I Respectfully Disagree

NMP Viswa Sadasivan rocked the boat and ruffled a few feathers in Parliament a week back when he suggested a revisiting of the incumbent government's policies in relation to the tenets enshrined in our National Pledge. An excerpt of his wonderfully crafted speech can be found here. In response to his speech, the venerable MM dismissed it as a pompous rhetoric and rejected the practicality of Mr Sadasivan's suggestions, claiming instead that the spirit of our pledge only serves to be an aspirational guide which cannot be meaningfully and effectively integrated in policy-making machinery of our ruling government. This declaration came as a complete shock to me. I never knew that when I mouthed the words "…pledge ourselves to be one united people..." since my youth, I was actually saying "…hope to be one united people…". I reckoned that tons of Singaporeans never knew that also. Well, now you do.

Firstly I would like to praise the eloquence, grace and tact with which the newly appointed NMP delivered his maiden speech to the House of Parliament. His critique of the status quo was concise, respectful and well-reasoned. In stark contrast, the opposition to and subsequent dismissal of his proposals were callous, rude and intimidating. Ironically, the refusal of the incumbent leaders to listen or consider made the NMP appear even more dignified with his measured and intelligent mannerism. It heartens me to see that Singapore does have quality politicians that dare sing a different tune to that of the government. What the local political scene needs is people that have an alternative opinion and more importantly, able to articulate that opinion in a respectful and intelligent manner, so as to garner support for the less popular point of view. Waving an opposition political banner with crude insults of the ruling party, fists raised in vehement protest of the political oppression and shouting within the confines of Hong Lim Park are vulgar and ineffective ways to effect any political change. To me, Mr Sadasivan is a shining example how to make a real difference. Contrast him to overpaid civil servants who pepper their speech with "loh"s and "lah"s before swaying to beat of the Hokkien song of "要拼才会赢", I think there is hope for the political opposition in Singapore.

So, what did Mr Sadasivan say in his speech that ruffled the feathers of the leaders? I shall try to summarize his thoughts to the best of my ability and consider the validity of his suggestions. Mr Sadasivan suggested in the beginning of his speech that while Singapore may be doing well as an Incorporated, the same success is not replicated as a country. Social fractures are forming within the nation even as economic worries are dissipating. He suggested that the principles encapsulated within our pledge serve a doctrine to guide the actions of the government as they try to tackle the problems besetting Singapore. By expounding on each of the 4 tenets he identified in the Pledge, he demonstrated that the solution to some of the most pressing issue of the nation today, may be provided by adhering to the spirit that these tenets represents.

Firstly, he touched on the idea of Citizenship. He explained that the concept of citizenship does not comprise simply of the legal obligations to perform the duties expected of a citizen of a country. It is much more than that as a citizenship is as much a social and moral contract as it is a legal one. The sense of duty of a citizen should stem primarily from the love and honor he/she feels for the homeland than any legal or criminal repercussions. I cannot agree more with his point and I have to admit I am guilty of thinking sometimes that if I have a choice, I will choose not to perform my National Service. However, he has another equally important point to make about this tenet. That is, as much as a moral duty and obligation is due from a citizen to the state, the converse is equally true. If we agree that a citizen should feel unqualified commitment to the country, that commitment should be rightly reciprocated by the country (and in Singapore's case, the government) with appreciation and affection. While I am guilty of not giving my fullest and most heartfelt commitment to this country, the government is, to a greater or lesser degree, guilty of the exact same folly. Mr Sadasivan rightly pointed out that increasingly, the contract that existed between the citizen and the state is becoming unfairly skewed in favor of the state and the allegiance of our citizens is being taken for granted by the government. The exclusivity that differentiates a citizen and a PR comprises of non-consequential benefits like voting rights or slightly cheaper healthcare while the tradeoffs that the citizen suffers includes rocketing property prices and increased job competition. The contract between the citizen and state is breaking and the government should rightly be mindful of that.

