The Singapore Change – Real or Illusion?

January 4, 2009 by admin
Filed under: Dr Wong Wee Nam 

Written by Dr Wong Wee Nam
04 Jan 2009

Singapore is slowly opening up and liberalizing. So we are told. Censorship in the Arts has been relaxed, demonstrations are now allowed in Speakers’ Corner and making of some kinds of political films will not be banned.

Yes, nowadays there are some doses of political jokes in the local theatres but these are really more to amuse than to make a serious statement on issues. Most of them are just cynical.

Yes, demonstrations are now allowed in Speakers’ Corner. However, except for the investors whose pockets have been hurt, no other groups have used the Speakers’ Corner to air their grievances Why is this so? People are not expressing themselves because they have loss their voice after years of a stifling political climate. They have lost the spirit of citizenship.

In this country people are generally not ready to state their opinion publicly. Even amongst friends, people still lower their voices, as a reflex, when sensitive topics are touched upon. To talk politics publicly is still not acceptable behaviour.

What then are all these exercises about? It is obvious that the government is trying its best to show the world that Singapore is slowly becoming democratic as befitting a developed country. However, until the people shed their fears and spontaneously live their democratic rights, such exercises must fail. Unless the government shows its citizens that it is seriously wanting to build a democratic society, nothing will change and all these liberalizations will just be window dressing.

The one important step to a democratic and free society is to remove the climate of fear. And the only way to show that the government sincerely wants to introduce democratic changes is to level the playing field of the electoral process.

No citizen is going to believe that Singapore is slowly opening up and liberalizing if they are cynical about the electoral process. If this cynicism is not removed, it is going to be transmitted to the young at dinner tables and the next generation of Singaporeans will become even more cynical. Until this cynicism is removed, whatever little “democratic” tidbits the government dishes out are not going to improve Singapore’s social and political development.

A nation’s long-term cohesiveness and viability is in the nationalistic spirit of the people. However, this spirit can only come about if every citizen can see himself or herself as having played a role in the country’s political process. To achieve this people must be made to feel that they have voted or participated in what they perceive to be a fair electoral process.

As our people become more educated, people will want something more than just material needs. They want to be part of this country by having a say in the running of this place. They also want to be heard without having to feel anxious or fearful when they express their opinion. This includes the expression at the ballot box.

At the moment, the nationalistic spirit is lacking because there is political apathy and a palpable indifference in our people to the affairs of the country. The fact that we need to introduce a big paycheck to encourage our reluctant citizens into political service is a sad reflection of this state of affairs. To add to the problem, a lot of our people have become so mobile that they now feel they have other pastures to go if this place no longer serves their needs.

Furthermore, a lot of our bright young people have gone abroad to study or to work. They would have immersed themselves in a different political and social environment. They would also have enriched themselves with a different cultural experience. These people certainly would feel frustrated if they have to come back and find themselves in a stifling climate. And we are not talking about the weather.

In such a climate, one cannot blame a person for wanting to treat this place as a commercial centre and concentrate on making money and not bother with the big picture of a good society.

In this complex world and changing times, no government can assume they know all the answers. A Parliament of like-minded elites can only represent a narrow perspective of human experience in our society. When one has stood on one side for too long, it is not possible to see the other factors and interests in an equation so as to come to a fair and just decision on policies.

Politics is about balancing life’s imperfections. Government is about ironing out frictions and kinks in society through right decision-making and action. Stubborn logic and rationalisation may not help to find solutions. On the contrary, it may turn out wrong answers because of inflexibility and insensitivity. A fair and healthy electoral system that encourages strong participation will help the government get nearer to the correct answer.

No one policy is totally good or totally bad. It is a question of getting the right balance between group interests and individual interests. An electoral process that discourages people with serious alternative views from offering themselves also kills what good they have to offer.

Politics is not just about running the economy; otherwise we might as well fill our Parliament with economics professors. It is also about social management and providing leaderhip in times of peace and ultimately the ability to provide the leadership in times of national crises. The ability to mobilise consensus requires political skill. A political leadership that has gone through the rough and tumble of a well-contested election will be able to cultivate that kind of leadership and skill.

There must be something wrong in an electoral process that is always giving walkovers to the ruling party. Either the system is so unfair as to discourage people from standing or the people are so apathetic that they are not concerned about where their country or society is heading.

It is unlikely that any electoral reform will immediately transform the materialistic Singaporeans of today to be like the farmers of ancient Athens who were willing to give up several days work to go into town and participate in discussions. However, it would at least go some way towards improving the apathy and the indifference we are facing at the moment. Without a vociferous citizen’s voice, we can only expect stony silence. There is no need to explain or be transparent because there will be no questions.

Has Singapore changed? Yes and No. If we go to Geylang, we can see how foreign talents have transformed the place into a very vibrant new Chinatown. But if we talk to some Singaporeans, the answer is still no.

I asked a friend what he thought of Mr. Tan Kin Lian, the ex-CEO of INCOME, who had rallied investors, who had lost money buying Minibonds, to seek compensations from the banks. As someone who had lost a hugh chunk of his life savings in this saga, his answer surprised me. He said Tan should have done nothing. Now that he had brought the issue into the open, the government is not going to do anything to help the investors. What kind of logic is this coming from an elite?

