opposing for the sake of opposing

i'd like to spend a few minutes ruminating on this strangest of singaporean inventions - opposing for the sake of opposing. we do many such similar actions: believing for the sake of believing, breathing for the sake of breathing, and living for the sake of living. but what makes opposing for the sake of opposing so worthy of disapproval? isn't the gahmen ruling for the sake of ruling also?

philosophically, this is probably a special case of the utilitarian proposition - the ends justifies the means - where the means and the ends are the same, i.e. it is recursive or reciprocal, hence illogical and absurd. in such a reading, members of the opposition are chastised when they use the means of opposing to achieve nothing but the ends of simply having opposed. this allegation strongly discredits the opposition's various objections against gahmen policies - how can an illogical argument hold any water? another implicit allegation within this label is that the opposition is serving no useful purpose other than to oppose.

however, this assertion has some implicit flaws as well. when the opposition "opposes" any policy, it does not simply "oppose"; it has to raise a movement during parliament and follow some procedures, or seek agreement within its party members to include such an objection within its manifesto if parliamentary objection fails. this would be the means to achieve the ends of opposing - albeit just a technical definition. those who believe opposing is a straightforward urge which immature children are likely to indulge in, well, opposing as a member of the opposition is definitely not something like that.

secondly, the opposing does not merely lead to more opposing - the gahmen is sorely mistaken if the opposition opposes various motions for no good reason. even the silliest of opposition measures (think dr chee's asking goh chok tong "where's the money") are directed at representing singaporeans. granted, not all singaporeans may feel so personally "represented" by some of their actions, yet the effort of our opposition politicians cannot be discounted: dr chee risked fines and jail for it. a slight reversal would look like this - why does the gahmen react so strongly to actions which merely amount to "opposing for the sake of opposing"?

this insight also extends to myself, strangely. today i ranted in objection about voting singaporeans who "don't know anything about singapore politics". my recommendation was a disdainful "don't know don't vote lah!" but! this would amount to a form of "opposing for the sake of opposing", attempting to bully some citizens into relinquishing their inalienable right to vote. especially so because i am easily incensed at pro-pappers who are simply so bought over by pap's condemnations and have lost all ability to respect the opposition. therefore to exemplify a legitimate form of opposition, i should be trying earnestly to show my fellow citizens what they might have missed; positive rather than negative action.

so here i would like to offer my sincerest apologies to fellow singaporeans whom i have taunted recently out of anti-pap exasperation. i would like to affirm that no matter how little you know about the gross fact-distortion which pap has committed against the opposition, you are entitled the right to vote even based on that lack of information. i am NOT (personally) accepting such a pap-advantage as legitimate electoral procedure, but to claim that these citizens do not "know enough" about singapore politics to vote is definitely out of line.

but all the same, i would invite fellow voters to visit the opposition's websites before unfairly judging them:
Workers' Party
Singapore Democratic Alliance
Singapore Democratic Party
Singapore Elections - a useful voters' repository
Check Your Poll Location - gahmen site

for those who suggest i am flouting the law against political blogging, i would like to emphasise that this is NOT party politics, but simply defending the opposition from the "opposing for the sake of opposing" fallacy. that's the main grouse i have against pap.