The Comfort of False Dilemmas

I was a particularly mischievous child, or so my parents tell me. Canning never seemed to work because the canes in my house would disappear faster than goodwill at a Bangladeshi gathering in Serangoon Gardens. So my parents resorted to faulty reasoning to keep me in line. You either stop jumping across the open drain or your don’t get your ice cream; you either do your homework or you don’t get to watch the A Team; you either clean up your room or you don’t get to swim later…and the abuse went on. It was faulty reasoning only because I quickly discovered that persistent mind-numbing will-breaking whining always got me what I wanted, without having to do all the boring stuff. Not only did it drive my parents crazy, I also learned early, years before taking up philosophy classes at university, the logical fallacy of false dilemmas.

 

A false dilemma goes like this:

 

Premise 1: Either X is true or Y is true

Premise 2: X is false

Conclusion: Therefore Y is true.

 

To flesh it out:

 

President Bush: You are either with us or you’re against us.

Not a Moron: But Iraq is not where Osama is.

President Bush: So you hate America and the troops!

 

Thanks to my constant whining, I realized that I didn’t have to clean my room and still get to go swimming. Thanks to my being a spoilt brat, I was years ahead of my peers when it came to dissecting logical fallacies in Logic and Reason 101 at university. I have, of course, dutifully footed the bill for my parents’ therapy ever since I started working.

 

All this brings me to another false dilemma implied by The Straits Times on 27 Nov 08. In covering the occupying of Bangkok airport by protesters from the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), ST’s front page headlines screamed “Protesters wreak chaos: Bangkok airport siege by anti-govt demonstrators leave thousands stranded”.

 

To non-Singaporeans out there, first of all, congrats; and secondly, it needs to be explained that such a headline goes straight to the heart of the politics of fear in middle class Singapore. The most pernicious and persistent false dilemma in Singapore is the choice between democracy and stability. This false dilemma has been expressed in various forms over the years by different PAP leaders. You either have political compliance and economic growth or you have democracy and complete chaos. Incidents like those in Thailand are often played up in subtle, sometimes not so, ways to underline the stark choice.

 

And its wishful thinking to assume everyone sees the logical fallacy for what it is. I was coming home from the airport on the night of 26^th and my taxi driver asked me about the flight cancellations to Bangkok. “Quite bad”, I said. Immediately, with the PAD as case-study, he launched into a lecture on why political freedom is as detestable as paedophilia. He ended, as all good academics do, with a rhetorical question, “I really don’t know what these people want”. I could almost hear LKY crying with pride somewhere in his oxygen chamber. “What most people want I suppose; to have a say in who governs over them”, I replied. The taxi driver looked at me from the rear-view mirror as though I had just said “Little boys can be sexy too”. The rest of the ride was in silence.

 

ST’s headline was factual. The airport was occupied, thousands were stranded, flights were cancelled and chaos reigned. But it’s not in the business to only report the facts; its here to support the government construct a nation in its own image. This entails emphasizing and de-emphasizing meanings which enable the state to look good.

 

But the real question is not how Singaporeans recognize false dilemmas and reject them. The real question is, do Singaporeans want freedom from false dilemmas? I don’t really think so. Here are some reasons why.

 

Firstly, false dilemmas are assuring. Like in any parent-child relationship, it comforts Singaporeans no end to have clear and easy choices presented to them. It offers security from risk and the unknown, and defers all decision-making to the state. This is made easier by the state’s track-record and the myth of meritocracy. After all, if one were to create a score card and total up the number of things the PAP government got right and what it got wrong, the former would be a considerably longer list.

 

Secondly, economist Bryan Caplan asked why Singaporeans in general seemed so supportive of the PAP government’s policies, even the unpopular ones like the ERP? He offered three possible explanations. A. Singaporeans were unusually high in economic literacy (the majority understood the economics of problems and approached them with rational mind); B. Singaporeans had great deference to the government elites (they believe that these elites know what they’re doing and deserve support); C. Singaporeans were resigned (they believe that ordinary Singaporeans can’t affect policy and give up trying). There is consensus that the answer was mainly B, with a strong dose of C.

 

[http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/11/singapores_poli.html]

 

Thirdly, we enjoy being infantilized as citizens. There is something about Singaporean culture which produces an infantile mindset. And this is evident everywhere from civic matters to popular culture. Whenever we are confronted by something we don’t agree with we want it banned. We want the big Nanny to step in and make things better – pronto! Also notice how a society that celebrates inane nonsense like Hello Kitty, doe-eyed barely adolescent pop stars or cutesy street fashion is also a society that longs for a big thumb to suck on.

 

All these make false dilemmas comforting. They are clear directions conveyed to us disguised as choice. We pretend we’re exercising our right to choose when we’re actually surrendering critical thinking. And the best part is that the government is not to blame here.   

