Accepting a govt that can't solve all your
problems
Leaders need to feel their way forward in
new landscape where people's demands are greater than
before
Sunday With Zuraidah
Ibrahim
Deputy Writer
Two decades ago when public figures lamented that nobody would
want to enter politics because of the loss of privacy and the
incessant attacks of critics, you sensed they were exaggerating.
But nobody could have predicted how right they would be one
day.
Back then, politicians could shroud themselves with
an aura of dignity and power. The opportunities to show them up and
take them down were limited. Today, on the Internet, politicians
are routinely ridiculed - sometimes deservedly, but often for
faults not of their own making, or for entirely fictitious,
fabricated failures. In this climate, it takes extraordinary
resolve or recklessness to run for public office.
Yet, that may not be the most daunting prospect for
would-be national leaders. Even if politicians have the stomach for
it - or if netizens miraculously become more polite - the question
is whether it is possible to meet public expectations today. Those
expectations have risen immeasurably.
Together with my colleagues Jeremy Au Yong and
Aaron Low, I have been sifting through the questions readers want
to pose to the Prime Minister. These have landed in the mailbox of
this newspaper's new current affairs website singapolitics.sg
We wanted to find out the issues foremost on the
minds of Singaporeans and to surface them to Mr Lee Hsien Loong. In
the coming week, readers will vote on the questions they want the
PM to answer.
Perhaps, we thought, the input from the ground
could feed into the ongoing "National Conversation". That
government-led exercise has its own website, oursgconversation.sg.
There, you can get a flavour of the kinds of questions that the
convenors hope Singaporeans will answer: What makes this place home
or what kind of home do you want Singapore to be? How can we have
more heart as a nation? What are your hopes for our shared
future?
The questions received by our Singapolitics website
provided a reality check. Most contributors were not really into
the "vision thing". Their concerns were more immediate and more
domestic.
Some wanted jobs for their children; others wanted
flats for themselves at better locations; some wanted help for
their small businesses. A number of middle-aged employees were
anxious about competition from younger, cheaper workers. Many were
upset about foreigners suppressing their wages and their status in
Singapore.
In this regard, it seems things have not changed
that much in Singapore. People's priorities are still the
bread-and-butter issues. Give me a roof over my head; give me a
good job; make my paper qualifications worth my investment of time
and money; and so on. And, while you're at it, bring back that bus
service and post office that you caused to disappear.
Far fewer were interested in engaging broader
issues. One or two asked about growing income inequality. A handful
wanted to know about race relations. A few asked about meritocracy.
One was concerned about pollution.
I was taken aback at first. But then I realised it
was to be expected. After all, politics everywhere is ultimately
about how to resolve conflicts over society's scarce resources.
Naturally, citizens would want politics to result in enough
resources reaching them to assure a certain quality of life. And
everyone is entitled to judge whether the country is being run to
his satisfaction, applying any benchmarks he chooses - that is the
whole point of the system of one person, one vote.
Commentators and political watchers may focus on
the bigger picture, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that
citizens measure the state of the nation by how they are faring
individually in terms of jobs, schools and other urgent and
immediate concerns.
And despite Singapore becoming a developed country,
the job of meeting people's expectations has become harder, not
easier, for anyone in charge.
First, this is because people's demands are
higher-end. For example, they no longer feel it is enough to get
their children into a school - it has to be a good school.
And even if all schools are good by some objective
criteria, parents fear their children will lose out in the rat race
unless they are in a better-than-average school. And, of course, it
is not possible for every school to be above average. Thus, in a
highly competitive society, it is harder to give people the peace
of mind that what they have is enough. Last week's announcement
that the Education Ministry will abandon banding of schools is a
symbolically important move, but on its own it won't address the
root of the problem - parents' profound anxiety over whether their
children's schools are equipping them to compete in life.
Second, Singapore has developed a petitioning
culture, where many people judge their leaders by their ability to
micromanage individual problems, rather than getting the overall
system right. More than the citizens of most other countries,
Singaporeans turn to the Government to solve their problems.
Ironically, it is the People's Action Party Government itself that
has created this mindset. In the past, a dependence on the
Government was politically convenient at the polls, especially when
it seemed to be getting most policies right - and you didn't have
netizens highlighting every mistake.
Now, however, people's instinct to rely on the
Government has become a political liability, since even the
Government knows that it cannot solve all problems.
In a sense, the National Conversation is an attempt
to address this dilemma by educating Singaporeans that governance
involves trade-offs: no government can please all the people all
the time, and long-term gain often requires short-term pain.
However, if Singapolitics' own little exercise is
anything to go by, reframing the conversation won't be easy. You
can create new spaces for consultation, but if most people want to
use them to approach officials about their immediate problems, the
nature of the interaction won't change. Instead of being like town
hall meetings where people debate shared concerns with their
elected leaders, you will get something like a Meet-the-People
Session, with a long queue of petitioners seeking redress.
Leaders will need to feel their way forward in this
new landscape. The promise of being able to deliver all of the
citizens' wants no longer holds. What then is the new social
compact? The Government will be on unfamiliar territory, needing to
moderate expectations of its omnipotence. But some will refuse to
believe that the Government can't help them; they will think it
chooses not to. Others will delight in taking the PAP down a peg.
In either case, it promises to be a rough road for those in public
office.
think, The Straits Times, September 16 2012, Pg 43
