thinking out loud

So much sound and fury over this election. i guess one thing that is distressing a lot of people is that we aren't really listening to each other. All of us monologuing, ultimately, arguing for our own causes and our own perspectives without honestly listening to and addressing the views of the other side.
.
i think the issues might be broadly classified as:
.
1) Freedom vs Security
2) Govt welfare spending vs Private / Market mechanisms for uplifting the poor
.
As usual i find myself caught in the middle. As a writer i do value the freedom of expression. Yet i know also that every freedom when exercised impinges on somebody else's freedom in one way or another. In this case, i think there are some freedoms that, for me, are sacrosanct, and for Singapore, should remain sacrosanct. The freedom not to have one's race or religion mocked or derided, for example. i think that is more important than any individual's freedom of expression.
.
Also, i happen to value community over the individual. Call me a diehard Asian. But it's a matter of values, ultimately, and that is how the chips fall for me. Maybe i've seen enough of what too much freedom can do to a society -- the USA, anyone? (ok, i guess if it is not clear by now, i am biased against the US. i don't like the place, and that is why i chose, ultimately, not to go there for further studies. i apologise to any Americans reading this blog. It's not personal. i just don't value as highly as you do the things that your country prioritises. That is all.) My experiences in the pioneering team that started the first Integrated Programme in Singapore also played a huge role in moving me away from my former liberalism. i saw what happened when we gave the kids too much freedom, not enough structure. It was an ugly mess, and nobody gained from the system, neither the kids nor the teachers nor the school. To this day, from what i hear from people still teaching there, things have not changed much. i don't want Singapore to make those mistakes, just for some abstract ideal of freedom rooted more in Western liberal thought than in any tradition belonging to any of our original ethnic communities here in Singapore.
.
Of course, i do think, in some cases, the Gahmen really does need to give people a space to speak and be heard. It could, for a start, learn to not be so sensitive to criticism. The world is a different place from 50 years ago, and Singaporeans are a cosmopolitan bunch, exposed to ideas from developed societies elsewhere, and wanting those ideas to take root here in Singapore as well. Ideas about civil rights, for example. Any heavy-handed response to critical comments about the Gahmen, is perceived as insecurity and arrogance. So learning to be more open-hearted will be good for the G's relationship with the citizenry. Not only that. Any society or organisation needs variety to make it robust and resilient. It's true of genetics; it's true also, i think, of ideas. Difference is important, because it is what equips societies with a variety of different tools for dealing with the full variety of challenges that it has to face. So both in terms of PR and also in terms of good ol' Singaporean pragmatism, the Gahmen needs to adapt and learn to embrace difference, while still exercising leadership and setting a direction. A difficult but necessary balance.

i think this election is showing that the excessively strict control of the past has had a detrimental effect on Singaporeans' ability to think fairly, fair-mindedly. Sometimes, watching the response to the Opposition parties here, it feels to me as if Singaporeans are like pastors' kids gone wrong: growing up in an excessively strict environment, all they need is the first whiff of freedom and everyone is suddenly going berserk. Babies being thrown out with the bathwater left right and centre.There has to be, must be, another way.
.
The other area where the Gahmen really needs to review its current modus operandi is in its current approach towards our national history. My dad had friends who ended up being exiled in the Thai jungles for their political beliefs during the immediate post-independence period. They've never come back, because to return would be to face criminal charges in court. They're old now, and so much time has passed. They bear little anger towards the Gahmen -- i think they accepted, even at the time, that politics is a dirty game and there are winners and losers. That doesn't mean that i think their stories should just be allowed to be drowned in some well of historical amnesia. It's bad for Singapore, in the long run, if these parallel (not alternative, parallel) stories are silenced. So the Gahmen could be less paranoid and fearful, because clamping down on these other voices does not increase the G's credibility, contrary to what it thinks. Instead, it makes it look like the G has something to hide, and it gives the anti-Gahmen crowd more fuel for their fire. i wish the Gahmen would do themselves a favour, and admit that there are always different perspectives on any historical event. Any human story for that matter.
.
And if the Gahmen doesn't trust Singaporeans to understand that, then OK, i can understand the distrust. i teach, and so i see how some of our 18-year-olds think. i'm not sure if they will necessarily be thinking any differently or better when they get older. But in that case, then i think the solution is to highlight to the public that there are different perspectives. Perhaps education has something to do with this as well. (Yes, always, blame the education system. It's as convenient as blaming parents. But unfortunately, education often does have a lot to do with it.) Perhaps some systematic and thorough teaching of critical thinking is necessary. Not integrated into some other subject like History or General Paper, but as a subject in its own right. i remember the CORT Thinking lessons i had back in primary school. Those were useful, i felt. Fun and accessible even at a pretty young age. i do wonder if it would work with all students. A pilot programme, perhaps, across a broad range of schools with kids of different abilties? That might be a good idea.

