Final Thoughts and Goodbye

Dear readers of my blog,

I know that I had restarted this blog for barely a month, but I regret to inform all of you that I am discontinuing this blog and I henceforth retire from social-political blogging.  I will explain my reasons why at the end of this very long post, but first I would like to share some final thoughts on the elections, politics and the socio-political blogosphere.

1. Facebook is the future for socio-political commentary

Over the past 2 weeks, I have been surprised by how much good political commentary I found through facebook.  These are 7 of the best articles I have read on facebook, and if you haven’t read them, I strongly recommend that you do (as well as the comments):

2003 Interview with Ngiam Tong Dow by Straits Times via Online Citizen
Response to “A letter to my friends on the General Elections” by Ben Leong
What’s so bad about another PAP-dominated Parliament? by Donald Low
What an informed voter should really know by Fish Koh Jie Yu
My thoughts on GE2011 by Darryl Yong
Regardless of the election outcome, I am worried for Singapore by Lee Seng Wai
The Dilemma for our Democracy by Darryl Yong

I am not saying everyone should agree with the above 7 articles.  In fact, I believe the 6 gentlemen who wrote them would have differences and disagreements among themselves.  But I am saying that we should read through what each article is saying, think through their propositions and arguments, let these views challenge our own beliefs and assumptions, before deciding whether or not to agree or to disagree.  [Note: the very last article is highly abstract and difficult to understand]

But I think that facebook is not just a better source of political commentary, but I believe that facebook and twitter would soon make our social-political blogosphere obsolete and redundant.  I won’t try to explain why I think so, but I think this is a good direction to move towards.  Facebook has a much more significant reach, has an element of peer filtering (the best articles get propagated the most), and conversation you see at facebook is usually of much higher quality than the ones you see in our blogosphere.

2. The PAP screwed up their  GE2011 campaign

I saw PM Lee’s apology as a realization that their previous political strategy has pretty much bombed and it needed a new approach.  PAP’s continual denial that they had ever made mistakes in their policies, the continual use of upgrading carrots, the pretension that GRCs and gerrymandering is not meant for their own political gain, the smear tactics and poorly thought out offensive strategies against opposition candidates, and the threatening of the electorate. These all work against the PAP’s cause because voters (especially the younger generation)  feel as if the PAP does not treat them as dignified individuals that the PAP is arrogant and looks down on them.  I think halfway through the campaign PM Lee finally notices this negativity (as if for the first time), and the fact that it took them a couple of years to figure this out (the ground has been feeling this way for a while) is telling in itself.  [Read also, Cherian George’s take on PM Lee’s apology] But most of the PAP candidates are really political n00bs (never had a contested fight before), their inexperience show, and also I suspect the PAP has largely been complacent due to its previous landslide victories and was genuinely caught off guard by the negative ground sentiments.  Although I think it has helped his party, PM Lee’s apology may come too little too late.   Many will look back at GE2011 and remember the PAP as a disorganized, self-contradictory and bullying party, and feel even less inclined to vote for them in subsequent elections.  Expect the PAP to have less gerrymandering, smaller or no GRCs, and a more humble approach in the next GE.  But that too may be too little too late.

[Btw PAP, astroturfing on my blog is totally NOT COOL. Also, for those of you naive enough to think PAP doesn’t astroturf read this.  Btw, opposition parties might astroturf too, so yeah. Don’t believe everything you read.]

