Politicians need to be seen by voters

Sep 24, 2011
 
MY LIFE

A recent survey of 1,100 Singaporeans aged 21 and older found that three in 10 'do not trust politicians to act in their best interests'. YouthInk writers suggest why.
 
I AM a 'cynic' because I don't trust politicians, and one reason I don't trust them is that I rarely see my MP around - except during the elections.

Though I am still a minor, I like to be politically aware because I know in the future, I will play a part in choosing people to lead the country. But I don't believe the brief period before a general election is enough to convince us of the true capabilities of politicians who claim they can take Singapore to greater heights.

The process of scrutinising them has to start years beforehand, to ensure consistency in their actions. I have been to election rallies and heard fiery speeches, but once the hullabaloo of the elections dies down, the politicians seem to disappear.

They are probably working for their constituents but, unfortunately, a lot of it is not visible. One way to stay visible is through social networking, where I can see them responding to feedback and complaints. But that's not enough. Residents need to see their MPs in the flesh, and the best way would be through door-to-door visits. I understand such visits are taxing on MPs, but a visit more than once in five years wouldn't do much harm, would it? It would show us you are taking pains to visit us, and I would be assured that you truly have our best interests at heart.

Lim Shan, 16, is a Secondary 4 student at St Margaret's Secondary School.

[Politics is not just about going around knocking on doors and shaking hands. I don't see my MP, and I don't want to see my MP because I want him to help  the people who need help more than me. So no, I don't see my MP because I don't need to see him, but if I do need to see him, I know where to find him.  Really, if he comes to my door, I really don't think it is the best time to be discussing any problems I might have. Firstly, it may not be a convenient time for me.  I feel about MP walkabouts the same way I feel about door to door sales people.

The other role of the MP is precisely to be a member of parliament. He should be there to debate issues, to raise questions, to propose changes to make our lives a little better.

If he can do that, I don't need to see him at my door.

If you want to be politically aware, read. Find out how things are done. Find out why things are done in a certain way, or what considerations need to be taken into account to make good decisions. Understand that politics is about allocating resources according to policies. Good policies channel resources to where they do the most good for the most people. Bad policies causes more hardship than benefits.

All policies are good and bad. All policies have beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, and all policies have costs, either today or tomorrow.

Understand that there is no free lunch, and that anyone who tells you there is, is lying and trying to con you into voting for him.

Then you would be politically aware.]

Meritocracy's shortcomings

Sep 20, 2011

THE bottom line is that meritocracy is a euphemism for institutionalising a caste system ("Meritocracy is the only way to tackle inequality fairly" by Dr Khor Swee Kheng and "Level playing field" by Mr Alex Tan; Sept 13).

[Hyperbole. A caste system is one where your position in society is determined by your parentage. The ideology of meritocracy is that one can find one's place in society based on merit. A poor student who can score as high or even higher than a rich student would have as many opportunities as the rich student based on merit.

Now we can agree that the rich student probably have more opportunities because daddy can buy him a place in some foreign university, but that is not because of meritocracy.

And meritocracy is not an euphemism for a caste system. That's just demagoguery.]

The corollary of the so-called positive aspects of meritocracy is that it provides an equal opportunity to also dump the least advantaged into socio-economic badlands in pursuit of individual advantage and influence for oneself above all others. Some call this elitism.

[Explain these  "socio-economic badlands" you speak of. A student who cannot make it to JC, has Polytechnics as an option. If that is also beyond his ken, there is ITE. Have you seen the ITE campus at Choa Chu Kang?  A veritable monument to the "economic badlands".

Or is everyone suppose to be University graduates? In the 70s, less than 5% of the cohort made it to university. Today, I believe the figure is closer to 26%, with another 43% going to polytechnics. 20% goes to ITE. There is some overlap (ITE may go onto Poly, Poly may go onto University). But taking this as an illustration, almost 70% of a cohort goes to university or polytechnic. This is elitism?

I must have been sick the day they redefined elitism.]

To claim that the alternative to meritocracy is communism is bizarre. Why would Singapore want to be communist?

[I'll accept that is also hyperbole. But the correct response is, then what is this alternative to meritocracy?]

To state that there is such a thing as "compassionate meritocracy" is to make as much sense as former United States president George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism". Putting the term "compassionate" before an ideology does not suddenly add heart power to it.

