 |
 |
 |
 |
Catherine Lim's recent article has caused
quite a stir. Her article alleges that the government's
policy on minsterial pay has "soured" the spirit of
Singapore 21. We reproduce her article and some of the
following exchanges here:
PAP and the people: A return of
disaffection?
By
Catherine Lim
Dissent reflects a society
alive to S21
Letter by
Minister of State David T E Lim
Extend S21 spirit to the
Corner
Letter by Siew Kum
Hong
PAP and the people: A return of
disaffection?
| By Catherine Lim |
Straits Times, Aug 26,
2000 |
FIVE years ago, I wrote an article called
"The Great Affective Divide", published in The Straits
Times, in which I described what I felt was a serious
problem in Singapore, namely, an emotional estrangement
between the Government and the people.
I had
identified the chief cause of the estrangement as a
general resentment by the people of what they perceived
as an arrogant, high-handed and authoritarian government
style that cared little for their feelings, so that,
despite the good life created for them by the
Government's efficiency and hard work, they felt
justified to express this resentment freely through
whatever channels were available, such as coffeeshop and
cocktail-party talk, and the casting of votes in the
elections.
In the years since, this relationship
between the Government and the people had, very
hearteningly, improved, thanks largely to the Prime
Minister's earnest launch of a new dispensation, which,
in its emphasis on trust, understanding and caring, was
a marked departure from the past.
It was a
dispensation that fitted well with the Prime Minister's
personal popularity.
Touchingly called "The
Singapore Heartbeat", the new movement for national
renewal was envisioned to create a strong sense of
bonding among all Singaporeans, regardless of ethnicity,
age or socio-economic background, and a robust,
unabashed loyalty towards Singapore, true, cherished
home at last and not some station on the way to greener
pastures.
The Prime Minister's vision clearly
found resonance in the hearts and minds of the
people.
What followed was a sincere attempt on
both sides to give substance to the vision.
It
was best demonstrated during the Asian economic crisis
by the readiness of both Government and people to pull
together and make sacrifices, no matter how painful, to
see the country through that difficult
time.
Through it all was the exhilarating
sensation that for the first time in the
government-people relationship, there was the beginning
of a real camaraderie, even warmth, which truly befitted
the spirit of the nation's new rallying cry of
"Singapore 21".
But something is happening now
that is threatening to sour the spirit. There seems to
be a return of the old disaffection, triggered by the
return of an old issue.
Whether cause or symptom,
the issue of the ministerial pay increases is once again
provoking strong reaction from the people and causing
them to raise their voices to a new level of concern, as
seen in the letters to the press, newspaper commentaries
and articles, public forums, TV phone-in comments and
question-and-answer sessions with government
representatives, not to mention the ubiquitous
coffeeshop talk.
The arguments on both sides have
basically remained the same.
On its part, the
Government, to justify the hefty pay increases,
comparable to the best in the private sector, is
reiterating the old emphasis on the need, so crucial for
the very survival of Singapore, not only to attract the
best talent into public service, but also to keep it
there, free from the temptation of corruption and fully
focused on the task of good, clean, efficient
government.
On their part, the people are
reiterating the old reasons for their disquiet -- the
anomaly of assigning a precise monetary value to
national leadership, the danger of creating a culture
where such time-honoured values as selfless public
service and personal sacrifice no longer
count.
HARD PRAGMATISM VS IDEALISM
The only new thing about the arguments from both
sides is the elaborateness of their illustrations, the
Government giving detailed statistics of so many billion
dollars saved as a result of astute decision-making
during the economic crisis, and the people reeling off
examples of countries, such as Finland, Denmark and New
Zealand where no high ministerial salaries are needed
for fine public service and incorruptibility.
In
essence, the Government's stand is that of hard
pragmatism and the people's that of moral idealism. Why
has the controversy cropped up again, when others,
equally heated, such as that related to the bringing in
of foreign workers, have apparently been settled once
and for all, or simply consigned to
oblivion?
