Something has been bothering me now that election season is upon the Land of Dumbspeak once again, and it is not the baby squirming uncannily every time I stuff myself with durian. Like anyone who has been keeping up with the blogosphere, local media and online political chatter, I have been gossiping and trading opinions with my coworkers and friends about the goings-on on the political front now that the polls are around the corner. However, it bothers me that politics has been conflated with governance -- or in the dumspeakism of the PAP, "good and strong government". Democracy, a concept not well-understood in our part of the world because, frankly, we don't talk about it much, has also been bandied about by pundits, opposers of the PAP and commentators with I think very little real comprehension by most of the populace.
Has the PAP really got a good grasp of the diversity of the populace? After all, the PM just said on live TV on the programme "Question Time With the PM" that the "PAP is not seeking to represent all sectors of soceiety" -- he claimed that that is what the NCMPs are in Parliament for.
Wow, that was totally underwhelming an answer for a leader whose justification for total parliamentary dominance by his party is the premise that this party alone could more than adequately "do a good job". That was the other riposte to the question of whether it was fair to penalise voters in Hougang and Potong Pasir who had sent two non-PAP MPs to parliament. The PM countered that if voters did not vote the PAP MPs if they "have been doing a good job" and instead vote the opposition party in, then "what's the point of doing a good job at all?" My retort: how would you measure and assess how "good" a job the guy is doing? Shouldn't that assessment be made by the voter who goes to the polls?
As I listened to the questions posed and the answers given, I found myself frowning at the same tired Dumbspeak premised on very faulty logic -- such as the apology for the difficulty in discovering and enticing "talented" and "capable" people from the private sector to join politics: people are reluctant to risk "failing" at politics if they are successful in their careers. My retort: this argument assumes that it is in most people's nature (I don't know about non Singaporeans) to be risk-averse and second, that politics is being compared to another career choice rather than a form of service to the nation, a higher calling if you like. Laughable, if you recall that the senior PAP stalwarts repeating incessantly that "commitment" to service is one of the golden criteria necessary for their newest slate of talented candidates.
My second retort: maybe the PAP finds may indeed be risk-averse, perhaps the promise of a high salary (I would say $15,000 for an MP is high, wouldn't you?) and prospect of a nice pension is a justifiable mitigator of such risks, but even if you accept this premise, how would you explain the fact that many members of Opposition parties have joined and remained in politics in spite of the LACK of success they have met with? They cannot be in it for the money (some are bankrupt) and they couldn't possibly all be crazy. Could it be that there are actually people who do this not because they want to "succeed" in the banal sense of economic gain but because they actually have a PASSION for leading and a committment -- yes, the very quality the PAP purports lies within their newest batch of untested interns -- to service? I could be wrong.
Now, I ask a question of myself and of my fellow Singaporeans. Do we know the difference between politics, the democratic process and governance? Political debate has been confined during many rounds of elections to a defence of policies centering on bread-and-butter issues like cost of living, transportation and housing. This is not to say they aren't relevant, but these are issues of governance. The incumbents would defend their work as "good governance" by defending these policies against the opposing parties' criticisms while the democratic process has been until now largely untouched. This time people are asking questions about the process, questioning if there is enough "space" for real debate in Parliament, criticising what they call "group think". I am heartened by this, it's a lot more than what we've seen in the last two elections, both of which I had had the privilege to vote in.
I believe that understanding the different segments of society -- the aged, the middle class, the young professionals, the working class, the youth, the business sector -- and how they judge good governance would tell you a lot about how people will vote this time around, now that many more voters will get the rare opportunity to go to the polls and exercise that "democratic" right and that a larger proportion of the electorate would actually be discerning and intelligent (read: they won't vote out of fear or ignorance, a feature of those born before 1965). It would mean the difference between those who will cast a vote in protest (anyone but the incumbent party), or according to their self-interest (which party promises to represent and promote my interests), or on principle (who would do the best job of governing).
I myself am curious as to how I am going to vote this time around, why, because I care. I care about the state of my country, its citizens (particularly the lower strata since they are more vulnerable to bad governance and policies) and the people who are installed in power to run the country. I care about these things on any normal day, just ask my friends who have had to listen to me defend our death penalty, welfare policies against those in their Western, "liberal" home countries.
I work for the government, so I can say I serve the people and I am not necessarily pro- or against the PAP. I believe in understanding an issue as well as possible before vilifying any policy and if I think something does not stand up to critical scrutiny, I call it like it is, a spade is a spade. I am also not someone with a chip on my shoulder, in fact I have said in earlier posts how satisfied I am with my life, so I do not speak from a position of relative deprivation or resentment against the establishment. I have a job I can't complain much about, a husband who's a decent catch and under 35 (sorry, couldn't resist that jab at you-know-who), a baby on the way and no major psychological problems afflicting me.
I am however, waiting to be convinced that the incumbents are the best bet for good governance and fair play. The reason is because good governance is hard to come by, and equitable distribution as well as social justice is how I assess good governance. I would ask myself if it is fair that the population has to pay such a high price (read: salary) for so-called "good governance". I would elaborate on this more in another post. But for the other factor, that of fair play in the democratic process, I have yet to experience a Parliament that is not ridiculously skewed towards dominance of one party. I remain unconvinced that this is the best model simply because the status quo is the "best" we can get. One cannot validly dismiss the abilities of the other parties to deliver should they get a shot at governance, this would be crystal-ball gazing, and very arrogant gazing to boot. So the arguments have thus far been underwhelmingly trite and completely unconvincing.
As Jack Neo put it succinctly, I Not Stupid. You've got to do better.
No comments:
Post a Comment