Why oppose?

Not being the ruling party doesn't necessarily mean that one MUST oppose the ruling party. So why are they called the "opposition"?

If I had a political party and if the incumbent kept calling me "opposition", I'd want to set the record straight. I would want to be called the "alternative" party, the alternative choice; anything but opposition.

The word opposition has such negative intonations. It's not there to generate good feeling but more to the tune of discontent. The alternative party doesn't necessarily have to oppose new legislation IF it benefits the country and its citizens. It's a matter of questioning and keeping the ruling party in check.

That's what democracies are all about. A 1 party government doesn't have to mean that it is better to rule. If the ruling party cannot handle any line of questioning and would spend more time and energy countering each other, then they are obviously not fit to govern. If they feel that since they are the majority government, they don't have to listen to anyone else to answer to anyone else. Which to put simply means that they can do whatever they want and nobody would keep check on them.

Since when is that good? Sounds very much like a dictatorship to me. Dictators can give handouts once in a while as well. It doesn't mean that because you give out share and create medisave (which incidentally is your own savings anyway) that a government with an overwhelming majority is not a dictatorship.

The term dictator doesn't mean "Adolf Hitler". It doesn't mean misery and suffering. A dictator is one that rules with total authority. A dictator is one that is domineering. A dictator doesn't have to answer to the people. We are lucky that we have elections once every 5 years. This is so that even if we had a dictatorial government they are answerable AND liable to the people. That keeps them in check because if they screw up in any way, nobody would vote for them the next time round.

"What is the opposition's job? It's not to help the PAP do a better job ... because if they help the PAP do a better job, you're going to vote for me again and they're going to be out of a job for a long time. So their job is to make life miserable for me." - PM Lee in a lunchtime election rally.

To be capable of such thought and bring forth into a speech is selfish to say the least. When is the government about winning and when is it NOT about how best to SERVE the public?

Issn't it quite possible that not EVERYTHING the PAP does is in the best interest of the public? We've learnt to accept whatever's been legislated simply because there've been no opposition in parliament. It is as simple as that.

Is the minority voice actually heard? It's usually drowned out by majority noise.

I'm not here to say who's right and who's wrong. I believe that this General Election is gone to the point of character attacks and inelegent bantering between the parties. So much so that the matters at hand, things that concern everyone has been all but ignored.

Concerns such as means testing for healthcare as it was brought up by Sylvia Lim of the Worker's Party. Does the PAP have a ready reply that's good enough to convince borderline cases that fail to obtain subsidies swing their votes?

I wonder if anyone's done a poll about what the people would like to hear and what the major concerns are for the next 5 years.

Whatever the outcome, I believe that this GE has gone off track and it's sad to see it go this way.