"Alright, I am going to set the bar very high up for you. Basically, could you compare the political position of each party in UK with SG's political parties. From what I have read, I have this impression that the conservative are like the PAP, not taking into account high-handed manoeuvres and tactics used by the PAP of course. Am I right to say so?
 |
| David Cameron and Nick Clegg |
Next, do you see UK politics as dysfunctional and chaotic? I watched the house of commons debate and find it very entertaining given all the rhetoric and battle of wits going on during debates. However, I find that the debates certaintly lack substance and the politicians seem intent on scoring points against one another.(Take PM question time for example) Indeed, I have spoken to a PAP MP before and he express his amazement at how parliaments in other countries seem to get things done. What are your views on this? Does the opposition (Labour) oppose every single government policy for the sake of opposing?
I have the feeling that you are dead set against the labour government for the mess they have created when they are in government. However, I read an article on the BBC where opinion polls show that Labour will form the next govt if polls were held tomorrow. Is this phenomenon a protest vote or more a desire for change of govt? Lastly, what are your views on EU integration? In or out of Europe? Thanks for taking the time to reply to my post. Hope that you can enlighten Singaporeans on UK politics."
The Conservatives, aka The Tories
There are a few similarities between the Tories and the PAP (being right wing, for example), but please, they are very different indeed. The Tories may place themselves to the right of the political spectrum in the UK, but put them next to the PAP and they will look like tree-hugging loony lefties. The PAP is so far off the scale of being right wing! This has got to do with the nature of British politics - it's one man one vote and there are voters who will vote for Labour because they feel that a Labour government will protect their rights more (benefits system, welfare state, lower taxes) as opposed to a more right wing Tory government (who are seen to be more pro-business). So within that context, if the Tory government wants to win an election, they cannot be too heavy handed with for example, raising taxes, slashing benefits and reducing the welfare state, or else they will simply lose voters to the left.
In sharp contrast, the PAP can do what the hell they like because there is little or no threat of them losing an election - that is the key difference! At the last election, they still got away with 60.14% of the vote despite numerous problems and scandals along the way - this can only happen in Singapore (and never in the UK). It just goes to show that 60.14% are so misguided/blind/downright stupid that they'll rather blame foreigners than the PAP for the problems in Singapore. So really, the PAP have no threat of losing an election whilst for the Tories, this is a very real prospect at every election. That is the key difference in the context within which they operate, hence the way they behave is very different indeed. The British electorate behave very differently when compared to their Singaporean counterparts thus by that token, British politicians are very different to their Singaporean counterparts because they have to appeal to a very different electorate. No surprises there - we're comparing two very different countries.
 |
| PM David Cameron |
The British Social Class System & British Politics
Another key difference is the kind of people associated with the Tories - now card carrying proud Tories tend to be middle class, fairly rich British people with good jobs, a university degree and they feel that the country is in safe hands when it is run by people with similar backgrounds. The vast majority of Conservative politicians come from very rich families, are educated at the most exclusive and expensive private schools and have a degree from Oxford or Cambridge. Take David Cameron, our PM for example - not only are his parents ridiculously rich, he has royal blood. He can trace his ancestry to King William IV and is a cousin to the Queen. He was educated at Eton and Oxford before starting his career in politics. Now someone like David Cameron has virtually nothing in common with someone who say, works in a supermarket or a petrol station earning a modest wage.
The richer, middle class Britons tend to trust someone with David Cameron's background to run the country despite his obvious lack of connection with the average man in the street. Why? There is the general perception that the Tories will protect those who have money - rather than the left wing parties, who are more keen to tax the rich and redistribute the wealth to the poor. There are rich people who think, "I have worked hard to earn my money - I didn't steal, I didn't plunder, I didn't rob - no, I earned my money fair and square through sheer hard work. So why the hell should the government punish me for being wealthy by taxing me excessively, only to redistribute my money to unemployed lazy bums who can't be asked to get out of bed in the morning to go to work?"
 |
| Should hardworking people subsidize those who refuse to work? |
What about the Labour Party then?
The Labour party on the other hand, traditionally draws support from the working classes - some of whom still view politics as a class war. They want to see the rich bankers (who have enjoyed generous bonuses over the years) punished for the economic crisis we are currently in and they want more help for those who are struggling to make ends meet. They look at someone like David Cameron (and the rest of the Tories) and think, "that lot are so privileged, they have no idea what ordinary folks like us go through, how can they represent us?" So they vote for the Labour party, who traditionally appeal to left-wing voters in the British electorate.
This is of course, a very simplistic explanation of the Tory-Labour divide in British politics. The fact is, 99+% of us have nothing in common with David Cameron as we're not aristocrats who are related to the Queen! However, it is the perception of the parties' respective values - whether the party in question will help us and be on our side. There are also rich people who are involved in Labour politics and working class folks who vote for the Tories. Neither party can appeal solely to their traditional power bases if they want to win an election, so they try to be moderate and appeal to as many people as possible in order to gain as many votes a possible.
 |
| Most British voters are somewhere in between the two extremes... |
Why I dislike the Labour Party in the UK
I don't like the Labour party for various reasons: I am naturally right wing in my thinking (well, I am from Singapore). The Labour party lied on the war in Iraq (Blair lied) and Gordon Brown messed up the economy big time. They lost the last election mostly because of the economy and I just don't see the voters returning them to power this soon after they have gotten us into this mess in the first place. Sure there is a sense of desperation when it comes to the austerity measures biting hard for those at the bottom of the food chain who are dependent on the welfare state, but at the end of the day, these people are in the minority and they will always, always vote Labour anyway and the bulk of the Tories' core support comes from hardworking tax-paying middle class Brits who have nice jobs, live in nice houses and have virtually nothing in common with those at the bottom of the food chain. The Tories can count on this middle class support to see them through the next election - either in its current form as a coalition with the Lib Dems or going through on their own without the Lib Dems.