There are clearly two
reasons.
Firstly, the issue, being about money,
is of special interest to all, whether professionals or
blue-collar workers, young or old, HDB Heartlanders or
Condominium Cosmopolitans.
The dollars-and-cents
aspect of the issue is the one most readily grasped by
all, especially the working man-in-the-street who still
cannot get over the fact that the monthly pay of a
minister is more than his total life savings will ever
be.
Already there is the suspicion, clearly
unfounded but no less real, that once launched on this
path of a relentless tie-up with the high achieving
private sector, the Government's policy on ministerial
salaries can only spiral upwards in the coming years,
creating an even more breathtaking gap between the
public servant and the public he serves.
The
debate has, in the most alarming way, moved away from
principles to the crude outlines of money-talk, with the
leaders in effect saying, "To be a good, honourable,
efficient, clean government, we have to pay ourselves
well," and the people saying, "To be a good, honourable,
efficient, clean government, you don't have to pay
yourselves that well."
The second reason for the
persistence of the issue as a debating topic has to do
with its uniqueness. Whereas previous topics seemed
clear-cut, this issue is fraught with
self-contradictions.
A decision purportedly made
for the good of Singaporeans in the long term is seen to
benefit the decision-makers, and most substantially too,
in the short term.
Here is an odd situation where
nobility of end is obscured by dubiousness of means,
where sincerity of intention is clouded by ambiguity of
method.
A TEDIOUS DANCE RITUAL
Even the most severe critic of the Government
cannot accuse it of greed, yet even the most loyal
apologist will be hard put to offer a
defence.
Never has an issue been more caught in a
tangle of complicated logic and fractious emotion, or
resulted in a wider gap between government thinking and
people feeling.
Perhaps the most disturbing thing
about this second round of the debate is that while both
sides are having their due say, neither appears to
believe it will make the least difference. A kind of
fatigue has set in.
The Government and the people
seem no longer to be in dialogue; they appear to be
talking at rather than to each other.
Indeed,
there is the eerie sensation of the observer that both
sides are merely going through the motions and paces of
a practised stance, doing an accustomed, tedious but
necessary dance with each other.
The Government
seems to be saying, a little wearily: "We will keep
explaining our decision, as meticulously and as
patiently as we can, for as long as you like, but don't
expect us to change it in any way."
And the
people seem to be saying with equal weariness: "We know.
But since there is this new climate that allows for
freer expression than we have been used to, we might as
well make use of it, and have our say, for all it's
worth."
In the end, the situation remains the
same, caught in a time warp where everything else around
is moving on.
The debate on the ministerial
salaries is as good an example as any to elucidate a
point I now wish to make, to draw attention to what I
feel is the beginning of a serious problem in the
government-people relationship, which threatens to
negate all the gains we have made so far in the new
dispensation of Singapore 21.
What is happening,
as demonstrated so vividly in the debate, is the
persistence of a government strategy of managing public
dissent that had worked well in the past and is clearly
assumed to work just as well in the present (and
possibly the future).
Through this strategy, the
Government ensures that while people are publicly
allowed any extent of disagreement, privately and
quietly, their views can be disregarded.
The
skill of the strategy is apparent in an analysis of its
stage-by-stage operation.
First, the Government,
having made a major policy decision, throws it open for
public discussion, allowing, even encouraging the people
to voice their views freely through the permitted
channels such as the forum pages of the newspapers and
the face-to-face feedback sessions with their Members of
Parliament.
The people accordingly respond, often
with much spirit and candour.
The Government next
waits for the noise to reach a certain level, then steps
in to say, with business-like briskness: "Enough. Let's
get back to work." Following which, the media duly wrap
up the debate, and the people withdraw and return once
more to the concerns of their busy
lives.