Coming up with alternatives to a meritocratic system would involve allowing as much freedom to others as we would allow for ourselves, free and equal opportunities for all, and ensuring that we look out for the interests of the least advantaged in society.

[I have taken and defended a very narrow aspect of meritocracy - that of educational meritocracy. This is because this is public policy and practice, figures and statistics are open and transparent, schools are governed by govt policies and in particular the ideology of meritocracy, whereas trying to argue meritocracy in the workplace is a minefield of ego, perception and beyond the direct control of govt policies.

So when someone suggests alternatives to the meritocratic system, the first question is, "so we don't use grades anymore?" The danger is not communism, but American Liberalism. The US education system is still great - people still want to go study in their top universities. But many universities are average, and many schools are not working, particularly for the average children. Where the schools are more concerned about the self-esteem of the child rather than teaching the child skills that the child can be proud to master (and thus solving the self-esteem problem).

So what is the alternative to meritocracy? Assume everyone is equally good (and equally average) and teach at an average level? Or drop standards so even the least able can graduate?

Looking out for the interest of the least advantaged, heck let's call a spade a spade, the most disadvantaged in society is not an issue for meritocracy to address. That's barking up the wrong tree. An abused child is an abused child and the issues are abuse, neglect, absentee parenting, parents addicted to drugs, alcohol, gambling, work, success, etc. That has nothing to do with meritocracy.

An intellectually or developmentally  disabled child is a disabled child and yes meritocracy is going to leave him behind, but the problem is not going to be addressed by de-institutionalising meritocracy or leading an ideological charge against meritocracy as an unthinking, unfeeling, impartial, objective, heartless ideology. It is all that and all that is irrelevant. The disabled child needs specialised help and that is beyond the scope of meritocracy.]

We have to work these ideas out in a constructive manner between the citizenry, government, bureaucracy and other interest groups. This social, economic and political constructivist approach will allow us to create the reality we want.

It is this attitude of being free from ideological obsessions that helped make Singapore a successful state. But as we evolve into a well-ordered society that recognises the value of human beings beyond their talent or so-called economic merit, then we are on the path to creating a just and fair society.

[I suggest you get free of your obsession with meritocracy as the bane of Singapore society. Your concern is valid. Your solution, no so much.]

When we recognise the intrinsic worth of a human being irrespective of race, language or religion, then we are also learning tolerance, kindness and compassion.

Sanjay Perera

[When you can prove that meritocracy is also an euphemism for racism and religious intolerance, in addition to institutionalising a caste system, then we'll talk some more.]

AWARE and Lee Kuan Yew

Sep 13, 2011
 
MARRIAGE, MOTHERHOOD AND CAREER
Aware disagrees with Mr Lee

THE stark choice between motherhood and professional advancement presented in Mr Lee Kuan Yew's comments to Ms Joan Sim is not new ('A PhD's fine, but what about love and babies?'; last Tuesday).

In 1983, he said: 'We shouldn't get our women into jobs where they cannot, at the same time, be mothers.'

In 1994, he said that 'attractive and intelligent young ladies' should go to finishing colleges so that they will be 'marvellous helpers of their husband's career'.

And now, Ms Sim has been advised to stop wasting time on her doctorate and find a boyfriend instead. These views contradict the recent statements by Minister of State for Community Development, Youth and Sports Halimah Yacob to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (Cedaw) that gender equality is central to Singapore's socio-economic growth and that 'maximising the full potential of every individual, male or female, is a priority'.

Under Cedaw, the Government is obliged to 'take appropriate measures to modify the social and cultural patterns of the conduct of men and women based on the idea of stereotypical roles of men and women'. However, state policies have not kept pace with social developments and changing gender roles.

Fathers are not entitled to paid paternity leave, reinforcing the social expectation that mothers should bear most of the caregiving responsibilities.

Flexible working arrangements attractive to mothers of young children are not widely available. Infant care facilities are inadequate for the country's needs. Such policies make raising children a daunting prospect for working women who want to continue their careers after becoming mothers. The State should take the lead in making family a more attractive option for these women, starting with a change of governmental attitude and the policies stated above.

The Scandinavian countries have shown that appropriate state policies that counter social norms can reverse declining fertility rates.

Public statements made by influential figures like Mr Lee are also important to shaping social attitudes.

Remarks that imply that women belong at home and men should be primarily providers undermine the efforts of men and women who struggle every day to meet the demands of family and working life.

Implying that marriage and motherhood are more important than education and work belittles the choices and contributions of women who prefer to be single or childless.

Such comments also perpetuate sexist stereotypes for a younger generation.

Nicole Tan (Ms)
President
Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware)

[And may I say misrepresenting the words of others in order to propel your own agenda is disingenuous at best, and a poor reflection of your reading and comprehension skills. You come out sounding like an over-sensitive harpy ready to pounce on any misperceived slight or misconstrued sexism with strident denunciation and accusation of perpetuating sexist stereotypes.

No. Lee Kuan Yew did not ask the PhD candidate to abandon her studies and get pregnant. (See the excerpt below for reference.)

That was your inability to comprehend simple English or your disingenuous attempt to twist his words to create a false assault on gender equality, allowing you to drag in CEDAW, paternity leave, childcare facilities, etc to further your own public agenda.

Mr Lee's advice to Ms Sim did not perpetuate sexist stereotypes.

Your ridiculous letter of complaint to the forum paints you and the association you head and represent as stereotypical strident feminists with no sense of reality and an over-developed sense of prostitution.]

Excerpt from:
A PhD's fine, but what about love and babies?
6 Sept 2011

The 27-year-old, who is pursuing a doctorate in biological sciences at Nanyang Technological University (NTU), observed that Singapore had accepted a large number of foreign immigrants within a short period of time. She asked what could be done to promote a greater sense of belonging among those here.

Mr Lee said that given Singapore's fast-ageing population and extremely low fertility rate, it needs to accept a sizeable number of immigrants each year, to ensure society has enough young and economically active members.

He then cited figures from projections done by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) in an exercise due to be made public later this month.

He said: 'The Institute of Policy Studies has a grim statistic of 60,000 migrants a year to keep our people young and economically active. We can't digest that; 20,000 maybe, 25,000 then you're stretched, but certainly not 60,000.'

He called the latter figure 'politically indigestible'...

Mr Lee then turned the tables on Ms Sim and started gently quizzing her about her personal life, to the surprise and amusement of the audience.

He asked her age and if she was married, to which she said 'no'. He asked her when she would finish her PhD, and she said 'in two years' time'.

He then asked if she had a boyfriend, and again she said 'no'.

He then gave her some advice on why she should try to have children by the age of 35.

'After 35, the dangers of having mongoloid children, Down syndrome, in other words, a dull person, rises. So my advice is, please don't waste time. It's more important and more satisfying than your PhD but good luck to you. I hope you get your PhD and your boyfriend.'

'Online chatter' not just chatter

Sep 5, 2011

I AM shocked by what political scientists passed off as prescient commentary in last month's presidential election.

Dr Derek da Cunha ('What observers say'; Aug 28) stated that 'online chatter' was irrelevant to the May 7 General Election and the Aug 27 presidential election.

Really? 'Online chatter' was how the People's Action Party (PAP) discerned how unhappy Singaporeans were with policies, personnel and politicking in the GE. 'Online chatter' was why a relative unknown like Mr Tan Jee Say grabbed a 25 per cent share of the votes on Aug 27. 'Online chatter' cannot be dismissed any more.

[Bullcrap. In the first PE, the virtual unknown Chua Kim Yeow won 41%. There was no internet chatter then in 1993. Tan Jee Say's 25% proves nothing other than the fact the 25% of voters were optimistic. Or pessimistic depending on your point of view.]

That is why the Government, wisely, used a light touch in navigating 'online chatter'.

Dr da Cunha said that the PAP vote held up on Aug 27. Again, really? In the first contested presidential election in 1993, Singaporeans gave a reluctant Mr Chua Kim Yeow 41.3 per cent of the votes against a PAP-backed Mr Ong Teng Cheong, who expected well over 65 per cent.

Dr Tony Tan, the favourite candidate and most closely linked with the PAP in this year's election, should have swept most of the 60 per cent pro-PAP GE votes. By obtaining only about one-third of overall votes, he was clearly affected by his PAP link.

[And I say 70% voted PAP - split between the two Doctors from PAP.]

The only certainty now is that the PAP must be repositioned to 'change the conversation' about itself, to quote from the TV series Mad Men.

[Go back to watching TV, you couch potato.]

Singaporeans like myself are asking ourselves why we, as a nation, are dazed, confused and frustrated now more than before.

[So you agree with the other commentary that we should have an electoral college system to elect the President? So as to avoid further confusing and dazing you.]

We need a catharsis and it will not appear because results come after the fact, or because the Prime Minister asks us to move on.