What I do see is a lurch to the right - when times are hard, we often see the rise of the far right. So I expect parties like the BNP, UKIP and any other new/niche parties who position themselves to the right of the Tories to gain ground. Basically, these people are controversial, they shout loudly, they get a lot of media attention and they tend to attract the protest vote rather than the Labour party.
 |
| Do you know who would get the protest votes at an election? |
As an honest man who works very hard, I don't like the idea of my taxes being spent on unemployed people who exploit the welfare system. I don't think it should be scrapped altogether, but I want a government who will put their foot down and be tough on those who try to exploit it. This current government has impressed me on how they have tackled this issue and they are undoing the mess the previous Labour government left behind. The Labour government isn't interested in being fair to honest working people like me at all, hell no - they just want to capture as many votes as possible in order to get back into power. It's one man one vote here - so if they can get more unemployed bums to vote for Labour, then that's still one section of the electorate they have captured. They are hardly going to get any support from the affluent middle classes anyway, so they may as well focus on the other end of the food chain.
Ironically, when they were in power, they were behaving more responsibly - after all, they had won elections in 1997, 2001 and 2005 with Tony Blair. So when they were in power, they didn't need to resort to such ridiculous, desperate measures to try to win votes - they could just get on with the business of running the economy. However, I am glad we have a choice as a country to say, "your time is up - we have lost faith in you, we believe that we have a better future with the Tories and the Lib Dems." Certainly, I have no confidence in Gordon Brown at all (where do I even begin with him!) and I am so glad he didn't continue on as prime minister!
 |
| Politicians have to bend over backwards to win our votes in the UK. |
How does all this compare to the PAP in Singapore?
The PAP's appeal, on the other hand, is very different from what we've observed in the UK. The PAP has a very wide support base that cuts across all class and social boundaries - that explains why they are able to stay in power for over 50 years and still have such a firm grip on power. The main reason why people from all sections of Singaporean society support the PAP is because of the economic miracle they have delivered since independence. The pro-PAP and anti-PAP camps are split along very different lines in Singapore.
Let's take the population white paper for instance. The PAP bludgeoned that through parliament despite very widespread public opposition to it (even from within their own supporters) and the government were able to do this because of a lack of opposition MPs to oppose the white paper in parliament. Again, those who are anti-PAP are equally spread throughout the social classes in Singapore - those who are poor worried that the PAP may not care about the fact that the wealth gap is widening and their real incomes have been falling even as Singapore is getting richer. There are also well educated, rich Singaporeans who are opposing the PAP because they believe that Singapore needs to embrace real multi-party democracy to keep the government in check - this is a matter of principle, a matter of political ideology, rather than a consequence of one's social class or relative wealth.
Is British politics dysfunctional and chaotic?
Let's take the population white paper for instance. The PAP bludgeoned that through parliament despite very widespread public opposition to it (even from within their own supporters) and the government were able to do this because of a lack of opposition MPs to oppose the white paper in parliament. Again, those who are anti-PAP are equally spread throughout the social classes in Singapore - those who are poor worried that the PAP may not care about the fact that the wealth gap is widening and their real incomes have been falling even as Singapore is getting richer. There are also well educated, rich Singaporeans who are opposing the PAP because they believe that Singapore needs to embrace real multi-party democracy to keep the government in check - this is a matter of principle, a matter of political ideology, rather than a consequence of one's social class or relative wealth.
 |
| The PAP enjoys a very strong support base in Singapore. |
Is British politics dysfunctional and chaotic?
UK politics is anything but dysfunctional and chaotic - it is a healthy, thriving democracy. Yes there are lively debates and sometimes I do feel that the Labour party is merely opposing for the sake of opposing the Tories, even when the Tories come up with a good idea. But I'd rather have this than a system where you have virtually no opposition voice in the parliament to hold the PAP to account - take the 6.9 million population white paper or the AIM scandal or even the amount ministers are paid - the PAP were able to get away with all of the above despite widespread public opposition and displeasure to all those issues.
In the UK, there is a far greater balance of power between the government and the opposition and this would never ever happen in the UK because the government knows that if they do something like that, they risk losing the next election as the voters will desert them for the opposition.This is a very stark difference between the UK and Singapore.
Here is how it works in a nutshell: this affects those who are renting council housing from the government (at a subsidized & discounted rate). This tax ONLY affects poor people who are so poor that they have to resort to renting from the government at a subsidized rate - it does not affect the vast majority of British people who are not that desperately poor. The government is willing to help put a roof over your head if you're poor - but you have to be in a dwelling that is not underoccupied. A simple example would be if a couple rented a home with three bedrooms - clearly they don't need three bedrooms when there are only two adults.