3. The desirability of a two party democracy

I had the opportunity to talk to some civil servants to get them to understand in greater detail how our current government system works, as well as reading the articles by Ngiam Tong Dow, Ben Leong and Donald Low (all 3 were relatively high ranking civil servants; while we are at it I believe this guy is also an ex-civil servant, but I won’t say why I know.)  The picture they paint is quite interesting.  They all believed that the civil service, and the effectiveness and efficiency of policies would be severely handicapped by the presence of strong second party (i.e. in a two-party system).  To understand why they say so, there is a need to have some kind of understanding in the policy making process.  Policies are made in general to balance two things – the overall welfare of Singaporeans, and political capital (i.e. people happy and will vote for you).  A good policy decision is one which increases both.  But sometimes, a Minister needs to choose between two options, one of which would increase the welfare of Singaporeans but at a high political cost (let’s call this option A), the other does not increase the welfare of Singaporeans much but at a lower political cost or for political gain (let’s call this option B).  The Minister is much more likely to choose option B in a two-party system, because if he chooses option A, the people would become unhappy, and the opposition could use this opportunity to force him out of Parliament during elections.  Hence, this is what they mean by having a two-party system results in more “populist” policies (i.e. policies made to make people happy and but ultimately does not benefit the welfare of Singaporeans).  Our civil servants (particularly those in the senior ranks) are quite wary of this, which is why most of them would support a strong PAP mandate.

That is not to say all civil servants are pro-PAP.  Some young civil servants are idealistic at heart, and wish for a more democratic Singapore.  Other civil servants have no problem with the system, but I believe are not too keen on certain political leaders whom they know and have worked with personally.  And there are critics of the system like Donald Low and Darryl Yong, who say that the system works well now, but may be a catastrophically poor  system in the future and hence the sacrifice in the effectiveness and efficiency of the civil service might be worth it regardless.

4. Predicting Election Results

Originally I wanted to make predictions on the outcome of GE2011.  What’s the chances of it being 87-0? What’s the chances the opposition capture 3 GRCs and several SMCs? What implications would it mean for Singapore if either scenario happened (or an outcome in between)? I realized that there really was no way for me to predict, because it is close to impossible to get a good feel of ground sentiments.  Yes, the PAP is pissing off the younger generation, but how significant is that? Only 28% of the electorate is aged 35 and younger. The blogosphere is highly anti-PAP, but how representative is the blogosphere? Many well written pro-PAP articles have been floating around on facebook, including one from Xiaxue herself.  What do the aunties and uncles on the street think?  Are they embittered by the PAP’s iron rule, or are they swayed by upgrading carrots?  How about the 40-plus middle income person who has a stable job and two kids.  Is he unhappy about the increased competition from foreign workers, or is he glad that the PAP has managed to attract investors and companies to Singapore hence giving him his job?  Sure tens of thousands appeared at opposition rallies and the PAP had to bus senior citizens and provide free food to them for their own rallies, but this happened in GE2006 too but PAP still won.  It is quite impossible to measure ground sentiments, and hence predict election results.

5. The writing on the wall

But guess what, I think it doesn’t matter at all.  Yes, I said that the results of GE2011 does not matter at all.  Why? Because I think no matter how GE2011 pans out (even in a 87-0), the PAP is very likely going to fall after 2 GEs (circa 2021), and maybe even in the next one (2016).  And I’m not the only person who thinks this way.  PAP’s poor GE2011 campaign has forever hurt their image and credibility in the eyes of many young voters.  Furthermore, there appears to be a growing dissent among young voters where it had become very fashionable to be anti-establishmemt, and in general PAP has handled this generation poorly.  Even among the older generation, Singaporeans had become more and more demanding over the years, and the government had not been able to manage the expectations of such Singaporeans well. Ngiam Tong Dow likens this to the initially feeding peanuts to a monkey whom you control, but eventually feeding bananas to a gorilla who controls you.  The PAP has also been largely ignoring the younger generation’s cries for increased social equity (i.e. more justice and fairness), as compared to just economic growth.  All this does not bode well for the PAP.  Perhaps the most significant factor would be the looming US debt crisis.  Nobody knows for sure how this is going to turn out, but if Singapore’s economy is affected badly, Singaporeans lose their jobs close to GE2016, public sentiment would not be kind to the PAP.   Lastly, the opposition parties have been able to attract strong candidates, and the PAP struggles to in its party renewal.  More and more young, intelligent and capable individuals would join the opposition cause due to their more globalized outlook in life and hence more democratic leanings.

