Sudhir Thomas Vadaketh and Donald Low

By Howard Lee
Singapore can no longer rely on a fixed set of people and ideas for it to progress into the future. There was a need to address and relook some of the basic “Hard Truths” that have been ingrained into the Singapore model of governance, and for a more open discussion on policy issues to bring in alternative ideas.
Hard-Choices-Front-CoverThose were the views expressed by Donald Low, Associate Dean at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, and Sudhir Thomas Vadaketh, author of Floating on a Malayan Breeze: Travels in Malaysia and Singapore, at the book launch event for their joint publication, Hard Choices – Challenging the Singapore Consensus.
The authors took issue with many of the common narratives – such as the constant reference to Singapore’s vulnerability, system of meritocracy and avoidance of social welfare – coming from the political elite, which they felt warrant a closer re-inspection.
In particular, the growth model – which I would describe as one which is heavily reliant on MNCs and foreign investment, and relative high dependence on foreign labour – has over time been elevated to a level of ideology and is not questioned, scrutinised and challenged as much as we should,” said Low.
But contrary to popular belief, this model has not been the mainstay of the Singapore story since independence. Low quoted from a speech by the late Dr Goh Keng Swee, former deputy Prime Minister, made in 1972, which alluded to the need for the government to pay attention to the sustainability of the import of foreign labour and the heavy reliance of foreign investment.
This was despite the fact that Dr Goh was one of the key architects of Singapore’s economy, using the very same model that has brought the nation much success in its early days.
Unfortunately, Low lamented the current lack of will to challenge such status quo, which he suggested was “slowly sucked out of the system” due to the success of the People’s Action Party government.
In addition, Sudhir believed that such narratives did not only apply to economic narratives, but also govern the way Singaporeans think about civil rights issues like democracy and our model of governance.
The idea that we are vulnerable, we have different ethnic groups, our small size – all this leads to the conclusion that regular democracy would not work here, and we need a really heavy, top-down kind of state,” said Sudhir.
Sudhir also attributed this reluctance to “confirmation bias”, where the tendency to focus on the good things that have been said about the system by international think tanks, while ignoring the negative reports by the same think tanks, have led to an affirmation of this system. He believed that confirmation bias takes place among both the political leaders as well as the people.
All the actors and participants in the Singapore system are kind of petrified to challenge the first order of the Singapore consensus. They are very willing to debate second and third order elements of policy issues and smaller elements about housing and transportation,” said Sudhir, but core pillars like race relations are left untouched. This lack of debate on the core issues, he felt, was unhealthy for the country as a whole.
Low elaborated on this further by drawing on the example of the Pioneer Generation Package, which was touted as a progressive move by the PAP because it signalled a shift towards greater social spending. Not so, according to Low.
If you go back 30 years, what was the healthcare system we had before? It was a system where the state pays for about 60% of total healthcare spending. Fast forward by 25 years, and state spending has fallen to about 25%. Once you chart a long trajectory of how risk in healthcare is distributed and put the PGP in that context, you realise that we are in a sense making up for the fact that in the past 30 years the government has been pulling away state support for healthcare. If we had not tried to shift cost to Singaporeans, we probably would not have needed the PGP.”
Sudhir agreed, expressing scepticism about what he sees in policy tweaks to be “window dressing without real substantive change, sort of like patching up holes here and there before we get to the next general elections”.
However, the authors did not feel that it was only through a change in government, made through the ballot boxes, that improvements can be made. This is due to the emergence of a population that is generally more exposed to international standards, more accustomed to using the Internet to find information, and less hesitant to challenge the political leadership.
(Some believe) that some major electoral action has to be taken before we get real change in our media, civil society, a real energetic transparent movement for dialogue,” shared Sudhir. “I’m still hopeful that ordinary people can start speaking out more, start pushing for change in our media, getting our government to be more transparent, pushing for a Freedom of Information Act. I see people much more willing to speak up today than they were three or four years ago.”
Low agreed, adding that the pressure would likely come from the people, as we are now more open to “liberal polity”, where the people are more willing to consider an alternate agenda for Singapore.
Low also believed that there was a role for the public service to play in this change. But this might require a shift in organisational mindset, one that champions incremental change as much as disruptive innovation, such as creating competition internally between teams working on the same project. “I certainly see room for policy entrepreneurship and innovation within government,” he opined.
In ending, the authors acknowledged that not all will be agreeable to the ideas and alternative policy proposals they have expressed in their book. What they hope to achieve was to inspire Singaporeans to think about what can be done to make Singapore better, by rethinking some of the “Hard Truths” that have been repeated once too often.
Indeed, it is through challenging the status quo that we can attain resilience in our governance and political systems.
It is extremely tempting for the human mind to respond to uncertainty and complexity with a greater desire for control, harmony, and stability,” they wrote in their book. “But the reality is that the complete avoidance of shocks and failures is a utopian dream. More problematically, insulation from competition and shocks weakens the signals for the system to adapt, and breeds strategic brittleness and fragility. In the long run, such insulation leads to instability and the system’s eventual collapse.”
It would appear that it is not disruptive democracy, but the lack of it that will destroy Singapore.
Hard Choices – Challenging the Singapore Consensus is available at Bookhaven in NUS and selected outlets. It can also be pre-ordered from Amazon.com.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

NUS dentistry student who physically assaulted ex-girlfriend allegedly bonded to a government dental clinic

An undergraduate who strangled an ex-girlfriend and injured her left eye from…

Police announced unusual death at Geylang Lorong 23 as murder

A 52 years old  former coffee shop worker, Mr Niu-ge, was found…

SDP asks Elections Department about legality of PAP flags displayed in public before Nomination Day

The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) has reached out to the Elections Department…

突破传统媒体局限 在野党社交媒体宣传赢民心

新加坡独立以来的第13届大选,最迟必须在明年4月前举行,选区范围检讨委员会已在去年8月1日成立。 阿裕尼集选区议员毕丹星,曾在今年初在国会提问,上述委会在成立时隔近三个月后的工作进展,而贸工部长陈振声代总理作出书面答复,指该委会的检讨工作尚未完成。 选区范围检讨委会的成立,通常都意味着选举蛩音已近,因为委会任务旨在划分选区,也是迈入大选前进行的例行工作。故此不论朝野政党,这时候都已摩拳擦掌,加强力度走基层服务,备战选举基本上已是进行式。 在宣传工作方面,执政党人民行动党始终占据优势,例如旗下人民协会深入社区基层,超过1800个基层组织更易延伸社区服务。 尽管主流媒体仍时有报导在野党新闻,不过对于号称“公平、客观”的《海峡时报》等主流媒体,一些老报人也曾批评业界的会出现“自我审查”的现象,再者舆论上更偏向于对执政政府有利的主旋律论述,对于在野党立场的报导就难免较不侧重。 在这种传统媒体局限下,在野党又该如何突破这种钳制,吸引选民眼球异军突起?要知道我国有近492万人口,都有使用互联网,网络的普及率高达84巴仙,故此狮城都会大小事,皆网罗网民掌中,网络和社交媒体平台,正是在野党在资讯时代的突破口。 近期各政党也积极在各自的社交网页发表政见,例如在国会中有代议士的工人党,就在脸书粉丝专页发布他们在国会致词的视频,透明交代他们在国会如何代表选民发声,也不需要敲锣打鼓摇旗呐喊,而是直截了当告诉选民:你的心声我在国会传达了。 例如工人党秘书长毕丹星在国会表达反对调涨消费税的立场;主席林瑞莲在国会提醒,一些被裁员者可能花花几个月才能找到新工作,呼吁为被裁者提供收入保障;多达150座组屋仍无法翻电梯,后港议员方荣发敦促政府应尽快拿出定案等。 在野领袖办直播秀畅谈政见 再者,在科技和网络平台的帮助下,在野党不再处于被动趋势,在社交平台更加得到主动优势,例如自行办直播秀,政治人物畅谈政见,再者还能即时回应网民的提问,例如工人党青年团在上周四办的直播,就成功吸引约1万4000网民围观。 由行动党前议员陈清木医生领导的新加坡前进党(PSP),刚在去年8月成立后就动作频频,除了大规模动员党员走选区挑起执政党神经,也积极展现社会关怀精神,例如陈清木医生本身在疫情当前呼吁民众冷静;该党也主动拜访前线医护人员,为他们加油打气。 至于民主党则更倾向于透过网络平台与选民互动,例如该党秘书长徐顺全,过去就积极录制福建话、广东话和潮州话等方言视频,与国人畅谈他的政治理念,一些网民称,现在连老一辈选民都倍感亲切,能听得懂他们的政治观点。…