There is no doubt that many Singaporeans are still waiting for Nanny to change their diapers. Until this changes, nothing has changed.

Tags:

Comments

9 Comments on The Singapore Change – Real or Illusion?

  1. Seelan Palay on Mon, 5th Jan 2009 12:37 am

    2. Great article, Dr Wong!

    Diapers indeed, haha.

  2. Zhi Yuan on Mon, 5th Jan 2009 9:17 am

    3. Hi Dr Wong,

    The logic is: The government will not give in to the minibond investors’ requests now as it will appear they have sucuumb to the pressure exerted by Tan Kin Lian.

  3. The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 5 Jan 2009 on Mon, 5th Jan 2009 11:31 am

    4. [...] Discourse – Sgpolitics: The Singapore Change – Real or Illusion? – Wayang Party: Hidden message behind PM Lee’s New Year address – Singapore Life and Times: The [...]

  4. Tan Ah Kow on Mon, 5th Jan 2009 6:27 pm

    5. Dr Wong,

    Agreed with your sentiment that the PAP administration is not prepared to liberalised in any meaningful way. After all, PAP is composed of human with certain believe and not without cognisance of the POTENTIAL fallout and any entailing consequences on their lifestyle if they lost power.

    People might bemoan that PAP ought to think and act for the national good but human nature is such that they become protective when their livelihood is threaten. I mean how many people are prepared to volunteer redundancies for the good of his employer or the national economic well being?

    So the question about real or illusionary change ought to be thrown at the electorate. Do they (sufficient majority) want change?

    As you have eluded too with you nappy analogy, it seemed that the electorate don’t or is unwilling.

    As for you point about the mini-bond issue. Whether TKL had brought out the issue or not would not have moved the government to act any differently — i.e. with indifference to the plight of the investors.

    People seemed to forget that in that case, there are three parties involved. The investors, the “business” (i.e. the product providers) and the government. You would have expected the government being a neutral (regulatory) body ought to find a way between the investors and the business parties. But that would have meant a massive you turn on its pro-business stance. So whether TKL raised the issues or not would not have made any different. The government would never have forced the business parties to do anything. This issue is not about saving the face of the government but the business parties. The government ergo, the PAP, is far more fearful of the business parties backlash than the investors.

    Neither would the government use its coffer to offer any remedial help. Because that would be helping the people, which in their mind are full or moral hazards — i.e. the if you give people money that tantamount of encouraging a crunch mentality. In the case of the business parties in trouble, such as Sands, giving subsidy (tax breaks, “seed” money) is not a encouraging a crunch mentality.

    All-in-all the investors are screwed whether TKL raised the issue or not.

    The real question is whether the people, with whatever leverage they have got now — i.e. the electoral process, however, faulty — to force a rethink on the part of the government (in this case not just the PAP but also what is by now a highly politicise civil service)?

  5. The Singapore Change – Real or Illusion? « The Wayang Party Club of Singapore on Tue, 6th Jan 2009 8:37 am

    6. [...] Read rest of article here [...]

  6. socrates on Tue, 6th Jan 2009 8:46 pm

    7. Hi Ah Kow, I think TKL had forced some action. At least, the bank is ready to compensate some of the poor and the illiterate. And MAS has investigated and will be coming out with a report.

  7. The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Weekly Roundup: Week 02 on Sat, 10th Jan 2009 11:52 am

    8. [...] Discourse – Sgpolitics: The Singapore Change – Real or Illusion? – Wayang Party: Hidden message behind PM Lee’s New Year address – Singapore Life and Times: The [...]

  8. The Singapore Change – Real or Illusion? : The Wayang Party on Fri, 24th Jul 2009 3:25 pm

    9. [...] Read rest of article here [...]

  9. ACKH on Sun, 24th Jan 2010 6:32 pm

    10. Pls debate the following proposal:

    to the People’s Action Party of Singapore

    If you are committed to the nurturing of oppositional voices and sense of political participation amongst the people, to the point of being willing to risk losing power, then I beseech you to consider the following:

    • Split the PAP into 2 camps with roughly even power and influence

    This will level the playing field and provide training for new politicians within and without the PAP. It will also ensure oppositional voice if the current opposition remains too weak to stand up to you. Most of the running of our nation is matured and will not collapse, or be threatened by a potential change in power. The only things in acute need of nurturing are oppositional voices and the sense of political participation amongst the people – that is the sense of true citizenship.

    • Don’t make concessions to your opposition. Let no one throw a fight in political arena.

    • Abolish or revamp the GRC system

    • Allow politically partisan media products

    Take Action for our People, for they are indifferent and immobile. This proposal is nowhere near the boldness or improbability of our battle to survive economically on our independence from Malaya back then. Our nation will be eternally grateful for your magnanimity and selfless patriotism.

    • It will then be the oppositions’ supporters’ job to rally the people into peaceful demonstrations, and bring political engagement out of web pages and blogs and into the sunlight and lives of our citizens.

    your overseas citizen ACKH

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!