Dear One
I would say that all agree on the need for electoral reform but disagree on the means to achieve this and other aims. Electoral reform and the need for electoral reform is a given in the context of opposition politics within Singapore and stands together with the other wish lists of the opposition lower minesterial pay, less income divide etc etc. The eternal question as always is how to achieve that goal.
1. Fight despite the unlevel and unfair playing field and win. That means playing to win and playing hard and that is a route that JBJ RP SPP NSP and the WP believes in. I do not see seriously the PAP giving up their electoral advantages in any form except under both civil society and electoral pressure.
2. Civil disobedience to level the playing field and then only then taking part in elections to win because only then will elections reflect truely the will of the electorate.
Straight political calculus gives me the following. If one has the strength to force electoral reform on the PAP through civil disobedience, then one has the strength to force through other items on the political agenda as well, from the income gap, to minesterial pay, public transport etc etc which sort of negates the need for parliament to begin with
Difference between force and pressure ? Force means getting the opposition agenda adopted by the PAP to the letter, Pressure means the PAP accomodating and adopting the agenda but to a lesser degree or perhaps a much lesser degree.
On the other hand if one views civil disobedience as means to pressure change on to the PAP and to shift their policies by shifting the society and the foundations which they rule, then both civil disobedience and the parliamentary route go hand in hand.
Locke
