Skip to main content

Votes in A Divided Singapore Iceberg

From the intercultural communication point of view, it may be difficult for some groups of Singaporeans understand and communicate with another group of Singaporeans. The fast changing social and economic landscape has created three groups of  Singaporeans: Traditional, pro-PAP and Western co-culture.


The Presidential Election 2011 showed such a trend. The recent Pink Dot event and the NLB books ban further indicate and confirm this divide. Of course, the debate on Public Trust, CPF, MediSheild Plus are other proofs too.   Pro-PAP Singaporeans will certain claim the government public trust is high. Western co-culture will say no and Traditional may say yes or no.      


Professor Mira Bergelson of Higher School of Economics, Russia explains there are three types of Russians: Tradition, Soviet and Western co-culture.  In the past 20-30 years, from Soviet Union to  Russia, Russia has experienced big political as well as economic  changes. The development until now has divided Russians into three groups of people.  For communication viewpoint, it may be difficult for Russians to understand each others.  Further complications arise when we think of geography, rural or urban, Europe or Far East.


To understand a Russian or to do business in Russia, one may have to  under their background.  Perhaps, the same thing is going to happen in Singapore.    


Russians first experience big political changes and then economic changes. Singapore first experiences big economic changes and now politically normality.


Singapore Divide


Big political and economic changes result to 3 groups


Russia experiences big political (and later economic) changes in the recent past, so do Singapore in economic (and later political) front.  We claim we only take  one generation from third world to first world.  Singapore is now one of the wealthiest countries in the world. However, we also have higher rich-poor gap. Comparing to Russian's tradition, Soviet, and Western co-culture, a similar trend is emerging in Singapore. We have people want to keep the tradition (e.g. preserving Asian values or conservatives). Another group like the Soviet memory, these Singaporeans strongly believe in everything from the People's Action Party(PAP). They believe only PAP can keep Singapore's glory and prosperity in the long run. The last group obviously belongs to co-western thinking and behaviours. A clear evidence is the 2011 Presidential Election and its result shows 3 groups of voters. No single candidate scored more than 36% of the total votes.


We can briefly define them:


Traditional: Conservatives,  strong values (religion or culture), for example, wear-white, or in some degrees Chinese educated.
Pro-PAP: Believe everything reported in the mainstream,  everything in PAP, for example, grassroot leaders, businesses etc.
Western co-culture: Modern and social justice, pro-Western and critical of the government policies, for example, Pink Dot, #Return My CPF, anti-ISA etc.    

Reactions on social  topics


Let’s take three headlines of TODAY (Saturday, 12 July) to see how the three groups react to them:


1. NLB’s decision ‘guided by community norms’ (page 1):  Clearly,  here the community norms are referred to the support from Traditional and Pro-PAP not the Western co-culture. Can we considered this a ‘community norm’?


2. New Video rejects MDA’s self-regulation scheme (page 2): Here, we see the strong reaction from Western co-culture. Pro-PAP will, of course, stand with the PAP and believe MDA is doing the right thing. How will Traditional react? Side with the PAP government or believe in the right value of creativity and no self-control?


3. PM Lee applies for summary judgement in blogger case (page 4): Similar to the MDA’s case, will more Traditionalists stand away in supporting Lee or agree with his action, especially summary judgement without knowing the details?


By the definition of the PAP’s high public trust and ‘community norms’, the PAP will win the three social topics with more than 50% of the votes.  However, we don’t know the latest approving of the government and Lee.  How strong is the pro-PAP group’s support? Will the 36% support for Tony Tan for President still hold? How is the growth rate of Western co-culture as well as the possible decline of Traditional and pro-PAP groups?


What will happen if we add all the social, political and economic issues together and make a final vote? The picture will not be so clear but rather complicated. We cannot rule out Traditional and Western co-culture work together and vote against the pro-PAP. The Traditional may also break into two, one section like the senior citizens, Chinese educated, assets rich-cash poor, supporting the Western co-culture and the other section of wear-white supporters supporting the PAP.  The result then become not so clear cut and the quality of candidates can be a decisive factor in the end.


Iceberg - below water activities    


Since 2011, we have seen few changes in economic front but there are more political challenges, year after year. The social disorders (Little India Riot and SMRT strike etc.) and social protests in Hong Lim Park  add more uncertainties to Singapore society.  All these will affect the interrelationship of the three groups.  The result of PE2011 may not be a correct indicator anymore. One group may have more members and another group sees declining membership.


So, the iceberg of 2011 we saw will be quite different from the coming general election. The undercurrent changes and below water activities cannot base on the assumption of PAP’s public trust and SG Conversation.  Certainly, the ‘PAP to mark its 60th year with series of events’ (page 15) is just an iceberg in the surface.  It will never give Singaporeans a full and clear picture of the current situation.      


Even the iceberg’s shape may change. It can reform. It may melt down. It may break into smaller icebergs.


The vote outcome in a divided Singapore may surprise ourselves, Singaporeans.  With climate change, we cannot predict the movement and shape of Singapore iceberg like before.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...