In his inaugural speech, Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Mr
Viswa Sadasivan said, “It has often been said that Singapore does
not have an ideology – that pragmatism is our mantra and modus
operandi. But if we examine our National Pledge closely, it is our
national ideology – a set of inalienable values, precepts that
demand adherence in the face of the lure of pragmatism.”
This challenge to pragmatism, even by our National Pledge, was
something that was deemed so unacceptable that Minister Mentor Lee
Kuan Yew, who heard about it from the newspapers, while “doing
physiotherapy”, had to
intervene in the debate to
“bring the House back to earth”, by calling the NMP’s arguments
“false and flawed (and) completely untrue”. The NMP certainly
did touch a raw nerve, when he suggested in Parliament that
pragmatism is but a lure, especially for the ruling party.
The ruling People’s Action
Party’s (PAP) concept of good government is actually a version of
communitarian democracy. Communitarian
ideology emphasizes the need to balance individual rights and
interests with that of the community as a whole, but its focus on
social cohesion raises similarities with various forms of
authoritarianism.
Social Control
Upon independence in 1965,
a massive cultural transformation of the population was necessary
for Singapore to develop economically. This was
when the ideology of
‘survival of the nation’ was conceptualised. This
ideology of survival has now
become the basic concept for rationalisation which extends beyond
pure economics to almost all spheres of a Singaporean’s life.
If social control can be shown to contribute to economic growth, it
is considered necessary for ’survival’ and hence
‘pragmatic’.
But are “pragmatic” policies or “pragmatism” always good?
It is but pragmatism which made Members of Parliament (MP)
responsible for their estates. Town councils were
introduced only in 1989 but 20 years on, its aim has not been
achieved as
Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong
admitted in June this year. Its aim? To “give them (residents) a stake in the
process of governance”. SM Goh explained.
How do you foster such a
thing when in Singapore MPs do not run estates anyway, for
all intent and purposes. Instead, the towns are run by
professional town managers, employed by the town councils.
So, why pretend that they are? As it is, many of
our MPs and ministers are overburdened with multiple duties. Take
Mr. Teo Ser Luck, for example. He is now Mayor, MP, Parliamentary
Secretary and heads the Youth Olympic committee, along with other
commitments. As for the other
MPs, they have multiple directorships in private and
government-linked companies, heads various committees such as
Government Parliamentary Committees (GPC), on top of their personal
careers.
MPs,
being so well paid, should
focus exclusively on national policies. This can only benefit
Singapore and Singaporeans. We face
challenging times in this globalised world, as the government has
so often reminded us. More heads dedicated to these issues
would be the logical thing to do and MPs should therefore be
focused on more important national issues rather than be drained by
municipal issues. We ought to have non-political grassroots
organisations and leaders to take care of these things.
Grassroots
The Grass-Roots
Organizations (GROs) are there to serve a purpose – they
are PAP’s mouthpiece, to explain and convince people of the
various government policies, and to be the eyes and ears for the
PAP. The citizens who are somewhat supportive of
the opposition are not allowed to climb the ranks of the
grassroots. Moreover, the opposition MPs, do not get to be advisors
for GROs, which are all under the purview of the People’s
Association, which is a statutory board chaired by the Prime
Minister. The advisors to the GROs (even in opposition held
constituencies) invariably turn out to be PAP men or
supporters.
This is the ‘pragmatism’ of the PAP – resulting in a system
which is inherently communitarian.
The ruling PAP’s policies
are two-fold. And this has been so for the last 43
years. It is simply this:
If looked upon closely, this has been the underlying principle
in all PAP policies. With this underlying principle, it is hardly surprising that the PAP now
talks of devolvement of responsibilities through the town councils
and the constant encouragement to “upgrade skills”. Politics
in Singapore is reserved for the handpicked ‘elite’, which results
in the almost total absence of politics from the general
populace.
Just as the GROs are not natural but created to serve
‘pragmatism’, so is trade unionism. They are created exclusively to
serve the PAP and its brand of ‘pragmatism’.
This is manifested through the appointment of top union leaders who
are pro-PAP. These unions thus become para-political, which defeats
the purpose of setting up unions in the first
place. In the 50s, unions in Singapore were not
para-political but truly fought for the rights of the workers. This
should be the purpose of unions.
A Constitution only in form
Under the PAP’s pragmatic
approach it governs through law rather than by law, making
amendments to the Constitution as it pleases. This has led some to
quip that Singapore does not have a Constitution at
all. The PAP takes up more than two-thirds of the
seats in parliament, and through the party-whip, PAP MPs are not
allowed to vote against the party. Hence, constitutional changes
are undertaken with speed as the absolute majority supports it, an
aspect praised as a “Singapore advantage” by the government. The
executive body is thus infused with the ethos of pragmatism; as
such it is an instrument of social control, tailored to the ever
changing needs of Parliament, the sole authority of law making.
