thumbs up/thumbs down button. Our votes are very valuable. If you truly think one particular candidate is better than the other, vote for him/her. If we see a weaker candidates who deserve to lose, vote him/her out. I agree that we need alternative voices, but we also need to have retain the ability to appoint ministers who are capable of operating the machine and keeping the country going while we affect changes. That's how transition periods are, be it company or a country. Blindly voting out the more or decently capable (or less incompetent) ministers means that even if we do get better representation in parliament, it would be at a now real risk of the an unstable government and inefficient ministries due to less qualified ministers in office.

Do you really want Tin Pei Ling as an appointed minister?

Of course, one may argue that the way out of this "rut" is to vote the PAP out of power totally..... Or maybe just Marine Parade. And I hope this does not count as fear mongering. Maybe I just worry too much.


PS: These opinions are the author's own and through deep consideration, uninfluenced by state media (due to self imposed self-censorship since mid April). Author was unable to escape the influence of social media however due to facebook.....

Do we want to see Tin Pei Ling as appointed minister after GE 2011?

Not talking about elected minister position, but the big roles appointed by the Prime Minister's offfice. Okay I am just stating the unlikely worst case scenario, but think about it. Only elected MPs who have won their ward elections can appointed by the Prime Minister's office. Which means, if an appointed MP loses the election, the appointment is now open and a replacement must be selected from the remaining ones who did win the ward election. Its already projected that the alternative parties are most likely going to clinch more seats this election while still leaving the PAP as the majority party, meaning that the chance of incumbent ministers losing their appointments is real.

There are few GRCs where multiple offices are on the table. I.e Aljunied is one of few with technically 3 offices up for grabs. Minister of Foreign Affairs, 2nd Minister of Finance and 2nd Minister of Transportation. If the ward is lost, the PAP ends up with fewer eligible candidates to fill up the newly vacated positions, since appointments can only come from the ruling party. The implications are worrying.

Alternative voices in Parliment is important, but so is keeping the machine running while improvements are being made. To be fair, we must admit that some MPs ARE better at their jobs than others, and these should be retained even as we move towards a parliment with more alternative voices. But if one were to vote without considering the merits of the individual candidates, i.e. For ideology's sake, voting to voice one's displeasure, or deciding to voting out an experienced and more credible appointed minister just to get one of the better alternative voices in, we are diluting the pool of people from which the operational appointed ministers can be selected. If the PAP does lose many appointed ministers, we would really end up in a situation when the PAP would have to appoint less credible, capable, or proven ministers to office since the better ones lost as a result of mass protest votes Would you want Lee Bee Wah as your Foreign minister to be be able to handle herself in cross discussions with overseas politicians? Or Tin Pei Ling as home affairs minister?

Or we can evaluate the individual candidates, voting to keep the better ones and remove the worse ones.

After all, if we admit that we do not want to change the ruling party now, we would want to make sure that those that are left are the better ones, not just the left over ones. Or we can just not care and cast our votes impulsively.

Vote wisely indeed.

PS: I draw this line of thought from my own device, not from reading any state media or social media site. As I mentioned, I have not exposed myself state or social media to remain impartial. I really hope I was not the only one who has thought that far.

Random Musings during GE 2011

"The uncertainties of change vs the change of uncertainties..."

~ Catknight, April 30, 2011

"I keep hearing "Vote Wisely" when they expect me to just vote opposition without thought or debate. Or to "Vote for Change" when the change affects me much more personally than it does them. If my vote is really that important to your cause, then give me the benefit of the doubt, the ground to question, the freedom to choose and the respect my vote deserves"

~ Catknight, April 27, 2011

"Opinion remains divided, but the State of Denial has been voted both the best and worst place to live"

~ Catknight, April 27, 2011

HOW TO WIN AN ELECTION USING SHADOW POLITICS

Politics have always been known as a dirty game. But dirt is obvious, hence the term gutter politics. Shadow politics is more interesting, where all the machinizations take place away from public eye. First, a disclaimer. I am neither a political science student nor really involved in the political scene, I just love to read a lot and put my overactive imagination to writing stories. Election time usually spurs my ideas towards the political genre though, and I am just theorizing of potential strategies that the PAP or the Opposition can use to swing the votes heavily in their favour, or give themselves a big advantage. These may sound like plots from some Jeffrey Archer novel, but then again thats the whole point :)

How PAP can swing the Election in their Favour:

For them to do that, other than reducing discontent, they must eliminate their second strongest threat, that of the viable opposition given by the fielding of strong candidates. This year we are seeing some strong new faces, and therein lies the potential weakness. The advantages of these new candidates have already been mentioned much, but so has the pitfalls, mainly the uncertainty over their dedication.

What happens if one of these new opposition faces pulls out at the last minute before polling day?

In one swift, stroke the confidence in all the new opposition faces would be shaken, especially if this was one of the big names being mentioned. Unlike PAP's new faces who were "groomed and selected", these new aspirants were independently motivated to run, and all apparently in the last minute fashion. Of course, there might be many reasons to cause a candidate to pull out, but I'll group it simply to coercion, pressure, self-realization, conflict of interest with party direction, and the mole theory. But I'll only do an analysis of the mole theory, where an opposition candidate has been sent in as a by the PAP, and in this case, I'll just list the 4 most prominent names among yhe new faces.