6. Three Scenarios for the Future

So what happens after the PAP falls in 2021? I can imagine three possible scenarios:

(a) PAP/WP two-party democracy

Most think this would be the most likely outcome, particularly if WP wins Aljunied GRC but SDP and RP fails to win any GRC.  If WP can win a GRC, many would be inspired to take up the WP cause.  By 2016 or 2021, WP might have enough resources or quality candidates to field a slate of candidates to compete for simple majority, and the power to be the executive cabinet.  SDP might remain in the political scene, but would remain a small party which cannot compete with either the PAP or WP.  WP’s governance would be responding to the PAP’s faults, meaning that they would likely have more socialist policies to benefit the poor, and probably push for more liberalization of human rights.  The PAP remains a significant party due to it’s large influence it had, and would champion free market capitalist policies, which would be supported by the middle and higher income sectors.  This is not very different from the PAP being the Republican party, and WP being the Democrats. However, just like it is in the US, an incumbent in a  two-party government (especially by a newbie WP cabinet) would likely fail to please the electorate especially in harsh economic climates, and we would likely see a regime change every 5 years, not unlike the US elections.

(b) PAP/WP/SDP 3-party system

I think that those who think the WP would eventually crowd out SDP are underestimating Dr Chee Soon Juan’s craftiness and leadership.  Yes he did many foolish things in the past (everybody was a n00b once), but it is not by luck that he is able to build SDP up to what it is today after the immense difficulties he faced in the 1990s.  Furthermore, SDP and its clear-cut platform on pushing for liberal values and rights have a stronger appeal to younger and more globalized Singaporeans compared to WP’s more measured and centrist approach.  Hence, coupled with PAP’s declining popularity, the future could see 3 major parties battling it out from GE2015 onwards, especially if SDP and WP both managed to capture one GRC this elections.  This is not unlike PAP being the Tories, WP being the Labor Party and SDP being the Socialist Democrats in UK today.  In this scenario, a coalition government is possible, and if so, I could imagine WP allying with PAP rather than with SDP to form a coalition.  A coalition is quite possibly the worst case scenario for Singapore, where the civil service will become seriously inefficient trying to serve two (or more) different masters, and there might be infighting within the cabinet.

(c) WP/SDP 2-party system

I think the PAP has problems with renewal.  Should the fall of the PAP come swiftly and suddenly, and PAP be caught off guard, the PAP may suffer a steep decline due to its inability to attract young blood (quite hard to parachute ex-generals into PAP if you are not incumbent).  PAP may still exist as a small party, but the two heavy weights have shifted to WP and SDP, with the WP taking on policies similar to what PAP had been doing, but the SDP pushing for greater liberalization and being more socialist.  In this scenario, WP becomes the Republicans while SDP becomes the Democrats.  The PAP…would be kinda like the Federalist Party.

[Addendum: It has been a popular meme for some years that the PAP would splinter and faction into separate political parties upon the passing of MM Lee.  Personally, I don’t get this impression at all, and I think the younger PAP politicians are too cookie cutter alike for this to happen.  But power struggles might always happen, so it wouldn’t be a total impossibility.  Should such a scenario occur, it would not be unlike the splitting of the Democratic-Republican Party into the Democrats and the Whigs. ]

No matter which result, the PAP’s single party hegemony is likely gone for good, and likely along with it, the kind of economic success Singapore has seen over the past 50 years.

