the following is the full transcript of Dr
Catherine Lim’s acceptance speech on being awarded the ‘Lifetime
Achievement Award’ by the Online Citizen on the occasion of its 5th
Anniversary, on 13 January 2012.
–
Following the shock results of the General Election
of 2011 (GE 2011) there was, as expected, a flurry of commentaries
analyzing the causes. But the analyses left out what could turn out
to be the most interesting and intriguing one of all. Thus while
they examined, with forensic thoroughness, the people’s anger
against the unpopular PAP policies related to foreign workers and
the ministerial salaries, while they scrutinized the resentment
against PAP arrogance, they failed to mention what I have
rather facetiously called PAP Fatigue , that is, an
overwhelming sense of weariness with a ruling party that has been
around for far too long.
The weariness would appear to be part of human nature,
a natural disposition to react negatively to an imposed environment
of oppressive sameness and uniformity, the reaction being all the
stronger when there is no prospect of change.
For nearly 50 years, Singaporeans had never known any
form of government except the one-party rule of the PAP, had never
been exposed to any but the authoritarian and peremptory PAP style,
had never experienced democracy except the carefully edited PAP
version.
Some years ago, on the occasion of the fortieth
anniversary of the party’s rule, then Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew
declared that since the PAP government was the best, it should be
around for the next 40 years. If he had his wish, it would mean
that Singaporeans would have to live permanently with PAP
fatigue.
Yet into the twenty first century, conditions in
Singapore were already ripe for political change. For the society
was arguably among the most technologically advanced and globally
connected in the world, and the most aggressively capitalistic.
This meant that Singaporeans were well exposed to other forms of
government, to examples of properly functioning, two-way
government-people relationships, examples of robust civic
societies.
Why then, for nearly half a century, did the Singapore
electorate choose to endure PAP Fatigue?
The reason must lie in the special compact between the
PAP government and the people, which though only implicit, was
nevertheless strong and binding. According to this compact, the
government would provide the people with the highest possible level
of material prosperity, political stability and social orderliness
, and the people, in return, would show full co-operation and
support for whatever decisions the government made and whatever
policies it chose to enforce.
So under a rule far longer than any seen in other
countries, during which the PAP exerted control in virtually every
domain of life, the fatigue factor, because it was not allowed free
expression, simply settled into a general docility and conformity
of thinking, feeling and behaving. If it dared rouse itself into
political agitation, it was quickly smacked down by that fearful
instrument of control, the Internal Security Act or ISA, by which
activists could be detained without trial. And there was also that
equally feared instrument, the defamation suit by which political
critics could be financially crippled for life.
Through it all, the people must have constantly
reminded themselves that it was still a very worthwhile trade-off,
for they were enjoying a degree of prosperity unmatched in the
region. In any case, even if they wanted an alternative government,
there was simply no prospect of any, since the existing opposition
parties were just so pitifully small, weak and helpless. Taking
into account all these factors, Singaporeans must have come to the
conclusion that their lot, though somewhat complicated, was by no
means a bad one.
Hence, it did not matter that outsiders were making
unflattering observations of us, for instance, that Singaporeans
had become a nation of unquestioning and compliant subjects,
incapable of acting on their own, with no interests beyond
bread-and-butter concerns and the famous 5Cs of social success.
Singaporean students might perform brilliantly in exams but were
woefully lacking in independent thinking, creative expression and
social skills. The Singapore media and other public institutions
were predictably, boringly pro-Establishment. Most of all, there
was no identifiable Singapore culture beyond the ubiquitous food
centres and shopping malls.
If in a general election, PAP Fatigue managed to
surface in little pockets of angry voting, it made no difference
whatsoever to the general state of affairs. This was true of all
the previous 11 elections; after each one, the antagonism duly
subsided, the people went back to their accustomed acquiescence and
the government to its accustomed strongman methods. It was business
as usual.
