I have decided that if the PAP ever needs a strong argument as to why democracy is dangerous and important decisions should never be left to Singaporeans, their ultimate trump of a case would be this:

When I saw Mathilda D'Silva voted off Singapore Idol less than 3 hours ago, I felt the illusions of my youthful idealism fade away.  Singaporeans have dismissed the best female vocalist in the competition and the only individual to date that I have seen on this season's episodes to make any headway into giving his/her performance character, subtlety and narrative (admittedly I haven't had the time to watch many of the episodes, but I've seen and heard enough to be confident in my opinion).  Mathilda is far from perfect, but to think that she was voted out in favour of Paul Twohill (who obviously has charisma but zero chance of being taken seriously as a recording artist with his airy vocals that meander off-tune the moment he starts his intense posturing) or Joakim Gomez (energizer bunny that never says die -- even though you may sometimes guiltily want it to) is quite chilling.  Let alone the fact that Jonathan Leong and Hady Mirza, the only two remaining male vocalists who can hold a tune, were in the bottom 3.  No, I thought to myself, democracy schmemocracy.  People don't make good choices!

Of course, I calmed myself somewhat by thinking about all the various factors in consideration that made Singapore Idol non-analagous to a general election.  For one thing, the electorate is not restricted to one vote per person, allowing for bloc voting, whereby thousands of prepubescents pool their allowances together to vote for their sugars (one friend wryly pointed out that they vote with their uteruses, which I take to be the metaphorical equivalent of voting with one's feet).  This allows one zealous camp to vote again and again and again and again and again for one person, which may not be an indication of long-term marketability or stardom, much less vocal talent.  Secondly, there is the consideration of the fee one has to pay for calling in or SMS-ing, which means that somewhere out there exists a group of people who are sitting back, shaking their heads and saying they know better, but cannot afford to spam hotlines using their limited allowances; I include yours truly.  At the same time, this 'voting fee' could perhaps be likened to the poll tax previously implemented by the United States, which taxed those who wanted to vote, effectively disenfranchising poorer minorities, or more recently to a similar tax policy enacted by Margaret Thatcher, which contributed largely to her eventual resignation after rioting broke out in protest.  Thirdly, Singapore Idol is indeed an event meant for lighthearted entertainment and is likely not taken very seriously, never mind that it might certainly have generated more widespread interest, knowledge and dedication than any General Election has ever achieved.

Nevertheless, there are significant similarities between the Singapore Idol process and the democratic one to warrant some comment.  For instance, a close comparison could be a democracy with non-compulsory voting and poll tax; you can choose to vote or not to vote, and you also have to pay a fee to participate.  Either way, both processes are meant to boil the results of the election/competition to the basic essence of choice, and how it is representative of the people's wants and desires.  If Paul Twohill were to win Singapore Idol, it would be a triumph of choice -- the choice of those who were interested and dedicated enough to vote him as their representative, regardless of whether or not he can sing.  Twohill would be a legitimate winner in every right, assuming the voting infrastructure had been in order.  There would be nothing I could do about it except express my disgruntlement.

The question which begs to be asked therefore, is this: should Ken, Jacintha, Florence and Dick choose a Singapore Idol today? Or perhaps, in the interests of achieving the best results for Singapore, allow me to suggest certain adjustments to the competition process.

You see, there are so many things we could do to improve the Singapore Idol system.  We should all write letters to MediaCorp with our brilliant suggestions.  They have worked so far in Singapore -- shouldn't we take a leaf from the good book and use it here, as well?

Because then, you see, I would have made Olinda Cho Singapore Idol 2005 -- not Taufik Batisah.  I feel Olinda is a better candidate.  I would have made Hady and Mathilda joint winners by now.  I feel they deserve it more.  I would dispense with this whole farce of letting Singaporeans have what they want because I know best.

Then again, a niggling voice in the back of my head says: but Singaporeans wanted Taufik.  And come to think of it, that's not so bad.  Taufik can sing.  He's quite good looking.  He seems like a nice, down to earth young man.  He even won the popular vote despite being from a minority group -- now that's testimony to his talent, and no one can say he didn't earn it.  Actually...maybe Olinda is a better singer, but she's just not representative enough of who Singapore wants to be their Idol.  Sure, I might think she's better, but maybe it's all about greatest good for greatest number, not just my limited perspective and know-it-all attitude.  And at the end of the day, Singaporeans made their choice, right? And it is Singapore Idol.  Perhaps they will decide better which balance to strike between vocal talent and personality, smooth moves and charisma.  Maybe I should just...trust a little.

So that's what I'm going to do for this Singapore Idol season.  Trust Singaporeans.  And if Paul Twohill or Joakim Gomez win, then maybe I will consider renouncing democracy ;) but I'll hedge my bets that they won't.  And even if they do, hey -- I'll swallow my pride and say: you get the Idol you deserve.  More power to you.