PAP! Why you no provide leadership! Or, How the PAP can yet help themselves (and Singapore!) and Ideological Questions

We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think.

Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, Straits Times, 20 April 1987

On PAP's Following, or the Lack Thereof

Whatever we may think of Dr. Tony Tan's victory as President, it cannot be denied that there has been a very profound change and difference in our political environment. He won by the narrowest of margins and not a landslide. The old reverence and devotion for which Singaporeans have for the ruling party has pretty much vaporised.  Suddenly Singaporeans are politically agitated, and everywhere stirs the spirit of change and novelty.

Ever being the contrarian, I am not one to sit easily with this new spirit in the air. Whilst I do think that there is much that is flawed in the PAP, but I lack the iconoclastic zeal for tearing down what is (or was!) a respectable party which has done much good for Singapore. I guess I am a little wary of so many eager new political zealots filled with the zeitgeist, rushing into a new path or direction where angels fear to tread, especially when they have not the faintest idea what exactly is the destination supposed to be. Indeed, like the French Revolution, what ghosts or evil spirits shall be unleashed, when restrains of old come loosed?

But one cannot discount the fact that the PAP are in an objective sense, losing their grip on this country. Can this be the party of foresight, planning and projection for this nation over decades, which today is simply reacting to every event on the ground? What happen to pre-empting problems and events? They had to wait until we complain about transportation, before announcing measures to increase capacity. They had to wait for us to carp about foreigners, before taking measures to increase living space, etc. Good grief man! One does not need to be a PSC scholar to know that if you increase the population of course social space and services are going to be taxed! Why haven't they planned in advance for all these even before the foreigners flooded in? Why haven't they learned from the Western experience?

Take the PA and CC incident, now that there is a GRC by an opposition, instead of engaging in some petty tit-for-tat exchange about how who is not allowing who to do what in these apolitical institutions, surely they should be taking the initiative and define for us what are the boundaries of engagement of these apolitical institutions with the political incumbents, and take the lead in shaping this new political landscape for which we find ourselves in? What IS going on? Is this truly the party of great vision and projection? I cite all these, not in a spirit of glee over their incompetence, but dismay. Truly, if I had to choose between the new spirit stirring in the air determined to lead us to a God-knows-what destination, and a PAP of former competence, the latter option wouldn't be out of the question. But as it is, the glory has departed from them...

Or has it? I think there is an explanation for why the PAP is now simply floundering and drowning in the deluge of events and changes which has overwhelmed them this year, seemingly being unable to cope or manage this brave new world which they have given birth to, and have not been able to abort.

On Being Pragmatic; Or Avoiding the Ideological Questions

Any of us who have taken geography knows about the "Roswell model of economic development", or the Western experience, from primary to secondary industries, and the necessary steps required to get there. And as we know, our government promptly took steps towards adopting this model and developing our nation along its lines. And it has been largely successful. But behind this simple strategy lies hidden ideological questions which the PAP with ruthless efficiency clamp down upon, for better or for worse.

In the 1960s when Singapore became an independent nation, there was no doubt where the promised land of the world was. The West. And every Eastern nation wanted to develop into the West. May be not exactly, but there was absolutely no doubt at all in the minds of everyone, that "prosperity"means prosperity in the Western sense, economic prosperity, etc. "Progress for our nation" in our pledge means 'progress' towards the Western example. After all, as Francis Fukuyama would later triumphantly declare after the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, the End of History has come. We know which direction universal history marches towards. All questions about ideology has been settled. There will be no more historical development in ideology, only events progressing towards or regressing from it. Political and Economic liberalism is the way to go. We have seen heaven, and we know how to get there.

In a sense, PAP accepted half of Fukuyama's hypothesis, that economic liberalism is the way to go. But not political liberalism, rightly learning from the Russian experience at attempting to "open up" communist Russia. So, with this unquestioned ideological goal, and with an iron-grip on our political life, our retired Minister Mentor crushed his way through all his ideological opponents with rhetoric of conviction and steel in his vision, and equipped with Roswell model of economic development, the path has already been mapped out and so it was merely a matter of dragging all Singapore (kicking and screaming if necessary!) down the path into the promised land.

