| The GE just came to an end and this has been really big eye-opener for me. The general sentiment online is that if you are not against PeeAyePee , you are against Singapore. Which is a sweeping statement as it assumes that everyone who is voting for the PeeAyePee has not made a considered decision, and even if considered, it was a wrong choice as they were voting solely in their own selfish interest. I do see the need for an independent opposition to provide checks and balances to ensure a robust debate in parliament and i also see a need to ensure that the opposition is not undermined through gerrymendering, and I would like to think that I have considered this and more in my vote. Lawyers have a tendency to be idealistic and a strong sense of justice (when they start of in law school). I can understand where some people are coming from when they insist that it is necessary for an alternative parliament. What i do not understand is the anger. My circle of friends and acquaintances are mostly working professionals, some drawing a very good pay, taking into account the average pay of singaporeans my age. HDB issues, cost of living issues do not affect them that severely. So why are they so angry? In what way do they think that the current government has shortchanged them that they have so much hatred in them? To the extend that some think nothing of being sacarstic, callous, mean or use vulgarities to curse, swear at people? Some say that the government is so arrogant, it has forgotten the people. I have not have any contact with any government official - by this i mean the MPs and not the civil service - and I really do not think that the average singaporean my age would have had this contact with any government official. From what i have heard, people are angry by some stories that they have heard from someone else, or something that had went viral on the internet. Some say that the gerrymendering is uncalled for. Sure, but is this why there is such great anger? Surely one can argue with logic, not with vulgarities? Some think that the government is lacking compassion for the poor. Sure, but i think the only people are justified in their anger on this issue are those people who are either poor, or have helped the poor regularly. Not on a 30 day campaign and promising old people that they will change their lives, but on a regular basis so that you can understand the social complexities of the poor. Some are angry with the ministers' pay, which for me came as a bit of a suprise, becuase they will readily agree that it is ok for CEOs to be paid a lot becuase the CEOs generate a lot of profit for the shareholders of the company even though the company may be a transport company which delivers a good that will have to be consumed by the masses, but not ministers. (i can understand when the common man on the street feel that millions per year is unwarranted becuase they do not earn so much) Lawyers and other professionals are insulated from the influx of foreign workers currently, thanks to the demand and supply of the industry, so I am not sure why they would be so angry. Granted, you could say that perhaps they are very sympathetic and empathetic people, hence, it is great that they can feel for the masses, and not just be in their own elitist bubble. But for this anger to bubble up and spill over, I get the sense that the anger is just not becuase the government is ill treating others, but more like they feel like the government is mistreating them, their family, their loved ones, and the government is the sole cause of their unhappiness. When I first heard of the impending elections, I was very angry with the cost of living issue and the property prices as it affected me directly. I am about to get married and I need a property. I felt upset that when I was younger, i was "fooled" into working hard and studying hard in the hope that I could live a comfortable life and move from a lower income group to a upper middle income group. Upon graduation, I found myself saddled with loans and I had to work long hard hours in a job that may not always make me feel appreciated, and the money I earned was always not nearly enough. I was angry with the foreign talents coming in, and rightly or wrongly, I felt they contributed to my lowered quality of life. I dislike the fact that inflation was at a all time high, and that there were people who could buy a starbucks everyday when i could only afford a wang's coffee. I was angry that if i were to buy a condominium, i would have to spend the rest of my life paying it. I was angry that the alternative was a HDB flat, which seem like a big joke considering that my fiancee and I were working professionals, who spend our younger days studying hard just to move up the social classes. But what is the alternative? The truth hurts and the truth is that when a nation, with an open economy, reaches the level of a developed countries, the social strata solidifies and it becomes harder for any change in social classes. By chance, i read Lee Kuan Yew's book - hard truths about Singapore - and i see the direction where he is coming from. Singapore is a miracle, and for the miracle to keep going, it is unavoidable that there are certain trade offs. If you want the long term sustanability of Singapore, then you got to have the MNCs who would want the foreign talent, the cheap labours, and the stable government. Me, and all the other lower middle income singapore to the upper income singaporeans want a better life quickly, upon graduation. We demand well paying jobs because we have been told that education reaps success. But how much more can life improve when a nation reaches a developed state? Maybe the best alternative would be to give up this near miracle of a nation, to settle for a lower gdp, and pray and hope that somehow, we still manage to survive. The company i work for stresses that we need to ensure that we are ahead of the competition, becuase