The PAP’s pragmatic
approach has inculcated a sense of apathy among the citizenry.
Their constant re-emphasizing of the need for economic growth in a
competitive environment has led to a generation growing up to be
individualistic and ‘kiasu’.
Pragmatism has also made the ‘paper chase’ the sole priority of
any student, so much so that many have forgotten the importance of
being politically aware and in speaking up.
The effects of the
pragmatic ruling party on the de-politicised students were
beginning to show as early as in the 1970s; merely
10 years after the ruling party came to power. Mr Goh Keng Swee (the
chief architect of modern Singapore’s economy) in pleading with university graduates in
1971 to take a personal interest in the affairs of their country
and make an effort to understand issues and provide leadership in
forming public opinion, said, “Too many people
regard political ideas not as serious matters affecting their lives
but as topics for idle discussion. Nor do they ask of themselves,
what is the relevance of these notions to the situation of
Singapore today, tomorrow and in the next decade.”
Dare to dream?
Communitarian democracy as practiced by the PAP is one of
constant vigilance, where it sees itself as the guardian of
collective interest. Phrases such as, ‘harming the social fabric’
or ‘ for the good of the society’ are often verbalised by the PAP
when introducing controversial legislations or policies. Yet,
beneath this postulation of a shift in ‘ideology’, pragmatism is
still undertaken by the PAP as the sole driving force. And so the
negative impact prevails.
The PAP’s brand of
politics in choosing and championing pragmatism, has trumped and
rendered obsolete all ideologies. But what good are the
competencies and expertise of pragmatism, if it is not tempered
with ideology?
Ideology is not a bad word. Ideology is but the core
fundamental beliefs and political principles which exist
independent of considerations for competencies and expertise.
For how can we assess political leaders based solely on
technocratic effectiveness and expertise in crafting policies,
which pragmatism prescribes, without regard to ideology?
Just as it is possible to
become too rigid and unyielding in upholding ideological beliefs by
adhering excessively to principles without regard to consequences,
it is equally possible to become so pragmatic that one operates
without any core principles.
The ruling PAP in engendering an overcompensating desire to rid
ourselves of ideology in the name of pragmatism; have robbed
Singaporeans and even most of our political leaders currently in
Parliament from forming inalienable values and precepts, which are
critical in the forging of a true nation.
In the end, an
over-emphasis on pragmatism limits the possibilities which we might
otherwise dare to imagine and aspire to.
——
Read also:
Our audacity to
hope.
http://sgblogs.com/entry/singapore-story-failure-pragmatism/359086
It's not an issue of pragmatism being bad per say. It's how do
we apply pragmatism.
The use of the word pragmatism is so generic that almost
everything can be considered as pragamatic.
Making laws that essentially crippled the opposition ability to
gain more seats? That's pragamatic from the ruling government's
perspective.
Creating laws that make it easy for almost any political party
to rise to power, no matter how crazy they really are? That's
pragamtic if you want to have everyone in the parliment.
Unwillingly to abolish certain controversial laws because of the
conservatives living down here? That's certainly pragamtic, if you
want to retain your seats in parliment.
Allowing slavery to be legal just because you fear a portion of
your nation would rebel against you? Ah, that's certainly pragmatic
if your only concern is to have an easy political victory.
The real question we should ask if ourselves is whether a so
called pragmatic solution really pragmatic for the overall interest
of our nation, or is it just a way to chicken out and run away from
making unpopular decision.
Take for example, taxation. Should we increase taxation if we
need more money for our social services? It is a practical
solution, but to a ruling party, it might not be viewed a practical
because they cannot make the general public at large agree with the
idea that taxes will be increased.
Also, to say ideaology is somehow good without even defining
what kind of ideaology you are talking about is a extremely stupid
thing. Are we talking about conservatism? That's an ideaology?
Liberalism? That's an ideaology as well?
What we have to ask is, identify what kind of ideas is the most
sensible, most beneficial, and from time to time, is it the most
practical solution.
Also, in regards to the de-politicisation of schools, what I
have to say is this. People not being interested in politics isn't
the only worrying issue.
Another worryinging issues is how Singaporean who are active in
politics viewed politics. Many people who are being active are
nothing more than a partisan hack.
Hell, many people on this very forum is doing nothing more than
viewing politics in a black and white manner.
So all policies make by the PAP are somehow bad, just because
PAP is the one making all the decisions? While opinions make by the
members of opposition party are somehow idealised, just because
they disagree with the PAP?
