It is almost 6pm Singapore time, and I reckon 6 hours away from the final count for Aljunied GRC, the battleground constituency which every citizen and every party - particularly PAP and WP - would be watching on tenterhooks with nailbiting intensity.
In my previous post I spoke briefly about the middle class, to which my parents (and probably I myself) belong. We have lived the past 15 years in Joo Chiat and I have voted twice there. This year I find myself in Marine Parade GRC and of course, dumped in a political voting-quagmire because of the controversy of the PAP's choice of new candidates running in the travesty called the Group Representation Constituency, or GRC.
Yawning Bread did a brilliant post on the swing-voters that the Opposition desperately needs to convince to join their side of the fence. Voters in quadrants B (they are highly fearful and highly frustrated) and C (they are not fearful and have few frustrations) would critically swing precious votes over to the Opposition. YB has a point in that the Opposition rhetoric tend towards the emotional tapping of the highly frustrated voters of sector D who would vote for them anyway. There is little point in talking to sector A voters as they are highly fearful (of vote secrecy being un-secret, PAP reprisal and bogeyman scenarios and change in general in the political landscape).
 |
| From Yawning Bread |
*************
Quadrant D: The Middle Class
I can only speak of what I am familiar with, and I offer some thoughts on the middle to upper middle-class which fall largely under the group which have few grouses (in terms of bread-and-butter issues and municipal wants like estate upgrading and public transport-services). This group would be generally less susceptible to fear-mongering as they are as educated (if not more) as the ruling party and have access to information. Most importantly for this group, information and education makes them a more critical lot. I don't mean critical in terms of blind bias, I am referring to the ability to analyse information for its inherent logic, spot discrepancies and contradictions on issues. This ability is also inherent in voters from other classes and quadrants of course, but the Fear Factor or Frustration Factor might intervene in the equation and result in a different kind of decision making.
Some years ago, I had a conversation with an ex-colleague about Potong Pasir voters and why a majority had voted for Chiam See Tong, the opposition party MP a consistent 27 years running. What was it about Potong Pasir, was it the demography? Some kind of values the people have inherited or imbibed over the years? Chiam's charisma? We don't know, and nobody has really studied why Potong Pasir and later, Hougang, decided to throw their lot in with the other side despite all the sticks and carrots the ruling party has tried to hurl at them.
***********
You Can't Withhold From Me What I Don't Need
The PAP for the last couple of decades has used the same carrot-stick strategy of municipal upgrading (like lifts and sprucing up of housing estates and perhaps a metro station or line) to buy voters over. This has been coupled effectively with two other strategies: first, a long-running campaign to discredit and disempower members of the Opposition they considered real threats and second, a similar type campaign of fear-mongering. The latter usually comes in the guise of doomsday rhetoric should Parliament fall into the incompetent and dastardly hands of the other parties. Of course their cause has been helped by the fact that fear as a tactical strategy is especially effective in a population that is largely less educated, working class and has less access to information. This has been the case from 1965 to the 1990s.
Not any longer.
I would say the tide has changed in that (1) the Opposition parties, particularly the Workers' Party have regrouped and become much more organised, coherent and strategic. This is likely due to the influx of talented (I use this word liberally) and well-educated members, whom I believe hail from the burgeoning middle class of Quadrant D. Carrying from this point, (2) the enlarged middle class and the fact that not an insignificant part of this class is aged 35 and below means we are not as stupid as we used to look to the PAP and more important: we have less to lose.
The PAP strategy is derived from the premise of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Somewhere along the way, someone forgot to do a simple check on demographyy (rising middle class) and how this correlates to Maslow's hypothesis of their needs. Once your basic needs for shelter, food and a reasonably good standard of living (by this I refer to the consumerist society) are met, your next need would be for political and civic freedoms unless you are a complete idiot or perenially stuck at age 22.
People whose incomes exceed the national household median of $4000 generally take a sanguine view of the government's role in providing for them. They understand that their jobs are somewhat tied to the economy but do not feel a constant insecurity that they would be laid-off because they are either educated (in white-collar jbs or professionals) and/or possess high mobility in terms of their skills and experience. They probably understand more economics than most of the PAP MPs and so are not susceptible to Doomsday scenarios about a government running the reserves to the ground. In fact, they would ask the more pertinent question of where the reserves had been put to use and what had become of them.
People who live in private housing and the large majority of singles that lives with their parents (in either HDB or private housing) do not care about whether they are going to get wet walking to the MRT station. With the hours they put in at work, they probably do not care if a new fitness park is built in their neighbourhood. They have no need for new lifts (these stop on every floor in newer HDB blocks anyway) nor do they appreciate that their building is going to be splashed with a new coat of godawful colours.