ISSUES QUIETLY LAID TO REST
Soon, the issue is forgotten or allowed to die a
natural death. Issues quietly laid to rest through this
process include those related to the levy on foreign
maids, the exclusion of single, unmarried mothers from
ownership of government-subsidised flats, the decision
that all speakers in the Speakers' Corner at Hong Lim
should first register themselves and the decision not to
allow gay groups to hold public
forums.
Presumably, the most recent issue of the
ministerial salaries, as well as future issues will meet
the same fate.
The reason for the success of this
strategy, so patently manipulative, actually has to do
with the Government's special brand of honest,
well-intentioned pragmatism, that dismisses fine talk
and popular appeal for proven efficiency and hard work,
to earn the support of the people.
Through a
sustained record, the Government has over the years
built up a large fund of goodwill from which it has been
drawing to see it through even the most unpopular
policies.
Seemingly inexhaustible, the fund has
enabled the Government to tell the people confidently:
"You have voted us in again and again. This is all the
proof we need of your absolute trust in us, so please
leave us to do a good job." And to throw in a little
sharpness if the people prove too cantankerous: "If you
don't like what we are doing, you can vote us out in the
next elections," knowing full well that as long as there
is no viable alternative government, this is not likely
to happen.
This has been the scenario of the
government-people relationship for as long as anyone can
remember.
The point I wish to make, with all
earnestness, sincerity and humility, is that this stance
of the Government will no longer work in the new age of
a globally exposed, younger, more articulate, impatient
and restless generation of Singaporeans.
Indeed,
the fund of goodwill, so necessary for the smooth
carrying through of each government programme, is in
danger of being depleted by a return of disaffection, as
clearly demonstrated by the issue of the ministerial
salaries.
There are three outcomes of this issue
which could lead to an accelerated depletion.
The
first is an unmitigated spite, born of frustration,
causing the people henceforth to unfairly blame the
Government for any manifestation of greed, corruption
and disregard of moral responsibility in the behaviour
of Singaporeans, as was indeed implied in the public
criticism of the 11 young government-scholarship holders
who had arrogantly announced that they would have no
qualms whatsoever about breaking their bond, in pursuit
of more lucrative jobs elsewhere.
The second
outcome is the cynicism that inevitably follows
disillusionment, causing the people, once again
unfairly, to view all future government pronouncements
touching on the theme of civic or moral duty, as nothing
more than hollow statements.
The controversy may
have effectively wiped out of the Government's
vocabulary such words as "service", "selflessness" and
"moral rectitude" because all these now come with a
price tag attached.
The third outcome -- and the
most disheartening -- is the bewilderment and
disenchantment of the small pool of dedicated
Singaporean volunteers in charity and community work,
which will result in the pool becoming even smaller,
firstly because these volunteers will now see very
little in the way of inspiring example and secondly
because they are unlikely to be replaced by a younger
generation brought up on the raw economic
imperative.
The prospect is a bleak one. It will
be bleakest when all this disaffection translates into a
diminished loyalty to the nation, since respect, regard
and loyalty are inextricably linked
together.
Since the Government, in its long rule,
has become equated with the country, loyalty to the
nation and loyalty to the PAP leadership will in fact be
one and the same.
In the end, it will be a much
debased kind of loyalty, being really no more than an
attraction to the good life which the PAP Government has
given.
Exposed to other, competing attractions of
the larger world, it will shift with the competition,
moving to new shores when circumstances change and
coming back to Singapore should the circumstances change
once more, the only constant in all the flux being
self-interest. To these unrooted, mobile, restless
Singaporeans, Singapore will gradually cease to be
nation and home, and become no more than a convenient
way-station, a hotel of transit.
Globalisation
will increasingly make this opportunistic moving around
much easier and more readily justifiable.
The
"I'll-bide-my-time-and-wait-to-see-what-comes-up"
mentality will be the most detrimental to the vision of
Singapore 21. This is an extremely grim prospect,
whether five, 10 or 20 years down the
road.
