Political elitism
Takes an emotive turn
The term is becoming synonymous with ‘privileged class’ and ‘leadership arrogance’, threatening PAP’s long-term rule.
By Seah Chiang NeeOct 29, 2006


Singapore’s People’s Action Party is confronted with a widening class divide and a creeping political elitism that could drive it from power, if they are allowed to fester. Inter-related, these problems are shaping up into the ruling party’s biggest challenge in the next election in 2011 – and probably beyond.

They are neither new nor unique in the world, having prevailed in advanced nations like the United States, Britain and even Japan – except in Singapore, the small size and meagre safety net are exacerbating matters.The General Household Survey revealed that the top 20% of Singapore’s households last year earned 31 times that of the bottom 20%. And the gap is widening.

Two events last week showed up how much disconnect there is between a segment of the political elite and the citizens it has to represent. The problem is serious. “We have a crop of well-off MPs who have little empathy for the poor or needy, seeing failure is an individual’s fault. Political elitism and arrogance are undoing the PAP’s strong record of achievements,” one party grassroots worker said, calling for political reforms.

“Otherwise, the PAP cannot survive a one-man-one-vote democracy for no more than two or three elections.”

“The stability of a society depends on how people feel. If there is a group which is unhappy, such that they rebel against the system, that can lead to all kinds of trouble,” warned Labour chief and a PMO minister Lim Boon Heng.

For some time, party workers have been giving feedback to the leadership that public feelings are rising against what they say is a system that favours the elite and the rich. The first advice: Change the criteria and selection of PAP Members of Parliament (from whom Cabinet ministers are selected).

Laid down by Lee Kuan Yew, the system measures political ability by academic, professional or business achievements, particularly those who are related to past achievers.
This could be attributed to Lee’s belief that intelligence – or alternatively mental subnormality – is inherited from parents’ genes.

Only a few newer MPs are social workers or people with good community links, but compassion, charity and humility generally rank low in priority in a candidate’s qualities.

For decades, the party leaders have tended to come from the ranks of scholars and technocrats, described by Lee Senior as “among the best in Singapore.”

In a different era, the system had worked well in building an efficient, modern city. That was the good part.

But in the new Singapore, elitism breeds resentment and friction. Many of these MPs, raised in wealthy homes, are simply too removed from the plight of poor Singaporeans they are supposed to represent.

Unlike politicians elsewhere, the MPs in Singapore are co-opted into politics without party experience or having to campaign hard to win votes.

During Lee’s popular past, this posed few problems. PAP candidates were virtually always automatically elected. A popular joke in those days was “Even if it fields a monkey, it will win.”
Today, with the unfettered reach of a critical Internet and an educated electorate, every comment or behaviour of an MP comes under intense scrutiny.

Last week provided evidence of this.

It began when Wee Shu Min, 18-year-old scholar-daughter of a PAP MP, launched a scathing attack on Singaporean Derek Wee for voicing concerns on job security and age discrimination.
She described Derek as a “stupid crackpot”, “the sadder class”, over-reliant on the government in Singapore where society is “far too survival of the fittest” and signed off with: “Get out of my elite uncaring face”.

Other condescending terms: Derek is a typical “wretched, under-motivated, over-assuming leeches” specimen of Singapore. He has a “middle-class under-educated penchant” for complaining and should get on with life.
It was political dynamite for several reasons.
Firstly, she was a scholar (10 A’s in O-level, strong bilingual, French) in elitist Raffles Junior College, the sort that is earmarked for an easy road to high office.
Secondly, her father Wee Siew Kim is an executive of Singapore Engineering and MP in PM Lee Hsieng Loong’s Ang Mo Kio group constituency, so whatever he does affects the PM’s political fortune.
Hundreds of angry Singaporeans consider her remarks as elitist and insensitive against the common people.
To make matters worse, the MP issued a statement that appeared to support her elitist remarks.
The controversy may have sealed his political career; there is little prospect of Wee standing again in the next election.
Unfortunately for the PAP, it occurred at almost the same time as news broke of a 40-year-old
unemployed father of two teenagers jumping in front of a moving train.
After failing to get a job for four months, he committed suicide with S$16 in his pocket and a pile of debts.
Shu Min had written, “If you’re not good enough, life will kick you in the balls. That’s just how things go.”
Critics connect the two with devastating effect for the system.

Her comments have divided Singaporeans. Some of the more successful elements back her argument that Singapore’s capitalist system supports the “survival of the fittest” theory. One asked, “What’s wrong with being elitist?”

At least one saw the debate positively.
“In fact, we are already unintentionally preparing ourselves to enter the post-Lee Kuan Yew era by creating a bit of chaos here and there,” he wrote.
“When Lee finally goes, we would already have got used to the chaos; we can (then) re-make our beloved Singapore.”
(This article was specially written for The Sunday Star, Oct 29, 2006)

Evaluation: These elites who tend to be elitists ironically need more education. Their attitude and mindset has to change, lest elitism in Singapore becomes serious and full blown, causing segregation in our society.