7. Towards a more mature electorate

To me, the most disappointing thing about this GE is neither the PAP’s massive screw ups, nor the lack of substance of the opposition parties.  Both are understandable – the PAP are bureaucrats by nature and political n00bs, and the opposition parties (other than WP) are n00bs period, and unlike the PAP they they haven’t got the civil service to do the data analysis and policy formulation for them.  The most disappointing thing to me,  has been the electorate.  We have not shown much desire to think and choose carefully, and often deciding on our allegiance due to how our emotions are being stirred rather than what would make the most sense.  Look, Ms Nicole Seah has some admirable qualities such as her courage and her compassion, but is she really MP material now?  Why do you all like Ms Seah so much?  Is it not just mainly because she’s opposition plus she’s young and pretty? Do you have the view that you don’t care who you vote for as long as it is not PAP?    But don’t you realized that voting an incompetent opposition candidate into Parliament would hurt you as much or even more than having an incompetent PAP candidate? On the other side, yes Geroge Yeo is nice man and you don’t want to vote him out. But do you realize that BG George Yeo being a nice man is quite irrelevant to whether or not he is a good Minister or him doing a good job in Parliament? But the electorate’s immaturity too is also understandable – for most of the “apathetic youth” and for many first time voters, GE2011 is the first time you’ve been “politically awakened”.  So we are n00bs too.  Can’t blame us if we fall for the opposition’s rhetoric hook line and sinker.

Look, if there is one thing which can save Singapore from political turmoil, it is the electorate (not the PAP).  The electorate has to become more informed, more discerning, less tolerant of gutter politics and less tolerant of lies and rhetoric.  It would be good if we can have a website like this too.  At the end of the day, the electorate is not going to be homogenous or unanimous.  We will have different values and different things we view as important.  Some of us might value human rights more, but others might value a free market and a stable economy.  But we can all strive to be more politically mature together.  Don’t let the PAP get away with a crappy election campaign like they just did.  Don’t let the opposition goad you into feeling angry so that you will vote out of anger, but not realizing that they’re not proposing solutions to the problem either.  Always seek out opposing views and try your best to understand them before deciding to disagree.  Do you know that some economists say minimum wage ends up hurting the people more than helping them? You may not agree with these economists, but you better find out why they say so and figure out if they are right or wrong before you decide that minimum wage is a good because it sounds good.  In fact, you should be extra suspicious of policies that sound good because that’s likely to be a populist policy, and you need to listen carefully people who oppose that policy.  Yes, politics is emotional, and it’s not wrong to express emotions when talking about politics.  But make sure that your emotions are supporting a carefully deliberated and considered conviction, and not the other way round (conviction supporting your emotions).  If not, you will be manipulated time and time again by politicians who just want your vote, but don’t really want to benefit the welfare of the people.

8. Who should I vote for?

Fortunately for me, I am in Tanjong Pajar GRC.  I am actually glad I don’t get to vote, since I don’t really want to force myself to make a decision between BG Chan Chun Sing and a bunch of joker opposition candidates.  But most of you do have to vote.  I don’t think you’d really want my advice, but in case you do, this is how I advise you vote:  try to perceive the quality of the candidates and vote based on that, and nothing else. Ultimately what’s the most important is that you have the best people put in Parliament, regardless of their parties. But why nothing else?  Because firstly, don’t believe in anything you hear during rallies (on either side) because that’s usually all rhetoric, posturing, lame and tiresome analogies, or (in the case of some PAP candidates) sheer lousy speeches. (But lousy speeches doesn’t mean that they make poor MPs or ministers, although it definitely lowers their credibility.)  And secondly,  for the opposition,  half the time the proposed policies are quite crappy, mainly because they are just anyhow giving suggestions that would appeal to the voters, and they don’t have the civil service to analyze the proposed policies for them.  But even so, it’s okay to vote them into Parliament if you think they are quality candidates, because the PAP is going to form the cabinet after this GE and the opposition candidates won’t have to implement stupid policies.  Nevertheless, quality candidates would be more likely to spot blind spots or shortcomings in PAP proposed policies, and act much better as check and balance.  Also, they will need the experience of 5 years being an MP, especially when it is quite possible that in 2016 or 2021 they may soon take up cabinet positions.