Personally, I think this is a good plan! After all, if you are already renting from the government at a heavily discounted price, the government is already doing you a huge favour. You have no right to kick up a fuss when you get moved to a smaller dwelling if you are currently underoccupying the flat which you rent at a heavily discounted price. So you will lose your spare room - big fat hairy deal. Shut up and stop complaining about it. Some poor people are complaining, "But I have lived here for 20 years and it is full of memories, this is where my children grew up and where I call home." If you can't pay market rates for your rent, please don't expect the tax payer to subsidize your sentiment memories - get real you stupid cow. We're in a recession and the government is trying their best to solve the council housing waiting list problem. You'll still get to rent a council property from the government at a heavily discounted price, you'll just have to move, duh. Why do they think they have the right to grumble or protest over this?!
 |
| Nobody wants the UK economy to end up like Greece or Spain. |
Labour has jumped on the case and claimed that this policy is an example of how the Tories are not taking care of the poor people in our society - there's a part of me that wants to just tell them to shut up and let the government get on with it, but then there's another part of me that respects the fact that people in a democracy have the right to oppose or support any government policy and they have the right to make their opinions heard. How would I feel if I opposed a government policy but was not allowed to voice my opinion, or if anyone who tried to oppose it was silenced? I am happy to be tolerant and participate in the democratic process, which means respecting those whom you do not agree with and even listening to them, giving them the opportunity to air their views. After all, you can never have 100% consensus on any issue from housing policy to gay marriage - so what is important is to allow the debate to happen and so when the final decision is taken, it is done only after all parties are assured that the issue has been properly debated. rather than sneaked in via the back door. Such is the nature of democracy - it is messy, but we should focus on the product rather than the process.
The process vs the end product
At the risk of digressing, let me tell you about the time I visited my friend Andy and his wife. Andy makes these incredible works of arts - mostly sculptures, which sell for a lot of money. He has turned his basement into his art studio in his house in East London and that's where he turns out these beautiful pieces of art. Oh you would be struck by the sheer beauty of some of the lovely sculptures on display in the living room. When I was there, I asked if I may visit his art studio to see where he works. His wife said, "Sorry but I don't think that's a good idea... it's really such a mess down there." But Andy said, "She's right, but if you don't mind the mess, come with me."
 |
| Andy's workshop was a mess - woah. |
His wife was right - it was a terrible mess. I had to be very careful where I stepped, where I leaned against - it wasn't an art studio, hell no. It felt more like an abandoned factory after an earthquake had hit. There was crap everywhere, metal filings, empty paint cans, empty boxes in one corner, piles of rubbish, rusty equipment and an overpowering smell of chemicals. "That's why my wife doesn't want to come down here - she will feel the urge to tell me to clear up or she will try to clean up the mess here. We have a truce, she leaves me in peace to work in here and she only focuses on the finished products which you see in our living room upstairs." Democracy is like Andy's sculptures - the process can be very messy, but it is necessary to get one's hands dirty in order to create great works and achieve great things. When the PAP MP tells you that he doesn't like the way active democracies debate issues in the West, it sounds like that PAP MP is so focussed on keeping the mess to a minimum that he has lost focus altogether by looking at the process rather than the result. I wouldn't judge Andy as an artist by the mess in his basement art studio - no, I would judge him by the magnificent sculptures he has sold for vast amounts of money.
My regular readers will know that I love cooking and I sometimes share my recipes on my blog. Now when I take photos of my cooking for my blog, you may get the impression that my kitchen is so neat and I am incredibly systematic. But in reality, when I am cooking in a hurry, my kitchen often ends up in a mess - there will be plenty of dirty dishes and utensils in the sink for example. I focus on the end result: as long as I get delicious food onto the dinner table for the people I am feeding, I don't mind how messy my kitchen gets. I can always clean up the mess later - that is not important, what is most important is how good the food tastes.
 |
| Limpeh's home made Ngor Hiang! |
Now if you were my dinner guest, how would you judge my cooking? Would you base it on the dishes I serve you for dinner? Or do you want to judge me on how clean my kitchen is? You see, with the PAP, they are so focussed on keeping the process clean that they do have a clean kitchen - but without the messy nature of debates in parliament which happens in real democracies. just how good can their final product be? Where would you rather dine - a restaurant where the food is good but the kitchen is messy, or where the kitchen is extremely tidy but the food is bland?
Everybody was kungfu fighting...
The PAP often cite "kungfu fighting" in the Korean and Taiwanese parliaments as a good reason to do away with any kind of opposition presence in the parliament at all - but you are now paying a very dear price for not having a credible opposition in parliament. How do you feel about sharing Singapore with 6.9 million people (including many Pinoys, PRCs and Indian nationals)? Do you support the population white paper? Do you support what the PAP has done with it? Democracy can be very messy - but that doesn't make it dysfunctional or chaotic. It is through this messy process that we get a good balance of power and a government that is held to account.
By that token, let's apply the same principle to something else in life - take the humble microwave oven. Now this is a true story that happened to my friend Ben: he got home late at night, hungry and tired, he made a careless mistake. He put some leftovers which were wrapped in aluminium foil into the microwave oven. He then turned the microwave on and went to the toilet - the next thing he knew he heard this horrible crackling sound and there was a big fire in his microwave oven. That's right, we all know you should never put metal in the microwave - but Ben plain forgot. As he was in a panic, he opened the microwave and tried to take out the burning mess in there whilst only using a thin towel to protect his hand - ouch! Then I got a phone call. "Please, I know it is very late but can you take me to the hospital please? I burnt my hand real bad, I am in a lot of pain and I need to go to the A&E right now."
