Avalon

Keeping our emotions in check, and balance

Friday, April 29, 2011

It might not be mere coincidence that I just finished my Emotions exam and this probably triggered some ideas leading to this post. Many people have spoken up on issues that surround this GE, amongst them rising costs of housing, massive influx of foreigners, transport woes, employment issues, wage stagnation, have been frequently debated, and have and will definitely turn up during the rallies that ensue for the next week.

Rallies are about riling up emotions, or at least emotions are definitely something that will be stirred up, unconsciously or consciously in rallies, with the ultimate goal of persuasion. The difference lies in the kind of emotions that are aroused and targetted in different rallies. For at the end of the day, after 2 weeks of listening to campaign, reading up on manifestos, tuning into issues that suddenly are in hot discussion, and doing ones own weightage of pros and cons for each party championing its cause, it doesn't necessarily translate into the actual vote on 7 may. And here emotions will serve as that extra thrust that motivates you to make that cross beside whichever party symbol you happen to be thinking about during those few minutes. The real struggle (for any responsible voter) starts only then.

But after hearing various rally speeches from representatives of different parties, I realised the difference in the choice of emotions the different parties mean to evoke. I listened to speeches given by Low Thia Kiang and Chen Shao Mao from hammer party. I listened to Sun party's Nicole Seah and Cheo Chai Chen in their rally. I heard the Rocket party's speeches. All very emotional, all reasonably biased but all took the tone of equality, addressing the people not as their people, but as the people. Some definitely catered more to popularism by inciting certain feelings of discontentment with the ruling party, some were willing to give credit to the ruling party for their work without showing any form of weakness in the midst. Points being brought across could sound assertive at times, but down-to-earth and you can sense the authenticity and the passion.

Then I heard Lightning party's candidate Lenny Low's speech and I finally understood why so many have found a nagging discomfort about the ruling party despite their reasonable ability to deliver. Even before nomination day, we have MM standing out to remind us that "Singapore is not Disney world", PM telling us "voting is not a game" and "urging Singaporeans to vote wisely and choose leaders who won't just win arguments but who can do better for the country", Dr Ng En Hen "warning voters of consequences of freak elections", and to sum things up, how "the PAP leadership sees "dark clouds" ahead". Yes it seems the future is bleak should the ruling party be hindered in any possible way of assuming full power. After many years, they have still chosen 'fear' as the emotion they want to rear up, creating feelings of insecurity and anxiety before introducing themselves as the solution, after which they manipulate feelings of 'gratitude', a typical stick and carrot strategy.

I got a glimpse of how these two are combined so skillfully in Ms Low's speech. She reminded us of how Singapore has gotten to this stage "under the leadership of the PAP", the "size of the challenge" that faces us ahead, all very familiar rhetoric aimed at putting the people in the hot seat when this time it was a reversal of role, before launching into content that deals more with the emotion of "gratitude", reminding us of how much the ruling party has done for the country, how ministers have made the ultimate sacrifice to serve the people, for example, by "giving up lucrative salary in private sector (referring to Teo Ser Luck)", "newer candidates... who have also very decent jobs.. but have decided to step up to the challenge of ensuring and securing the future of Singapore". I guess the much debated and controversial issue regarding ministerial salaries remains either ever elusive or conveniently shelved aside in this depiction of altruism and dedication on the part of these candidates. And we have everything to be grateful for this, by our continual endorsement of their insistent ways.

No matter how I try, I could not dispel the note of condescension in her tone, although Ms Low attempted to lace it with engagement. She sounds like a representative of the board of directors and CEO of a private firm lecturing the employees on the merits of the current leadership and why the employees should continue working in this firm, submitting, perhaps subjecting themselves to the management. I sensed their emotion of pride, very well-founded given the 'results' produced in terms of GDP figures in the past few decades, and I asked myself whether this pride that runs through her speech is a socially disengaging one about the success of the PAP, or a collective one documenting the success of the nation. No matter how I look at it, a leadership that harps on its successes, 'reminding' the people what could be lost without its team at the helm, constantly taking to manipulating the fear in people such that they do not step out of line, then trying to soften things by pointing out the "sacrifices" its leaders have made and the things that have materialised (ie. the upgrading and the shopping malls) in the hope that the people reciprocates with gratitude time and again, is becoming a very predictable pattern, and a very thought-provoking one. At the very least, it hints at the lack of confidence the current leadership actually has, despite its listing of accomplishments, its recounting of past glories, its promotion of self-enhancement. It intuitively senses that it still lacks something, something fundamental, something close to heart. The heart to serve, and to be a leader of integrity who serves the public, not a mercenary who pegs his wage to a private industry and rightfully claims it as a maintenance of integrity.

This is why there is much concern whether the ruling party has indeed become a ruling class, which has become disconnected from the people, and which has slowly alienated itself from the ideals that it has founded itself on. We need leaders that we can trust indeed; not leaders who value their label, but those who brand themselves based on sincerity, accountability and ability. If anything, I will say let's have diversity in the type of leaders we have in the parliament, one that will promote mutual policing and coevolution in the system to develop new adaptive features such that the Singapore system can progress to a next stage of evolution as a contantly changing organism in an environment fraught with harsh challenges.

This election, like all elections, we should keep our emotions in check, and balance.

Envoy of the Stars @ 7:27 PM
-------------------------------