I know there isn’t much to judge “quality” on, since everybody is spouting rhetoric non-stop during rallies.  For the PAP ministers, you can judge them by their track record.  That means that Ministers you think have done a good job, deserve a thumbs up from you.  For me, that means I would likely vote for PAP and Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam if I live in Jurong GRC.  But that also mean that for Ministers that you think have done a bad job, deserve a thumbs down.  I won’t know for sure, but I think would strongly consider voting for the opposition if I lived in Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, Holland-Bukit Timah or even Tampines GRC (even though I think the NSP team is kinda dubious).  How about for opposition candidates? You have no choice but to base it on superficial impressions.  Does the person appear to have integrity? Does the person display intelligence and logical reasoning? If the candidate blogs, read their blogs and what they write on facebook.  Listen to their speeches, see if they make sense. Have they displayed leadership and good decision making abilities based on their CVs? Don’t worry if their proposed policies aren’t totally correct, but be wary of those who just appeals to your emotions without proper reasoning (e.g. those who evoke your feelings of animosity towards foreigners).

How about Aljunied?  The GRC system sucks, so you got to take it by a team-by-team comparison.  For that reason, no matter how much you think BG George Yeo is a good Minister, if you think the WP Team in Aljunied on a whole has better quality candidates than the PAP team, you should vote for the WP team, regardless of municipal issues or fear of losing BG George Yeo.  Overall Singapore benefits since better candidates are elected into Parliament.  But likewise, if you think the PAP team on a whole has better quality candidates than the WP team, you should vote for the PAP team, regardless of what First World Parliament mantra.  Like it or not, we’re going to get a two-party democracy eventually, and I believe its not for the better (but it is still inevitable).  How about Marine Parade?  Of course vote for who is more chio lah. The same reasoning applies.

9. The end of FO’s journey

From young, I grew up with anti-PAP sentiments.  My mother was staunchly pro-opposition, and she had more influence over me than my father, who was pro-PAP (you can try and imagine my family was like).  When I started blogging in 2006, I too started out as an anti-PAP blogger, and started blogging mainly because I wanted to jump on the flame Wee Shu Min bandwagon.  However, through my blogging journey, I have gone from anti-PAP to slightly pro-PAP, to slightly pro-opposition, to downright confused and now, indifferent.  If there was one thing I learned, it was that I knew very little, and I needed to always ask questions to seek new insight, and to continually question my previously held convictions and subject them to review.  I believed throughout that process I had become a better thinker and a better blogger.

But throughout this journey, I have asked myself why do I keep blogging, if I am not going to be partisan and vent.  I originally thought I blogged for the selfless reason for promoting rational and civil discourse in the blogosphere. But I would be a fool for believing that – where is the rational and civil discourse? Come on, nobody wants to discuss anything with me. Commenters just want to agree with me, or call me stupid when they disagree with me.  Then maybe I thought I blogged because I wanted to provide new insight, because I always blogged something I knew other people wouldn’t have blogged about.  But very few cared if my views didn’t reinforce their already held beliefs.  Or maybe I blogged because I wanted to encourage critical thinking.  But who am I kidding, critical thinking in the blogosphere? Then recently, I finally figured out the real reason why I blogged. I blogged because I secretly think that I’m better at blogging than most people, and wanted to prove it.  I blog, because I think I’m damn good. I blog because….I am arrogant. (woo, I should join the PAP!).  And what a fricking stupid way for me to spend my time (I spend on average 4 hours typing each post).   Hence, I have made the decision to retire.  There are more important things in life that I needed to do (like my full-time job, for example, or even, finding a girlfriend). And honestly? This blogosphere needs one less self-absorbed blogger who thinks he has all the right answers.

I bid all of you farewell, especially those whom I have come to regard as friends.  I will still be contactable by email, and I would still love to engage and discuss social-political issues over another medium (email, facebook, or over coffee) if you are so inclined to do so with me.

Cheers =)