Next, he discussed the idea of Unity which is inferred from the words "…one united people, regardless of race, language or religion…". Mr Sadasivan echoed the importance of a united nation where a pluralistic society is able to live and operate in peace and tranquility. To ensure that harmony, the most effective and enduring mechanism will be to institute equality for all citizens, regardless of one's race and religion and to be open, transparent and responsive about some of the apparent inequalities that exist in Singapore. This issue had already been discussed at length during the National Day Rally and I will not expound on the details of Mr Sadasivan's advice on the matter.

The next tenet he talked about was that of Justice & Equality. And the 2 main points he made about this tenet was about justifying the need of freedom of expression as well as the need for a more equal and balance political scene. His assertions in this section were the most forceful and pointed of his speech. Amongst his assertions include lack of free media, lack of political inclusiveness, electoral vote manipulation and government insensitivity. I applaud Mr Sadasivan's audacity to slay the sacred cow and break Parliament's silence on a variety of taboo issues. While I too concede the effectiveness and excellence of the results brought about by the pragmatism of Singapore's ruling brass over the past 40 years, it makes good sense going forward to follow the principles of justice and equality in terms of the political process in Singapore. The result of the progress Singapore has made over the last 40 years is a population that has grown increasingly affluent and sophisticated. The people yearn for more than basic needs like food and lodging. Intangibles like freedom of expression, political participation and civil liberties are becoming more important to the modern citizen. Arguably, there is a general consensus that the national media in Singapore toes the line set by the ruling political party and the overt propaganda spewed out the government-controlled media repulse and alienates rather than attract the political left. The political hegemony that is marginalizing the existing political opposition instills fear of persecution by the authorities, driving the any civil political engagement underground, onto the cyberspace which entrenches mistrust, contempt and cynicism of the government. Counter-intuitively, instead of engaging and including the general public with its pervasive presence on the political scene, the citizens are becoming increasingly disenfranchised and resigned by the lack of justice and equality in a political landscape dominated by a single overwhelming entity. To follow in the spirit of justice and equality as specified in our national pledge, the government may once again re-engage with the citizenry and in turn perpetuate its political longevity instead of ignoring widening cracks and fractures that are momentarily hidden underneath the hawkish surveillance of the ruling party.

Lastly, Mr Sadasivan touched on the principle of Happiness & Progress. He pointed out the growing disjoint between the nation's priorities and that of the ordinary citizenry. While the government continues to insist on tangible, quantifiable measures of progress like GDP, he correctly pointed out that these quantitative measures reveal little about the actual improvement in the lives of the ordinary man-on-the-street. The straight-line conclusion that happiness will result automatically from progress of only the economic variety is both archaic and naïve in the Singapore of today. Mr Sadasivan also challenged the widely accepted notion that providing more aid to the poor and the aged meant going down the path of becoming a welfare state. Such a conclusion, one of the many other straight-line ones drawn by the ruling party, is fundamentally flawed. It is akin to asserting that morphine can only be used by drug addicts and not for anesthesia. Administered appropriately, the government is able to provide some relief to these groups of people without overtaxing the government budget or overall economy. Other indicators like the GINI coefficient reveal more of the true picture of Singapore's society, where the rich-poor divide ranks amongst largest in the world. Hopes of a realignment of the existing economic policies pursued by the government to the spirit of true happiness and progress as encapsulated in our national pledge so as to result in progress that can lead to a more modern and comprehensive definition of happiness remains an elusive one. However it should be the duty of a Member of Parliament to become the matter to the fore and invoke a reconsideration of true merits of the existing system and suggest improvements to it. I am glad that Mr Sadasivan had started the ball rolling in such an effective and persuasive way.

The issues brought up in this speech are not new ones which have not already been mentioned in the media or blogosphere. But what Mr Sadasivan managed to achieve in his speech is to reframe these prevailing issues in the most elegant manner and articulate them in relation to the tenets espoused in our national pledge in the most eloquent and dignified way. To the assertion that Mr Sadasivan's speech is a highfalutin one, I have to respectfully disagree.