As for EU, I am v pro-EU and I want the UK to be in the EU. Sure things are not perfect in the EU with various Southern European countries having serious problems with their economy at the moment, but on the whole, I still think the pros outweigh the cons when it comes to the EU. More on that another time.I think I have covered plenty in this post already. Okay people, that's my comparison of British and Singaporean politics for you. If you have any questions, please feel free to leave a comment below. Thank you for reading.
 |
| Are Singaporeans really happy with the Singaporean system? |
Hey Man, it's been a while since I read your blog. But this is an excellent article to summarize British politics in a nutshell.
ReplyDeleteCheers Colin, thanks for your kind comment.
DeleteHey there... got abit more time to write. Well, I agree with many things you say here. I too would see myself as a 'Right' person. Strangely enough, I don't mind paying a fair amount of tax or the tax rate that I am paying now if they are used correctly - to ensure safety and security, to help the poor, to have good medical facilities, to have good quality education, to have good quality public infrastructure and governance. For sure I cannot bring my money to my grave so I do hope to contribute back.
DeleteHowever the amount of abuse going on in UK right now really disappoints me. Having served NS, I know it is sad but true that human nature would exploit any available loophole. Think the lines at the medical center every morning! I don't mind paying 40% of my salary to help the disabled, the poor, the vulnerable, but I totally resent paying for people who CHOOSE to live a life on benefits which, sad to say, I see and personally know a number of people who are doing so.
Strangely enough, if you follow what is going on through the news, it does appear that the Tories might not win a majority and we might have a Lab/Dem government instead in 2015. Scary stuff for me if I was reading all the objections going on now and how Labour is leaning so heavily on the Unions. My question back to you would be - would you remain in the UK in that event?
For Singapore, I don't totally agree that it is all about the government's fault. I think it is down to many people's ignorance. The need for self ownership. How many people bother to read up and understand what is happening around them? How many can have a sensible debate around governance and responsibility whilst having freedom of speech? However it is not just prevalent in Singapore, I see many of those here too. Why do you think there's such a strong labour support in many parts of the 'poorer' places in UK.
I do hope for a day where we would have a more open debate in Singapore. We are inching towards that and I think that is good. We can see that Workers party is gaining strength and credibility. Given them a few more elections and I can see them taking a few more GRCs and we could then have a more balance agenda in the parliament.
And I'm so watching what's happening to the elections of our Northern neighbor. That might be a preview of what's to come in Singapore's next GE.
Cheers.
Hi there. I don't agree with you - the Labour party has a problem, they lack a charismatic leader. I just don't see Milliband as being PM material, well, at least David Milliband did but somehow they elected Ed Milliband as leader. It's not gonna happen, not unless they replace Ed Milliband before the next election and they're not going to do that, they will simply lose and then replace the leader after that election.
DeletePeople will bitch about the austerity measures, the newspapers will always be cynical and bitch non-stop, but what is the alternative? Leave the economy to the Labour party and the UK will become the next Greece. Let's see - a lot of that depends on what happens between now and 2015.
I arrived in the UK just after the 1997 elections and survived 3 terms of Labour - I don't think I will desert the UK if they get back into power one day. Then again, politics depends so much on the right politician rather than the right party. I watched something on TV tonight and it reminded me just how vile Thatcher was - but then again, I actually really like Clegg & Cameron as politicians... My prediction is that Cameron will hold on to another term in 2015 if the economy recovers by then. If it doesn't, then he is in trouble.
Yes and no... I agree that the leader plays a pivotal role. However do bear in mind who are funding Labour right now. A leader will go nowhere if the foot soldiers take a different path. If you recall, actually David Miliband had more support to start off with but due to some weird counting method, Ed won instead.
DeleteYou made an interesting point about the news. You can actually see the ideology between BBC, Guardian vs Telegraph etc. Yes, UK was actually very close to become another Greece or Iceland. Some time back I met with some senior officials and understood how close UK came to absolute collapse.
Whilst many things can happen between now till 2015, I don't think material change can happen that quickly. There are far too many obstacles in the way of the current administration, in addition to the amount of 'infighting' and 'cloak and dagger' operations.
Interesting point you made about Thatcher. The BBC and many left wing publication paint her as one of the most vile person ever. However many on the right see her as a savior of the UK and how she brought sense and prosperity back to the UK. Some attest to how nice a person she really was.
I'm not sure if UK or even Europe can recover by 2015 or even ever. The problems they face are extremely fundamental and deep rooted. The resistance to change is so insurmountable. The only chance a recovery can occur fast is if war breaks out in Asia and money/investments starts flowing back out.
Hey, LIFT, I am not so sure that being from Singapore means that you will tend towards the right wing. Having lived in Canada, I am pretty much averse to the idea of the conservative party in Canada holding sway in power, because of the heavy vested interests of the conservatives in the oil and gas industry, which is tied inextricably with the interests of the Republicans down south in the USA too. Plus, Steve Harper's government is leaving a serious legacy of problems behind, including the environmental ones in terms of their destruction of the forests and natural reserves in the name of industrialization. Still, in comparison with the USA, even the conservatives in Canada are way way more 'liberal' than the Democrats, so to say.
ReplyDeleteSomeone has told me before that even conservatives and liberals have a spectrum of beliefs, so we cannot technically just label someone as a socially liberal or conservative person alone. For example, I did a quiz online on the various policies and degrees of ideological involvement which I believe that a country's government should play, and it labelled me as somewhat socially progressive (I am for socialized healthcare, higher taxes for the wealthy, and separation of church and state), and yet I am also identified as fiscally conservative(I do believe that free market economics should not be allowed to become the sole principle of economics, and that a government has a right to interfere economically).
As for Singapore, sadly but truly, it is hard to even try calling it a democracy. It has been identified as a hybrid regime for various reasons, and rightly so. The problem lies not only with the government, as you have correctly identified, but also Singaporeans themselves, insofar as they can only blame anyone but the government and themselves. Of course, Singaporean media is very good at lying nonetheless, and packaging itself as a democracy before unwitting and politically un-savvy Americans and Asians is not technically going to cut it. The allure and false glitter fades off after a while, and as a South Korean friend even told me about Singapore which she visited a few years back, "Everything such as Arab Street might claim to be this and that, but it is not authentic." Even EVERY MRT subway station looks almost the same, as a South Korean told me himself after having lived there for a few years(by contrast, South Koreans take pride in making every subway station unique unto itself, and subway station culture can be rather liberating in itself, in terms of its various shops and eateries). I believe that the politics of a country can seriously affect its culture: the more homogenuous and intolerant of opposition voices a country becomes, the less room there is for real cultural diversity or even aesthetic space.
Hi Kev, allow me to respond to just one point as it's way past my bed time. On the issue of being from Singapore = being right wing. In Singapore, I would be considered a far left liberal, but in the UK I am considered very right wing - why?
DeleteIn Singapore, there isn't a welfare state and I think that the UK welfare state is so badly implemented that the government really needs to sort it out. I have nothing against helping people who are really destitute but today, it emerged that the unemployed bum Mick Philpott who killed 6 of his own children actually managed to get £100,000 a year from the state in welfare benefits simply because he had that many children and being unemployed meant his family was entitled to so many different kinds of benefits. OK a father killing 6 of his own children (he fathered 13 children) is a horrific crime, but the fact that he deliberately create a big family just to exploit the system tells us one thing - that the system is broken, that people like Philpott were only able to exploit it because the rules are wrong. So the government now talked about limiting child benefits to a maximum of 2 children per family - and I think, too darn right. If you can't afford to have children, you shouldn't be having babies and expecting the state to pay for your children when you can't be asked to get a bloody job. When I talk like that, I am considered very right wing - and ironically, I have never voted Conservatives before in the elections here but I just might at the next election as I have had it with left wing liberals.
What defines me as left wing however, are my values - I believe in human rights, the freedom of speech, protecting the environment, renewable energy, gay rights, women's rights, the rights of minority groups - and it's like, the moment I come out all guns ablazing in support of gay marriage, then people automatically assume that I am left wing - but actually, why can't I be politically right wing but still believe in gay rights? That's what frustrates me about the way this left-right divide in the UK seems to ridiculously simplistic.
But there you go. I think our current government is a good compromise and the Labour party can go to hell. May they rot in political oblivion.
Mind you - it must be far worse in America on the issue of gay rights, like the Republicans hate gays soooooo much, so if you're gay, you must automatically be a Democrat whether you actually agree with what the Democrats are doing, say with the economy or the education or health care. Gee.
DeleteAh yes, I know that difference in the USA between 'conservative' and 'liberal'. It gets pretty much dichotomous, when often most people do not fall on either end of the spectrum precisely. I would say that I am more moderate than conservative, and yet, Democrat Americans would say that I am 'conservative' because I do not technically like some of what is going on in the camp of the Democrats. I think that there is a difference between saying that 'gays need to be treated equally' as opposed to saying that 'gays must be allowed to marry', at least on my own end, because the term 'marriage' has religious and sacral associations. (The issue is, I believe that religious institutions should not be forced to marry same-sex couples, if that is against their beliefs, so ultimately, it still falls back on the state to decide for itself whether to marry them or not.) That said, I am not against same-sex civil unions(call it the Canadian in me for most part, and either way, I think Canadians politicize such issues way way LESS, and live at peace with each other better than Americans. I could never understand the American way of thinking--or at least among some Americans--that if you have a different opinion from someone, that you must therefore be hateful and fearful of someone, when it is often not the case.). The USA still pretty much baffles me for the most part, and as you can guess about the remarks Canadians(whatever their political affiliations) say, US Americans have a pretty skewed view of most things in the political and social departments.....
DeleteWell, I agree with you on most parts about the flawed setup of state welfare though. In the USA and Canada, this whole welfare system's liability to be exploited by people who know of the flaws of the system or the loopholes is a pretty disgusting one. I know of one former lawyer who knew that he was going to be laid off, and instead of allowing his company to lay him off, he tried the claim of 'medical depression'(ya right....even his younger daughter who was a Master's student dropped out, claiming that she had depression, and is now living off unemployment benefits). But guess what? Their whole family owns 7 houses, and at least 2 cars in Calgary!!!???? I was talking once with an European friend(Spanish but moved to the UK for decades, and tends to be on the liberal side of the spectrum, and now works and lives in Canada), and we both agreed that even if we were jobless, on no account would we ever want to use that as an excuse not to work, because work is very important as a means of defining ourselves and the way we contribute to society. A Canadian friend once asked me whether I have sympathy for people living off welfare, and I said 'No' for the MOST part, because sadly, a lot of people exploit loopholes in the system, claiming insurance benefits and money for some illnesses which are really 'un'-provable such as depression or panic attacks. Note, I have nothing against people suffering from that, because I know myself what it is like to go through a panic attack, but there are people who just cannot help but lie in their teeth and then get all that money FREE without working or even doing anything.