CHANGE OF MINDSET
As
long as it remains a possibility, it ought to be painted
in the grimmest colours, to sound the loudest alarm. For
no less than the future of a nation is at
stake.
The possibility surely has no place in the
Prime Minister's vision of a happy, dedicated and united
people who will together navigate the rough seas of a
new and pitiless world.
If the beginnings of the
danger are acknowledged, what might be done to stem
them?
In a situation where the Government is the
sole, unquestioned source of power and influence, any
corrective action will obviously have to start with
itself.
As in any major programme of change and
renewal, the essential starting point is always a change
of mindset.
With all due respect, it may be
pointed out that the Government's long accustomed stance
of regarding the feelings and perceptions of the people
as of little relevance to its processes of
decision-making, will have to be reviewed and revised.
It worked well in the past, with a less highly-educated,
less exposed generation. But even the best-proven, most
successful methods will have to be revised to service
the expectations of a new era.
Indeed, managing
the expectations of a new generation in a relentlessly
shifting global order may well prove to be the
Government's biggest challenge in the future.
It
will not be at all easy for a leadership, so long in
control, so regularly vindicated in the elections, so
lavishly praised by the outside world for its brilliant,
sustained economic achievements, to want to make what
must be a drastic, if not humbling change, in order to
acknowledge the role of perceptions and emotions from
the ground, that it has so long
distrusted.
Moreover, it seems such presumption,
even downright ingratitude on the part of the people, to
take up this position towards a Government whose only
fault seems to be an unremitting sense of reality in
guiding the society through a harsh and imperfect
world.
But surely, the need to listen to voices
raised repeatedly and urgently, even if jarringly, is
also part of this sense of reality.
The
perceptions of the people, though often clouded by
emotion, though often incapable of standing up to the
impeccable logic of the Government's stern pragmatism,
are still a necessary factor in any calculus for a
productive government-people relationship, if only
because perceptions, if ignored, have a way of
translating into stark political eventuality.
We
have seen this happen again and again in the region and
elsewhere. The most direful eventuality in Singapore
that a growing disaffection could bring about, will
never be anything like the street unruliness that inept,
corrupt governments deserve.
Instead it will be a
slow, invisible, and hence, more insidious process,
steadily eroding the structure of trust, respect and
regard that has been painstakingly built up in the new
dispensation of Singapore 21.
POLITICAL
SCLEROSIS
A change of mindset of this
magnitude on the part of the Government has never been
seen before.
It will call for incredible courage
for a start, and incredible patience to see
through.
For this reason, it will provide the
supreme inspiration for the people to rise,
spontaneously and wholeheartedly, to heed the call for
any collaborative exercise in national renewal and
change, for any measure of sacrifice in a national
crisis.
For this reason too, it has to be made
soon, if political sclerosis is not to set in with a
hardening of old habits, if the vision of a society,
kept whole and strong and united through the fracturing
forces of a perilous new world order, is to be
fulfilled.
The vision thrilled and inspired when
it was first articulated.
It thrills still, for
there must be many among us who had witnessed an
earlier, fractious time and who now yearn for the
blossoming of an era of even greater achievement,
touched by high purpose and grace.
It would be
such a sad day if the vision, somewhere along the way
because of our failure to listen any more, were allowed
to dim and lose its illuminating and uplifting
power.
[Dr Lim is an accomplished writer
of short stories, including bestsellers such as The
Teardrop Story Woman.]
Dissent reflects a society alive to
S21
I refer to Dr Catherine Lim's article,
"PAP and the people: A return of disaffection?" (ST, Aug
26).
Dr Lim alleges that the warmth in the
relationship between people and government, brought
about by the vision and spirit of Singapore 21, has been
soured by the Government's policy on ministers'
pay.
Furthermore, that this issue belies a more
fundamental disaffection between people and government
caused by the Government's deliberate and manipulative
strategy to ignore public feedback, while purportedly
encouraging it.