if there is any slip up, and our competitors move ahead of us, clients would drop us like hot potatoes because everyone loves a winner. The loser will have to settle for luring clients with lower costs. Which would be a downward spiral becuase the lawyers would be paid less, and the better lawyers may move out. This is the ultimate fear i guess, which perhaps drive the government to work us singaporeans so hard. Per se, i do not think the policies are lousy if you are thinking of the long term interests of Singapore, not of the interests of Singaporeans. We want cheap housing, insulation from foreign talents, increase in pay for the lower income singapore workers. Singapore caters to MNCs - increse pay for lower singaporeans would result in higher costs for MNCs, refusing them foreign talents may result in them wanting to locate in a region with a ready pool of talents. If MNCs refuse to choose singapore, then we would need to rely on our own SMEs to survive. These SMEs would also have a higher costs, which in turn may result in a disadvantage in exporting our goods overseas. What is the win win situation? We are all entreprenuers, we do R&D, we invent, we go to cheaper countries and build plants there but employ our local singaporeans. That's the best. But inevitably with every R&D and business venture, we fail. Hence, the failure of the life science industry. All of us wil have to have the risk apetite to do a business. Of course, we can skip all these and try and be self-sufficient, plant our own crops and have a farm. But all we have as a natural resource right now is people. And we need jobs for people. Jobs do not drop from the sky. For the people who feel that the government in Singapore has contributed to a moral decline of the people. I agree that there is a moral decline in Singaporeans. Just look at how disrespectful and how utterly vulgar we have become online? We dare to do that becuase we know that the chances of us getting sued for defamation is low, and some of us choose to hide behind nicknames in forums. But that is just telling of our moral values - we only toe the line and be respectful because there are repurcussions. If there are none, we do what we please. We are growing into a materialist generation not only becuase of the culture in Singapore, it is also becuase us, as potential parents, are materialists. Morals are caught not taught. If we are parents that show an unhealthy obsession with beauty, with humour, with branded goods, with intelligence, as opposed to an obsession with morals, with justice, with mercy, surely it would not be too shocking if our kids become superficial, anorexic, and spoilt? I see it in myself as well. This sudden craving to buy a branded bag, this pleasure i derive when my colleagues go "ooh, when did you get this?" when they see my bag, but as i approach a new phrase in my life, i often wonder how my kids would turn out. Maybe i am so affected by all this negativity of the GE because i have always been obsessed with the human complexities. I am trying to understand the anger of the people, just like i am trying to understand the anger in myself at the beginning of the GE. Is the government as terrible as we think? Why are we so so so angry? Do we really care for the poor and marginalise? Are we so affected by the elitisim of the current government? Some stauch anti-PeeAyePee are pretty elitist i think - they think nothing of calling juniors lawyers, business staff stupid, or dropping them like hot potates when the juniors do not live up to their expectations. I see very few lawyers volunteering for pro bono - and if you do pro bono - you will realise the social complexities of the poor. Some poor fell into a bad patch, and they do need the leg up to get tehm out. Some poor have a knack of falling again and again into the poverty cycle - for these, it is not just a matter of giving them money, it is to really re-educate them. It is like a woman who keeps marrying a drunkard who will abuse her. And please, i am not being a hard nosed elitist. I see it in my family. unemployment, refusal to take medication results in more unemployment when sick, when sick - one gets hurt and sad, and enter into a unhealthy relationship taht goes on and on and spiral downwards forever. It is easy to try to give money, but it is not easy to re-educate. Just ask my mum who works at a shelter sponsored by MCYS - the people she sees every day. and she will tell you it is not just about being helpful and pandering to the needs of the poor, it is also about being strict and loving the harder way. It is always easy for parent to indulge a child and give the child everything he or she wants, but, is that love or is that just a short cut out from teaching morals, discipline and life? on a different topic, i have always wondered why would children from the same family turn out differently with different moral values? Why would some people choose to work hard and break out from their poverty cycle while others just cannot have the drive or the determination to do so? When i went to cambodia recently, I was similarly disturbed by those who worked in the S-21 during hte Khmer Rough regime. How could the prisons guards have done what they had done. Why are there people willing to put themselves out to help others and there are others who are only in it for the money? Who am i in all of this? Am i the one who would rather suffer in silence or speak up against injustice? It is so much easier to paint everyone in black or white, but i don't believe that we should do that becuase it takes away all the complexities that makes us human. The question to ask myself everyday would be, when faced with choices - what do i decide on? The more selfless approach or the selfish approach? Many similar choices makes a habit, and habits are hard to break. At the end of the day, when tarnished with a million selfish choices, we become a person that we did not start of being. |
