Two Important C's

I had intended to write this piece a long time before the General Elections (GE) was to be announced, but an overseas trip had prevented me from doing so. Now that the GE is coming closer, my message is more poignant, but not entirely complete given the short period of time. Nevertheless, the issue being addressed is of a basic fundamental nature that all should be concerned about, least of all not only during election times.

In the Straits Times' introductory article on the new PAP candiates, it was promoted that these 'fresh' people were following a very important C-criteria: Non-conformity. This was seen to be an impressive and brilliant move by the ruling leaders, who wanted to stay in touch with the new generation of Singaporeans and to address issues of social concern. In a poll taken by the Straits Times (let's leave aside the objectivity of the poll, for now), it was emphasised that ordinary young Singaporeans have no concern for political ideals, and that 'bread-and-butter' issues are most important in their decision about the elections. In other words, the other five C's still matter: car, cash, condo, credit card and country card membership.

In this entire debate, there are yet two very important C's that have deliberately been left out: Citizen or Consumer? For too long, people have failed to ask the question if they should wish to participate in social and political life as mere Consumers with only materialistic needs, or as Citizens who are able to have their own voice in the societies they labour and live in and depend on for their social needs. As a Consumer, the neccessity to question, debate and take part in social policies becomes frivolous and a chore. In such a scenario, the Consumer has no place in learning more about the social problems their fellow Citizens might face; the Consumer has no interest in political, legal and social systems that might oppress and steal his most basic fundamental rights (asides to consume); the Consumer need not apply the basic faculties of critical thinking and introspection on crucial social issues, rather he is happy to comply and serve the hands of those who feed him.

I would like to think that the Citizen, in so far as he/she is sincerely interested in who his neighbours are, how they are faring, and concerned for their welfare, no matter what social, racial, ethnic, gender or sexual category they belong to, and further knows that he/she deserves to participate in decision-making for his own community, would revile with disgust at policies which are designed for him to be a more efficient Consumer (and Labourer) and keep him away from disrupting the status quo. The Citizen would ask why are the current social and political systems of decision-making fiercely concentrated in the circle of one elite technocratic-meritocratic circle (a term that can be debated);why is every Citizen of this nation not allowed to vote (also why others are allowed the double of votes),; why is every Citizen not even allowed a voice as well?

One shouldn't be deceived about the various defences from the ruling government that people are 'allowed to speak freely' or that the government is 'listening'. They are always listening, but that doesn't address the issue if they are ready to give the people a chance to manage their own lives. Neither should we even think that people can exercise freedom of speech, which would entail the freedom to call the elections 'unfree', or criticising the government for their complicity in mismanaging the NKF scandal, or giving marginalised social groups (be it homosexuals, ethnic minorities and even opposition groups) the opportunity to counter the type of propaganda that shapes the dominant impressions of their attributes.

The fact of the matter is that even if every opposition member is voted in, this would only marginally change the systems of power currently in place. There's a good reason to call them "incompetent" (another C word); they are too 'incompetent' because they cannot get their own media channels to challenge the state-owned media; they cannot get themselves a first-class PR company to market their image; they are not conceding to the capitalistic demands of major corporations; they aren't trying to shape everyone's view that we have to fear the 'scourge' of AIDS from homosexuals and rescue ourselves from lax 'moral' values derived from teenagers recording themselves having sex on mobile phones. Instead, they are wasting their time criticising the government, for the "sake of opposing", that the regulatory systems were not in place when it came to the NKF fiasco; that people don't have freedom of speech; that to curb the rising costs of transport costs, a public federalized system should be in place; that people should have an independent union force to defend their work rights; and that people should even have a right to elect for their own President. Those are the issues Citizens shouldn't be facing; rather, let the current incumbent government handle it as they have the "right answers". All of this is supposed to be intuitively true with no evidence in place.

As I mentioned, this election will pass by without so much of a hiccup to the overall political system, and that's even if every opposition member miracuously gets voted in. For that reason, opposition figures have never been the answer. While many blogs are advising their readers to vote with "conscience", the underlying statement should be made: If you want to be a Citizen, act like one 24/7 everyday. There is no reason to succumb to the 'priviledges' of a Consumer; as difficult and challenging as it is to be a Citizen, there are far more rewards compared to having the latest Wide-screen TV.

The Danger of Discourse

It's not a matter of "dangerous discourse", as Senior Minister of State Balaji Sadasivan says, but a matter of danger that discourse itself should ever show itself in the political climate, where ruling elites may have to escape from academic rhetoric and fancy language, but have to contend with serious debate.

An authentic discussion on serious issues of the day is not a laboratory experiment; that is, there are no such things as a controlled environment, or the removal of certain factors nor would we even expect a higher imposing authority figure dictating how the rules should follow. But that's how intimidating dialogues and debates are supposed to be for us. That is, we shouldn't be engaging with the voices of the many, rather it is much easier to follow the 'rules of discourse' dictated by the few.

Politically-conscious citizens, actually normal decent human beings who want to participate in society without eternally wearing the lens of any one ruling group, will need to be persistent in seeking, questioning, debating, answering and challenging fundamental assumptions that arises in social issues. Only a figure who has either distaste of democratic participation or wish to create conditions of minimal opposition to his/her power would chase after those who "persistently propagate, promote or circulate political issues". The end goals are quite obvious: rhetoric about promoting active citizenry and facilitating open dialogue is quite meaningless if people are not allowed to take part in the social, economic and political realms of their own society.

Furthermore, it is particularly striking that this issue arises at a crucial period where their power is at risk, even if only marginally. Given the arbitrary nature of what constitutes out-of-bounds dialogue, not to mention the many issues that Singaporeans need to educate themselves about, such as trade agreements, labor conditions and human rights, it would come as no doubt that these political issues are bound to apply pressure, which is extremely unneccessary, for the governing class to surrender their power to. To be worried about the spreading of propaganda on the internet is correct, but it is not propaganda about racial and religious extrememism, or Marxist conspiracies or class discrimination. For those things, you can either choose to apply grossly extreme legal coercion such as Sedition Acts or choose to call them entertaining, such as when pop blogger XiaXue justifies outright racial discrimination. Rather, the type of "propaganda" that warrants serious regulation are those that are critical about the fundamental premises behind corporate or governmental policies, values and ideologies.

Remember, the few individual blogs, such as those outlined in the article, such as Singabloodypore or YawningBread or Talkingcock, pose only minimal danger to the powers that be. There is some critical analysis, some newsworthy articles and good writings, but these blogs can't "propagate, promote or circulate political issues" as strongly nor widely as grassroots organizations. But those who could stir up public support, that could undermine the credibility of those they criticize, are quickly subjugated to the bureaucratic and sanitizing effects of "registing at the MDA", police monitoring such as Martyr See and other surveillance mechanisms.

I fully agree with the Senior Minister's response that "it is better and more responsible to engage in political debates in a factual and objective manner". Indeed, nothing would please me more than to see active debates held by citizen panels, discussing about facts that are not concealed by the subservient obedient media and objective enough that it is not one-sided Q&A monologue.