This is untrue.
The
Government is open and transparent about its policy on
ministers' pay. This is in the spirit of Singapore
21.
Consultation and discussion of national
issues must include prickly and difficult problems, and
not just soft, non-contentious matters.
Every
government has to decide how to pay its ministers, and
defend its decision publicly.
The People's Action
Party (PAP) Government has chosen to pay ministers a
salary that reflects the responsibility of the job, the
quality of candidates we are looking for and what such
persons earn in the private sector, with an appropriate
but not excessive discount.
This does not mean
that ministers work only for the money. There is no
contradiction between receiving a fair wage and being
committed to serve the public and work for the
well-being of the country.
This Government has
never broken faith with the people.
Far from
being ambiguous or dubious, the Government has given a
clear account to the public of how ministers are to be
paid and why it believes this is the best way to have
good men and women continue to govern
Singapore.
The Government has not ignored public
feedback.
It has explained its reasons fully, and
listened to public reactions. Despite a full debate in
Parliament, PM Goh Chok Tong took time in his National
Day Rally speech to set this policy in context, and to
explain it directly to Singaporeans.
Not everyone
may accept Mr Goh's explanation. But, then, this is also
the case with other policies.
But after a matter
has been fully debated, it is the Government's
responsibility to make a decision, and move
on.
If there is dissent, then the Government has
to manage it. I agree with Dr Lim that managing the
expectations of a new generation may well be the
Government's biggest challenge.
But I do not
agree that such dissent dims the vision of Singapore 21,
or that managing dissent is manipulative.
Rather,
it reflects a society that is alive to the ideals of the
vision and working together to find responses to
challenges and constraints that are workable and
supported by a majority of Singaporeans.
The
Government will work with the people to realise these
ideals. It will continue to engage the public, listen to
feedback and incorporate good ideas into its
policies.
And it will persevere in this task even
if sceptics scoff, because this is what the PAP
Government believes in.
If Singaporeans lose
faith in the PAP, and become convinced that its policies
are wrong, many people will quickly emerge to oppose the
PAP and challenge it in elections.
Saying this is
not to throw in any sharpness to the argument, but to
remind us of democracy's basic foundations -- that, in a
democratic society, the people decide whom they will
trust to lead them to the future they wish
for.
DAVID LIM
Minister of State for
Defence and Information and the Arts
Extend S21 spirit to the
Corner
I REFER to the letter by Minister of
State (Defence, Information and the Arts) David Lim,
"Dissent reflects a society alive to S21" (ST, Aug
31).
He refuted as untrue Dr Catherine Lim's
argument that the Government was engaged in a deliberate
and manipulative strategy to ignore public feedback,
while purportedly encouraging it.
I agree with
his statement that "if there is dissent, then the
Government has to manage it".
But I disagree with
this statement:
"(The Government) will continue
to engage the public, listen to feedback and incorporate
good ideas into its policies."
The comments by
Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng, as quoted in "'Govt
not tracking Hong Lim speakers'" (ST, Sept 4), would
appear to support Dr Lim's argument while contradicting
Mr Lim's.
Mr Wong said that the proper place for
debating "serious issues", such as the law on harbouring
illegal immigrants, was Parliament.
It may be
that the Speakers' Corner is not the most appropriate
place for a serious discussion on important
issues.
But to limit the platform for, or the
participants in, any discussion of "serious issues" to
Parliament and MPs is, surely, tantamount to saying that
the public can have no relevant role in such
discussions.
How then can this be reconciled with
Mr Lim's suggestion that the Government engages the
public and listens to feedback?
It is troubling
that a minister as senior as Mr Wong appears to hold
views that are inconsistent with Singapore 21's goal of
creating an active citizenry.
Mr Lim noted,
rightly, that the biggest challenge for the Government
will be to manage the people's expectations.
Mr
Wong's remarks would not have furthered that cause.
SIEW KUM HONG
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
