Muffling Dissent
- various lawsuits (Roy Ngerng, Terry Xu)
- Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods against Thum Ping Tjin
- Yale-NUS vs Alfian Sa'at vs Govt
Weakened Bonds Between People And MPs
This refers to the GRC. In LKY's heyday, people voted in the MP they wanted. Now, MPs come along in packages. If I vote Ong Ye Kung (a good Minister of Education) and Khaw Boon Wan (a fabulous Minister of Transport), I get Lim Wee Kiak, Vikram Nair and Amrin Amir for free.
From the perspective of a motivation psychologist, it is clear to me that Lim Wee Kiak, Vikram Nair and Amrin Amir have a higher incentive to...
- discern the mentality and viewpoints of Ong Ye Kung &/or Khaw Boon Wan
- support the mentality and viewpoints of Ong Ye Kung &/or Khaw Boon Wan
- represent the mentality and viewpoints of Ong Ye Kung &/or Khaw Boon Wan
... than
- discern the mentality and viewpoints of voters
- support the mentality and viewpoints of voters
- represent the mentality and viewpoints of voters
Consider now that both Khaw Boon Wan and Ong Ye Kung both depend on Lee Hsien Loong for their political promotion and advancement, then both are inclined to...
- discern the mentality and viewpoints of Lee Hsien Loong
- support the mentality and viewpoints of Lee Hsien Loong
- represent the mentality and viewpoints of Lee Hsien Loong
When the GRC system was introduced, Petunia kept her silence because she thought, "Oh well... there are non-politicians such as Roy, Thum Ping Tjin, Kirsten Han and Terry Xu who will speak what people think (true or untrue). Once they hear our pain, the government will have the integrity to try its best to improve."
I did notice that enhancements to CPF were made after all that hooha raised by Roy Ngerng, even though he did it in such a clumsy and unrefined manner. I did notice that MOE did move to make the bold changes since 2011, after many parent bloggers dissented with MOE practices.
I note now with dismay that...
- the government comes down hard on people who speak the pain of Singaporeans and
- MPs (under the GRC system) represent the views of the PAP more than their voters (c.f., Lee Bee Wah's si gui kia perspective)
If MPs are not incentivised to speak for voters and citizens (such as Roy Ngerng and Thum Ping Tjin) are taken to task for speaking up, then who will dare engage the government in robust dialogue? Or, does the government believe itself capable of knowing without hearing/listening? Clearly, in the years 2005 to 2016, the government was not sensitive to Singaporeans' pain points - stressful education, overwhelmed transport system, HDB flats as depreciating assets, constipated CPF, unfettered immigration. It took non-PAP folks like Roy Ngerng, Gerald Giam, Sylvia Lim, Kirsten Han to raise issues important to Singaporeans.
These issues were NOT raised by PAP MPs. Indeed, these issues were so far under the radar of PAP MPs that the PAP MPs got the shock of their lives in the 2011 elections (with more than one PAP man crying real tears on national TV).
Social Media and Political Power Too Concentrated
If Lee Hsien Loong is too successful in cementing his hold on all his Ministers and his MPs (since he controls Ministerial advancement and remuneration, and MPs look to their Ministers to get themselves voted in)...
...and...
... non-political folks are taken to task for speaking up, then who will surface Singaporeans' pain points in future?
Hear/Listen Out of Duty VS Hear/Listen To Survive as a Politician
Of course, the current narrative is that the PAP MPs run Meet the People sessions to hear these pain points. This is their responsibility. The fact still remains that the true pain points surfaced in the past decade and more, were NOT surfaced by PAP MPs. There is a difference when MPs (who report to an incumbent Minister within a GRC) are SUPPOSED to hear the people VS when they are EXTREMELY MOTIVATED to hear the people (because else they won't stay MP for long).
MPs who report to a Minister will toe the Ministry line and represent the views fed to them by civil servants, just like Indranee Rajah did HERE, simply because
(a) the Minister helming the Ministry will defend his/her Ministry AND
(b) the MPs need the help of Ministers appraisals of MPs, to stay as MPs.
In such a scenario, which MP would be so stupid as to very vigorously, passionately and pointedly debate any Ministry's policy.
MPs who report directly to voters will listen and represent voters more vigorously and pointedly, not only because it is their job to do so, but because they won't have a job if they don't.
I am not judging badly the motives of the MPs. We have good MPs. I am making comment on the incentive structure inherent in the GRC system.
MPs Don't Speak and Non-MPs Cannot Speak. Then How?
And now... and now... and now... when non-politicians try to speak up, there is a whole slew of measures in place to shut them up. Dissent and pain will then go underground, where pressure will build and explode, like in Hong Kong. Shutting people up does not prevent unrest. Shutting people up WILL LEAD TO unrest, because people are not heard and pain goes unaddressed.