So what happened in the 12th election to make GE 2011
so different as to be called a defining election, a watershed,
after which things could never be the same ? Had the fatigue factor
finally reached the stage of ‘enough is enough’, and struck back as
a retaliatory force that took by surprise even the supremely
confident PAP? Had it managed to link up with the other causes of
voter discontent, to form one huge, super anti-PAP force that
actually did the unimaginable, that is, compel the PAP leaders, led
by the Prime Minister himself, to offer public apologies in an
amazing display of contrition, humility and earnestness never seen
before?
And did this extraordinary outpouring imply something
that was just too good to be true: that in future the government
would think twice before ramming through one unpopular policy after
another, such as the deplorable one of the ministerial
salaries?
Indeed, it may be said that what the people
accomplished in GE 2011 was nothing less than historic – putting an
end to fifty years of political apathy, fifty years of a losing
compact with the government.
At this stage of my deliberations, a very pertinent
question may be asked: Is this a true picture of GE 2011 and its
outcomes? Or it is somewhat exaggerated, overly optimistic?
We’ll see. Going further in the deliberations, I am now
going to suggest that the main reason for the obvious effectiveness
of the fatigue factor was the concurrence of two special
happenings, unique to GE 2011, which interacted to produce an
effect that neither on its own could have achieved.
The first was the emergence of a group of voters who,
by virtue of a natural restlessness and impatience were the most
likely group to turn PAP Fatigue into an active fighting force .
These were the young voters, in their twenties and thirties, many
of them first-time voters, with the natural tendency of youth to
get easily bored and start clamouring for change.
Thus even the mere fact of the PAP’s very long presence
in the political scene would have been enough for the fatigue
factor to kick in and make a difference in votes. But what
seriously aggravated this fact was the perception of the young
voters, accompanied by strong resentment, that the PAP government
had become totally indifferent to their needs and aspirations.
They were, in the typical language of youth, ‘pissed
off’ by certain well-known attributes of the PAP which ,though
generally detestable, were especially repugnant to the young.
These included the overbearing, intolerant and
patronizing approach that was so stifling to their vibrant and
creative energies; the elitism, superiority and highhandedness that
offended their youthful ideals of equality and fair play; the
inflexibility, stiffness, and formality that were at odds with the
casual, spontaneous, friendly manner that they favoured.
If additionally, this group shared the overall voter
perception that the PAP, despite its claims of high standards of
leadership, was becoming too lax, complacent and arrogant , and
losing touch with the common people, then the hostility would have
been that much greater.
The second mentioned special happening in GE 2011 was
the emergence of a force which provided exactly the hope that these
disaffected young voters needed, exactly the channel for their
blocked and frustrated energies. This was the amazingly revitalized
Workers’ Party, the clear star of the opposition.
It quickly came to represent for them all that the PAP
lacked: a simple, casual, unassuming style that dispensed with pomp
and ceremony ( there was a post-election picture in the newspapers
showing the party chairman in a Hawaiian shirt riding a bicycle and
another one of him conferring with his new constituents in a
Spartan setting of basic furniture set up in an HDB void deck); a
bold, creative flair for new ideas, as seen in the party slogan of
‘A First World Parliament’ that clearly resonated with these young
voters ; a calm dignity throughout the hurly burly of the hustings,
which must have impressed them deeply because it contrasted so
sharply with the shocking display of vindictive anger by a senior
PAP member.
Perhaps the most attractive attribute of the Workers’
Party for these young Singaporeans was something that the PAP had
routinely and contemptuously dismissed as irrelevant in leadership,
but which the young, in their media-saturated world, prize highly –
charisma. A newcomer in the Workers’Party, was quickly seen to
embody this quality: he had not only the dazzling credentials of a
top academic, entrepreneur and CEO, but also the glamorous good
looks of a star ( A female newspaper columnist wrote gushingly
about his choice of a certain style of shirt, showing him in three
pictures smiling like a true celebrity basking in the adulation of
fans)
In short, these young voters saw the PAP as old , dull
and stale, belonging to the past, and the Worker’s Party as new,
bright and hip, pointing to the future.
The prominence of this group of voters on the electoral
stage may irritate some PAP sympathisers and provoke this question:
Why bother about them when they do not, after all, comprise the
majority, and, in any case, will soon outgrow the immaturity of
youth?
