TR EMERITUS

There is a cost to losing. At least in PAP’s books. And one of the costs is a policy of priority. That much PM Wong admitted.

When WP Pritam criticised PAP for the use of “negative politics”, “such as by denying opposition MPs access to People’s Association (“PA”) resources“, PM Wong said that is ”a matter of policies, not negative politics”.

He explained: “On policies, I take it that there will always be differences. We can discuss, we can debate robustly - even in Parliament - and there is always room to improve.”

“I don’t take the view that all our policies are perfect. They continue to be improved, fine-tuned, and we do keep on doing better, as our policies have been over the decades. And so are the same with our policies regarding PA.”

It took some time to arrive at the conclusion but it is worth the wait: “There was a logic, which we explained, about how we allocated in the past…if you didn’t support the PAP, then you don’t get it earlier than the ones that supported the PAP.”

PM Wong added: “It is a question of queuing and prioritisation, because we will do it. But it was a matter of when.”

He conceded that in the past, that logic of “supporters get priority“ prevailed. PM Wong however said: “That logic, I think, is no longer wearable today.”

No longer wearable?

Hmm…well, he is right to say that not all the policies are perfect. He’s also being logical of say that it is a matter of allocation, prioritisation and well, a matter of when. That is the clincher, right? A matter of when.

If it is about queuing, it is on a first-come-first-served basis. But in PAP’s case, it is about vote-us-get-first-served basis.

Although he is looking to tweak it, I suspect that the logic is one of self-preservation and survival. It is about holding the cards close to one’s chest. It’s sadly tribalistic, but logical no less.

PM Wong said that he is happy to discuss the municipal upgrades and other policies in Parliament, and to receive feedbacks from multiple sources. He kept saying we are not perfect and there is always room to improve.

But by sheer logic, if the same analogy helps, I believe the room cannot contain everyone. It is not designed that way.

Although it is no storeroom, it is still an unspoken by-invite-only space. It is based on ballot preference, and a logic of we take care of our own first. That is the differences that PM Wong is hinting to.

I believe this is bigger than him and his team, since election is often premised on appealing to our basest instinct. It’s resiliently systemic, and what lies beneath are layers and layers of set political cement.

In other words, It’s often about reaching for the lowest hanging fruit of our human nature. It’s our default position when vested interests are threatened. You snooze, you lose. It’s a situation of win-lose. The winner sets the stage and calls the shot.

That said, I however caught a glimpse of the silver lining in the interaction between WP Michael Tng and PAP Baey Yam Keng. They bumped into each other quite often in their walkabouts. MT recounted that in one incident, he saw BYK who checked in with the WP team to find out how they were doing.

It was at this time that ““an elderly resident that MT was speaking to quipped that “you are all so friendly,” he said with a laugh.””

“We were joking (that) it shouldn’t be war right?” Yes, it shouldn’t.

I can’t disagree with that.

But jokes aside, when certain logic ossifies into tribalistic faultlines, democracy descends into a battlefield where the winner jealously protects and draws the line, and the losers will just have to live with whatever the winner can spare, in terms of time and resources.

It may not be negative politics, but it’s what I call “priority politics” or divisive politics. And it’s no better.

Let’s hope PM Wong is serious about perfecting that particular policy so that we work for all Singaporeans. It’s no longer just about whether it is wearable or not. Not just skin deep. It’s about heart change so as to change the mindset and system as a whole. For doesn’t Singapore belong to everyone, not just a political party?

We must never forget that for every constituency lost by a margin, there are still about 49% who have never lost faith.

Michael Han

5 Responses to “There is a cost to losing”