They do care about the value of their properties -- which has very little to do with the MP elected in their constituency -- and they do care about their ability to afford a property (private or HDB) should they require one when the time comes. This has a lot to do with the HDB's control of demand, supply and policies on sales, especially on the resale market. Again, it has little to do with the MP but on the Cabinet Minister, so this should resonate with the middle class if played right.
************
What Do I Need?
 |
| Bedok Reservoir |
The red arrow shows a soon-to-be completed private condominium estate on the banks of the surburban Bedok Reservoir. It smacks of middle class surburbia. Ironically it is also part of Aljunied GRC. The blue arrow points to the HDB flats next to the condos, ranging from four to five-room flats to maisonettes. What you do not see is that to the left of the picture is an entire belt of private condos stretching to the end of the reservoir and the edge of Tampines town.
Reason I pointed this out is because of a very entrenched mentality of "upgrading" or upward social mobility with yes, housing as the indicator of class mobility endemic in most aspiring Singaporeans. The government knows this, or perhaps they cultivated and exploited it to their advantage. If you lived in the HDB flats and you looked out your window every day, wouldn't you hope that one day you could buy a nice apartment in one of those condos as well? Nevermind that you still live in the same district and have the same public amenities (a metro line will run through the area come 2015) plus that gorgeous reservoir park. Upgrading means a step toward a "better life", so says the dominant ideology. The PAP has exploited this to effective use, as HDB prices skyrocketed and people pocketed handsome "profits" from the sale of their subsidsed flats, they plunged these profits into the private property market as their dream of living in private housing materialised.
But wait. These profits are now diminishing as prices of new HDB balloon and the private property market continues to overheat. The Dream is becoming out of reach and not just for upgraders, first time buyers are desperately seeing their ability to afford new flats vanishing. Their incomes have risen incrementally to exceed the $8000 qualifying ceiling for subsidised flats, a figure that was arrived at 20 years ago and has not changed. People are pissed off. And a lot of them are the middle class. The Opposition know this and have gone for the jugular. But the PAP seems to have woken up from a 20 year daze, stammering that housing is still "affordable".
The other carrot that the middle class has no need for is the dubious idea of "asset enhancement". This is of course the promise of appreciating home prices which has become something of a bitter taste in people's mouths. Asset enhancment is essentially paper profits that mean dick unless one sells one's flat. This idea only holds merit if the said owner has no need of a home after selling it. Given that HDB's original raison d'etre was to provide shelter for citizens, it's really illogical and irresponsible to sell people paper-profits unless the HDB intends for people to "downgrade" as opposed to upgrading. What do I do with my HDB flat which has appreciated $250K on paper? Take the $200K or so (after fees and mortgage interest) and put it down for a $700K private condo which is 60% the size of my previous home?
If the upgrading dream is what the PAP is selling, what about those who cannot even get on the bandwagon because they cannot qualify for the subsidised housing, nor can they afford the flats on the open market? This frustration I believe, has not hit breakpoint because it is tempered by rational choice. People who cannot afford to own their own homes have simply pushed back plans for marriage (typically tied to home ownership) and childbirth until they have attained an income level deemed sufficient for home ownership. This is a latent frustration, but if tapped properly, can swing the voter over.
I do not believe the foreigner issue would matter much to the middle class as they more or less benefit from the presence of MNCs and TNCs than not. The working class face the most difficulties from the wage depression caused by cheap foreign labour and low productivity. So what else can swing them over?
************
The Idea of A More Equitable Society
The WP has been selling such an idea. A First World Parliament connotes not only the vision of a robust democracy and true debate on national issues before they become policy, it suggests that such a scenario could bring about better policy-making that could improve lives. It is a bold statement, but it holds appeal for the middle class voter whose dormant political and civic self has the capability of appreciating.
Whether the ruling party knows it or not (I go for not, since the highbrowed and highminded elites rarely have a good grasp of reality) the middle class is not entirely self-centred and incapable of empathy. Volunteerism in many societies is highest among the middle class and so is civil activism and civic consciousness. The middle class is aware of the less fortunate classes and it is not farfetched to think that they would not appreciate a more equitable resource distribution. Only the most severe of rational choice believers buy into the low taxation idea.
I for one would pay higher taxes if my wages increased as well. This means productivity has to increase and we have not managed this in a while -- how's -14% for you sound? What's the use of 14% economic growth when wages stagnate and inflation climbs year on year? Oh, we have our paper profits on our homes, I forgot.
I would go for more equitable distribution so that everyone gets healthcare and an education that does not penalise the poor. This makes me feel like I live in a decent society and not guilty about all that I have and the time I do not have to volunteer at old age homes and the money I do not wish to donate to organisations that need to take a cut to manage the social problems that the government refuses to spend on.
I would go for lower GDP if it means higher productivity and better quality of life so that people would have more children and the reliance on foreign labour would ease up. I would pay more for goods and services if it means that Singaporeans are hired to do provide these and not some cheaper person from the third world.
No comments:
Post a Comment