Singapore democracy through the looking glass

Should Singaporean pride swell at the architectural marvel of Jewel Changi Airport or are we seeing the latest altar to pure consumerism, one that is of Babellian proportion. The shinning skyscrappers being built one a day, the spanking malls that never stop popping up in the neighbourhood, the ever glorious exhortation of technology in a seemingly ego trip to secure a gold cup for the smart city race, ultra-dense over-capacity infrastructures that seem to be pursued simply for GDP numbers, all these to incite public exaltation. In the 2017 PISA test on problem solving capabilities, Singapore kids came out on top over their peers from 50 other developed countries. Surely we have enough critical thinking capabilities to see all that glitters in Singapore is not gold. Yet, should Alice step through her looking glass, she will see frogs basking in slowly boiling water, blissfully oblivious to the way a ruling elite is chipping away what we have painfully built up over the past 53 years. 

The chisel left its scars in the tweaking of voting process in both the General and Presidential Elections, the shifting goalposts of the CPF, conflict of interest and accountability lapses in elite circles that is condemning governmental agencies to deteriorating service quality, weaponising certain administration mechanisms against perceived political threats, employment policies that disadvantaged local citizens, fiscal policies that disregard the less privileged but benefit the rich, the shrinking space for political opinions and criticism of government, and many other ways.  

Is Singapore even a democracy at all? Democracy is a political system where there is universal suffrage, i.e., everyone has a right to vote. In the western democracy sense, it's a system that has it's ideals in the protection of human rights and freedom to live our lives the way we want so long as we do not trample on the rights of others. We elect our leaders to represent us, so ours is a representative democracy. Our rights, and the limitations of the powers of those we choose as leaders, are enshrined in the Constitution. So our government form is a parliamentary constitutional democracy.

How democratic a country are we is measured in the equality in political representation. It depends on how well the respondent perceives he/she is being politically represented. Patrick Flavin, an assistant professor at Baylor, did some pioneering work on policy representation at state level. Flavin said there is a big divide between those with higher and those with lower income. Political representation is skewed in favour of the rich. Well we don't really need the good professor to tell us what is evident. The rich has the attention of the government and policies are crafted in ways that certain interests are supported. If the government is really interested in addressing income inequality, let's stop the bullshit $300 future medical benefit that one many never really enjoy at all. Instead let there be capital gains tax and an inheritance tax.

Faux political representation has never been seen in its raw naked form than the famous 'Ah Gong and Ah Seng' story of the member of Parliament M/s Lee Bee Hua. Incidentally, M/s Lee's story is a big blatant lie. According to her, 'Ah Gong' is her neighbour. It's testing credibility that an 'Ah Gong' who scrimps and saves by cents can live next door to a millionaire politician. Is she trying to fake street cred as a HDB dweller for that's where 'Ah Gong' really lives. An MP who calls us 'Si Gui Kia' represents no one from the HDB hinterland. 'Si Gui Kia' which means little devil in Hokkien, is a chastisement in a sort of dismissive manner. I'm guessing members of parliament must surely hate their weekly meet-the-people sessions. It's their night out to meet the 'mediocres' and the 'Si Gui Kias'. 

We pick our representative based on strength of character and competency and from a political party that has certain ideology that aligns with our interest. Ideology simply put, is a cohesive set of ideas, ideals and belief values such as socialism, liberalism, conservatism, etc. And we trust that the party will pursue policies in our interests, crafted from their moral stand on their ideological beliefs. Many of us rooted for the People's Action Party for such was the endearing strength of the legacies of the founding fathers. It is this legacy that has carried the PAP to election victories in the past. But the premium on the brand is eroding fast under the current 3rd generation leadership. It is now seen by many as a party of elites who has lost the moral high ground to craft policies that can benefit a major population segment to whom they have completely lost touch, the disenfranchised who are struggling in a country with one of the highest reserves in the world. 

We should ponder what is the ideology the PAP subscribes to. Well the strong ideology of the founding fathers, one based on a dedicated pursuit of building better lives and uplifting the population from the clutches of poverty, is no longer vogue. The 3 Gen PAP has metamorphosed into self-preserving ideologists where elite clan ship is protected. Any mishap, mis-management, and we see members circling the wagons in Parliament. There is no ownership of mistakes. Singaporeans are not demanding hara-kiri, but it would be nice to see a show of honours like David Cameroon who resigned as Prime Minister of UK on loosing the Brexit vote.   

The PAP has actually learnt well the Marxist view of ideology and twisted it round to better suit their circumstances. Marxists thought that if the proletariat could see their place in a capitalist society and how they are being exploited and manipulated, there will be a revolution. To hide the truth from the people, to show them a false world view, an illusion is needed. And so, the right ideology is created and propagated -- that there is no exploitation, everyone is equal, those with capability has upward mobility, the rich worked hard and took risks and deserves their rewards. Ideology to the Marxists, is a set of ideas, propagated till it is a dominating ethos in the land, to justify the power and privilege of the ruling elite. And so PAP imprints on young minds in school, the familiar bogeyman of racial riots and no natural resources, non-PAP government that will lay to waste the accumulated national savings, and a well-intended meritocracy policy which has now been hijacked as exclusive to the elites. The PAP ideology to breed tunnel-vision Singaporeans that will profess the belief that this is the only party that can govern Singapore.

In the past few elections, as the days for the polls to open arrive, there were much expectation of a landmark event in the making. No one is expecting an opposition win, but many were and still are, hoping for a decreased PAP lead to punish and jolt them to re-evaluate their values. Instead, they often surprise us with 70% winning margins in efficient and clean elections. PAP hatters turn their vehemence on the majority voters in social media with a dressing down on the 70% as Singaporeans who don't have their own minds, people who are indoctrinated by PAP propaganda. This is a lazy and convenient reasoning for people lacking a strong argument that the opposition is a better alternative. The actual reason probably lies in a big pool of middle class voters who believes in their own capability for upward mobility and prefers not to meddle with a system which they see as imperfect, but at least working. 

The danger to the PAP is, increasing arrogance has blinded them to the reality on the ground that this 'upward mobility' has been eroded by an impaired foreign worker policy that sees cheaper employment pass holders taking over many jobs once held by locals. Local PMETs all over the island are loosing their jobs. Alice would have wondered why in a land of highly educated people, there are so many MBA Grab drivers. Unemployment and a weakening economy is explosive. So once again, we look forward to another possible landmark event with polls round the corner. Except this time, I'm not taking bets.