“Did the opposition not provide alternative policies?”

Translation of a letter that was published in Zao Bao:

Zaobao forum letter: Does the opposition have alternative policies? (ZB, 5 Oct 2015) - By Lin Shuxian (林叔献)

I was somewhat disturbed on reading Professor Ong Chang Woei’s commentary “Did the opposition not provide alternative policies?”

First, Prof Ong said the opposition finds it hard to come up with effective alternative policies because official figures are not easy to get. What puzzles me is: If official figures are so important and so hard to get, what did the opposition base its criticism of current policy on? Was the opposition shooting its mouth off based on incomplete figures? 

The fact is the opposition spent a lot more time criticising current policies than raising alternatives, which means the opposition’s focus during campaigning was criticism of the ruling party’s policies. This is an undeniable fact.

Opposition MPs had over four years in the previous term of Parliament to ask ministers for many figures needed in policymaking. But did they? I would ask Prof Ong to look at the records of the scant comments made by the opposition in Parliament. 

If the opposition does not actively seek the vital information it needs to come up with alternative policies, how can the ruling party be obliged to help them to come up with alternatives? It is apparent how much weight the opposition gives to coming up with alternative policies. 

During the debate on ministerial salaries, the Workers’ Party (WP) calculated based on publicly available figures. But when it was pointed out that their calculations gave even higher ministerial salaries than what was proposed, they stayed silent. 

Clearly, this is not a question of official figures, but of attitude and capability. We are not denying the importance of figures. But the key is whether they are used to hit out at opponents or serve the people. And this has to do with whether political figures enter politics to satisfy their own desires or to serve the people, this is a question of principles. 

So, voters in Singapore do not just have expectations of what candidates say, but also their character, ability and sincerity. The voters have to listen to the candidates’ views and more importantly observe their actions.

Has the opposition raised alternative policies? Yes, many! But how many are feasible and good enough to replace existing ones? Voters are discerning and can judge for themselves. For instance, is giving a monthly sum to elderly and young citizens a feasible policy? In short, the election results reflected voters’ views. 

I feel this is not just about being able to convince voters, as today’s electorate are knowledgeable and well able to interpret policies, and would have their own views and done research on the various current national issues. So they would want more in-depth explanations of policies and they would consider their sustained feasibility, as well as the capability, integrity and reliability of the people implementing these policies. This is the will of the people, which must be taken seriously.

Through history, there have been many eloquent and charismatic politicians. We often hear beautiful and rousing political speeches and slogans, but few can produce brilliant and sustainable political achievements. It is easy to raise different policies and deliver great speeches, but the important thing is the feasibility and sustainability of policies, more so the reliability of the people who implement policies. The key is to convince people and win their support, and those in politics must take voters’ wisdom seriously.

Founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew had a unique ability to convince voters through words and deeds to accept his policies and trust him as a reliable executor.

As many older Singaporeans said: “Follow Lee Kuan Yew and we will not go wrong”. If the opposition cannot convince voters that their policies are better and they are more reliable and more capable than ruling party candidates, should that responsibility lie with the electorate, the ruling party or the opposition? From salesmen to politicians, either convince your clients or voters, or accept failure.

Prof Ong said the opposition’s alternatives would not be too different from the ruling party. And that means there are many good things about existing policies, does it not? So to Prof Ong: If there is not much difference, why change? 

Prof Ong said: “The only difference between the opposition and the ruling party is that the opposition cannot implement these policies because they are not in power.”

Is that so? No! Such thinking shows no respect for voters’ wisdom and no regard for public opinion. It is like a salesman who cannot convince people to buy his product but blames them for not giving him a chance to show how good his product is, instead of reflecting on his ability and his sub-standard product.. Voters in Singapore have not come to the stage where they have to choose between two rotten apples and want to try something different for a change. I hope the opposition will not be so arrogant, or they will never turn things around.

The basic requirement of being a politician is being able to decipher, value and direct public opinion!