I cannot comment much on the Labor Party, or UK politics, although I do hear occasionally from a friend about it(she's my former teacher, and she did tell me how Gordon Brown's election after the former one was linked to a conspiracy theory about the former PM being a Catholic....ah yes, such theories do get dregged up.....). Your view of it though does seem to echo hers for the most part.
DeleteAs for what Singaporeans still living in Singapore believe in, however, I do believe that most of them do NOT have any political beliefs but just blindly accept what the government and mainstream media drums into their ears and heads. This is seriously what I believe about them. I guess that you and I (you count in a way although you are no longer a Singaporean by default of nationality) and others who are criticizing it from outside do so and have beliefs only by default of the fact that we lived overseas extensively and have not settled for what we hear from the media. Many Singaporeans and even former Singaporeans still have a deceptively rosy or tainted picture of the state the country is in, such that they are beyond cure. I simply refuse to associate with such people. I remember once how I had to put into place this UK citizen(he's born in London, but his parents are Singaporeans and he did grow up when young in Singapore) who lives in Vancouver, and still has many family members back in Singapore, that I simply do not want to hear about Singapore and get asked about a country which I have divorced myself from politically and socially (constantly getting asked silly questions like how I miss the food there and how Singaporeans would pronounce this or that word is stupid and retarded). People can deceive themselves however much they want, but I think that it is ridiculous to want to believe that there is freedom there when there is none whatsoever.
Talking about this dichotomy, it reminds me of one thing. One of my friends is actually gay and Republican. I do not know how that works out per se for his case, especially since he is a Catholic. He says that for his case, he is not against same-sex civil unions, but he cannot technically say that marriage between a man and a woman and marriage between two people of the same sex are the same according to his beliefs, and he accepts it for what it is. I guess that this whole dichotomy might not always apply, and also, as I would like to point out, it is not always true either that Republicans are gun-carrying cowboys and cowgirls from the South or some 'boonie' state. I have come across Democrats who are about as intolerant as anyone, and the moment that you say anything that is different from their beliefs, they will immediately pillor you or subject you to much pain and trauma. So, it might not always be a case of the problem lying with the ideology itself , but also the person who believes in the ideology.
DeleteKev, thanks for your comment - I am v busy with work but I just wanted to say one thing. Marriage is NOT religious. You can make it religious if you want it to be, by hosting it in a church and having a religious ceremony but what about the millions of non-religious couples who get married in civil ceremonies? It is still a marriage even if both parties are atheists who have no religious convictions whatsoever - you're making a terrible mistake by imagining that the institution of marriage is somehow tied up with the church or any other religious organisation. Hello? It is not - it is a contract between two adults whether they are religious or not.
DeleteI actually agree that religious organisations should not be compelled to host gay marriage ceremonies if they don't want to - but you have fallen for the bullshit lies by the religious bigots about marriage being anything vaguely religious! Please lah. I live in a country where less than 10% of the population actually bother going to church every Sunday - yet everyone has the option to get married whether or not they have any religion.
It's time to stuff religion back into a box and keep it there. Our society is secular, marriage is a secular contract - it has nothing to do with religion. I am a proud atheist and I am so glad to be living in a country where my rights are respected - I couldn't possibly live long term in America where people actually listen to the religious zealots.
Hi LIFT, I respect your views as an atheist. Unfortunately, I would differ to say that I do believe in marriage as a sacral institution, based on the very first beginning as laid out in the Bible (the Genesis story of the creation and the declaration of marital union between Adam and Eve) . I know this does not sit down well with you, and I am likely to be labelled as a 'bigot' or delusional guy in any situation if I am not allowed to explain my stand. Still, that is my stand. And no, I did not need convincing by any religious 'bigots', because I have searched the scriptures myself and believe in marriage as it is, ordained by God for mankind. That said, I think that it is very hard to say that faith can just be 'kept in a box', so to say. I know what you mean by western society being secular and all, but as a Christian, the basis of Christian faith which stipulates love for God and for neighbor already means that we are to practise our faith in our daily lives. We cannot technically pay lip service to God and then live our lives separately so to say without thinking about the impact of faith on our lives. Still, as it is, the thing about democracy is that people have the right to hold onto their own views, and respect that space for difference. (I prefer not to talk over the www concerning religious views, and I am openly Christian, not by anybody's convincing but by my own choice, so I shall have to leave it at that as it is. The one thing that does get dregged up a lot in such debates about marriage has to basically acknowledge that debates which start off with differing grounds--Christians use the Bible as the core guide for living and hence define marriage by such, while nonbelievers define it as a contractual and legal agreement which can be suspended--often have to end in mutual agreement that there will not necessarily be a fitting conclusion or agreement to either. ie. agree to disagree.)
DeleteAs for America, I cannot say that it is just a case of religious zealotry being at work alone though, after having lived there before(as much as it is not as long as my time in Canada). A lot of it is also mis-information. I mean, they do not even know anything about their neighbor up north, Canada, so well, how much more can you expect them to know in other areas such as their own social issues and problems?? As I might have said before too, Canada hardly politicizes the issues that Americans argue about, such as same-sex marriage, healthcare and social policies pertaining to taxes and all, or at least, not the same way anyway(although it might change with the conservative party being in power for a while and seemingly getting close to the US Republican party). The nature of Canadian society operates much better as a democracy--although some Americans call it a socialist state VERY mistakenly--and I do believe somehow it does separate church and state better than the USA, which cannot seem to decide how it will grant freedom of religion and separate the two at the same time.