And finally, the question of parliamentary representation. Surely, voting more opposition MPs into Parliament should do the trick? Well, yes, but. i refuse to vote for the opposition simply because it is not the incumbent. Whoever i vote for, it will be because 1) i agree with their party's vision and policy direction, and 2) i believe that the individual MP is honest and capable.
.
.
2)
Helping the less privileged -- govt welfare, or private initiative + the market?
.
Sitting on the fence, again. And again, it is because of my background. (Story-telling here, unfortunately. Please indulge me for a moment.)
.
My dad grew up in a poor family. My grandparents were uneducated pig-farmers, and Dad lived in a kampung until his mid-40s. As a child in the 1930s and 40s, he had to juggle his schoolwork, helping out on the farm, and also, selling pet fish to help supplement the household income. He had 8 younger siblings, and although he could have gone to university, he didn't, because he had to start work to earn money for the family.
.
Dad was the poor boy made good of the family. He's the one who managed to keep a good, stable job; live frugally and save enough to buy landed property; marry a good sensible and wise woman who manages the household well. He even got a university degree eventually -- albeit through distance-learning with Xiamen University in the 1960s. His siblings didn't do so well. Some of them fell into gambling; quite a few of them made poor life decisions, married unwisely, were just generally layabouts who didn't make good use of the opportunities given to them. Dad tried to advise and warn them, of course. But at the end of the day, we are all responsible for our own choices; they were stubborn and insisted on their own way. i have an uncle who, to this day, occasionally comes to borrow money from us claiming that he needs it for his daughter. That is not true. He uses the money to gamble, and sometimes pays us back. Sometimes. My mum now has a cap on how much we will allow him to owe us at any one time; we are strict about enforcing this rule. There has to be a line drawn somewhere.
.
So i am both sympathetic to the poor and disadvantaged, and also, skeptical of claims that they cannot be made to bear responsibility for their plight. Of course that is sometimes true. Sometimes, life does throw us curveballs; sometimes our circumstances do prevent us from living a flourishing life. But very often, we do have some degree of control over how we respond to circumstances and therefore, how things eventually work out. There's no black and white answer.
.
When i look at the arguments for more welfare, i wholeheartedly agree with the need to do more for the underprivileged here in Singapore. i'm just not convinced that the answer is to give them more money. Not directly, anyway. i think the answer is to enable education; to put in place structures to ensure that children are not disadvantaged by the sins of their fathers. All of which our government already does do to some degree.
.
The problem is, not enough. And the reason it's not enough, is because our society has changed so fast (third world to first, in 50 years), and because poverty is relative. Most of current policies were put in place long ago (i need to check when; but i know it's been some time). Singapore was different then. There was less income inequality; most people were in the lower or lower-middle income groups. Social policy gave these people equal opportunities to get ahead. But, as the story of my dad and his siblings indicates, even with equal opportunities, some people are just more equal than others. Either in natural talent and ability and character, or, unfortunately, in the Unexpected Life Events that happen to all of us at some point through no fault of our own. So Singapore is a different place now. We have one of the highest Gini coefficients in the world. The Gahmen needs to do something about this. So far it has not done enough. But it is adapting. And i believe it will keep on adapting. And at the end of the day, between a (slowly) adapting government that values fiscal prudence, and new unknown people taking over the reins of power and the national budget, i'm going with the safe option. The world outside is so uncertain and unstable now, and we are a tiny red dot that nobody has any reason to give a shit about. This is not the time for sudden change, and major mistakes require a lot of time to recover from; and once something like excessive welfarism becomes a habit, it is hard to eradicate. That has been the experience in other countries. Who are we to believe that human nature is any different here in Singapore?
.
Maybe i'm growing old. But i feel such a gulf between me and my younger friends, and also, my artsy liberal friends. The temptation is to join in the shouting with everyone else; exchange sharp arguments on Facebook or in face-to-face conversation. But i don't think that would help matters. i wrote this to clarify my own thoughts. But also to at least try to speak to both sides while explaining my stand. i think we HAVE to, as a nation. It's difficult, but we have to try.
.
i'm not so optimistic or self-deluded to think that what i've written here will be good enough for anyone else. But for the moment, it's good enough for me. My conscience is clear. i know where i stand, and why. And now i can get back to the damned marking.
.
.