It has become almost a standard response to politely acknowledge the guts and persistence of people like Chee Soon Juan and his sister Chee Siok Chin (really the entire Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) bunch) while remaining critical and dismissive of their actions. "Chee Soon Juan is a clown. The SDP is not a credible or viable opposition party. I have to give it to Chee and his gang for daring to do what they do, but they are just being stupid." This has become the norm. But let's digress a little first. What do Singaporeans want from the opposition? (Trick questions. Singaporeans are, of course, diverse and different Singaporeans want different things.) When someone started a fuss about Yaw Shin Leong voting for a People's Action Party (PAP) candidate, there was an absurd amount of criticism, as though the Workers' Party (WP) politician had done something wrong by voting for Teo Ho Pin instead of Ling How Dong. So what if he voted for a PAP candidate? He was voting for a PAP MP candidate over an SDP candidate, not voting for a PAP candidate over a WP candidate. Couldn't he simply be voting for whom he felt was a more suitable MP? Are non-PAP politicians obliged to be anti-PAP and only anti-PAP? People might have failed to clarify their objections again. Instinctive reactions are not always wrong, but they often need to be examined. The problem was not simply with Yaw voting for Teo. That could simply have meant that he preferred, to use a cliche, the lesser of two evils. But no, that was not the case. In Yaw's blog, he explicitly calls Teo a "good MP", not simply someone better by comparison to Ling How Dong. Three things: 1. He voted for Teo Ho Pin. 2. He finds Teo a good MP. 3. He "announces" his vote in his blog. One should not fault Yaw for voting for Teo. There's nothing wrong with the act itself. To announce his vote to everyone in the world might not be the most politically astute thing to do (or perhaps it is a strategy?), but one cannot blame him for being transparent. If one were to criticize Yaw, it has to be based on what the vote reveals about him as a politician (though one can never be sure if his politics represent the WP's politics). What we now know about Yaw as a politician (and I believe this is somewhat true of the WP in general) is that he does not have a problem with the PAP's continued existence. He belongs to the group that thinks that the "System" is reparable with the PAP's presence. The PAP can even continue to be the dominant party but things can generally improve without removing PAP hegemony. Such a belief not too unexpected of the WP at this point and genuine WP supporters would probably not have too much a problem with this. This is the belief in coexistence, albeit it is a form of unequal co-existence. This is the "get into the system and change it belief". Yaw and the WP can be seen in direct contrast with another group: the group that believes that no real change (whatever is so good about the change they want) can take place with the continued dominance of the PAP and the state machinery that it has built over the years, including the compliant and even sycophantic media, the propagandistic education system and so on. This group naturally tends to be more antagonistic towards the PAP. And their beliefs are not unfounded. How much faith could one place in a government (a ruling party, rather) that has historically persecuted political opponents through the ISD, silenced political opponent through libel suits, high-handedly controlled (or should I use the present tense) the local media whilst threatening foreign media into silence? One might well be able to believe that a crook would turn over a new leaf, but one would find it much harder for a political entity like the PAP to do so. So, we have at least two groups of people (who can, of course, be divided into further subgroups, but that's not the point here). One group is willing to shake hands with the silk-gloved hand of a soft and seemingly benign authoritarianism. The other group is bent on ripping apart the silk glove to reveal the iron fist beneath - even at the expense of being ground into powder by the iron fist. Despite the seeming stupidity of challenging the ruling party and the state machinery it has created, the SDP's actions these days are very much a matter of (self-sacrificing?) water-testing. If they do what they do and get their way, they will set a precedent for others to follow suit. If they do not get their way, the clenching of the iron fist will tear the soft, white glove that it is wearing - at its own expense. Iron fists are strong, but they rust. (Doesn't one long to see the day when it rusts and crumbles?) That's perhaps why the state machinery can be seen to be increasingly "tactful" (or should I say tactical - without being more tolerant) of the "legal" transgressions of the SDP people. For instance, they even managed to tak beleh tahan in Toa Pyoh. Even at the recent One Nation Under Lee screening, we see less of the forcefulness.They are not forceful, but as Chee Siok Chin said, they were not willing to negotiate - they were simply sounding as though they were. What does Chee Soon Juan and company have to lose anyway? When you take more and more from someone, you will reach a point where he has little - if anything - to lose. And that's where he could become a bigger pest than you imagine because you suddenly find that your old deprivation tactics can no longer work. (So go ahead and bankrupt Chee Soon Juan, his sister and his party members.) That said, it is not that much progress is being made. Because Singaporeans are still caught in a wishy-washiness that gives the PAP the last laugh. Always. Let's ask this again. What kind of "opposition" politicians do Singaporeans want? Many shun the politicians that rip apart the silky glove, but they also scorn at the politicians who shake hands with the iron fist. This is where the PAP has the last laugh. It will continue to dominate as long as too many Singaporeans remain undecided. (And what's wrong with PAP dominance? Well, let's assume that this is a question Molly Meek is not responsible enough to answer). Perhaps there is the Reform Party, but that remains to be seen. There is only so much one can do with past heroes. Meanwhile, I remain a fierce advocate of Quitism. Irresponsibly, as always. But am I, finally, serious again? Well . . . If she so pains you, she deserves no love from you. Spare her your hatred and bitterness, but only when you are charitable.