The conclusion which the PAP leaders have probably
already reached is this : this group of voters cannot be ignored;
on the contrary, they must be singled out for special attention and
wooing, for numerous compelling reasons.
Firstly, they will be active voters for a long time to
come, and must therefore be quickly weaned from their present
hostility. Secondly, they are the young citizens, in an ageing
population, whom the government will have to depend on for the
country’s future development, and who must therefore not feel
alienated enough to want to leave the country and emigrate.
Thirdly, they belong to the increasingly powerful world of the
Internet and the social media, which no government in the world can
afford to ignore. Fourthly, because in GE 2011, they clearly had
the support of a large number of older voters who could easily
identify with them, they might be setting a dangerous precedent –
starting a trend of strong generational unity within the anti-PAP
camp that could only work to its advantage.
Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, the exuberance,
boldness and defiance of the young voters, operating in the new
media world of instant, dazzling communication, could be infectious
enough to have an unstoppable snowball effect, engulfing other
groups of voters, including even those normally sympathetic towards
the PAP. In fact, something like this could already have happened,
as may be inferred by the 40% vote against the PAP in the General
Election swelling to an alarming 65% vote against the PAP-endorsed
candidate in the Presidential Election some months later.
In short, possibly for the first time in Singapore’s
electoral history, a small core of young voters had provided the
sparks that started a fire that could set off a whole conflagration
if not stopped.
Thus it was not surprising that the PAP quickly swung
into a massive campaign of damage control, repair and rebuilding.
The Prime Minister announced, almost immediately after GE 2011,
that the PAP would ‘re-invent’ itself in order to win back the
people’s trust. The term is a much stronger one than
‘self-renewal’, used to describe an on-going exercise in which
young potential leaders are systematically recruited and trained to
replace the older leaders, to prevent complacency and carelessness
from ever setting in.
‘Re-invention’ implies much more than self-renewal – it
means a complete overhaul, a transformation, a born-again PAP that
has an entirely new compact with the people. As if to convince the
people of his utter sincerity, the Prime Minister used another,
even more impressive-sounding word : he told the nation that from
now onwards, he and his team would be ‘servant-leaders’. ( I
remember gasping at the use of the word) ‘Servant-leaders’ – the
ultimate oxymoron that must have made many people sit up and ask:
did I hear right? Never had a prime minister so earnestly pledged
so drastic a change of leadership style , so soon after an
election.
At this point, I have to come in as a skeptic, and show
the other side of the GE 2011 picture, which I fear is not at all
pretty. I believe that the PAP is incapable of re-inventing itself,
because true re-invention would require the opening up of one
crucial area, that the PAP seems determined to keep under control
at all cost. This is the area of political liberties – open debate
and criticism, independence of the media, public assemblies and
street demonstrations for a cause,etc., all of which are taken for
granted in practising democracies.
Over the years, the government had reluctantly made
small concessions, such as allowing a Speakers’ Corner, relaxing
some censorship laws, tweaking a rule here, tinkering with another
there, never going beyond these small, meager offerings that
Singaporeans had no choice but to accept because there was nothing
better.
In this regard, PAP Fatigue has an additional meaning
for political critics like myself– a frustrating, exhausting
weariness with the PAP government, not because it has been around
too long, but because during this long period of rule, it has not
seen fit to nurture the people politically, and has failed to
provide the proper environment for political education and growth.
This right of the people is so basic and fundamental that no amount
of material wealth can compensate for its denial or loss.
Still, assuming that the Prime Minister is sincere in
his pledge and that he understands the mood of high expectancy in
what may be described as Singapore’s version of the Arab Spring,
the following questions are pertinent. Just what can the PAP
government do to win the people’s trust , and once and for all,
establish a proper basis for a working government-people
relationship? To match the watershed expectations generated by GE
2011, what watershed act of re-invention is it prepared to
undertake? With special reference to the by now obvious threat of
the PAP Fatigue phenomenon, what can the government do to prevent
it from ever appearing again, not only among the young voters, but
the entire Singapore electorate?
