Why would anyone or any team contest a constituency? I believe some parties have different reasons from what I feel is the right reason. I believe that in contesting for a constituency, the most important priority and motivation is to represent the residents of that particular constituency.
If the MP is not elected to represent the people of a certain geographical location with varying profiles and needs, what is he or she elected for?
I understand that in Singapore, voting is party-based and not based on individuals. This means that voters must also consider what the party represents, on top of whether the candidate is suitable to address the needs of the constituency. Nevertheless, it does not make sense to me when a party contest a constituency because the party wishes to take issue with the incumbent’s portfolio in the cabinet. In other words, I believe one should not contest a constituency simply to give voters a chance to vote the incumbent out. The more mistaken motivation is to simply ‘let the people have a chance to vote’.
In the case of Tanjong Pagar GRC, the attempt to form a team just to allow the people to vote misses the point of what voting is for. Even if a formidable team is assembled, voters must also ask themselves why is the team here? Does the team understand our specific needs? Has the team been around to meet the people and to profile the area? Is the team able to help?
The same goes for SDP’s bid in Holland-Bukit Timah GRC and NSP’s efforts in Marine Parade GRC and Tampines GRC. To contest these GRCs so that the opposition has a chance to take aim at specific politicians and specific policies and to canvass for votes on the basis that certain incumbents should be voted out is really ignoring the equally real work that the MPs have put in to care for their residents.
I am not saying that SDP and NSP are there solely to pick on specific individuals but it appears to be the case. The constant reference for the desire to hold the ministers accountable and requests for them to answer for their decisions paints a picture that misrepresents the main aim of electing an MP. I am not saying that SDP and NSP are not interested in the welfare of the people in the constituency – I am certain they are - but I wish they would not portray their efforts as chiefly to vote out certain individuals for the national policies they represent.
As someone who feels that he is sorely outpriced in the HDB resale market and do not find the locations of BTOs appealing, of course I am concerned about the cost of public housing. As someone who thought the YOG was a success, I am also concerned over the reason for over-budgeting. Similarly, I find it shocking that someone could escape from a detention center and flee the country even as many units are tasked to comb Singapore for someone that has already left the country.
But when it comes to electing MPs, again, I would like to know the basic question: Why contest a constituency?
Because you have to contest somewhere. A constituency is the locus belli. But for what cause apart from party politics do you contest? The problem is that the PAP manifesto is like the MOE brochure but with fewer details; you might as well say, “More Good Years!”
The SDP and WP manifestos are more detailed. But the PAP has said, a) we don’t want to debate, b) we don’t want to give these people more air time by talking to them. Hence at least these two parties have a casus belli.
Which leads me to your point about attacks on ministers. If you are upset with a particular aspect of policy, why would you go argue with another member of the party? It’s as if you don’t like the rojak, so you go to the mee siam stall and complain. You might as well pick a locus belli that is appropriate.
Which is why I think that Aljunied is an appropriate fight along party/constituency lines, but that Holland/BT is an appropriate fight along policy lines. Seriously.
Hi Sir, thanks for your comments! I agree that if you don’t like the rojak, it only makes sense to complain to the rojak stall. But what I’m asking is that if I want to win a particular seat in an election, shouldn’t I start from somewhere I am familiar with and am confident of taking care of the residents? For example, if I were to contest, I would pick Jurong GRC because I have lived here and know the area well, not because I am against some of the Finance Minister’s positions. Whether every vote that goes in my favour is because I connect well with the residents or they simply hate the incumbent is another thing. Unless the strategy is to win support for any reason possible.
Of course, if living there has nothing to do with knowing the area, no problem. Also, if it takes only a short time to size up the needs of a constituency, then no problem as well.
So what should be the priority of candidates? Policies or constituencies? Or maybe I’m creating a false dichotomy in saying that one has to be prioritized over the other.