After losing out to the Workers’ Party at the last general elections, Mr. Eric Low “decided that he would stop being taken for granted by Hougang residents.”

I like to believe that in the world of politics, there are few self-sacrificing politicians willing to continue wasting time and money on communities that would not vote for them despite receiving many benefits off them. As in what happens in economics, transactions only take place if it would make both parties better off.

Obviously, Mr. Low had made the wrong calculations during his campaigning. He probably did not realise that what the residents needed were something more meaningful than little food treats and promises of upgrading. As a result, the residents benefitted from his free breakfasts, while he did not get his much coveted seat in parliament. Since these tactics didn’t work, there was no point carrying on doing it, as the residents of Hougang were just gaining at his expense.

If I am a Hougang resident, after reading such a statement I would be less inclined to vote for him. What is meant by taken for granted? Mr. Low was obviously a willing party, doing all sorts of things for the residents out of his own accord. Nobody had forced him to provide his services (and free food). I am sure no resident in Hougang had ever asked him to dish out free food. While it was commendable that he was willing to dish out free food and services, he should also be willing to accept the fact that Hougang residents had more integrity than to vote for him based on these little acts.

In my opinion, rather than complaining that he’s not being treated the way he should be (being voted for) in return for his kindness and services, he should be more graceful and admit defeat as a sportsman would. The election was supposed to be a fair competition (in fact some people would even argue that the ruling party had some upperhands, but I will not comment on this), and if one lost out in a fair competition there should be no grouses.

What is more important, is to learn from defeat – why hadn’t the little acts of generousity worked? What went wrong? Was it that the residents weren’t interested in free breakfasts? Was it that it was just too superficial? Was it that promises of upgrading weren’t attractive enough? Was it something else?

So it appeared that after the elections, on top of stopping the free food giveaways, Mr. Low also stopped his Meet-the-People sessions, and slapped a fee on previously free health screenings. One wonders that if he can take these actions just because he lost in the elections, what would happen if he had won? Would he have stopped those services too, since he’d already gotten what he wanted?

Well, maybe he’s finally realised that it wasn’t a wise game he was playing by stopping his activities. Recently he’s announced a comeback in the constituency, with a 5 year plan towards the next elections. This is a rather commendable spirit, although it leaves to be seen how long he can push on for.

Maybe his compatriot over at Potong Pasir should learn from him. Mr. Seetoh had similarly stopped providing his services after losing in the last election. Till now, he has not resumed any of his activities. If he intends to contest the next elections, he should not have stopped at all. Instead, he should have stepped up his campaigning right from the next day after his defeat. Maybe he should have dished out his famous abalone porridge and sharks fin soup for free rather than for $2. Just kidding, I’m sure the people of Potong Pasir has more integrity than to vote based on their palates. I don’t believe any politician will dish out cheap abalone porridge and sharks fin for 5 years after winning the elections. Maybe the voters realised that too.

No related posts.