“Very fine people on both sides”

One of Donald Trump’s greatest moments came on 15 August 2017, when he was asked for his thoughts on the clashes in Charlottesville, Virginia between Neo-Nazis and normal people. The Donald proceed to stun the world by telling reporters that there were “very fine people on both sides.” The remark stunned the world because this was the leader of the nation that saved the world from the Nazis describing Nazis as very fine people, especially when its questionable if Nazis are people let alone very fine ones.

However, in fairness to Donald Trump, his words were only shocking because of the context in which they were used in. Take out the context and Donald Trump’s words would actually be an ideal of what most civilized societies should be about – very fine people on both sides of any issue. The highlight of what a civilized democracy came int 2008 when John McCain defended and praised his opponent, Barak Obama as a “Decent man, whom I happen to disagree with.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0u3QJrtgEM 

While McCain would lose the election, he has ended up winning in the hearts of people for doing the right things. Instead of trying to divide the nation, he united it and refused to go down the road of playing up to the fears and prejudices of the mob.

Unfortunately, 2008 is something of a memory. From 2016 onwards, the world entered an age of wild populism, which centred on a wonderful concept of blaming your problems on people who cannot fight back. In the words of an American customer at the Bistrot, “There is no neutrality.”

Singapore has seemingly escaped the most extreme forms of populism and in a world where calls for unthinking jingoism have become the norm, Singapore seems like an island of sanity in an insane world.

However, having been around Singapore’s “arty” and “journo” types for a good portion of my functioning life, I would argue that it’s not exactly a case of Singapore avoiding wave of populism that is sweeping the world but more of a case of Singapore’s politicians being more subtle and clever about harnessing the raw emotions of the masses.

The simplest tactic, is to label anyone who publicly questions the established way of doing things as “Anti-Singaporean.” As anyone who works who deals with any form of media will tell you, there is an art form to questioning the system in public without being labeled “Anti-Singaporean” or getting a nasty letter from a politicians solicitors and having your family’s dirty linen rolled in the mud and then washed out in public. The stories of the people who have tried to do it on a regular basis can be found at:

 https://coconuts.co/singapore/features/singaporeans-step-outside-lines-take-center-stage-naysayers-book-club/

In the old days, it was a case of being sued into bankruptcy and facing a number of potential charges on a variety of laws. I’m old enough to remember the General Election of 1997, which was a particularly good one for the ruling party. They managed to reverse a trend of a declining share of the popular vote and won a mere 81 out of 83 seats available in parliament. While a lot of credit was given to generous upgrading programs in the heartland estates, another was to target an unknown politician from the Workers Party called Tang Liang Hong (No relation) by labeling him an “Anti-Christian Chinese Chauvinist.” 

The internet has made things more interesting. Online media sites like the Online Citizen and TRemeritus (as a matter of disclosure, my blog pieces are picked up by TRemeritus) have given a space for alternative voices. However, the ruling party has also found ways to deal with this. Why label anyone “Anti-Singaporean” when you can get someone else to do it for you. It’s especially effective when that person happens to be a Pink Blotchy – the Fawning Follower comes to mind. Unfortunately, Pink Blotchies have a tendency to be listened to, even if they’re speaking gibberish. As a friend of mine noted, otherwise intelligent people actually bought into the arguments of the Fawning Follower on why it was a sign of success to keep dark skinned Asians in cages (ooopps, I mean dormitories) and how the government supported the rule of law by a law on the statute books but not enforcing it.

The Fawning Follower has been a particularly useful pawn in labeling people who disagree with the government as Anti-Singaporean or worse – Traitors. He’s labeled Kristin Han as having “a career in treachery” and his next favourite target is the play write Alfian Sa’at, whom he describes as symbolizing the egotistical rebellion of the no problem generation. 

While Kristin and Alfian have questioned things, neither have done anything that would count as “treachery” by any definition of the word. There is no record of either having said or done anything that called for violence in the streets or for a foreign nation to invade and so on. Neither have been picked up by the Internal Security Department, which would indicate that the government is well aware that the its “critics” are traitors or “anti-Singaporean” or dare I say “rebels” by any definition.

Why do these things when someone else can do them for you? You stay above the fray and the Fawning Follower and his ilk do it for you. So, when the likes of Dr. Tan Meng Wu start talking about how ethnic minorities should be grateful that they can get jobs and send their kids to school, there’s no outrage at the underlying but blatantly racist tones. The trolls have laid the ground work for you and whatever prejudices people might have become justified because, well, a member of the ruling party said so in public and it was OK.

Thankfully there are some signs of progress. I take my hat off to Professor Tommy, one of our most respected diplomats, who has stated that Singapore needs “loving critics.” Professor Koh has argued that as a strong society, Singapore needs to accept a diversity of views. Crushing the views of “loving critics” instead of accommodating them, can be bad.

Mr. Wham spent years campaigning for migrant rights. He was labeled a trouble maker. Well, surprise – surprise, Covid-19 proved Mr. Wham right (1,000 cases a day, contrary to the Following Follower is not success). Had the authorities engaged Mr. Wham earlier, they may have found the problem much earlier and instead of being with the likes of Ukraine on the list of most infected nations, we might be closer to the likes of Hong Kong or Taiwan. 

