Good policies and bad politics

I could not believe my eyes when I read what Chua Mui Hoong wrote in the Sunday Times this morning. The title of her article was ‘Good policies hampered by bad politics’. I am not going to dwell on how bad the politics were or even bother to figure out what were the good policies. Anyone who is aware of the population squeeze, influx of foreigners, housing shortages, transportation and high property prices, healthcare facilities and cost, CPF protest etc etc would know what is good policy and what is bad policy.

What is remarkable in the article is the rehashing of some issues that I thought would be forgotten, best left unsaid and not to be spoken again. Or at least that was the impression I had when I saw the deflection towards the wilderness and a refusal in a meeting of the minds.

What were the pertinent points raised by Low Thia Khiang in his opening address in the last Parliament session? Other than the phrase constructive politics, I don’t thing anyone remembers. Whatever he had raised were drown by the pompous outbursts of what is good politics and all that remained was a statement and reinforcement of power politics. I am constructive and you are destructive. Period.

Chua Mui Hoong remembered some of the things I wanted to write about but got caught in the latest round of CPF angst and thought it best to leave them aside while the CPF issues take the centre stage. Here are the very strong points raised by Low Thia Khiang that provoked so much unrestrained hostility in Parliament. It was like stirring the hornet’s nest.

1. If the people continue to support a govt party that uses high handed tactics against its political opponents, we are endorsing a bullying political culture.

2. If the people support a govt party that uses governmental resources, including civil servants, to serve its partisan goals, we are condoning the abuse of political power as an acceptable culture.

3. Using differentiating measures in policies to punish people who voted for the opposition breads a culture of divisive politics.

4. It also used to be said that the political incumbent has no obligation to level the playing field, that might is right, and that the political incumbent has the right to use all legal means to remain in poser because everyone will do it they are the incumbent. This is building a self serving political culture.

The above points clearly described the political culture of the day and how constructive can the political culture be if these cultures continue to dominate the politics of this wanna be democracy? What went on in Parliament after what Low said was all about the above, the kind of ‘constructive politics’ that are uniquely Singapore.

And what is amazing in Chua Mui Hoong’s article is a dressing down of the govt for its brand of constructive politics. Unbelieveable, and I do not wish to elaborate further and anyone who wants a better feel of what she said should discover the truth by reading the article itself. 

Though there was a vain attempt to blame the WP for not playing constructive politics, it did not hold much water. The opposition parties cannot engage in constructive politics when the tone and culture of politics are set by the dominant power of the day. The total absence of a follow up discussion on the above 4 points raised by Low is the best testimony of not wanting to talk about them. The subsequent robust attacks were more a diversion from the subject matter and to ignore the elephant in the room. And Chua Mui Hoong summed it up by asking ‘whether good policies can make up for bad politics – or the absence of any meaningful discussion of it’.  She presumed that all policies were good, so let it be. Can there be constructive politics when the conditions and culture mentioned by Low Thia Khiang continue to drive the politics here?

Why was there no discussion on the 4 main points raised by Low? Were they utterance of political myths, high falutins, or were they idealistic aspirations that don’t mean anything?

Kopi Level - Red