with hearts too big to fit our beds: April 2011

much debate has been generated about the upcoming general elections.

Critics of the incumbent ruling party point towards rising price levels (most pertinently HDB prices) unmatched by an increase in real income levels, pro-immigration policies resulting in a depression of wages and the lack of accountability for mistakes made. They further point towards the exorbitantly high, and ever increasing ministerial pays, ineffective policy making to achieve anything other than growth in gdp and the lack of individual freedom. they propose that a stronger opposition will counter PAP complacency, re-align its interest and policy making to the needs of a greater portion of Singapore's population and is necessary for political (democratic) progress.

Proponents on the other hand point towards the success it has had in bringing Singapore this far, explain why the government cannot be blamed for (some of) its mistakes and that income inequality is not the responsibility of the government. they further assert that high ministerial pays are necessary to attract talent, gdp growth is the only way to ensure a stable and prosperous society and individual freedom should be constrained to maintain peace and cohesiveness in multicultural Singapore. They argue PAP is the best option because they have a monopoly over experience and that a strong opposition will only undermine the efficiency of the government.

Beyond these arguments, there has inevitably been a lot of rhetoric and irrelevant arguments going around that is not conducive to the debate about why we should vote for either one. Bringing up past historical events (e.g. ISD action) is unfair because actions taken then were under different circumstances, by a different generation of leaders and we should not hold present or future leaders responsible for something they did not do. Similarly, the current generation cannot claim credit for past successes their predecessors achieved nor is it a good reason why we should keep voting for them if current policies do not meet the needs of the people.

In my opinion, whether you support the PAP boils down to the values that you hold and what you, as a Singaporean, prioritise.

Yes, the PAP pursues GDP growth and has been undeniably successful in doing so. Pro-immigration policies make up for Singapore's ailing birth rates and sustains an economy that requires a certain critical mass to continue to grow and develop. Conservative fiscal policies maintain large reserves, low corporate tax creates a pro business environment and attracts foreign investment which keeps Singapore's economy relevant in an increasingly competitive global economy. The lack of minimum wage levels is simply an extension of this policy and mindset. The lack of individual freedom to protest maintains the stable and efficient environment that is highly attractive to international corporations and is a reason why MNCs choose Singapore over other countries in the region. All things considered, there is no denying that the government is very successful in pursuing economic growth and a majority of Singaporeans have for the longest time benefited from this. If economic growth is what you rank at the top of your priorities, then yes, you are likely to be pro-PAP.

on the other hand, the single-minded pursuit of economic growth has come at very high costs, largely to the lower middle income and low income families. The very same pro-immigration policies aimed at achieving economic growth also penalises this sector of the population in two ways. On the one hand, it increases inflation though increased spending, which causes prices to go up. on the other hand, the influx of immigrants increases competition and it is the unskilled, lower educated or old people who cannot compete who suffers the most when the influx of foreign workers pushes down their wages or renders them unemployed. Training programmes (which is the PAP's sole solution) have not made this sector of the population any more able to compete and without any social security policy in place, it is inevitable that these people will find it harder to survive as prices go up and their incomes go down. The middle income class too, while do not suffer the effects as much, find themselves sandwiched between not being poor enough to be eligible for subsidies like education bursaries yet not rich enough to make a comfortable home and good education for their children affordable. The CPF, the only form of government policy that the people can rely on in their old age is proportionate to their income and is merely a projection of their economic status i.e. the poor will get poorer (due to loss of income) and the rich will continue living comfortably. Without a pension scheme or a social welfare policy, there is no guarantee that the old will be provided for in their retirement. it is not surprising then that there is a widening income gap between those who've benefited from economic growth and those who have suffered for it. If you believe that it is the government's duty to serve the needs of its people, all its people, you are likely to be anti-PAP (at least in its current form).

It is in this light that more people feel that the lack of accountability and the exorbitantly high, and ever increasing ministerial pays are objectionable. When government policies served the needs of the people and everyone benefited from economic growth, these high pays seemed less unjust. in fact, the argument that such renumeration is needed to attract talent to ensure that such policies continue, even seemed to make sense. However, when the people are giving up a part of their income to pay for a government that puts in place policies that undermines the livelihood of a substantial portion of the population, the argument for high pays start to look just slightly ludicrous.

The harshest of critics will say that this is because the ruling party has stopped caring, that their pay is pegged to gdp growth and they are self serving. Others, willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, will say that it is merely a symptom of them losing touch with people on the ground, unaware and disconnected from the troubles faced by Singaporeans. Whichever the case, the fact remains that something has to be done to re-align government policies with the needs of the people.

In the above, I have deliberately set up a false dichotomy between economic growth and justice. What I am arguing for now is that it is possible to have both - to have a government that is very good at promoting economic growth, yet is accountable to the people and recognise that their responsibility is to serve the needs of the ordinary Singaporean. I believe that a stronger opposition will do just that, by providing a means of check and balance. When people start to speak with their votes and the ruling party is reminded that they cannot get away with anything and everything, demands for policy that serve the people suddenly take on a stronger, louder voice. It reminds them that we are paying their income, that the lifestyles that they are leading, of big homes and lavish cars, are founded on the monies of the people they serve. It is funded by the hard work of the people who struggle to pay for the education of their children, who worry about what will happen to their families if they lose their jobs, who are trying desperately to make ends meet. Remember that the next time they say that income inequality is not the responsibility of the government.

a cloak of lethargy falls over me and i want to do nothing but fall into bed, or watch mindless videos, or flip through facebook for the umpteenth time. in my head there's a voice that says, fight it sam, fight the listlessness - the lifelessness - but soon that too fades into a vague humming.

perhaps it should not be surprising given how bits of my heart are strewn across the universe. perhaps this is nothing more than an excuse.

i had a dream last night. i dreamt that i could be in two places at once -

a phone call, and I'll be there, where the distant voice calls for me.

but i couldnt live in two places at once.
the more i lived, in the place where you are,
the more the me back home faded away.

the more i live, in the time where we're together,
the more the me now, fades away.

i dont, i dont have enough consciousness, enough energy, enough of me to be in so many places at once
i watch the clock count the minutes, the hours,
i watch the sun rise and set with the passing of the days,
but to me nothing moves. time is intermittent, it goes on forever, yet not at all.
i feel like i'm living in a world that is nothing more than a cheap imitation of what life was meant to be.

what wouldnt i give
to feel the rush of excitement in my veins,
to feel the buzzing of an energy that resonates deep within me
to see the world in technicolour rather than in sepia.

to have all that last more than the time it takes to buy a couple of drinks,
turn into one of the moshing bodies on the dance floor,
and pretend that the beat of my heart is anything like the beat of the music.

I'll follow you into the park,
through the jungle, through the dark
boy, i've never loved one like you
we'll laugh until we think we'll die,
barefoot on a summer night
nothin' new is sweeter than with you