What Exactly Is A ‘Free Rider’ & Why WP MPs Aren’t Happy With PM Lee Using It

Yesterday, when you headed to YouTube to get your daily dose of cats playing video games, you came across a video which had a thumbnail of PM Lee wearing a pink shirt.

You, understandably, freaked out, thinking he was going to announce a second circuit breaker: Circuit Breaker 2: The Return of Sadness & Solitude. 

But he was simply speaking at a parliamentary session, as our MPs do from time to time.

The Prime Minister gave a stirring speech about how the country’s economy will once again thrive after taking several beatings during the coronavirus pandemic, and even held back tears as he was delivering his lines.

But PM Lee’s nearly-teary speech wasn’t the highlight of the parliamentary session. Rather, everyone was talking about a certain exchange between the PAP chief and the Leader of the Opposition, Pritam Singh.

In a debate that went on for nearly half an hour, the two argued over national reserves and voting tactics during the election.

In response to Singh’s assertion that Singaporeans voted for them because they wanted an opposition party in parliament, PM Lee said that if voters elect an opposition for the sake of going against the government, they are “free riders”.

This clearly displeased Singh, who retorted that the voters who opted for the Worker’s Party (WP) wouldn’t appreciate being called as such.

But what is the big deal about the term “free rider”? And why are WP MP’s unhappy with PM Lee’s use of the term?

To understand that, we’ll have to take a deep dive into the expression and examine what it actually means.

What Exactly Is A ‘Free Rider’?

A ‘free rider’ is actually an economics term, meaning an individual who benefits from a collective good without having incurred the costs of participating in its production.

Simply put, it’s a person who benefits from something without expending effort or paying for it.

Boomer: You mean like all millennials? 

Ok Boomer. 

Boomer: STOP SAYING THAT

The term ‘free rider’ was first properly examined by the American political economist Mancur Olson.

Olson argued there is little incentive for people to contribute to the production of a public good, considering the costs (financial or physical) they would incur, because they would benefit from that good whether they contribute or not.

Here’s an example:

In the Goody Feed office, writers have to either write their articles standing up or lying on the floor, because our boss believes chairs are an “unnecessary expense”.

But after months of severe back pain, all the writers stomp to the boss’s office and demand that he get some chairs for us. He agrees, but only on the condition that we pay for it ourselves.

Half of the writers accede to this proposal, but the other half don’t want to spend their own money on office furniture.

However, we find that buying chairs in a package deal for the whole office is cheaper than buying a few of them, so we end up buying chairs for everyone.

So now, the group of writers that didn’t pay for the chairs have still gotten them, and can sit comfortably while penning their articles.

They are ‘free riders’ because they benefited from a common good without expending effort or paying for it.

Free Rider in a Political Context

Now, when you use the term in a political context, as PM Lee did, it refers to an individual who benefits from one party when he voted for another.

Let’s say you have two political parties: the Best Party and the Finest Party.

You vote for the Best Party because you believe in their ideals and policies, but the Finest Party ends up winning.

If the policies of the Finest Party, which is now the ruling power, leads to an expansion in the economy, lower unemployment, and more bubble tea stores, you would be considered a ‘free rider’ because you’re enjoying the benefits of a party you didn’t vote for.

PM Lee, however, is using the term in a slightly different manner.

Voting For Opposition Because Others Will Vote For PAP

PM Lee said if voters elect opposition candidates because they know that the majority of Singaporeans will vote for PAP – who will end up forming the government – then they are ‘free riders’.

This is because, he said, they are “taking advantage of somebody else who’s doing the duty of electing a government for the nation”.

These ‘free rider’ voters, he said, are not doing their part because they are not expressing their “true views and preferences as a voter”.

“If everybody takes that attitude, then you’re going to end up with a government which you don’t want”.

Here’s a little exchange between Ah Hock and Gopal to illustrate the point:

Gopal: Eh, who are you going to vote for?

Ah Hock: Opposition lah.

Gopal: You believe in their policies?

Ah Hock: Not really ah, I just want some opposition candidates in parliament. Everyone else will vote for PAP anyway.

Ah Hock actually wants the PAP to form government, but chose to vote for the opposition because he believes that a democratic government should have an opposition party.

The only problem with PM Lee’s use of the term, as Singh pointed out, is that not every voter employed this strategy.

WP Voters Are Not Free Riders: Singh

In response to PM Lee’s claims, Singh said that those who voted for the WP would not appreciate being called ‘free riders’.

“They are not free riders”, the WP chief said.

Singh countered that the WP isn’t doing nothing as elected officials, leaving all responsibilities and duties to the ruling party.

He gave the example of town councils, and how opposition members have to run them in the constituencies they were elected without the help of the PAP.

Singh said that while his party have had growing pains in running their town councils, they would’t be speaking in parliament if they had been incompetent this whole time.

So, Singh seems to be upset with the fact that PM Lee has implied that all those who voted for the WP are free riders, where, in reality, they voted for the WP because they wanted the WP in government.

What do you think? Was it fair to call electors who voted for the opposition free riders?

You can view the two politicians crossing swords here: