Ch 12 , and the last excerpts, 1 0f 2

 Dear friends, 

At the end of this week I will pull the 'Language & Politics in Singapore...'  posts as the text goes into publication. This Blog will take a break and resurface in early 2028 as 'Language & Politics in the US', probably the last book I will ever write! In the interim, I am halfway through the text of Jacob's Ladder and will complete that by the end of 2027. Read on...

Ch 12

Your Call, Singapore!

               “The goal of academic work is to enhance knowledge and inspire

              meaningful change.”  - B.C. Messina¹

 Hard thinking and sharp expression should lead to decisive action. And it will enhance our sitz im leben – our life situation. It’s a prerequisite to effective self-expression; and it shows us what’s really being said or left unsaid, when it comes to critical issues. If we cannot sort the issues effectively and distinguish what is from what is not, we will end up waddling through a lot of muddy frustration until we get it all straightened out. And only then can we begin to initiate positive change. Most of the time, the onus of clarity is on the backs of our political leadership; most of the time, they don’t come up to the mark. Political expediency (political ambition) seems to get in the way. Human nature, sure, but advancement and progress is not only about economies and technologies but about people growing in community, enhanced by moral accountability and capable leadership! We can and must do better for the sake of our children.

We started off this little journey looking at how we think and write. Then we dived a little into some of the issues in Singapore.  And raised questions about decisive action taken or not taken. Past and present, these are issues that require some hard thinking that should evoke responses from us about where it all could lead, for better or worse. In all of this, hard thinking and clear writing provide a pathway to understanding and saying what we want to say. Then we make the decisions. If no one is listening maybe we have to start yelling at them. When we do this effectively, we are able to bring together culture, religion and various disciplines. While these areas often use selective terms of discourse, they can adapt their self-presentation for the common purpose of working together for the good of all. This is the ethical obligation of leadership, and it actually carries an unwelcome political  imperative – to uncover the hidden structures that enable exploitation and inequality, where they exist. Leadership situations are so unhealthy these days that such a statement almost seems like a blatant contradiction! But from such a perspective, good writing has a critical mission – to democratize knowledge! And these issues continue to be struggled over, at home and abroad. Once again, a few examples (you should revise these!) where clarity (and more!) is lacking:

Locally –

1.       On matters related to revenues and taxes, for instance, clearer explanations of how the initiatives are hypothecated – in other words, how specific revenue is linked to our expenditure or policy – could help.  

2.       If every strong official narrative is that race and religion are fault lines, it’s natural that there are some Singaporeans who will misinterpret this as a signal that one would be better off if we were homogenous. I mean I don’t think that’s what the government is saying, but that is clearly the unintended consequence of that official rhetoric.

And elsewhere –

3.       I appreciate the time and the care that my editor takes to help me communicate clearly, to be accurate and very rigorous without overwhelming the reader or oversimplifying.

4.       He is accused of illegally covering up secret hush payments to a porn star he allegedly had sex with to protect his election.

This is the sort of thing we worked through for four chapters. If you think the 4 sentences above are fine, you ought to re-read those 4 chapters again. Or if you want to jump into advanced analysis, read Joe Williams or visit with Dr. George Gopen!²

These 4 examples are common form everywhere - such writing often ‘sounds good’ and seems to be okay but does not communicate clearly and is of little use. It almost always comes back to clarity. Without clarity there is so much vagueness, so much ambiguity, so much wasting of a reader’s energy, just trying to figure out what exactly is meant. My hope is that you, the reader, will take up the challenge and run with it, from the hard thinking, through the sharp writing, and into the decisive action needed for effective resolution. Or much will stay the same, and little will change for the better.

12.3 State of contradiction

On the outside, you get off the airplane, drive out of Changi Airport, and it’s very impressive. Easy access, smooth efficiency. You look around; and all the buildings you pass seem to shout out ‘developed society…..1^st world!’ Clean, green, impressive, new. You spend a few days at Marina Bay Sands, and it’s stylish and comfortable - nice touch, with heated toilet seats even! You go out to eat – there’s a lot of food around, and some of it is just right for you! It is expensive, but then….. good stuff always costs, so that’s not unexpected! As a modern city state, it seems just fine. But so much for the ‘tourist visitor’ view.

    For those of us who were born in Singapore but have moved on, we have gotten away from the authoritarian paternalism that we grew up with and with which the average Singaporean must still contend. We remember the old icons like the National Theatre, the ambition of ‘becoming a rugged society,’ and the old community values, where a community center was simply that. Singapore has become radically different now. These days, comfortable folk have everything they want and move within their own circles. But the ordinary folk struggle. The extremes have become appalling. What have decades of authoritarian paternalism done to the average citizen? We believe we’re good because we’ve been told that we are and have accepted it as true? We believe our universities are highly rated because we are referred to rankings that say so? Sounds good, but not so easy to make it work, though! The contradictions speak for themselves. How do foreign student tuition subsidies compare against those awarded to local nationals? Some local folk are not even able to use their CPF to fund their children’s education. Why?

   Kenneth Jeyaretnam has been blogging about such contradictions for years, providing a sharp and clear ongoing analysis. Have enough people paid attention to the points he’s raised and the explanations given? Some have. But that’s not enough by far. What causes so many to ignore the obvious and continue to believe what The Institution says?  A number of factors offer themselves. 

   Those of the younger generation who work for The Institution have learned, are learning, or intend to learn how to survive and thrive as members of The Institution. You use what connections you can to gain entry. Once in, you play your cards right, carry out your assignments diligently, and ask no smart-ass questions. It works. You now have job security, with prospects, possibly for the rest of your life. You just do not question authority. Not that different from being in the SAF, is it? I used to smile at first at young ‘interns’ who volunteered their time at Meet the People Sessions, but it did not take long to realize what they were working towards. The smart ones are learning lessons in survival and seeing just how far their efforts will carry them. And for quite a few, it has been good. The Institution keeps on growing. Using this strategy, The Party as Institution has spread over most of the Island through all Government and government related agencies and corporations. It is THE employer for a select group.

   The population is now predictable. Trained into tacit submission, they will nod in agreement, speak in acceptable terms, say a lot of good sounding stuff when required to, and subsequently even be awarded with accolades. They have learnt to watch the optics carefully. We have a lot of this. But concrete stuff that can make a difference? Ah, we have to be careful with that. The Pofmatic eyes and ears of big brother are watching. So we have lots of talkers. But to push for productive change that will make a difference and very possibly upset someone’s durian-cart in the process? Well, that would just be plain unwise. It may bring you up against your boss for starters, and then soon enough face-to-face with government policy and its creators. And not many want to go there. Certainly not the newbies. They are having a great time with job security and will not rock that boat, from laborers and PMET’s turned citizens to the hired foreign academic professionals who purportedly teach critical thinking at the Universities!

  And so we have everything on a sliding scale, from denial and dependency and apathy in varying combinations – all in relation to what the government leadership says and does, right down to our inherent ‘kiasu’ anxiety that gets thrown into the mix of why we struggle to see, accept and respond to what is happening to us, that last aspect being especially right for arguments that invoke risk and fear. And our civil ‘compact’? The government will take care of you, whatever they decide that means - at any given time, and will make all the decisions that will determine your life, for better or worse. There will be opportunities for feedback, not that they will make much difference.

But look back at the section on Jothie Rajah’s work and the mention of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA).⁹ Some writers have mentioned ethnic conflict. But as I said, there really wasn’t much ethnic conflict at all, other than an attempt at importing some. And an attempt is not the same as saying our local folk cannot get along because of religious and ethnic differences and so behavior must be regulated or there will be trouble and we won’t have the means to control it if we are not adequately prepared. Sigh. What a mouthful of a sentence. 28 words? But no ethnic conflict happened in those days, and an Act to ‘maintain religious and ethnic harmony’ was not needed¹⁰ The people already had it.

And they kept social distances fairly respectfully, though there was a lot of nicknaming and cheeky ethnic and dialect mudslinging in the early days, from ‘babi’ to ‘keling-kia’ to ‘ teo chew nang, kah-chng ang ang. It had a playful side to it. Babi is Bahasa Melayu for pig, something the Malays threw out at pork eating folk, mostly the Chinese, since Muslims wouldn’t eat pork but it was a popular meat with the Chinese! A favorite Chinese term for the Indians was ‘keling-kia’, referring to the little bells(them bells made little tinkling ‘kling-kling sounds – they jingled as you moved) Indian jewelry was adorned with, and the Teochew-nang thingy was one example of what the Hokkien dialect speaking Chinese did to the Teochew dialect speaking folk – referring to the Teochew as red-assed folk. How they figured that one out I can’t quite remember! Very colorful, very cheeky, a lot of laughing at the other, like that neat little Malay phrase ‘ketawa-kan dia! i.e. laugh at him; but we had gotten past it by the time national service kicked in! How come? Well, we grew and bonded some as a community!

   Indeed, the MRHA was passed in 1990 – some 25 years after the 1964 so called ‘ethnic riots’! Why such a long wait? Because there was no need for it. But in 1987 it seemed that government policy on certain issues could be improved. Priests had not responded to public policy ever, and this was a first. And it was contextual and pastoral, not a theological or ecclesiological position that called for political or social action. But because Christians were mostly well educated, financially stable, and had a sense of right and wrong, if they were not in the government’s corner by default, it could cause problems? As such, that possibility was quickly addressed with an Act that prevented religious leaders and church pastors from saying anything critical of the government. And what has the Act done to maintain religious harmony? Or promote it even? Not much, unless you want to count a few critics that have been hauled up and accused of racism and such. Recently, a rapper who railed against racism was arrested and accused of being a racist.¹¹ Effective, no?

   Ironically, it is government policy that has encouraged new racism in Singapore. When you upset reasonably accepted demographics, this happens, especially in a small place. For starters, CECA¹², the Singapore-India Economic free trade agreement, has allowed for large numbers of Indian laborers and management into Singapore, and while folk have made comments about Indians walking 6 abreast in the Little India part of town, so that you got a blackout or brownout effect, it is not fun to experience unmanaged crowding in a small space. Home at Christmas and invited to a dinner Theatre show on New Year’s Eve, we had to struggle to get into the venue at MBS because ground level was packed, literally, with shoulder-to-shoulder Indian workers who were gathering to watch the fireworks. No fun having to push your way through and watch out for the Mrs. Where was crowd control?

But this is how issues get out of hand. Unmanaged and out of control when they need not be.  You cannot have too many people in a small house. Everyone knows that. Crazy things happen. Small spaces being used for sex everywhere, I guess. And the side-effects rub off. The other side of it is just as bad, because we have lots and lots of PRC folk who are Mandarin speaking only but work in the city, selling laksa at MBS for example but not knowing what laksa leaf is (?) or doing photography booth work at ICA when they only speak Mandarin, so that dialect speakers and native Malays and Tamils are left out in the cold. Even worse when local PMETs (local acronym for professionals, managers et al) lose job opportunities to foreign nationals who come in, find work (prearranged?) for themselves and who soon enough have citizenship, like the new citizen I met in a PAP MPS session, accent and all (see Appendix L for this story!) local born folk get a kind of ‘ Where’d this guy come from?’ feeling. And now he’s telling me how I should live and what I can or cannot do?’ And resentment builds. All this is on the PAP’s plate. Building an Institution is a heavy task and it can only sustain a positive identity and function by taking care of all of its people! And saying you made an error and reversing a decision in response to public feedback takes guts – honesty and integrity, because it shows you didn’t know what you were doing in the first place.   

   Unless and until the PAP changes its style and places the ordinary citizen first, support levels will keep changing. Knowing this and not wanting to lose their dominant position, the Party has worked at maintaining their electoral advantages and also at building their support base. We have many new citizens, and on interestingly favorable terms, like not having to do national service.  The most obvious statement on this has come from academic Eugene Tan. Speaking on mandatory national service for males in Singapore. In the context of a TV show on the Presidential Election, he said:

“…if we start to differentiate between citizens, whether you’re born here or not born here, whether you’ve done NS or not done NS, I think we are going into very fine distinctions. And the reality is Singapore continues to be an immigrant society”¹³

 Not a very good argument. But in 2017 Eugene was singing a different song.  He teaches at Singapore Management University and so works for The Institution. Writing for the local Business Times, he made some distinctive statements on NS (national service), like this one…

 ‘that national service is no longer just a rite of passage for young men. It impacts intimately on the economy, providing a security umbrella. It is integral to patriotism and nation building, and remains as crucial if not as important as it was in 1967.¹⁴

 Contradictory, no? Perhaps he will tell you that the requests were different, came from different quarters, and so he tailored his responses accordingly. It’s just standard academic work expected of you, don’t have to take it too seriously? That’s always been a very useful political consultancy tactic. Interesting comments on national service as a rite of passage, and a focus on its significance, both for defense and as a prerequisite for meaningful and committed citizenship. However, all new male citizens are not required to serve national service. The contradictions persist. The time served is key, not so much the business of shouldering a weapon as a recruit. Reasonably healthy people can serve in peacetime in any number of ways. But the service requirement is known, and it is ignored at cost.

Where democratic voting processes exist, and people are determined to address contradictions, there is hope for a more equitable society. It just requires a change of direction from one in which the people serve the government to one in which there is shared and empowered vision, by all and for all. Very possible in a small, shared space. We can do it. We will need to get past any kind of a dominant ethnic sense first, forget CMIO, and conflate the distinctions so poorly made.

   This is the democratic dream. And it starts with true democratic conversation, not partisan conversation on any one position. Just a focus on what needs to be fixed and to work for a consensus on how it can get fixed. Not because of charismatic leaders leading powerful parties. But because ordinary folk like Simon and Jesse continue to say what they are saying -  that everyone must get involved in the issues that affect all of us, even though they might not want to! As has been said for a long time, ignorance is surely bliss! But we need citizen participation in a one-on-one talking-with-each-other experience. There is no other way because the institutionalized political party has made options difficult. Like one-man assembly persecution. We will have to unmake those.

   Citizens who are unquestioningly loyal to the PAP government have burdened their fellow citizens.  Those who understand the current situation for what it is, find it hard to believe that there are others who support the government without reservation. They have come up with various explanations. But perhaps the most obvious one goes back to what Chan Heng Chee said many years ago. From there, the control, the institutionalization, the high salaries, the continuing contradictions - are all acceptable to the ethnic Chinese who see Chinese political leadership through an emperor perspective. Many will say this is not true, citing the support Tharman has been given. But they ignore one critical point. In the mind of institutionalized folk, Tharman’s ability and past history in dealing with financial management is an extremely strong point that serves him well from their perspective. He is allowable, because there is no real executive power in his hands. This is perhaps the best current example of how dominant ethnicity will use marginalized ethnicity for its own purposes. It depends.

   This is where the tacit understanding that exists in paternalistic authoritarianism between the government and the people comes in.  As long as the government does its part, the people will accept their leaders and remain compliant. But what has been happening steadily over the last several decades is that the government has ceased to do its part well, and resentment is building steadily.

   However, if the Party is correct in their strategy and the new citizen party support ratio numbers are in their favor, they will maintain a majority, with support from new citizens together with a modicum of the old faithful. That balance between Singapore born citizens and new ones is not far from tipping point. And the electoral system, functioning as it does under the purview of the Prime Minister’s Office, will fulfill its assigned functions. As systems go, this one has been in the ruling Party’s favor forever. And the average Singapore born citizen? Is just about ready to be farmed out, it would appear. Nothing comes easy for the average local person anymore. To live in Johore Bahru in Malaysia is becoming more of a reality for many, just as eating and shopping.  And their leaving Singapore appears not to be a concern for the Party. As one Minister once said, ‘if you don’t like it, you are free to leave.’¹⁵ And that is the option. Easily said, with overtones of easy replacement. Having institutionalized itself, it would appear that whomever constitutes the party at any given time does not feel nor acknowledge that they work for the people. They say they do, loudly and often, but therein seems to lie yet another contradiction.