Seriously, I laughed when I first read about Yale-NUS VS Alfian VS Govt. If there is enough pain in the populace, no one needs a university module to learn how to dissent. My 3 yr old, when upset, could dissent very effectively. I needed to teach him how to express dissent without hurting me. To teach him that, I did not punish him for dissenting. I showed him that when he dissented calmly and reasonably, I LISTENED.
The key is in allowing expression and then listening and hearing. There were times between 2005 and 2016 when I felt that the PAP government was deaf, and could only hear its own perspectives echoing from PAP MP to PAP MP in parliament, and beyond.
When I coach parents who have rebellious children, the root of the conflict always lies FIRST in the parent refusing to listen and hear the needs of their children. A certain parent may love his child so much that he badly wants his child to succeed in life. Hence, he/she decides to pile the child high with worksheets to ensure academic excellence. In his zeal to love his child in the only way he knows how, the parent misses out on the subtle signs of stress and pain (inattentiveness, inability to focus, poor quality work, emotional outbursts). Faced with emotional outbursts, the parent gets angry (justifiably so because when a child gets emotional, he or she says hurtful and untrue things) and punishes the child for being disrespectful. This has the effect of driving festering feelings underground. Children develop passive resistance. When children get old enough, parent-child conflicts get ever more violent.
This is such a pity because in almost every family I have coached, motives are very pure. The parent loves. The children want to do well to please the parent.
Similarly, the PAP wants to govern well and the populace wants to follow good leaders.
Shutting up an emotional child who speaks in a way that hurts the parent, does not remove the angst from the family. In my little family, we never let children's tears nor anger go unaddressed. As a mother, I have always tried to look past my children's anger at me, to find the pain point and address it. I know that my children love me and if they were not hurt, they would have no reason to be hurtful to me.
Similarly, much as many PAP MPs and Ministers think that they have enviable high status roles in society, there is many a successful hawker who would much prefer to be a hawker than an MP. Many people would much rather leave governing to government, and MP-ing to MPs. Unless there is pain, why rock the boat and talk too loudly? Shutting up a country's dissidents does not remove the country's angst, that is there in the first place.
So, yes... dear PAP folks, I know that as a political party, you want to stay in power. I know that you are trying your best to win the next elections with as wide a margin as you can. I know that you are trying to control media and info so that you do not look bad unnecessarily/gratuitiously. I know you are sensitive about fake news and feel justifiably aggrieved by fake news/accusations.
Slamming down people like Thum Ping Tjin, Terry Xu and Roy Ngerng does not remove the underlying angst. The angst merely goes into hiding, festers longer and in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years... WILL erupt. It took Hong Kong 22 years to erupt (from the time they had a political system that listened and heard through 2 decades wherein Beijing ignored or suppressed dissent).
Underneath their inexcusable excesses of speech, Thum Ping Tjin, Terry Xu and Roy Ngerng are cathartic mechanisms for Singaporean society to express pain. Come on... who do you know expresses pain in a moderate and sensible manner huh? When your wife is angry with you, she always speaks the truth sensibly and measuredly? Care should be taken to listen and hear, not slam and muffle.
If the ignoring and suppression of dissent worked, then monarchies would never have been overthrown and China would never have seen dynasty replace dynasty. In all such systems, all politicians (in those days, they were called courtiers and civil servants) looked towards the emperor and the emperor's direct reports for advancement. Xi Jin Ping's officials ALSO look towards Xi Jin Ping and Xi Jin Ping's direct reports for advancement. It is their job to represent and care for the people. However, their rice bowls lie with their bosses who all report to Xi.
Similarly, in Singapore, MPs look to Ministers look to PM. Under LKY, the MPs looked to the voters. I don't like this GRC system, but I thought it was ok as long as non-politicians could speak up without getting whacked. After all, I could understand that the PAP might feel threatened by opposition politicians or their own MPs who debate over enthusiastically. So, non-politicians who do not seek political power can say their piece without frightening the PAP.
But now, non-politicians also cannot speak up robustly, emotionally, passionately. Is this wise for the country in the long term?
An Appeal
So, as a fellow Singaporean, I hope that PAP cadres at every level can see beyond the PAP staying in power, to look long and hard at what these new laws, legislations etc mean for Singapore and Singaporeans. PAP men and women, you are Singaporean too. Your children and grandchildren will reap the long term results of decisions and strategies you embrace today, to stay in power.
1 comment:
Agree with you. Prof Tommy Koh said it best: we need loving critics. People who are critical because they love the country and want to make it better. That's how we can truly move forward as a nation.
Post a Comment