We seem to have just finished a huge family quarrel. We need time to cool down, settle and discover fresh sensibilities within the new order - winners and losers both.

For that to happen, mainstream media like The Straits Times must find the people's authentic pulse; visionaries and insightful individuals must ask probative questions and share valid views; comedians must nudge us and artists, inspire us.

[You have us confused with the US culture. We do not have an tradition of comedians nudging us or artists inspiring us. No Sharon Au hugging Tony Tan does not count. Seriously, you want us to take inspiration from Hossan Leong? Gurmit Singh? Sheik Haikel? Stefanie Sun? Fann Wong?

Not to say that their views are irrelevant, but how are they authoritative. Oh wait. You are a couch potato and so you believe everything TV tells you.]

We need leaders committed to creating a healthy public space where we can all agree to disagree but have the best for Singapore in our hearts.

What we don't need are political scientists who offer no clues.

[Or forum writers from an alternate TV universe.]

Anand A. Vathiyar


Sep 6, 2011

Beware of political opportunists online


MR ANAND Vathiyar's assertion that Internet chatter played a major role in our final choice of president cannot be wrong ('Online chatter not just chatter'; yesterday).



["Played a role" does not imply that the role was responsible, intentional, or had the intended effect. I would say that if internet chatter had an effect it was to create a bias view that Tan Jee Say was leading and may have drawn some voters to him instead of say Tan Cheng Bock, and leading to the unintended freak result of Dr Tony Tan winning the election. So yes, in that sense it "played a role". ]

From the upheaval in Egypt and Libya to the recognition of epidemics way before the health authorities were aware of their presence, online chatter has proven influential.

Unfortunately, a significant amount of Internet chatter comes not from the genuinely aggrieved, but from the politically opportunistic who hide behind a cloak of anonymity.

Half-truths and misinterpreted statistics are perpetuated and made believable because they are replicated thousands of times on the Internet.

There are many local insightful political blogs that provide discursive commentary on Singaporean issues. Read discriminately, they can complement The Straits Times in providing counterpoise in its political and social coverage.

Unfortunately, unlike The Straits Times, which allows only civil debate and riposte with editorial adjudication, Internet chatter is replete with uncivil name-calling, where contrary ideas are shouted down by threatening claques of naysayers and any meaningful exchange of opinions is not possible.

It is no wonder then that the blogosphere artificially amplifies pessimism, negativism and nihilism.

Dr Yik Keng Yeong

Proud of national service precisely because it is a sacrifice

Proud of national service precisely because it is a sacrifice

Sep 2, 2011

MS SERENE Wong ('NS is no burden'; Aug 22) was wrong when she rebutted recent presidential candidate Tan Kin Lian ('Kin Lian: Make NS a privilege, not a burden'; Aug 20).

How can military training that prepares a person for the highly complex and dangerous task of defending one's country not be a huge load to bear?

If it is no burden at all, I would question the quality of our military training.

Usually, the only ones who feel little or no burden are those in non-combat positions.

If Ms Wong remains unconvinced, she should ask why first-generation naturalised male citizens are not required to perform national service.

The Government is fully aware that it is not a small load and it does not want to deter potential new citizens from choosing to sink their roots in Singapore.

[Not just that. A new citizen may be a military spy or saboteur, or he may have divided loyalties. If we should have a military action against his former country, his loyalties would be unduly tested.]

I applaud Mr Tan for standing up for national servicemen.

His call for greater recognition of the sacrifice servicemen make is worth serious consideration by the Government.

Without that sacrifice, nationhood for Singaporeans would quickly become a thing of the past.

We should highlight the fact that national service is indeed a burden.

It is precisely because it is a burden - and defending our nation the responsibility of citizens - that servicemen are proud to be called upon to bear it.

Michael Ang

[But it sounds self-serving to ask for more recognition for National Service. TKL is wrong to do so. In asking for more recognition, he is in effect asking that we compensate NS men more completely, but it can never be adequately compensated. it is not a commercial transaction. The reason army speaks of duty, and honour, and loyalty and pride, is because these ideas drive and motivate people. If you replace it or attempt to compensate for these burdens of pride and loyalty, you exchange a sense of duty, with a sense of mercantilism. When your Sarge asks you to "Take that hill!" you're supposed to say, "yes sir!" not "How much?"

Men do march to war because they were paid well. Men do not face death because they will be amply compensated for their death.]