Politics travels

I've just returned from London and can't safely say I'll be home for the next couple of months. On the way out today, I read the news about the flooding happening on the western side of Singapore, and the Singaporeans who were greatly affected by it. Perhaps it's the weird combination of this and my most recent memories of moving about, I felt the compulsion to write about this sensitive, yet necessary issue.

There's a lot of replies on forums on what I would call, alternative websites that print stories mainstream press would otherwise not, stating how Singaporeans are suffering and how the government is not doing enough etc. Of course there will be defendants of those, who state that Singaporeans need to travel more to know how to be grateful with what they have. They use their varied travelling experiences to validate that our  country really is one of the best.

I halt at this point to first point out a political position, and that is I will support any government who makes a moral and ethical position, one that at least tries to do so.

So knowing where that stands, I tend to disagree that Singaporeans need to (a) travel more, so appreciate their own country more and by appreciation, (b) should learn to accept the comings and goings of the country. Well, the argument could be broken down in two parts as I've already pointed out in (a) and (b).

Firstly with (a): Singaporeans need to travel more to appreciate their own country. That's completely bullshit. In fact I would say it homogenizes what is a very complex phenomenon. People travel for all sorts of purposes and budgets, not to mention company as well. So each person's experience based on their ability to pay will range from being utterly discontented with the frequent lapse in air conditioning in a trans-Europe cosch, or be fed like kings on the roof of the Caesar's Palace. In fact, I would argue that those who travel to visit their relatives overseas mighr consider their lifestyle a better one and become more discontent with their cramped and highly stressful lifestyle. In my own experience, modern amenities are convenient in Singapore, but often a vibe of larger cities seems lacking. Simply put, Singapore is just like any other big cities, it's only fun if you have the money. However, it's perfectly fine for a city to cater to the rich, after spaces of living are as varied as the people themselves. What's morally wrong with Singapore, is the increasing empahsis to shape the city FOR the rich and for those with spending power. The poor, are unfortunately, being displaced and this poses a moral problem for any city. Yet, Singapore is also a country, with the poor as deserving born cities who keep the underbelly of the econony growing as well, so who should merit their effort?

As for (b): by being appreciative, we should accept what we have. Well, I think appreciation used here, is the same as gratification. It's hardly the same. For me, appreciation of one's hard work, is more work. Singaporeans are well travelled and they KNOW the kind of standards that are achievable. As such, they cannot accept floods that keep happening because we should have the resources and expertise to solve such problem. If not, at least, we should have the knowledge of informing citizens about the inherent nature of a changing geology, or simply admit that this is a problem of over urbanization.

Perhaps I have been unforgiving to the camp that posed this argument. However it's disturbed me long enough that I have to say something. It goes to the opposite camp as well, who make sweeping statements of comparisons between countries to state their case that Singapore government is inferior because other governments have successfully achieved what we could not. A deeper probe into every governmental policy and praxis will reveal that each locality has a unique set of conditions that allow for them to forge AND implement such policies. That takes years of research and "insider knowledge", so perhaps we should also moderate what we say lest it undermines the entire message we want to transpose to others. I am in complete agreement that we can do better, but perhaps part of policy is also failure and success is nothing without sufficient trial and error. Perhaps what I've learnt while moving about, is to be more forgiving to people who have tried their best and still fail due to conditions beyond their control. What we need to address are those conditions that allow/disallow things to happen, and who or what policies that made them possible to exist in the first place.

Furthermore, a government, like any other organization is hugely diverse. Tell me, would u blame the CEO if the subcontracted janitor isn't cleaning the toilet well? Perhaps not. But we will hold the CFO accountable for credit fraud from a director he is directly in charge of. When we point fingers, I hope, we do so with utmost care and introspection. Oh...and make sure it's also going in the right direction, or politicians can very well use a smokescreen to have us pointing in another direction THEY want us to point, instead of holding those who need to be accountable. Don't be a scapegoat, and definitely don't be manipulated into making someone one.