Thus, the PAP's foresight is really not all that remarkable. They were simply learning from a historical example, i.e. the West. (Although one might argue that to learn from history is already quite a remarkable feat in itself!) They discerned the goal which they wanted to take Singapore towards, i.e. economic prosperity in the Western sense, and the only question is how to get there, not whether to go there, so in aid of that end, they studied how did the West developed economically and made the appropriately adjustments for our nation, and avoided the mistakes of the Russians at the same time, shrewdly discerning that Asian cultures needs much maturity before they are ready for Western democratic society.

Thus, the rapid development of Singapore can simply be attributed from the lack (or suppression!) of disputes about ends or ideological goals and following a well-beaten path travelled by the West before us.

The End of the End of History

For as long as we can remember, the government has always therefore justified its continued rule by their appeal towards our economic prosperity, or the blessed number GDP. As long as our economy is expanding, GDP is on the rise, why you complain so much? Tiam tiam work and stuff your mouth with food can already.

Having arrived at the promised land, we like Israel suddenly ran into all kinds of problems at the promised land. Aging population and an oversaturated economy and utterly stressed out population working their guts out, to maintain their magic GDP number are amongst the problems. But our government is still determined that economic growth and prosperity is the correct end point and goal for our nation. It is strange that they did not heed or discern the warning signs of the eminent implosion of the West, that perhaps their vision of heaven was merely a disguise of the hell to come. I was trying to read the PM's National Day Rally Speech, and it is remarkable of the almost complete lack of any discussion of ideological questions. The foundational premise, the necessity of economic growth and material prosperity, is simply assumed, and never once questioned. And the entire speech was merely meaningless drivel cluttered by masses and masses of irrelevant empirical nitty-gritty details.

Determined to, at ALL cost, to achieve their goal of unlimited GDP growth, they fall right into the mistake of the West. The mass import of immigrants to "boost the economy". I was amazed that our PM insistence that this was "good" for Singapore on the long-run. Good for what? To increase our magic GDP magic number? But of course, it doesn't take a PSC scholar to tell you that if you "boost the economy" by flooding the place with labourers, you'll of course incur social costs and hardships upon the people. The businesses may benefit, but at the expense of everyone else. Suddenly, our nation finds itself at an unprecedented situation in world history. The West are barely able to cope with it, so without a prior historic example, our PAP has no idea what to do either. And so they flounder, they fall over themselves, and don't know what to do or say.

But at the core of these problems is an ideological question, these problems cannot be solved by a magic policy or plan, but it is a question of the meaning of the common good and a vision of human community. We've come to a vital crossroads, a question about the ideological development of this nation. It is time we ask ourselves some really tough questions about the sacred cow of the "economic imperative" and the magic GDP number and growth. Perhaps, in the light of the unhappiness of Singaporeans despite our "economic growth", it is time to consider an alternative vision of Singapore society voiced by the late David Marshall, "A bit kinder and warmer, but also poorer." Dare we slaughter the sacred cow of unlimited GDP growth? Perhaps it is time to consider being poorer, but happier, and more human.

Deconstructing GDP and the Meaning of Communal Good

In order to raise properly the ideological questions at hand, we shall need to deconstruct further the concept of GDP. First thing that we should note is that GDP as a measure of a nation's prosperity means that prosperity is measured by movements in the market of goods and services. What do I mean by this? Our leaders noted that in societies where woman started entering the workforce, the GDP and economic prosperity of the nation would increase by manifolds. The assumption behind this observation is that, woman taking care of their children or homemaking was economically "unproductive" work, and had no value from a national perspective. Now, am I arguing that all woman should therefore return back to their homes and be housewives? Of course not. To me, it makes no essential difference whether the person remaining at home is the husband or the wife (an alternative vision nicely envisioned by the popular show Desperate Housewives)

But the key point is that only when a person "enters" the workforce to produce "goods and services" in the market, is one's labour considered "productive", contributing to the "prosperity" of the nation. Ironically it seems that raising children or homemaking would therefore not be a "good" since it can't enter the calculus of "goods" in 'goods and services'! Once we grasp this, we begin to grasp the beginning of the de-humanising logic of the language of the economics. One's labour is valuable only when when one can "enter" into the market economy and trade it in cash. (Ironically a parent staying at home taking care of her/his children is considered "unproductive" from a GDP perspective, but a paid stranger taking of care of children is considered "productive" since that "service" enters the market economy and is transactional, talk about an utter misjudgement of "true" goods!)

Thus, the human reality of familial love and care, our true goods (and one might argue, the only one universal good!), is not considered a "good" according to the calculus of the market economy, but instead, what is "good" are simply what can enter the market economy as "goods and services", transient material products and experience of services, things which can be exchanged easily by cash, that which comes and goes. These are now the true measure and judgement of the worth of a person's labour. Human good is now being substituted for material goods, according to the logic of the economists.

The Love of Money is the Root of All Evil?

There is of course another problem with the GDP-at-all-cost ideology. It makes the assumption that simply because the aggregate wealth of the nation is higher, therefore it is better. But why? There has not been raised the question of the distribution of wealth. Why should we want to live in a society where the is an overall increase in wealth, but it only benefits so few within a society? I have not the slightest doubt that meritocracy is truly impressive in its ability to generate "wealth" (and by wealth I of course simply mean measurable "goods and services" as valued by the almighty free market), but it is also impressive in generating a competitive and vicious culture, and in its capacity to turn all of us into paranoids about our economic performance.

One of the key purposes of banding together cooperatively in a society is precisely so as to avoid needing to live according to the rules of the jungle, that through cooperation and sharing of resources, we don't have to struggle merely to survive. Can a nation whose citizens have to perpetually struggle for their existence be considered a nation that has progressed? Are we truly better off than our forefathers if we have to struggle as hard as them in our work?

There are also some very questionable assumptions about the ends which our government seems to be making about what our ultimate goal is. The assumption made here is that the purpose of work is simply to make more money, be more economically efficient, to increase productivity, etc. But that's a fundamental mistake. We don't want money for its own sake, we want money to use it for other worthier ends. What is the point of doing endless work, under insane work pressures and working hours, when we shall be left with no time at all to enjoy the fruits of our labour, when we shall never be able to freely love our families because we are constantly burdened with the fear of economic security and "competitiveness"? So yes, we DO want to be 'lazy', we do want more time for our families, more time with our friends, more time for enjoyment and watching "useless" concerts and movies, are we to be condemned simply because we desire to live in a working environment which does not place a rule-of-the-jungle demand on us and instead, frees us to live well?

To sum up, the fallacy of the government is that the whole point of the economy is to increase GDP or production. But is that really the point? To put it paradoxically, at what cost increased GDP? Wouldn't it be better if we have lower GDP, but have much lesser working hours and pressures? To be able to live in a society and environment where we do not have to fight for our survival, fight to make ends meet, to provide for contingencies and for the future? We must asks ourselves, what is the point of a society, that is indistinguishable from the "state of nature"?

Conclusions for Ideological Consideration

There are inescapably ideological questions. May be in our postmodern world, transience is in, we prefer fluid and easily exchangeable material goods and experience of services over being "tied down" to familial love and home, thus, yay for market economy as a measure of what is valuable and what is not. May be like the Nazis, work is joy, and that there is a joy in struggling for one's economic existence or survival. I don't know. May be, or may be not.

But it is time for PAP to take the lead in reshaping our political landscape, to stop repeating their old ideological slogans till they're blue in the face and till we're bored to death. They should be the ones boldly confronting Singapore with the ideological questions head on and bolding declaring themselves to be for one vision or destination, and ask Singapore to choose their parties according to their vision. There needs to be very difficult questions asked, about the fundamental meaning of the human goodand the communal good, instead of simply subcontracting those questions to the market economy.

So let me end off with the words of the Holy Father to put the discussion in perspective,

Life is not just a succession of events or experiences. It is a search for the true, the good and the beautiful. It is to this end that we make our choices; it is for this that we exercise our freedom; it is in this - in truth, in goodness, and in beauty - that we find happiness and joy. Do not be fooled by those who see you as just another consumer in a market of undifferentiated possibilities, where choice itself becomes the good, novelty usurps beauty, and subjective experience displaces truth.