Que Sera Sera

The local political election has been done and dusted- it happened last year in May. Some have call it a watershed event and some said that it ended in a whimper: but it is in my belief, that it cannot be considered as a watershed event. It is to me a non-event: precisely because the transfer of power was so orderly that I wondered was there any change in the first place beneath the veneer of electoral politics.

The opposition gain a GRC and an additional 5 seats in Parliament: their vote count aggregated was a total of 40% but accounted for only 8% of the Parliament seats. There was much talk about the opposition mounting a overturn in the results in various constituencies but eventually only one went their way in spite of much fanfare. The emergence of several civil servants and ex-establishment personnel entering into the opposition calls into question the allegiance of these new members.

The orderliness of the defection- where previously it was much ingratiated- appeared to be much choreographed even though the true intentions remain rather elusive. The timing and drama unfolding as one after another gold-plated opposition candidate appeared surrealistic given the historical experience of opposition politics is to go by.

The orderliness of seismic changes appears almost like a roller coaster ride: where you think you are in danger but the actual fact is that you steadily fastened to your seat with nary of chance of falling off. To be frank, I was taken by the spectacle: but after thinking back- it would almost appear too good to be true, what made them changed their minds in the first place.

The media coverage, the liberal-ness of the coverage almost had everyone believed that finally something was happening. But one year on, nothing really changed. Media coverage continued to be one-sided, community issues almost always lurk a paternalistic hand behind it. Certain articles continue to whiff off an authoritarian bent to it. Watershed event: what watershed event?

I cannot differentiate between the opposition politician from the establishment ones because it almost appear that they toe the same line. It is almost that they come to an agreement to disagree and only to agree at the end of it.

Debate in Parliament is non-existent and continued to be unilaterally agreed by one side. When the opposition argued, it is almost like nit-picking on non-existent points without taking on the substance of any bill and that is in spite of having a number of gold-plated candidates on their side.

I have watched a number of Parliamentary sessions and it is still symptomatic of previous years: one side speak, the other side listen; and to give a token debate of which to show that points were truly picked up.

But in recent months, I have given myself to the argument that in order for things to happen- true debate cannot happen in the spectacle of everyone. It gives everyone a chance to prise open an issue only for it to stall as a political maneuver and hampering the welfare of everyone at large.

I admittedly in previous posts gave the idea of a two party system where debate happens and consequently results in a synthesis of better policies and ideas. But practically speaking, like everything else, politics also has it's own culture. The idea of an authentic conflict of which the result is better ideas and policies is virtually non-existent.

It is better that authentic conflict appear away from the prying eyes of public so as to not allow opportunistic politicians mislead an ignorant public. Therefore the idea of conflict and debate in the Parliament would not exist simply because all members in the ring are playing by the same rules: which is to win the fickle minds of the electorate- and therefore to provide a spectacle for all to see and watch in awe.

Like someone always say: It appears that everything has changed but nothing really actually changed. It takes a madmen who do not play by the rules to effect the changes but who would risk their political career in doing so.

Que Sera Sera.