The next general election would have many first, amongst which will include the largest number of post 65 generation voters and perhaps politicians ever. However, are young Singapore politicians responsive to young Singaporeans' concerns about the future of Singapore?
From the People's Action Party (PAP), young ministers such as Tharman Shanmugaratnam and Vivian Balakrishnan have responded to the increasing demand from sophisticated young Singaporeans by reforming the education system, urging youths to participate actively in the remaking of Singapore and stressing the need to be consultative, open and transparent in policy making. Similarly, young Singaporeans have made their presence felt in the opposition parties. In the Worker's Party, young members such as James Gomez and Yaw Shin Leong have made their rounds in targeted constituencies over the last few years. Some of WP members have also put up their blogs online to attract netizens to the cause of their party. Similarly, young members in the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) and the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) received some political training either overseas in international conferences (SDP) or in opposition held constituencies (SDA in Potong Pasir).
Many young Singaporeans are aware that the PAP can continue to provide economic security and good governance. They are also aware that opposition parties do play a role in highlighting alternative issues and policies. However, are young politicians on both side of the political spectrum doing enough to address young Singaporeans who are increasingly concerned about the long term future of Singapore?
The long term economic success and vision for Singapore has also been a concern for the PAP. The PAP has identified emerging economic zones such as China, India and the Middle East for Singapore's long term investments and interests. The PAP government also realizes that Singaporeans cannot always compete with people in these countries because they will increasingly become as competitive as Singapore in many industries. The key then is to improve innovation outcomes in Singapore, measured by R&D expenditure as percentage of GDP, patent applications, human capital development, to deal with an increasingly globalized world.
However, in the absence of an overt open society, it is difficult for human capital to be innovative. To a certain extent, creativity on a large scale level can only flourish in competitive political, social and economic arena as well as an education system that not only encourages world class students, but world class innovators too. For example, in open polities such as Korea and Taiwan, their innovation outcomes flourish and currently exceed Singapore.
Moreover, a brilliant scientist that can generate many innovate outcomes in Singapore might also be interested in anti-death penalty activism as well as risqué entertainment. Are young PAP politicians able to persuade Singaporeans to move towards a society and formulate policies who can accept great scientists, politicians, social scientists and professionals who might be "eccentrics"?
On the other hand, the opposition parties' panacea to Singapore's future seems to be one of removing some existing political, social and economic institutions and regulations, such as the grassroot organizations and strict media and union laws to allow Singaporeans to deal with such issues themselves. Even as opposition parties believe in a more open society, radical institutional proposals overnight might be considered as an unwelcome "shock therapy". For example, people in Hong Kong are able to grapple with their overall economic direction, social divides resulting from widening income gap and foreign labor tensions in the absence of strong political institutions because historically, they have been rather independent of state interventions. Will Singaporeans, who are so used to strong institutions and regulations, be able to function in a vacuum overnight?
Moreover, young political leaders should articulate a clear and dynamic plan for Singapore's long term future in line with young Singaporeans' interests. When young Tony Blair became the Prime Minister of Britain in 1997, he articulated a clear vision for a stronger, more equal and "cooler" Britain. These firm beliefs saw him reelected thrice by the British public, especially among young Brits, despite many political difficulties and challenges. David Cameron, the new 39 year old leader of the Conservative Party of Britain, has further identified with British youths' increasing concern about the environment by adopting the traditional liberal democrats' mantle of environmentalism in policy making despite ridicule from some of his traditional supporters. Can a young and visionary Tony Blair or David Cameron emerge in Singapore politics?
Straddling between well formed institutions and embracing new ideas necessary for the future of Singapore, on top of clearly articulating a long term vision for Singapore, are difficult tasks for young politicians in Singapore. But if young politicians and Singaporeans themselves do not try, will Singapore's future be rudderless or worse still hopeless?
No comments:
Post a Comment