By Lim Jialiang
In a statement on Sunday, PM Lee ‘acknowledged that the government could have done better in presenting the Population White Paper to the public.’ [1] Rather than look at the arguments that have been presented over the course of the White Paper debate, it is rather revealing to see how the media and the State have characterised opposition to the debate. It seems that even after so many years, the PAP is still (predictably) clinging on to the idea that their policies are only lacking because they lack in style rather than in substance.
This fundamental error to assume that the outrage over the White Paper is in communication and not in policy is the frame that the media have used to evaluate the White Paper debate. This obscures the genuine concerns of many in Singapore and instead paints them as uninformed, emotive and a people having “very strong” views. Moreover, these statements betray also the paternal and elitist tone that continues to pervade national politics and discussions. As Han Fook Kwang, a former Straits Times editor, writes:
"And because it is a complex problem with many issues in the mix -demographics, the structure of the economy, immigration policy, even questions regarding what it means to be Singaporean- it isn't possible for ordinary Singaporeans to absorb and fully understand all the arguments and implications."
– “Government needs to regain people’s trust” (Straits Times, 10 Feb 2013)
Informed commentators (who are thus not “ordinary”) have ripped apart the paper and called it out for being driven on assumptions, riddled with ideological blinkers and have no references besides casual allusions to some in-house statistics and studies. When many were sceptical about the veracity and due diligence in the conclusions that were made, apologists clamour that the White Paper has to be ‘simple so people can understand it.’ It appears to me that the White Paper exists in a quantum state of “complex” and “simple”, depending on which argument it needs to rebut at the moment.
Worse still is the condescending and elitist remark that Han makes, that it's "not possible" for "ordinary Singaporeans to absorb and fully understand." Han must be truly un-ordinary because he understands all the issues! The hubris is truly astounding. Who is this mythical "ordinary Singaporean" he speaks of?
Assuming that this "ordinary Singaporean" even exists (perhaps alongside with the lepak Malay, the drunk Indian and the mercenary Chinese), maybe the reason why we don’t “fully understand” is because the debate for a policy that would have charted our path for the next 2 decades was discussed and stamped and approved within five days.
Han’s argument is fundamentally a logical fallacy in the form of a red herring, also specifically known as “The Courtier’s Reply.” Whenever the opponent raises a point, rather than addressing that point, you claim instead that they do not have “complete knowledge,” which therefore invalidates their point. However, what Han is indirectly saying is that you should be informed, but only about the “right things.” Naturally, all other arguments against the policy are invalid, are “emotive” rather than “rational.”
The emotive Singaporean
It is here that the next bogeyman against any government policy appears: The Emotive Singaporean. That Singaporeans are all hot and bothered (but not for babies) about the debate is disagreeable to Chua Mui Hoong, Opinion Editor of the Straits Times. In her article, ‘Let’s get over that emotional hump’, she urged ‘right-minded Singaporeans’ to ‘get over that emotional hump and the 6.9 million figure and take the White Paper at face value for what it is trying to do.’ It is this simplification of opposition to the White Paper that belittles the intellectual capital that has been against the debate, and the frustrations of citizens who have voiced their anxieties, only to be painted as having an ‘emotional hump.’
She continues by saying that the White Paper is a ‘roadmap for planners to gear up for all the extra buses, trains, homes, parks, nursing homes, hospitals, childcare centres that are needed.’ In the span of two weeks, the White Paper has turned from one of population to one of infrastructure.
"I'm not an economist. But I am always mindful that a loss in income of 2 percentage points from slower growth when you earn $10,000 a month is a paltry $200 you will not notice.
"For a worker scraping by on $1,200, $24 less a month may mean his daughter can't go to a neighbourhood tuition centre to get help with her homework. Or no broadband subscription at home."
– “Population White Paper: Let's get over that emotional hump” (Straits Times,9 Feb 2013)
In fact, even Chua Mui Hoong is an “ordinary Singaporean,” for she is uninformed to the fact that GDP and wages are not directly correlated, and makes the fallacious example above. Despite a decade of strong growth, maybe she has her own emotional hump to get over.
The pliant media
These commentaries by Chua and Han are part of the greater swing that we see The Straits Times embracing over the last year; that they are no longer interested in objective reportage. I would argue that the media should be objective in their discussion of something so monumental, rather than parroting and selling the sound bites that the PAP wants people to hear, something which The Straits Times is complicit in doing.
PM Lee said:
"It will take some time. It's a very emotional issue. Understandably, it's an issue which the views are very strong. It's also a very complicated issue.
"So I hope people will think about what has been spoken in Parliament, all the views which have been expressed and not only understand what this is about, and the intricacies, but also understand what we are trying to do is to try to help Singaporeans have a better life for the future in the best way possible.”
– ‘Govt to examine its experience in Population White Paper’ (Straits Times, 10 Feb 2013)
Reading the excerpt above, you can hardly see any difference between what the PM says and what these commentators have said. This is in contrast to Today, which has published one hard-hitting commentary after another. [See footnotes: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] Perhaps their role as not number one, but number two, allows for their editorial board to take on a greater diversity of views. These arguments are hardly the efforts of uninformed, emotive Singaporeans who are whiny and immature.
So Mr Han, if you’re still confused at why the electorate seems to not be unable to “understand fully,” you just have to read the newspaper that your commentary appeared in and which you’re managing. The answer is in fact right in front of you.
---------------
Footnotes:
1. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1253382/1/.html
2. http://www.todayonline.com/commentary/social-norms-must-drive-policymaking
3. http://www.todayonline.com/commentary/imperfect-measure-progress-gdp
4. http://www.todayonline.com/commentary/what-family-friendly-really-means
5. http://www.todayonline.com/commentary/beware-unintended-consequences
6. http://www.todayonline.com/commentary/its-vision-thing-spore-politics-come