3 Scenarios… Hush

The headlines screamed out “I voted for PAP in 2006 elections: WP candidate” on Straits Times online yesterday. After googling Yaw Shin Leong, I found his latest post “A Vote For The Other Side” on his blog.

After giving much thought, I propose three possible scenarios which Yaw could find himself in.

Scenario 1
Contesting Party: Solely between opposition parties excluding Workers’ Party
Who should he vote: Doesn’t really matter

Admittedly, this scenario is highly improbable since People’s Action Party (PAP) had contested for all seats since 1968 Parliamentary General Elections. But it is important to note that Yaw would have the freedom to exercise his vote without much brouhaha even if he made his vote known.

Scenario 2
Contesting Party: PAP VS Any Opposition Party (excluding WP)
Who should he vote: Preferably opposition party but definitely debatable

This was the unfortunate scenario that Yaw faced in General Elections 2006. In Bukit Panjang Single Member Constituency (SMC), it was Ling How Doong (from SDP) facing off against Teo Ho Pin (from PAP). Yaw voted for Teo as he explained he did not believe in opposition for opposition’s sake.

In fact, I do agree with him that there is “nothing inherently wrong for me to vote for an MP, regardless of his/her partisan background”.

Yet, Yaw must remember the definition of politics in a dominant one-party state of Singapore has in many ways, been skewed to a dichotomous polity, that is, the opposition against the PAP.

While I’m convinced that Yaw genuinely subscribe to respectable ideals, there are many who would vehemently disagree and argue that a vote for PAP must be construed as a vote for opposition.

Yaw is an active political member. By publicizing his vote, it is imperative to preempt and weigh the various consequences associated to this relatively contentious move.

Other questions to consider:

• What are the motivations behind revealing the PAP vote?
• With respect to liberal opposition supporters, would this have any detrimental effect on WP?
• Would PAP exploit this incident in future elections against WP?
• Worse, what if Teo from PAP contest against WP?

Thus a “safer” compromise would be to keep the vote secret, especially if it is a vote for the ruling party.

Scenario 3
Contesting Party: Any party VS Workers Party
Who should he vote: Workers Party

Yaw attempts to achieve a compromise by rationalizing…

Partisan considerations will certainly weigh heavily in my considerations. Having said that, ultimately this WP candidate has to convince me that he/ she has what it take to better serve the interests of our country and the constituents to win my vote.

In this situation, I think partisan interest must override personal beliefs.

By joining WP, Yaw should have agreed to the basic tenets and beliefs of the party. A non-WP vote can mean a vote of no confidence towards the party members, leaders and the party at large.

The only way that Yaw can continue voting a non-WP party should be to quit and free himself from the partisan obligations he cannot commit.

Conclusion
Silence is golden. Some things are simply better left unsaid.

1 Comment(s)

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI