By Elgin Toh The Straits Times Published on Apr 06, 2013
AT
THE close of the Budget debate last month, a social issue - abortion - emerged
somewhat surprisingly as a subject of animated discussion among Singaporeans. Three
MPs had called for adoption to be promoted in place of abortion, prompting many
to jump in with their views. If
one measures in terms of ink spilt, the issue can be said to have trumped many
bread-and-butter ones, including, say, free early morning commuting, which
arguably affects many more people. Forum
letters on abortion published by the three most-read newspapers outnumbered
those on free commuting by more than two to one.
Abortion,
of course, can be a lot more emotive than many economic issues. The latter tend
to be impactful but dry. But it may be a mistake for us to miss the larger
trend which this latest observation seems to be a part of. In
the last few years, debates over social issues have been generating more heat
than ever - confounding the traditional stereotype of Singaporeans as a cold,
calculating, money-driven people.
"It's
the economy, stupid!" should apply in Singapore more than in many other
countries, according to the stereotype. And while I wouldn't go so far as to
pronounce the death of that dictum here, it does look like some circumspection
is in order.
The
first major incident indicating this trend was the casino debate, which began
in 2004 and has continued to the present time.
Supporters
of the casinos saw the issue as an economic one, about jobs and revitalising
tourism. But the "No" camp, led by religious groups, emphasised the
social fallout - what it would mean for families and societal values. This
group was far more active in its ground-lobbying efforts, forming online groups
like Facts (Families Against the Casino Threat in Singapore) and distributing
bumper stickers that said "Casi-NO".
Not
long after this came the debate over Section 377A of the Penal Code, which
outlaws homosexual sex between men. A
parliamentary petition was submitted by then Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong, who
had garnered 2,500 signatures. The grassroots on both sides of the fence became
much exercised, setting up rival websites (repeal377a.com and keep377a.com) and
organising more petitions. The
agitation shot through the roof, culminating in then NMP Thio Li-Ann - a strong
advocate in the "keep" camp - filing police reports over abusive and
threatening e-mails sent to her.
But
even this argument did not surpass the next one in its level of unadulterated
antagonism.
In
2009, a leadership struggle broke in the women's group Aware (Association of
Women for Action and Research) over the group's stand on homosexuality and sex
education, among other things. A final showdown between the warring factions
was marked by disorder, fierce taunts and shrill heckling.
Finally,
burgeoning interest in social issues is also reflected in the Pink Dot
movement, which gathers at Hong Lim Park annually to champion equal rights for
gays. It has, remarkably, managed to attract a larger crowd every year since
its inception in 2009.
If
it can indeed be said that Singaporeans are beginning to pay more attention to
social issues - especially those related to values - then it has to be asked:
What accounts for the phenomenon?
Our
increasing affluence is one factor. When there is food on the table, people
tend to focus on other concerns.
The
parallel rise of religious conservatism and secular liberalism is probably an
important factor too. The population census from 2010 shows that the two
fastest-growing groups in Singapore are the Christians and those who profess no
religion. It
would be wrong to over-generalise on this point. There are religious liberals
and secular conservatives and some of them may also be worked up about social
issues. But
anecdotal evidence from the big debates cited above tells us that more
participants were probably drawn from religious groups on the conservative
side, and from those who held a strictly secular vision of public life on the
liberal side.
Furthermore,
these groups sometimes engage in one-upmanship, with one side tending to
galvanise its activists when it senses that its vision is in danger of being
usurped or sidelined. One
recent example was when a Christian group sought a meeting with Law Minister K.
Shanmugam after learning that he had met gay activists.
These
developments will not be lost on the political parties. The
People's Action Party (PAP) has thus far been pragmatic. It is reaching out to
all groups and pointing out sometimes that it is merely deferring - reluctantly
even - to majority opinion.
It
is not yet clear what the Workers' Party's (WP) strategy is. The party opposed
the PAP on casinos, but decided not to oppose it on Section 377A, citing a lack
of consensus within the party.
If
social issues continue to rise in salience, then there may come a point where
parties are tempted to take stronger stands on them for political advantage. An
exercised segment of the electorate, after all, may be seen as a vote bank ripe
for the picking - especially for opposition parties, who, being out of power,
may engage in political entrepreneurship. And
if one political party takes a position, it may be difficult for other parties
to avoid doing so.
But
there are potential pitfalls.
First,
it is difficult for a party to jump onto the conservative bandwagon without
alienating some liberals, and vice versa. They also risk turning off some
moderate voters who may view position-taking on controversial issues as a sign
of stridency.
Careful
calculations will have to be made to ensure that any move does not lose more
votes than it gains.
Second,
parties will also have to consider internal dynamics before taking the plunge,
or they risk a split. They will have to persuade members of the leadership to
go along with the position or, in cases of deep personal conviction, to allow
for individuals to dissent or to stay silent.
Whether
parties finally decide to function as champions of a particular view or as
neutral brokers between the camps, we will be strengthened as a nation if these
issues are settled peacefully within existing political processes.
After
all, in any society, politics is the final arena of negotiation between
divergent values.
No comments:
Post a Comment