Do you fall out with friends over politics?

Hi there, here's a regular blog post and today I am going to answer a question that my friends Neurotic Ramblings have asked me in response to episode 1 of my vlog. They said, "Did you really have people unfriend you on Facebook just because of your political views? Like seriously?" They go on to tell me how they do have pro-PAP friends and how they delicately avoid the topic of politics in conversation so as to avoid conflicts. Here's the reply I promised.

Well yes, I do have a friend who is also pro-PAP as well and I have an awkward friendship with him. You see, he was a friend from back in my VJC days and when I was working in Singapore, he went out of his way to help open doors for me, introducing me to various bankers and fund managers who were his friends - accelerating the networking process for me. He has started a small business himself (also in the financial services sector) and with all due respect, it's hard to start a new business and be your own boss. I do have admiration for he's trying to do and good luck to him.

So yes, there isn't anything wrong with my relationship with him both on a personal and professional basis - it's just that he is not just a PAP supporter, he is a mega-PAP supporter. He actively campaigns for PAP candidates and there are picture of him in all white at PAP events. I cringe when I see those pictures. Do we talk about politics? No. Is he aware of my vehemently anti-PAP views? Yes. So yes, like you, I do have these uneasy friendships with PAP supporters.

Yes we are aware of our different political views.

Here's the thing about British politics which is quite different though - because we have genuine multi-party politics, it creates a situation where every party gravitates towards "the middle ground". The means that no one party can become too extreme (be it right wing or left wing) in their politics because no one party can rely entirely on their traditional power bases to win an election outright - instead, they need to broaden their appeal to everyone, especially those undecided voters whose votes are up for grabs.

Yes there are voters who are pretty hardcore supporters of one party - for example, there are working class communities in the north of England where several generations of the same family have always voted for the Labour party, likewise, there are rich families where generations have always voted for the Conservative party. People do tend to pick a party that they can most identify with, so when you look at the social profile of each party's supporters - you may get the impression that each party is radically different. However, they're not. When you actually look at a lot of the policies, they're actually quite similar in many ways because they all want to capture the middle ground.

The Middle Ground, not too far to the right or left.

So whilst some of the supporters of the main parties (Labour and Conservatives) may have extremist views, the party they are supporting and voting for do not and will not ever become too extremist because of the middle ground factor. There are extremist parties of course, but few people actually do support them. Some of my friends (particular the thespians) may have pretty extremist views about wealth distribution and the restructuring the economy, . Nonetheless, the party that they support (the Labour party) do not condone such views because they know that these views will make them unelectable to the majority of the voters - so that does put a moderating factor on the policies of the main parties, because of this crucial "middle ground" factor.

So for example, I have a friend Emma who does have some of these really extremist views, she has said things like, "there should be a pay cap, a banker must be paid as much as a nurse or teacher and not a penny more - I would go as far as to seize assets from millionaire bankers and then spend that money on schools, hospitals, training the unemployed and helping disabled people." That sounds quite extreme, but Emma votes for the Labour party and they will never ever do any of the things that Emma has suggested because of the middle ground factor. Being a Labour supporter, they do exert a positive influence in moderating some of Emma's more extreme views - such is the relationship between the voter and the party they choose to support.

Yeah Emma has some extremists views about wealth redistribution.

Whereas in Singapore, in the absence of genuine multi-party democracy, far more fundamental questions are asked about politics. In Singapore, the ruling party, the PAP, keeps a very firm grip on power and those who support the PAP argue that having a single party in power is a tried and tested formula that works for Singapore. The benefits include being able to plan long term, rather than seeing no further than the next general election. Many view the PAP as a super efficient machine that just gets things done without the messy process of politics slowing them down.

In the UK, we have been talking about the High Speed 2 (HS2) rail project for years and the amount of political bickering over it has been astonishing - in Singapore, if the government were to decide to embark on a similar transport infrastructure project like that, it would be a lot more straight forward, fewer questions would be asked and by the time they had finished building it, the British government would still be arguing about the same project. When I hear anything about more HS2 arguments in the news again (and again and again), I just wanna scream, "for fuck's sake, either just get on with it or scrap it already! Make up your bloody minds already lah, aiyoh!"

However, the point about having multi-party politics and an effective opposition is to keep the government in check. Last month, the PAP rushed through the MDA bill without any discussion of it in parliament - they can do so because there are only six opposition MPs in parliament and the PAP can easily trample over an ineffective and weak opposition, bludgeoning anything they want through parliament like that despite widespread public opposition. Hence this is a double-edged sword: an efficient government can rush into terrible mistakes without this facility for debate and discussion. That pitfall is a major flaw in the Singaporean system - an accident waiting to happen.

Hypothetically speaking, the PAP could embrace multi-party politics and strike a happy medium between the two extremes - but that remains a hypothetical question. Part of the reason why anti-PAP Singaporeans are find it hard to accept the stance of pro-PAP supporters is because supporting the PAP means a fundamental rejection of multi-party politics and embracing Singaporean style totalitarianism - the benevolent dictator who still wishes to maintain the guise of democracy. (Like who are you trying to kid lah, alamak.)

The Singaporean model for politics is very different.

When you have just one party keeping a firm grip on power, there is no middle ground, there is no compromise zone, there is no moderating factor. Instead, you have deeply divided factions who are either pro or against the government - rather than a choice between two major parties both trying to win the middle ground. For Singaporeans, there is a fundamental question: do you always trust the PAP to make the right decisions and get it right every single time (I clearly don't - I do not trust the PAP at all, not at all, not one bit, oh no), or do you wish for there to be a middle ground in politics and accept the mess that may come with a middle ground?

Neither option is perfect and both options come with their pros and cons - but I clearly prefer there to be a middle ground and I accept the mess that comes with it. This divide in opinions in Singapore basically boils down to whether one believes that Singapore is better off as it is, with one party effectively being in charge - or if embracing multi-party democracy, loosening the PAP's grip on power, would lead to a better future for Singaporeans? These are far more fundamental questions compared to the UK situation, where we're merely choosing between different parties who may appeal to different voters but are not all that different at the end of the day because of the moderating factor of the middle ground. This element of competition is good for democracy as the voter does have a choice between politicians and the politicians are competing with each other to win our votes - may the best politician win.

I hope that answers your question. If you have any further questions or comments on the issue, you know the drill - feel free to leave a comment below, thank you everyone!