A Turning Point?

E asked me a very interesting question just the other day. She said, "since you are taking money from the government, don't you have to vote for the PAP by default?" I wasn't sure why anyone would think that way but I've come see how it's not hard to make that leap. All the same, I've never felt much allegiance to the ruling party of Singapore.

If you are not Singaporean or haven't already guessed, Singapore will be electing her parliament in the course of the next few weeks. This election has been said to be "history in the making" because of the sudden momentum of "opposition" parties contesting for seats in parliament—82 out of 87 seats in parliament. In context, although I do not recall the actual number of seats contested last time (40% is my guess), the recently dissolved parliament had only 2 opposition ministers.

The anti-PAP sentiment online is also incredibly strong. Indeed, if one were to base his predictions just on the number of people who support Nicole Seah over Tin Pei Ling on facebook, or the variety of warped, creative, but nonetheless scathing comments hurled at the former ruling party, it would be quite clear that the opposition is going to take a large majority in parliament this time—perhaps they might even win.

Yet, I doubt they will because the PAP still has many supporters and they form a demographic that does not post their views online. I'm very sure, for example, my parents' generation will not be voting for the opposition members. The sentiment in general is that these opposition members just want a shot at fame and fortune; also, if they haven't proven that they can do a better job than the current guy, why not just stick with the current guy?

I hope the disgruntled netizens who are perpetually PAP-bashing—perhaps for good reason—will realize that these people are still out there and even by a conservative estimate, they form the majority. Qualitatively, if you take seriously the fears that Singapore has a severely aging population, the young "unhappy" voters compared to those who have been voting for the PAP year after year now are still a minority. The people who have been loyal supporters of the PAP are unlikely be swayed by the impressive rhetoric of the opposition because they form the bulk of the middle-upper middle class: they aren't so much threatened by the ludicrous amounts of money they'll have to pay to buy a new home or the rising cost of living that is an annoyance but not a catastrophe. Some care about keeping homosexuals under wraps, because they believe the gay agenda threatens the very fabric of society. Many will vote for the PAP because they watched the PAP lead the country out of 3rd world conditions in the 60s, and assume that every bit of success and comfort that we enjoy today must be a result of their leadership, despite the fact that virtually all the "founding fathers" are already dead, and the current leadership is, arguably, nothing like that of old in terms of quality. Also different are the international conditions we live in.

For us young ones, it is very easy to see how PAP members are often less than honest about issues. For example, people just breaking in to the workforce, who work long hours for less than satisfying pay, are not buying the story that importing "foreign talent" is creating jobs for Singaporeans when they see their offices populated by internationals. Or that the government cares about affordable housing when the bulk of us who will eventually live in a government built property will spend 20 years of our lives slogging to pay off the loans, having most of our financial mobility locked into a tiny 3-dorm room sized box that after ~70 years—or sooner—gets taken back by the government.

This is why I would rather take the risk in someone without a proven track record who genuinely seems to care about the well-being of my country. Uncertainty is not always a bad thing; up till when the British gave LKY a chance, he never had any political track record so to speak. Since then he has had incredible successes, but it would be naive to ignore the political opponents he silenced through exile or bankruptcy, and the things he brushed aside in the name of economic progress. Singapore politics needs new blood, whether PAP or opposition. We need people who can think big, who can dream for the country and sweep the rest of us off our feet with that dream. We need people who want to do better, not just to keep things running smoothly, because there is so much more we can be.

Forty-something years ago, LKY was one of these people. The creature comforts, efficiency, and uniqueness of the—if you will let me, beautiful—city we come from were part of his dream. And boy did our forefathers work hard for it. But today, nothing he or ex-PM Lee says has anything to do with the future. There is no longer a Singapore dream. We want to keep the well-oiled machine running, the kids a-popping, a-schooling, a-working. We want the money a-flowing, just as it has been before. The Arts, caring for the elderly, the poor, the young, the outcasts have just been side quests, or pursued insomuch as they are profitable. These causes—which really should be commonplace—need to be fought for in parliament (Dr. Lily Neo), only to be shot down, even when we claim to be "rich".

I am not very optimistic about this election. At worst, the same apparently self-serving and disconnected people who are already in parliament will continue to rule the country, basing it on an economic model that capitalizes on the greed of powerful foreign investors, so much so that we will still effectively be, for a long time coming, colonies of these shadowy, largely Western corporations. What good is it if we have been freed from direct colonial rule, only to have our work life, cultural identity and values subject to this more covert form of imperialism. Globalization is not a valid excuse for not even trying to protect your citizens' best interests.

At best, new blood will fill the distinguished seats of parliament, hopefully men and women of character, who will put their money where their mouth is. Unfortunately, in all likelihood, these people will come from the opposition, and the old man's predictions will be perfectly right: the country will be increasingly polarized and little will be accomplished through democratic means, read more mudslinging, empty debate, and vetoing. Ostensibly, the blame will be laid on the newcomers, because it is easy and profitable to do so. Would you expect any different, given that we have already been warned that "we will have to repent for the next 5 years"?

In short, even in the unlikely case that an alternative breed of leaders come into power, history suggests that they will not be able to bring about the change we so hope. The real questions are whether we will be able to see the big picture and keep them in power long enough to make the change and whether they will continue fighting for the rights of the people if they don't make it this time, and when they finally do, will they keep up when the risks surface.

As an armchair critic who didn't even make the effort to fly down to Washington to make my vote count, I thusly rest my case. So judge me now.