Either way,the point of democracy is also to ensure freedom of beliefs, and freedom of expression, and if you remember, that in Singapore, even religion is 'controlled' by the government. You do not see any 'pacifists' who refuse to bear arms for religious reasons, partially because of the way it clamps down on such groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and so on(and even Anabaptist groups which are by default of origins pacifist are not common there). I could not even live in that kind of space where you cannot be whom you choose to be.
DeleteHi Kev, as I believe in secularism, that means I do respect your right to practice your religion - however, you also have to respect the fact that those of us who are non-Christians and indeed, those of us who are atheists like me do not share your views on the link between religion and marriage. I don't accept your argument, I don't believe you're right but by the same token, I don't want to argue either because I believe that we can never have consensus on such an issue. I rolled my eyes when I read your definition of marriage - all that about the bible and Adam & Eve etc: not only am I an atheist, I am an ex-Christian who has done years of Sunday school and has actively decided to reject Christine religious doctrine. So trying to use the bible to justify anything with a non-Christian simply isn't going to work.
DeleteLet me put it to you like this. Some years back, I visited my friend Julie and her kids and we went to the mall. I bought her children ice cream at the mall and the kids had no money to pay me back but the older girl had some Pokemon cards on her. She tried to pay me for the ice cream with her Pokemon cards - I said no thank you, it's fine, it's my treat. Now I have no interest in that whole Pokemon craze, so those cards were worthless and meaningless to me. However, to the child who offered me the card - those cards had great meaning, value and significance. But if she had tried to pay for the lady behind the ice cream counter with those Pokemon cards, it would not be accepted for payment for the ice cream. Oh no, we had to pay for the ice cream with cold hard cash.
Likewise Kev, I know your religion means a lot to you - I recognize that, but like those Pokemon cards, it is meaningless and worthless to me. If you want to convince me about anything, you have got to work with me - offer me some argument, some reasoning that would have significance and meaning to me. Otherwise, I am going to be forced to politely agree to disagree and simply leave it at that. But let me make it clear, the moment you mention the word 'bible' - I am going to go into "we'll have to agree to disagree" mode as I don't accept that as a valid basis for any kind of reasoning. I am an atheist. The bible is no more than a fancy story book in my eyes.
Well, LIFT, as I said just now, we do not start with the same premise, and so, we will only end up agreeing to disagree. That much is clear. But in all cases, at least we are civil to each other. (Trust me, I have seen way worse behavior where people are just sheerly mean in any case even if agreeing to disagree is being proffered as a choice.) And no, I have absolutely no intention to argue with you or anyone about the 'rightness' of my faith, because that is not my style of relating to people. I think I know that story about your conscious choice, but after all, what a person believes in in terms of religious beliefs is a leap of faith, and not everyone will make that leap.
DeleteWell, I am not justifying anything at all before you about my faith, just so that you know. I am committed to believing in what I believe in. Stating it is necessary in any case, because I do not believe in being 'politically correct' and then pretending to believe or advocate something which is not what I believe in. It is very similar to you being a committed atheist after all, insofar as you would have to say what you do not believe--in a similar way, but with different ends, I have to say what I believe in honesty.
Hey LIFT,
ReplyDeleteJust a comment about comparing PAP with western or, more precisely, Anglo Saxon political parties. In my opinion, the PAP is not a political party is the Anglo Saxon sense. It is more a papacy in the mold of the Catholic church than a political party.
Firstly, the modern day PAP don't draw their leadership from the ranks of its membership, either by selection or by internal electoral (or maybe power) contest. It is drawn from outside the party. And the leaders themselves elect each other to be the in leadership (i.e. ministerial position). The only exception, till now, is the top rank, PM, position which departs from the papacy is still not elected from the leadership ranks like the cardinals electing the Pop.
Secondly, most Anglo Saxon political parties, even from the outside seemed monolithic are anything but homogeneous. Take the UK Conservative parties, it is still very much a broad church in the sense that within the party, you get a spectrum of views from right to right of center. As I have indicated in my first comment, the PAP as it is now is now a broad church. Outside the leadership circle, the party wider membership exists only as pawns their views don't count. The mindset within the leadership circle is very similar. Again very similar to the papcy. You are unlike to get, say like the UK Conservative, contrasting leadership types like Edward Heath (Keynesian) and Margret Thatcher (Hayekian). Ok, you might argue that Goh Chok Tong is somewhat different from Lee Kuan Yew but the differences between the two are differences in style than substance.
Thirdly, your claim that PAP as you put it: "The PAP has a very wide support base that cuts across all class and social boundaries - that explains why they are able to stay in power for over 50 years and still have such a firm grip on power". Which, I presume you implying that in UK, and Anglo Saxon, parties don't enjoy. This maybe a debatable point. I supposed you could say the papcy has wide spread support even if the general catholic population don't vote for it. Despite wide spread uneasy about the dodgy ways some Catholic leadership are acting, the catholic membership still stand. But does that imply, the Catholic leadership has widespread support? Or is it the case of there is no other alternatives? In the PAP case, did they hold on to power from people who supported the party or a case of electorate can't imagine what the alternative would be like? In Anglo Saxon politics, political parties don't win power, they loose power. In Singapore, I believe it is the case of people voting for PAP not because they support it but more a case of fear of the unknown so vote for the PAP.
