Me. Myself & i

Public law reading has become increasing interesting and depressing at the same time. And i began thinking to myself, what somebody mentioned to me after reading Catherine Lim's article in the Straits times.
He mentioned that Singaporeans aren't being indifferent, just because they choose economy over democracy, doesn't mean that they are reliant on the government. In another words, the people did choose, and they had chosen economic development over individual liberties/political democracy.

i've some problems with that which i couldn't pin point at the time he raised this, i had some time to think it through today. I'd like to raise some questions against this theory.
Again, i wanna clarify that, i have nothing against the government. I enjoy the lovely country that they are running right now, and staying in a constituency that almost always is a walk over. So if i may continue:

First and foremost, the theory that he has proposed is made on the assumption that economic development is mutually exclusive with political democracy.
By political democracy, as i understands it, simply means a levelled playing field for different political parties. Laws that facilitates political pluralism. It doesn't necessary mean that Parliament should consist of different parties, because that is up to the people to elect. But at the very least, give them some breathing space to move. This doesn't necessarily mean chaos or a decline in economic performance. Hence i personally dont think people need to choose economy OVER political democracy, because they can co-exist.

Second, when he said that the people CHOSE economy over political democracy, it is based on the assumption that there was a choice. Economic developments/performance as given and promised by one party, and others by other parties. It is based on the assumption that there IS a choice. I do not have the statistics, if i have to write a paper on this i will find out but there are many walk over constituencies for elections. When an area is a walk over, the incumbent MPs are reinstated on the Nomination Day. An area is a walk over if there are no one contesting for that area. So did the people choose? When no one steps up to challenge, does it mean the people are choosing? or can it mean that people are disillusioned or even cynical about the success rate of challenging?

Third, even if we assume there are choices, we do have opposition MPs like Chiam and Low in the parliament. The theory my friend has suggested is only fair if the choices are informed choices. Shan't elaborate. U can draw ur own conclusion. and i'm not responsible for it.

hai, i decided not to write the last point.
In case i get sued for defamation or arrested by ISA.
It is a depressing day and i wonder if it is because of my readings. How i wish i can type my tutor's academic article here.

I love my country, i respect the government.
At the end of the scrutiny, i can only conclude the power corrupts. Not in the monetary way, but people want to keep the power, retain it, perhaps not for personal gain but for whatever reasons, it cannot be justified. We may have jun zi as our government, what makes these jun zi think that they are the only jun zis or only they can get jun zi?

Risking it,
Wenrong