Y'know, I really don't agree with this electoral candidate was using emotional appeal to garner support. By emotional appeal here I'm talking about how she made her speech sound so touching, about what the ruling party has done for us over the many years, about how everything they have done is all for us. I am not devaluating their contributions thus far, I acknowlege that it is no simple matter to be able to have developed our country to where we are today. Some comments on fb mentioned things like how touched they were with her speech and how sincere she was. Okay, well done woman, you have secured their votes. Not mine. (Okay, fine! I don't get to vote! And not like she's in my grc.)

It doesn't mean that one should vote for them simply because of what they have done in the past, many years way back. People should be looking at the current state of things and the current candidates. People in the past have left their legacy, but how much of that legacy had been contributed by today's candidates? Aren't they simply trying to feed on the achievements of past leaders? Loyalty is good, but not blind loyalty.

-

Anyway, I recently watched a video by Amos Yee, on how the opposition should give their rally speeches (which I feel is applicable to not only the opposition). I was rather impressed tbh. The things that he said may not come across as anything new to most of us, since we have been writing essays in school, but you will realise that neither the ruling party nor the opposition parties are doing it in thieir speeches.

One point he said was to make sure that there is balance in the speech. This is something not new at all right? But do the election candidates do that in their speeches? As far as I know, none or very few of them do. Most of them just provide an extremely imbalanced POV and just attack the opposing party. Amos mentioned that striking this balance should be done from the start. For example, on the ruling party side, they can acknowledge the shortcomings or mistakes that they have made. As for the opposition, they can point out the positive sides of the ruling party and the possible obstacles that they could face if they were to be elected. By acknowledging one's shortcomings right at the beginning, it gives you greater credibility for what you are going to say afterwards, as you would already have portrayed yourself to be a candidate who is not simply speaking to degrade or to overthrow the government.

Sounds simple? But no, politicians do not do that because they are often expected to present a perfect image. Perfect image = more votes. But "image" may not work on everyone today. People are becoming intellectual and more critical. They look for substance behind that presented image. A little scar on that once perfect image in exchange for greater credibility is a cheap price to pay I would say.

I'm not exactly a supporter of Amos, I do think he doesn't know the limits during his whole saga, but I have to say that this guy does have the brains. He is smart, but he's just too extreme. It would have been great if he's less extreme and joined politics. Sometimes we need such "radicals" to really see some changes being made.

-
To anyone who is fuming right now or feeling uncomfortable reading this, this is why I don't like to discuss about politics or any controversy with friends. Politics, along with money, is one of the most deadly relationship-breaking tools. I am not joking cuz Singaporeans are still not open-minded enough, as much as we wish that we are. We want to be open-minded, we try to be, but we may end up feeling very affected by differing views.