Power to the people

Last election, we had a three-way contest in our SMC, which included an independent candidate, but I wasn't old enough to vote. This time around, I'm old enough to vote, but we've since been absorbed into a GRC which saw a walkover by the ruling party, so still no voting for me.

***

It's interesting that I picked up James Surowiecki's The Wisdom of Crowds in the week leading up to the elections. That was completely unintended, and I haven't finished reading it yet, but overall, I do think that Singapore got it right: still an overwhelming majority in the number of seats for the PAP, but a decrease in percentage of popular votes. The internet has proven a valuable resource in this elections, with this being one of the best analysis of the results. More will probably spring up in the days to come.

***

I accompanied Dad and Aunt to one of the opposition rallies; Dad had been faithfully attending every one that he could possibly afford to. He was irritated that our tardiness (traffic jam) had caused him to miss out on the start of the rally.

He listened intently to the speeches, and nodded vigorously after each point was made. Aunt took out her handkerchief and wiped at the beads of sweat that were starting to frame her forehead.

"Why are we here again? It's so hot, so crowded, and we can't even see the stage," Aunt sighed, as she craned her neck in another futile attempt to catch a glimpse of the speakers. "Should have stayed at home. This is not fun at all."

Dad began to engage in political discourse with some other middle-aged men, and I surveyed the packed arena. The audience covered a wide demographic: young and old, men and women. I actually thought it was a breezy night. I was impressed with the speeches; even stripping away all the sound and pomposity, they covered a lot of ground in lucid, intelligent, humourous arguments. The crowd made a lot of noise in support of the WP, but as party chief Low Thia Khiang ended his speech, people started to file out in large numbers; that was interesting, I thought, how they didn't stay to hear the rest of the candidates speak. Well, I did, and quickly understood why; while the rest of the speakers were coherent and pumped, they lacked Low's charisma.

***

On our way home, Aunt complained: "I don't understand these people. The PAP has done so much for us, yet they're not contented. So ungrateful."

But that's not the point, I wanted to say.

"But that's not the point," Dad piped up. "We need the opposition to have any kind of democracy in Singapore. We cannot call ourself a democracy with a one-party rule."

But... that's also not the point, I wanted to say.

Except that right there and then, I realised that that was the point. Not that either of them were correct, but that they both had their reasons, and it would be unfair to say that either of them were "wrong." We all have our reasons -- some of us vote in support, others in protest; some of us worry that people are taking their vote lightly, others are offended by continuous insinuations that we're mindless drones who treat the election process with frivolity. At the end of the day, the people have the right to vote, whatever their reasons, and you have to respect that vote, regardless of whether you agree with their decision, and why they made it.

***

It takes a lot of guts for someone to stand in opposition to the ruling party in such a stronghold as Singapore, and just for doing that, the opposition candidates have earned many points with the voters; everybody loves an underdog, right? The dominance of the PAP has probably worked against them, placing a bigger burden of them to perform. Double standards? Maybe. But the PAP is a tactical expert in exploiting that, so they can't really complain. That's probably been the one most annoying thing for me, and the opposition has quickly picked up on that, leaving the PAP fumbling in their lack of preparation and anticipation -- their underestimation of the opposition, and of the voters.

Chiam See Tong too old? Well, he's not as old as MM Lee.

Low's English not up to standard? The PAP would be hard pressed to find one of their own to match Low in a Chinese debate. (In fact, after hearing the victory speech of one Mr Ong Ah Heng, I am willing to put good money on Low winning a debate with him in any language.)

James Gomez a liar? For all of their insistence on proof that can be held up in a court of law, the PAP has little on Gomez. Was Gomez dishonest? Perhaps. But the point is that we'll never know, and you can have all the video evidence you like, but you cannot prove intent. So please, don't insult your voters; let them decide.

Low took Irene Ng's remarks too personally? There are three opposition MP's! Also, I can think of one or two people in the PAP who've "taken things personally" enough to launch defamation suits.

Tip of the iceberg, baby. Tip of the iceberg.

So I do think that Singapore got it right. The PAP has done many good things, there's no question. But they've also failed in areas of basic respect and decency, and for that, the voters in Singapore have waved their flag of disapproval. Despite Lee Hsien Loong proclaiming that he was "happy" with the "strong mandate" that they've been given, the strained smile on his face was a dead giveaway; he looked like the way I felt when my 'A' level results were released -- disappointed at not having done better, but mostly relieved that he didn't do worse. Hur.

***

Oh, Dad and Aunt didn't get to vote; we stay in the same constituency. It probably wouldn't have mattered, of course; I think their votes would've cancelled each other out. ;)

Finally, congratulations to those who won, and thanks to those who were brave enough to contest. I will continue to pray for wisdom for our government, because in the end, we're all in this together.

***

A fat ox had been selected and placed on display, and members of a gathering crowd were lining up to place wagers on the weight of the ox.

[...]

[Francis] Galton was interested in figuring out what the "average voter" was capable of because he wanted to prove that the average voter was capable of very little.

[...]

Galton undoubtedly thought that the average guess of the group would be way off the mark. After all, mix a few very smart people with some mediocre people and a lot of dumb people, and it seems likely you'd end up with a dumb answer. But Galton was wrong. The crowd had guessed that the ox, after it had been slaughtered and dressed, would weigh 1,197 pounds. After it had been slaughtered and dressed, the ox weighed 1,198 pounds. In other words, the crowd's judgment was essentially perfect.

***

... [U]nder the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent, and are often smarter than the smartest people in them. Groups do not need to be dominated by exceptionally intelligent people in order to be smart. Even if most of the people within a group are not especially well-informed or rational, it can still reach a collectively wise decision. This is a good thing, since human beings are not perfectly designed decision makers... We generally have less information than we'd like. We have limited foresight into the future. Most of us lack the ability -- and the desire -- to make sophisticated cost-benefit calculations. Instead of insisting on finding the best possible decision, we will often accept one that seems good enough. And we often let emotion affect our judgment. Yet despite all these limitations, when our imperfect judgments are aggregated in the right way, our collective intelligence is often excellent.

-- The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki

***

"Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't."

-- Margaret Thatcher