As Laurel Teo, a Straits Times journalist noted of the first 9, they are all "high-fliers in the corporate, legal and medical worlds." [1]

More striking has been how they are touted as extremely dedicated in doing community service. But as Teo asked, "What do they want to achieve as an MP [that] they could not as a mere volunteer?"

If we take a step back, we'll be able to see how such a situation has arisen. It starts with the way the PAP finds potential candidates. Since it trawls for them among the friends and acquaintances of its existing Members of Parliament, you would naturally expect that the social class of the new candidates is similar to the existing political class.

New candidates do not step up to the plate by themselves; they have to be invited to "serve", as we can see in every case of the 9 new candidates introduced so far.

However, in the 1980s and certainly the 1990s, this caused considerable disquiet. The charge of elitism rose and it has been impossible to shake off ever since. In addition, the PAP has recognised that there is growing demand for alternative views to be given space.

The result is what you see today. The PAP is still recruiting the "high-fliers", but to counter the potential charge of elitism, their marketing campaigns are built around their record of community service – though one wonders if, in some cases at least, that record has been carefully built up over the last few years after they've been spotted as potential new candidates.

Added to that is the other campaign theme – that they have their own views, not necessarily in line with the government's.

* * * * *

Laurel Teo thus felt free to write,

... politics is not a natural progression of community service. With such a plethora of feedback channels and dialogues these days, there is no real need either to enter Parliament for views to be heard. Anyone can direct his five cents' worth right up to even the Prime Minister via e-mail, if he so wishes.

The one crucial difference that no one brought up, is that political office confers power.

Being an MP is still about helping people, but it is also about wielding political power. One is not asking for scheming machiavellian types, but those who enter politics must know this. Know why they want that power, and how they intend to exercise it.

-- Straits Times, 31 March 2006, 'What
about that extra edge in political grasp?'

 
She pointed out that based on the early statements by these candidates, they don't even seem to have thought through the political questions of the day. One instance, she said, could be found in the tepid responses to a question about the ban on Martyn See's film Singapore Rebel [2] and the whether such sweeping bans on "political films" are justified (see excerpt in the box on the right).

Among the replies was that they had not watched any such film, and were concerned that any inflammatory content could cause unrest.

But the real issue here, of course, goes beyond racially or religiously slanted films, which everyone knows are taboo in Singapore and which Mr See's film, presumably, is not about. In any case, no one here can claim to have seen any local political party film precisely because they have been banned in the first place.

The issue is about the intellectual and political maturity of Singaporeans, whether they are ready to view an alternative political ideal and make an informed judgment.

-- ibid

 
It seems then that the new candidates have no ready opinion on the nub of the matter, beating around the bush when faced with the question [3]. Strange, don't you think? The ban on Singapore Rebel has only been one of the top 10 political issues of the last 12 months, and most thinking Singaporeans have a one word (Yes/No) opinion on the matter.

This is very similar to the way the first 3 candidates failed to grasp the political question that The New Paper posed to them about whether or not the government should have banned the Nation Party [4].

We can grant them their "compassion" for the less well off; we can grant them their idealism in helping others. But theirs may be the idealism of nuns, keen to serve the flock, not to rethink the catechism.

* * * *

 
Again and again, we see promises to find out what people want and cater to their needs. In itself, this is not a principle that we would argue against, but the understanding of "want" and "needs" is very often restricted to livelihood and municipal issues. (See an example in the yellow box on the right.) We put the spotlight on MPs helping people to get jobs, welfare hand-outs and being concerned about housing estate improvement ("upgrading").

Perhaps it is inevitable in a democracy-wannabe that Singapore is. Like in most countries, bread and butter issues rate high among ordinary people's concerns. But we should be mindful that, to the extent that we oversell this aspect of politics, to the extent that the candidates' primary qualification is presented as that of "serving the people", i.e. in terms of what goodies the MP can deliver, we may be creating a dependency culture.

Other commentators have asked whether it is right, in the matter of upgrading, for state money to be used for party political purposes. At least one blog that I came across recently pointed out that upgrading promises are no more than pork barrel politics [5].

Are we creating a culture of patronage? Are we saying to Singaporean voters that a good politician is one who can grant your wish list, even showering money upon you in various ways?

On the one hand we say we need to promote an entrepreneurial spirit, where people don't always look to the government for solutions, on the other hand, we reduce politics to a question of catering to your every need.

On the one hand, we say voters must be politically aware and able to think critically, on the other hand, we leave little time for a debate on policy issues.

What is the balance between a good public transport system and the costs of getting one? What is the balance between a better healthcare system and the taxation needed to pay for it? Why is school streaming so complex? Why is the second-language policy so inflexible?

I think we're doing ourselves a disservice if an election campaign is reduced to "I shall find out what my voters want and I'll do my best to serve them".

Some of the more courageous ones will say too, "This is the price we may have to pay to be the kind of society I think we should be."

They are self-driven people; they don't have to be invited to serve. They seldom ask people what they want. They set out to shape their wants. Because these leaders pop up spontaneously, they can come from all walks of life, from the uppermost stratum to the poorest. Together, they are representative. And also not representative, because they are idealists where most people are not.

The saddest thing about Singapore is that we have made it very difficult for this spontaneity to come forward. In its place we have people touted first and foremost as social volunteers and charity workers, with little by way of political vision. In so doing, we impoverish our politics, and we go down a slippery slope in terms of our political development.

One candidate, Ellen Lee, was asked this question by the press, "Who is your hero?"

"Mother Teresa," she replied, "for devoting her whole life to charity work."

Did Mother Theresa stand for election?

© Yawning Bread