THE TEMASEK REVIEW

OPINION

When Law Minister Shanmugam mooted the idea of introducing some form of “political education” to Singapore students as part of the school curriculum a month ago, few had taken him seriously.

Now that The Straits Times published a two-page feature on it to sell the idea to Singaporeans, it appears that it will become a reality after all.

In all likelihood, the idea must have been explored and pondered over repeatedly a long time ago not by Shanmugam, but by the PAP’s strongman Lee Kuan Yew. Shanmugam is merely his “messenger” to get the his intended message across to Singaporeans.

The apparent haste at which the idea is imposed on the public with no consultation with the people smacks of utter desperation of the PAP to retain their grip on power.

With young Singaporeans being more politically aware, educated and astute, the PAP can no longer afford to pull a wool over their eyes to masquerade Singapore as a “democracy” when it is a de facto one-party totalitarian state.

The inherent weaknesses and deficiencies in Singapore’s political system has become so blatantly obvious in the last few years that even the state media has difficulties hiding them.

A political system like ours dominated by a single party with no opposition to check on it has little accountability and transparency. Recent incidents have proven to Singaporeans that we cannot expect the PAP to check on itself.

For example, when its two sovereign wealth funds lost billions of taxpayers’ monies in overseas invesstments, there was no Commission of Inquiry set up to investigate the fiasco.

Unpopular policies such as its liberal immigration policy are rammed down the throats of ordinary Singaporeans who are paying a price for their mistakes.

The PAP ministers are the highest paid leaders in the world. Living high up in ivory towers of their own, they are unable or unwilling to empathize with the suffering and hardships of the common man in the street resulting in lop-sided policies which benefit only the elites and not the general population on a whole.

In his commentary published in Petir, Shanmugam said “the PAP understands how vulnerable Singapore is in many respects – size, geographical situation, racial make-up, regional political, economic, military and social situations.” and because of our “unique” situation, we need “an excellent, strong leadership, and its political structures and systems must allow for effective and speedy decision-making.”

What he didn’t mention is that for the PAP to make speedy decisions, there must not be an sizable opposition in parliament to hinder its policy-making but yet in governing a nation which concerns the lives of a few million citizens, speed is not everything.

The government has to be attuned to the concerns and aspirations of the people and this involves a lot of patient listening to understand the problems they faced in their daily lives.

Ultimately, it boils down to the fact the PAP still thinks its “model” of government is the only acceptable model for Singapore and it fears that young Singaporeans may be swayed by “western” democratic ideals and rise up against it.

“They (young Singaporeans) have grown up with stability, safety and security. About 75 per cent of each cohort get some form of tertiary education. They are therefore confident, and often with clear ideas of what the political process and system should be like in a democratic state. These ideas are based on the dominant political philosophy today – the Western model of liberal democracy is superior. There are many aspects of the model which several countries, including Singapore, have sought to adopt. But not every aspect can be transplanted in totol across cultures, without regard to different economic, social and geo-strategic situations,” Mr Shanmugam wrote.

He expressed his concern that many Singaporeans may not fully realize Singapore’s vulnerabilities and the “younger electorate may find it difficult to accept the PAP’s basic message – that Singapore is unique, and the liberal democratic model has to be adapted considerably to work for us.”

The “democratic” model has been “adapted” by the PAP to masquerade Singapore as a democracy to the rest of the world when it was never a democracy at all.

Besides conducting regular elections once every five years, the other quintessential pillars of a democracy such as a free press, independent judiciary, active civil society and an informed electorate are grossly lacking in the Singapore system.

Mr Shanmugam wrote that education is the only way to “get Singaporeans to understand the costs and benefits of different political systems; the factors which have made Singapore successful; and the costs and benefits of changing our system.”

Is his purpose really to educate Singaporeans on the “cost and benefits” of different political systems or to promote the PAP’s brand of political system to Singaporeans to make it more palatable for them to swallow?”

There is a very fine line between political education and indoctrination and students can be easily swayed by subtle and soft propaganda to unwittingly think that the political system endorsed by the PAP is superior than all others.

Let us give you an example by comparing the political systems of Singapore and Taiwan:

“Taiwan’s political system is modeled after the United States. There are two major political parties in Taiwan – Kuomintang (KMT) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). DPP’s Chen Shui Bian was the President of Taiwan from 2000 – 2008, however the Legislative Yuan was controlled by the KMT. Due to intense political bickering between the two camps, good initiatives and policies by the President were seldom implemented as they were vetoed immediately by the opposition. As a result, the Taiwanese economy stagnated leading to a lower quality of life for the ordinary Taiwanese.

In contrast, Singapore does not have an opposition in parliament to hinder the government from making fast and effective decisions. When Singapore was hit by the Asian Financial crisis in 2008, the government was able to respond immediately and rolled out a series of schemes such as the Job Credit Scheme to save the jobs of Singaporeans.  This will not be possible if Singapore’s political system is like Taiwan which allows for a strong opposition to check on the government thereby tying its hands. The main role of the opposition is to oppose the government and not to help it perform its job better. The resultant politicking between two opposing camps is detrimental to the day-to-day running of the government and the people will suffer in the end as a result.”

A student with limited knowledge of the outside world will have the erroneous impression that Singapore’s political system is superior to Taiwan, a “western liberal democracy” after reading the above paragraph which while laying down the bare facts, also add a spin to it to promote the PAP’s brand of governance.

In fact, the state media has been subtly promoting the political agenda of the PAP for ages to warn Singaporeans of the perils of “western liberal democracy”.

If you realize, Mediacorp will be quick to show footage of mass protests in other Asian democracies like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, but never broadcast their parliamentary sessions in which the opposition ask sharp and sensitive questions to hold the ruling party accountable.

The Straits Times is always the first to splash the photos of violent protesters damaging public property or riot police beating them on its front pages to instill fear into the minds of Singaporeans so that we grow up being averse to “western liberal democracy”.

Mr Shanmugam should remember that the PAP is only a political party and its mandate to govern Singapore comes from the people. It does not have the right to misuse taxpayers’ monies to promote its own preferred political system to our next generation.

Besides, with the internet providing Singaporeans an alternative source of information, it is unlikely that his plan to enable Singaporeans to make an “informed” choice will work.

The pitfalls of an one-party system are too obvious for all to see. One does not need to be a political science graduate to understand the simple fact that “absolutely power corrupts absolutely”.

As Abraham Lincoln said:

“You can fool some people all the time, you may fool all the people some of the time, but you can never fool all the people all the time.”

The PAP and its mouthpiece – the Singapore media have been fooling Singaporeans for fifty continuous years since 1959, but one day the people will awake to the truth and vote for change. The winds of change are blowing across the world and it is only a matter of time before they reach the shores of Singapore.

Mr Shanmugam is on the wrong side of history and we hope he can be proven dead wrong in his lifetime.

Related articles:

1. Shanmugam to go ahead to spread PAP propaganda in schools

2. Should comparative political systems be taught in schools?

3. Challenge of communication

11 Responses to “Shanmugam’s grand design to “politicize” Singapore schools: The fine line between political education and indoctrination”