Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Political elitism
Takes an emotive turn
The term is becoming synonymous with ‘privileged class’ and ‘leadership arrogance’, threatening PAP’s long-term rule.
By Seah Chiang NeeOct 29, 2006
Singapore’s People’s Action Party is confronted with a widening class divide and a creeping political elitism that could drive it from power, if they are allowed to fester. Inter-related, these problems are shaping up into the ruling party’s biggest challenge in the next election in 2011 – and probably beyond.
They are neither new nor unique in the world, having prevailed in advanced nations like the United States, Britain and even Japan – except in Singapore, the small size and meagre safety net are exacerbating matters.The General Household Survey revealed that the top 20% of Singapore’s households last year earned 31 times that of the bottom 20%. And the gap is widening.
Two events last week showed up how much disconnect there is between a segment of the political elite and the citizens it has to represent. The problem is serious. “We have a crop of well-off MPs who have little empathy for the poor or needy, seeing failure is an individual’s fault. Political elitism and arrogance are undoing the PAP’s strong record of achievements,” one party grassroots worker said, calling for political reforms.
“Otherwise, the PAP cannot survive a one-man-one-vote democracy for no more than two or three elections.”
“The stability of a society depends on how people feel. If there is a group which is unhappy, such that they rebel against the system, that can lead to all kinds of trouble,” warned Labour chief and a PMO minister Lim Boon Heng.
For some time, party workers have been giving feedback to the leadership that public feelings are rising against what they say is a system that favours the elite and the rich. The first advice: Change the criteria and selection of PAP Members of Parliament (from whom Cabinet ministers are selected).
Laid down by Lee Kuan Yew, the system measures political ability by academic, professional or business achievements, particularly those who are related to past achievers.
This could be attributed to Lee’s belief that intelligence – or alternatively mental subnormality – is inherited from parents’ genes.
Only a few newer MPs are social workers or people with good community links, but compassion, charity and humility generally rank low in priority in a candidate’s qualities.
For decades, the party leaders have tended to come from the ranks of scholars and technocrats, described by Lee Senior as “among the best in Singapore.”
In a different era, the system had worked well in building an efficient, modern city. That was the good part.
But in the new Singapore, elitism breeds resentment and friction. Many of these MPs, raised in wealthy homes, are simply too removed from the plight of poor Singaporeans they are supposed to represent.
Unlike politicians elsewhere, the MPs in Singapore are co-opted into politics without party experience or having to campaign hard to win votes.
During Lee’s popular past, this posed few problems. PAP candidates were virtually always automatically elected. A popular joke in those days was “Even if it fields a monkey, it will win.”
Today, with the unfettered reach of a critical Internet and an educated electorate, every comment or behaviour of an MP comes under intense scrutiny.
Last week provided evidence of this.
It began when Wee Shu Min, 18-year-old scholar-daughter of a PAP MP, launched a scathing attack on Singaporean Derek Wee for voicing concerns on job security and age discrimination.
She described Derek as a “stupid crackpot”, “the sadder class”, over-reliant on the government in Singapore where society is “far too survival of the fittest” and signed off with: “Get out of my elite uncaring face”.
Other condescending terms: Derek is a typical “wretched, under-motivated, over-assuming leeches” specimen of Singapore. He has a “middle-class under-educated penchant” for complaining and should get on with life.
It was political dynamite for several reasons.
Firstly, she was a scholar (10 A’s in O-level, strong bilingual, French) in elitist Raffles Junior College, the sort that is earmarked for an easy road to high office.
Secondly, her father Wee Siew Kim is an executive of Singapore Engineering and MP in PM Lee Hsieng Loong’s Ang Mo Kio group constituency, so whatever he does affects the PM’s political fortune.
Hundreds of angry Singaporeans consider her remarks as elitist and insensitive against the common people.
To make matters worse, the MP issued a statement that appeared to support her elitist remarks.
The controversy may have sealed his political career; there is little prospect of Wee standing again in the next election.
Unfortunately for the PAP, it occurred at almost the same time as news broke of a 40-year-old unemployed father of two teenagers jumping in front of a moving train.
After failing to get a job for four months, he committed suicide with S$16 in his pocket and a pile of debts.
Shu Min had written, “If you’re not good enough, life will kick you in the balls. That’s just how things go.”
Critics connect the two with devastating effect for the system.
Her comments have divided Singaporeans. Some of the more successful elements back her argument that Singapore’s capitalist system supports the “survival of the fittest” theory. One asked, “What’s wrong with being elitist?”
At least one saw the debate positively.
“In fact, we are already unintentionally preparing ourselves to enter the post-Lee Kuan Yew era by creating a bit of chaos here and there,” he wrote.
“When Lee finally goes, we would already have got used to the chaos; we can (then) re-make our beloved Singapore.”
(This article was specially written for The Sunday Star, Oct 29, 2006)
taken from http://www.littlespeck.com/content/politics/CTrendsPolitics-061029.htm
The problem of elitism has been existing in this world, not only in Singapore but in many advanced countries as well, including the United States of America, Britain and Japan.
A reason for this might be due to the widening gap between the rich and the poor. Although Singapore's policies prevented the large gap between the rich and the poor, these matters have got more and more serious that it has become inevitable.
With the rich and powerful gaining higher positions in society, they believed themselves worthy of special priveleges that ordinary people do not have. These people tend to look down others and worsen the situation.
When they looked down on the poor and not-so-fortunate due to their growing up in wealthy homes, they do not show the understanding they are supposed to have when representing minorities in politics. Without understanding, they would not be able to do their utmost best no matter how hard they try.
Unfortunately, it is those with the ability and not the charity who are chosen for the posts. This worsened the situation of political elitism. This is maily due to the belief that only the best brains can help Singapore to improve.
A piece of advice: develop a kind heart more than developing a brainy brain.
How? When people with lineage of intelligence grow up in the best of homes with a silver spoon?
The government can tackle the problem by giving these 'elites' a chance to work for charity and gain a better knowledge and understanding of the less fortunate. This can give them time and opportunity to interact with the people they looked down on and understand their needs.
When asked to make decisions, it will be so much easier and the decision made will be for the better of all people and not just benefit some.
Self-awareness would be an even better solution but with a more difficult complication; will humanity ever atain such purity? No matter how hard one try to supress it, there's always the tendency to be biased deep in one's heart.
Nevertheless it's still important to try, right?
she told
the story ...
3:50 AM
Saturday, January 06, 2007
My new ss blog...
she told
the story ...
3:36 AM