If there’s anything that we need to move away from in this General Election, it is this automatic, “If you’re not with us, you’re against us” mentality. This isn’t about who wins the most seats but whether we can move away from “Me teacher, you student” (or as my mother says “me right, you wrong) mentality in politics and more towards the politics of “You’re a good man that I happen to disagree with.”  

There is a hope for this. Two of Singapore’s better leaders from different sides of political divide have chosen to step out of the ring in this election. Apparently, both men have stated their respect for each other. Here was the message that our former Prime Minister, Mr. Goh Chok Tong left on his Facebook on veteran opposition leader Low Thia Khiang:

https://mothership.sg/2020/06/goh-chok-tong-low-thia-khiang-retirement/

Mr. Goh was labeled a “seat warmer” for our current Prime Minister. Despite having the pressures of the Old Lee above him and the Current Lee below him, Mr. Goh managed to do a few of his own things (As a long-term resident of Marine Parade, I have Mr. Goh to thank for getting MPs to try and beautify their estates. He was the first one to do so. As a beneficiary of Saudi-Relations and the Indian Business Community, I have to thank Mr. Goh for opening these markets up. – Lee Kuan Yew was quite open in his disdain for India after Indira Gandhi snubbed him). As such, I believe everyone contesting this general election should take note of his words and I think his final gift in politics is showing Singaporeans that it is possible to agree to disagree.  

You’re Lucky We Let You Live

I usually don’t have much to say about Singapore Elections. The results, like any libel trial involving our senior political leaders, is a forgone conclusion. The ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) is an expert at using the vast powers and resources of incumbency to its advantage and our opposition remains fragmented and too filled with different egos to focus on the main prize. Furthermore, if you work on the principle that elections are not won by opposition but lost by governments, the PAP government, while having made some serious mistakes, has yet to do enough to lose the election.

Having said that, it’s been unfortunate that a member of the ruling party has decided to put display a very disturbing attitude towards ethnic minorities. The background is as simple. Dr. Tan Wu Meng, a member of parliament (MP) for the ruling party took issue with the playwright, Alfian Sa’at.

I must admit that I’ve never read Alfian Sa’at’s works. However, from what I’ve heard of him, he’s by no means a violent revolutionary nor has he ever suggested that he’d support any damage to Singapore. What he has been is critical of certain government policies and certain members of high society. In short, Mr. Sa’at is not much different from the rest of us when it comes to discussing politics. He is merely more vocal. He was described by Professor Tommy Koh, one of our most respected diplomats as a “loving critic” of Singapore.

Dr. Tan, however, decided that Mr. Sa’at was not a loving critic but a dangerous “anti-Singaporean” and when Dr. Pritam Singh, leader of the Workers Party (the only opposition party with seats in parliament), defended Mr. Sa’at in parliament, Dr. Tan decided to go for the proverbial jugular and in doing so, put on display one of the worst displays of “Chinese Privilege” ever seen:

Dr. Tan’s point is this simple – he, as part of the ethnic Malay minority in Singapore was ungrateful for the fact that Chinese majority Singapore had given him an education and allowed him to make a living. The argument was simple, had he been born as an ethnic minority elsewhere, he wouldn’t live the life he lives or even been allowed to live.

Nobody denies that ethnic minorities don't have it easy. In Southeast Asia, the ethnic Chinese minorities, particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia have had to live with, at best legal discrimination or been at the wrong end of a violent mob, as happened to Indonesia’s Chinese back in 1998.

While Singapore’s ethnic Malays have not been on the wrong end of violent clashes, Dr. Tan misses the point. Just because ethnic minorities get it worse elsewhere, it doesn’t make treatment of our own ethnic minorities right nor does it make Dr. Tan’s attitude correct.

For a start, the attitude of “You the ethnic minority are lucky” goes against the ethos of what Singapore is supposed to be. I cannot stress enough that the ruling party, which Dr. Tan is a part of wrote our national pledge as “Regardless of Race, Language or Religion.” Our national pledge is based on us being “Singaporean” first rather than our ethnicity or faith.

Sure, racial prejudice does exist on a personal level and you can’t expect these prejudices to vanish overnight. There is no doubt that ethnic minorities will have to deal with personal prejudices on a personal basis. However, you’d expect that elected representatives of the people would have a duty to combat such prejudices in the public sphere rather than to use the fact that ethnic minorities are just that and to use that as a threat.

Mr. Sa’at was educated in Singapore and makes a living here. Isn’t that the right of every citizen of Singapore? Why is that even an issue?

I am sure that there are plenty of issues that one can take up with Mr. Sa’at but the fact that he’s an ethnic minority that had the good fortune of being able to receive an education and make a living in Singapore should not be one of them.

The leader of the ruling party should demonstrate that we are serious about being “regardless of race, language or religion” and make Dr. Tan pay with his seat in Parliament. There should be no room for politicians to use the race card in a progressive society.