WP's Chen Show Mao. He may seem like their greatest catch and appears really sincere and enthusiastic, but consider this, he has almost nothing to lose if he pulls out. He still has a stable job overseas to go back to, his family are not here. He faces no local stigma or backlash if he goes back overseas, in fact its a plus point to his employers showing his dedication to his job over his political aspirations.

SDP's DR Ang Yong Guan. Maybe just the fact that he is in SDP despite his obvious qualifications is enough to ring a bell, as he could have aimed for a more credible party. There's always been conspiracy theories about SDP, that Dr Chee was supposedly paid to make the opposition look bad (i.e. how he can still fly around despite technically being bankrupt), and James Gomez (okay there are some really absentminded people out there, but for a "smart" political candidate to make a similar/related mistake 2 times in a row....)

SDP's Tan Jee Say. Granted he sounds credibly sincere, but if he was really that close to Goh Chok Tong (and the PAP) there is a possibility that he still is. Most unlikely of the four mentioned here though, as the link to PAP is too obvious and pointed out as a ploy.

NSP's Nicole Seah. She's only 24, and may just state the need for time to study the political scene longer so that she can be at her most useful knowledge and experience wise when she chooses to run a later date. A weak excuse, but still a worthy anD valid one. Or attribute the change of heart to the fickleness of youth.

In either case, there can be many possible reasons for even ONE new face to pull out at the last minute, the damage would have been done. One of the wards would be short of one campaigner (maybe leading to an outright walkover, unless they had a backup), and any contests which includes a new face would be burdened by the uncertainty of commitment. The recent abandonment of Tanjong Pagar by the SDA already shows signs of it, as one of the reasons given was a sudden lack of manpower resource. A masterstroke indeed. But please don't automatically assume that if a withdrawal does happen, that it means the mole theory is true. Again I reiterate that I am not discrediting any of the candidates, this articles is about possibilities, not probabilities, its just a possible scenario that I have thought about as the conditions allow for it.

How the opposition swing the Election in their Favour:

The opposition parties have not portrayed as one big threat to the PAP, having the numbers, but are not united. A while back it was stated that even if the opposition wins all the wards they contest in, any opposition party individually still not be big enough of a majority to overtake the PAP's percentage. Of course this has changed as it was later announced that all wards may be contested (thought even later on SDA pulled out plus there could be a repeat of forms not being properly submitted means its not the case). As WPalso mentioned, they are not ready to take over yet.

What if all the opposition parties unite as one and PAP does not have the time to respond?

Imagine the situation of the day the forms for the candidate were submitted. The PAP is worried about losing seats yet confident that they will remain the ruling party. Complacency has set (further?) in. Then it is realised that all the candidates from the different opposition party were running under one single party. Since the law require the party to register before hand it would have to be under one of the existing parties. (Would be more intriguing if a whole new unknown appears, maybe the People's Coalition Party. Perhaps when I turn it into a full fledge story I can "tweak" the laws a bit). All the A-listers from the different parties are now a united force to be reckoned with. A brand new party manifesto appears, an amalgamation of all the best ideas from the different manifestos. On top of that, the previously unveiled manifestos were "purposely" weak in different areas but strong in others to purposely mislead the PAP into thinking that non of the opposition's individual manifestos are credible on the whole on its own.

This would be a complicated operation though, with many obstacles and possible pitfalls.

There needs to be a strong personality in charge. A unifying figure with enough charisma and commanding presence to convince and rally all the opposition parties under him/her. This person may already be in the limelight, but may not shown political aspirations, or maybe some other criteria exists that lets this person not be viewed as a credible threat and slip under the PAP's radar. (Again, would be interesting if it turns out to be an existing PAP member).

The plan must be executed in secrecy though, which means that only the top level, maybe just the chairman of the individual opposition parties are in the know. To fool the enemy, one must first fool your own people. Again, these individual chairmen must themselves have charisma and the respect of the party members so that even in the event of this announcement (no one else in the party knows about this covert operation) they will still remain loyal to the party as everyone is needed to run.

It would also be easier to have existing members than suddenly unveil new faces as that would be too great of a shock to the public. Again, timing is an issue. The individual party members must be informed ahead of time so that they do not show TOO much surprise at the turn of events, as this negative image of apparent chaos can be played up strongly.

Another possible problem is the displeasure felt by the voters for being fooled as well. This is where the strong personalities and charismas of the leaders come in, as well as how much more discontented the people are to overlook this need to be so covert. This would be the second greatest hindrance to the plan.

One major possible problem is the restructuring that will occur (i.e. there is now only one vice-chairman for one party). Those who were "demoted" may be disgruntled and pull out in protest. Its up to the individual leaders to identify these people and deal with them accordingly (either let them into the circle, mark them - especially the controversial ones - as expendable, or know that they will accept the decision for the greater good etc).

This ploy can also only be used once, for obvious reasons. Therefore the opposition party must time this trick to be used when it has the highest possibility of succeeding, all factors considered.

However, consider the possible results:. In one blitz, the PAP is now faced with one singular opposition that poses a credible threat to their retaining majority control over the parliment seats, without a proper strategy to deal with it. After all, their strategies up to that point have been to deal with the different parties, not one united one. In this case, the new united opposition party would have the advantage as they would have prepared for the publicity and questions that would ensue with the announcement. Unless the PAP already has a comprehensive back-up plan (no doubt they have foreseen the possibility) and all their MPs have been prepped to can are capable of dealing with this new scenario, they are at a severe disadvantage.

Now how to turn it into an interesting FICTIONAL novel....