Some months ago, a group of 16 ex-political detainees
jointly petitioned the government to set up a commission of inquiry
to look into the allegations against them. The petition was
promptly dismissed; the government later issued a terse statement
to say that since all the proper procedures about the matter had
already been taken, no further action was needed.
I was acutely disappointed. For I thought that the PAP
had missed a fantastic opportunity to prove to the people that it
had the honesty and courage to face up to its past excesses and
take responsibility for them, or, as the case might be, that it had
the strength and dignity to stand by the principles on which it had
acted. Either way, it would have won the respect and regard of the
people. Moreover, it had also missed the chance to show
Singaporeans what is surely the noblest quality to come out of any
conflict – the grace and magnanimity to reach out to former foes in
reconciliation and new amity.
Indeed, a Commission of Inquiry with its urgency of
purpose, potency of authority and high public visibility, would
have been the ideal combination of powerful symbolism on the one
hand and political will in real action, on the other, to bring
about the event needed to signal the dawn of a new era. In one fell
stroke, it would have banished that long-standing affective divide
between the government and the people, an emotional estrangement
that neither side wants. In the practical language of Singaporeans,
it would have been a win-win situation for all – the government,
the ex-detainees, the people, the entire society, even future
generations. If only. If only.
The unfortunate truth is that the PAP remains adamant
on keeping a tight lid on political and civic liberties. While it
takes a generous and liberal stance in the opening up of all other
areas – education, the arts, entertainment, lifestyle – it has
built a firewall around the political domain. While it has readily
agreed to commissions of inquiry for national mishaps such as the
Nicoll Highway collapse, the escape of top terrorist Mas Selamat,
and more recently, the major breakdowns in the MRT, it draws a line
at matters that might engulf the whole nation in political
questioning and debate, for which it has the strongest
antipathy.
Indeed, so averse is the PAP to the subject that, as
many of us may have noticed, it even shies away from using words
such as ‘democracy’, ‘human rights,’ ‘political reform’. And yet
these are matters at the core of a government-people relationship
if it is to be based on transparency, respect and trust.
I will maintain that as long as there is no real
political opening up ( two weeks ago, in his New Year message, the
Prime Minister spoke about a ‘political transition’ but I don’t
think he can ever bring himself to talk about ‘a political opening
up’, or ‘political reform’) and as long as political dissidents
feel they may be punished in one way or another, for instance, by
new and subtle uses of the ISA which the government has made clear
it has no intention of repealing, the so-called transformation
after GE 2011 ,will, at best, be a partial one only, and at worst,
a travesty of all the noble promises that had been made. What a
pity. Once again, the ‘if only’ sigh of wistful longing!
If only, to their very substantial material
achievements , the PAP could add the non-material, but equally
important achievement of enabling the society to move steadily
towards political liberty! I am not talking about the disruptive,
wild excesses of democracy seen in some countries; I am talking
about a sensible, responsible exercise of democratic rights that
surely Singaporeans are capable of, at this stage in the
development of our society.
The skeptic in me wants so much to be an optimist. I am
terrified that if nothing comes out of GE 20111, nothing ever will,
out of any future election. It will be business as usual, in the
most hideously fatalistic sense of the word.
My best hope lies in the young Singaporeans I have been
so enthusiastically talking about, those young voters who, in GE
2011, converted the fatigue factor into a voice that the PAP
government was forced to listen to. Over the years, as they
continue to be exposed to the outside world, as they become more
discerning, more critical, more engaged , I hope that they will
continue to use PAP Fatigue as a tool for change, always
constructively and wisely, always with the well-being of the
society in mind.
Most of all, they must persevere in nudging forward
,respectfully but relentlessly, an exasperatingly resistant PAP
government that prefers, if at all, to take such painfully slow,
such painfully small steps along the path of political reform.
Reform there must be. For only then can Singapore come into its
own, only then can it claim to be a successful society in every
sense of the word, and take a proud place among other societies in
the world.
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2012/01/catherine-lim-my-best-hope-lies-in-the-young-singaporeans/
