POLITICS IS MORE THAN WE THINK IT IS

28 Nov1994


        I would like to thank Ms Geraldine Kan ("Politics? It takes 
more than money"; ST Overseas Edition 19 Nov) for adeptly portraying 
the feelings prevalent among many of us.
        It is disconcerting that Geraldine's young friends saw politics 
as a rarefied sphere reserved for the brilliant ones among us, who deal 
with important matters of state. They are not entirely wrong in their 
perception, but their sense of the political is discouragingly narrow. 
Politics is not merely about matters of state. In its broadest sense, 
politics is about our relationships with each other and with the state, 
and so it is the legitimate concern of all of us as Singapore citizens. 
Does this sound strange? It should not. What should give us pause is 
that it does sound odd to Singaporeans. There is a  wholly artificial 
separation of politics from everyday life, with the realm of politics 
restricted to a very select few. It is not surprising, then, that we often 
seem to be politically apathetic. With numerous "Keep Out! by 
invitation only" signs posted around POLITICS, it would be 
astonishing if we were otherwise.
        A generation ago, there were good reasons to effect such a 
drastic split in the Singapore polity, but this split has become a serious 
liability - we are reaping the fruit of seeds sown in those bitter years. To 
mention but one of the more serious consequences of this split: the 
difficulty in replacing our political leadership.
        Finding a politician among a depoliticised people would be a 
minor miracle. "Low" pay is not the problem - if even  the 
extraordinary sum of half-a-million dollars is not enough, then piling on 
more money is not likely to solve the problem. It may be the right 
approach to headhunting managers for Singapore Inc., but it will not 
find stewards for the Republic. The root of the problem is a people who 
have been separated from the pulse of politics, who have come to see it 
as an exclusionary province of Singapore life, with no relevance to them 
whatsoever.
        The solution, then, is to widen the realm of politics to 
encourage the participation of citizens who are not professional 
politicians. I say "widen", but it really means a return to a more normal, 
more democratic, state of affairs. The result will be a politically aware 
people, critical and willing to contest the decisions of the ruling elite. It 
is a prospect which must fill the politicians with some trepidation; they 
will claim, correctly, that speed in political decision-making will be 
reduced.  However, the quid pro quo is a people who, through active 
political participation, will feel a deep and abiding sense of belonging; 
Singaporeans who can say: This is truly our home, because we decide 
how things are run.  This is the way to foster loyalty to a country, not 
by giving out shares, which can only create a fickle interest in a mere 
corporation that is gone with the next stockmarket crash.
        Is the price of reduced political decisiveness too high? In 
answer, the wisdom in trading a little Efficiency for National Political 
Robustness is self-evident. The strength and authority of a political 
leadership founded on political apathy is illusory and ephemeral. In 
contrast, there is much to gain from the informed consent and support 
of a politically aware people.
        A wider sense of the political - on the part of both the 
Government and the People - understands that involvement in politics 
is not restricted to the single-minded pursuit of power. That is rightfully 
the province of political parties. If you wish to seize the reins of power, 
you must do so openly. But ordinary citizens concerned about the 
social, economic and political course of Singapore have a right - nay, a 
moral obligation - to contribute to the discourse, each in his own way, 
whether through the pen, the Arts or the hustings. Limiting politics to 
the last is untenable, unnecessary, and ultimately self-defeating.
        Where do we begin to address the malaise? It seems to me that 
the university is a good place to start. What a pity that we confine our 
brightest young citizens to the petty and the inconsequential! Bops and 
other extravaganza galore - what has happened to the socially conscious 
University Student of the 1970s? Sadly, the signs are not positive: a 
paranoid management that axes a innocuous journal; and officials who 
give short shrift to student unhappy over changes in the calculation of 
final grades. The message is clear: Don't get involved - the powerful will 
decide for you. It is a message that has sunk in very deep, and to our 
detriment. The loss in terms of ideas and youthful political energy is 
incalculable.
        Another excellent place to start with is this newspaper, which 
has a very important role to play in encouraging political participation. 
How about devoting a full page to the Forum, instead of reducing an 
already meagre space by printing advertisements on the same page? I 
am not unaware, or unsympathetic to the constraints under which the 
media  operate, but surely giving more space for readers to express their 
views is a praiseworthy public service that should not be denied on the 
basis of crass commercialism?
        Finally, those in power must learn that people who who hold 
alternative views are not necessarily political enemies who must be 
crushed. It is absurd, and dangerous, to equate a political party to the 
country, for it creates a false belief that political opposition is 
treasonous, and that political activity not under the aegis of the ruling 
party is suspect. No one has a monopoly on wisdom, or patriotism, for 
that matter. The expansion of the political sphere to include ordinary 
citizens participating through their comments and criticism will broaden 
the range of possibilities for Singapore, which is to our mutual benefit.
        Perseverance is the non-negotiable price of success. Those 
who desire change must be prepared to work for it, patiently and 
peacefully. There is no guarantee of success - too bad for the hesitant 
doctor in Geraldine's essay - but neither is there any basis for despair. 
Despair is the ultimate cop-out. If we believe that our cause is just, and 
that right will triumph over might, then there is basis for a guarded 
optimism. Otherwise, stop nattering, and pass the Riesling.