Hey LIFT and Ah Kow,
ReplyDeleteThere was a statement that you both referred to which I think makes a lot of sense about the PAP. The statement goes, "The PAP has a very wide support base that cuts across all class and social boundaries - that explains why they are able to stay in power for over 50 years and still have such a firm grip on power". It is pretty true if we remember the various organizations, including statutory boards, trade organizations, clan associations(masquerading around in the name of maintaining ancestral and cultural links with one's dialect group for the Chinese in Singapore), and the fact that in cases of any political shifts outside of Singapore, these groups will still choose to support the PAP because they have been heavily invested in the system set up by the PAP. Singapore's civil service is also by far heavily politicized compared to the civil service in other countries such as the USA, Canada and even the UK, because the premise of these western democracies is that the civil service will still function as it is even should there be a change in administrative government. In Singapore's case, the civil service has been manipulated or changed such that it works only for the PAP government as far as it allows it. It is not for no reason that opposition party wards in Singapore are often obstructed from certain things such as upgrading and so on, because the statutory boards are restrained from participating in or contributing to their various programmes.
Sorry for the late reply, have been quite busy these past few days. Hope you are enjoying your holiday now.
ReplyDeleteI guess Asians generally frame the political debate as not so much of an ideological battle(between left and right) but focus much more on concrete policies instead. There is a lack of understanding on the debate between the left and right among my peers, with many simply jumping to instant generalisation. (EG, welfare state will lead to reliance)
Next, there is a lack of clarification coming from the opposition parties on their manifesto and policies. Whether this is down to the lack of media time or their PR machine is debateable but my point is that if they are unable to offer us any viable alternative, why should we trust them?
As for politics and democracy being messy,it is my personal preference that we keep the rhtoric to a minimum bottom. While there is a need for rhetoric in politics given that politicians need to appeal to their supporters, ultimately we need clear and concrete policies to guide us ahead and these policies often are not as sensational and entertaining as those one liners used in debates. To me, the British parliament represents a circus with politicians on both side shouting and yelling at one another while the speaker acts as the cool headed teacher calling for restraint on both sides. I do recognise things get done at the end of the day and difference in opinions can result in heated confrontation but I do hope that politicians set a good example for their fellow countrymen in how they handle differing opinions.
I do notice that you have strong opinions when it comes to religion. I am a free thinker and used to be accomodating or indifferent towards religion. However, recent events changed my perception of religion. I have a classmate who is a Christian and he has been trying to convince me to go to church but to no avail.( He thinks that I am dumb and ignorant, asking me to go church just to have fun and not care about anything else but we all know his ultimate objective.) He is very adamant in trying to convince his fellow peers to go to church and I have to admire his tenacity. He even brought me a new wallet which I intrepreted it as a sign that he is my friend and that we can bring our friendship to a higher level.
ReplyDeleteI can accept his repeated advances to invite me to church. What I cannot stand is that he goes around preaching about morales and values to me and attempt to change me for the 'better'. I once got into an argument with him on the right to abortion and I find his bigoted belief disturbing and ridiculous. His argument rest on the premise that if god really doesn't want you to have the child, he will by some magical means take it away from you. Holy FUCK how the fuck can you come up with such a fucked up argument even though you are well-educated in Singapore. (JC level) Even a 10 year old boy will feel digusted at his apparent lack of logical reasoning.
What I find disturbing is that he is subtly but surely adding his opinion and objection towards my actions and beliefs that he deems immoral. For example, he starts to condemn(judging from his body language) when my friends and I talk about sex, porn and stuff. To him, one should restraint from even talking or mentioning about sex because it is sacred as it is a gift from god. He always says that I have the ability to redeem myself and be 'saved' and that I am corrupted in my thinking because I swear occasionally and also my inclinations to talk about sex very frequently. These activities have not affected me negatively in any way and I see no harm in continuing to indulge in these activities. While I do understand his apparent care and concern for me, I find his religious argument spurious and unsubstantiated. Fuck that man.
Yet, I cannot bring myself to tell him to FUCK OFF, STOP CONDEMING me. I cannot bring myself to say that, 'the bible is just a storybook.' Given that he is my friend and my classmate, it would not be nice of me to tell him to fuck off for his religious conviction. I have nothing against his religion but I cannot stand it when he starts to preach and stand on moral high grounds. Now, limpeh, you are a militant atheist, I wonder how do you interact with ppl like my friend. Bear in mind that you are interacting with people whose religious identity defines their life and purpose. In essence, how do you deal with the nice, friendly, caring Christian neighbour or colleague who choose to revolve his identity around his religion and see it as his duty to go around and preach? Enlighten me pls. It can't be that you pissed off every single one of them and refuse to make friends? Don't get me wrong, I have made several friends who are Christians and get along well with them, what I need help in is dealing with more 'vocal' and 'bigoted' christian.
P.S. His attempt to 'save' me and convince me to go to church has somewhat radicalise me and I have noticeably become more hostile towards religion.
Ah, I have the same problem as you David Hu. Friends who think that living a Christian life mean poking their big fat nose in everyone's business. They just can't live and let live. The reason is always," I understand it's your right to have different values and opinion but it's my duty as a Christian friend to point it out to you when you have the wrong values. Just as a reminder, even if you don't listen."
DeleteUltimately, what happens is a loss of friendship. I simply do not know how to deal with them. I had a really close friend who chides me everytime I say "good luck" to her. She claims that she believes in god's will & not luck. Instead, she wants me to say,"may god grants" or something that I can't never remember. In the end, I just never wishes her for anything important she confines in me. Because any wishes not in line with her theology will get me chided!?!.
Yes, LIFT, I would also love to find our how you deal with these well meaning & otherwise caring friends who just seem ever so slightly cra cra to me.