 

 

The Stillbirth of Democracy in Singapore Parliament

The PAP government spurned another chance to institutionalize democracy. Today, Parliament rejected a motion tabled by Nominated MPs Thio Li-Ann and Loo Choon Yoong to amend the Parliamentary Elections Act to allow by-elections to be called in a Group Representation Constituency (GRC) when an MP vacates his seat. The motion was rejected by 62 votes to five.

 

If the motion had been passed it would basically mean this to the layperson: your first choice as your parliamentary representative is not available. Please choose again.

 

There are several concerns we should have over the rejection of this motion.

 

 #1: The continued centralisation of power: The Prime Minister alone has sole discretion in calling for a by-election. As with almost every other issue, power in Singapore continues to be centralized not merely with the state or executive but with individuals. Instead of developing long-lasting mechanisms that would serve as checks and balances for the greater good of Singaporean generations down the road, this PAP government continues to view every suggestion to implement procedural legislation as an affront to its competence and integrity. It presumes that its current method of picking high-flying morally sound individuals for office is perfect and will thus never be in need of checks and balances. (“Rogue governments” always refer to the Opposition taking power).

 

But there is a strategic dimension to this. With sole discretion the PM can avoid the potential loss of a GRC. Imagine this: A PAP minister and his team wins a GRC by the narrowest of margins. A year or so later, the minister passes away. And if a by-election is compulsory we could see an opposing GRC team in parliament. By having sole discretion, the PM can avoid his risk.

 

(note: In the 1988 GE, Eunos GRC was contested by Francis Seow, Lee Siew Choh and Mohd Khalit bin Mohd Baboo. Seow was of course the former Solicitor General and Lee former head of Barisan Socialis. Word on the ground was that this team was going to get into Parliament and to counter this, the PAP sent in Tay Eng Soon, a heavyweight minister, to stop them. Tay and his team (comprising Zulkifli bin Mohamed and Chew Heng Ching) won by the slimmest margin: 50.1% to 49.1% (or 36,500 to 35,221 votes). Tay, however, passed away in 1993. No by-election was called. Eunos was later carved up into several bits to dissipate the unhappy voters.)

 

#2: What’s one or two missing MPs?: The fact that 65 PAP MPs (together with the 2 Workers’ Party reps) voted against the motion goes a long way to confirming what many suspect. The real constituency work is done by grassroots leaders and resident committees, and not high powered PAP MPs who have law firms to head or hospitals to manage. This is why PAP MPs don’t mind going through the term with one person less in their GRC team – the grassroots leaders will make up the difference, and more.

 

(Note: Sylvia Lim and Low Thia Khiang did themselves and their party no favours by voting against the motion. Lim’s attempted hijacking of the motion played out in the media as opportunism. The GRC edifice may be a chronic grouse of opposition parties but even they have to rise above themselves from time to time to address broader issues like the interpretation of representative democracy in Singapore. By voting against the motion they have further isolated the 5 votes, thus making it look like calls for representative democracy are truly marginal in Parliament, and actually lending credence to the PM’s justification for retaining sole discretion.)

 

#3: Impersonal politics: In arguing for the rejection of the motion, PM Lee said that: “The vacancy does not affect the mandate of the government, nor its ability to deliver on its programmes and promises. The government’s mandate continues to run until the next general election is called, when the incumbent team will render account to the electorate.” (CNA, “Parliament rejects motion to fine-tune electorial system”, 27 Aug 2008)

 

In other words, you did not vote for the man you see on the poster hanging on the lamp-post but for the party. Which of course begs the question: isn’t that man supposed to represent my interests in the highest forum in the land? Or is that man just another mindless party digit whose real job is to explain “tough policies” to me and to sleep in Parliament? Such an argument takes out the personality and human touch in local politics, rendering it cold and faceless. It is only by emphasising party over the individual (together with the GRC mechanism) that the PAP has managed to usher in individuals into Parliament who would, realistically, never win any election if he or she were to stand on their own. I’m sure we all can think of at least 5 or 6 of such current MPs.

 

#4: PAP MPs really look out of touch with the people: CNA reported that Jurong GRC MP Halimah Yacob argued that “the response of the grassroots leaders and the residents whom I had met is a great assurance… None have raised the issue of a by-election.” This was “refuted by Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong, who said a street poll of about 300 Jurong residents showed that 56.8 per cent wanted a by-election”. (CNA, “MPs debate by-election laws in Parliament”, 27 Aug 2008).

  

#5: Resistance to real liberalisation: A lot has been made about the easing of bans over political films and outdoor protests. In response, critics have charged that such changes are only cosmetic; all unveiled with a flourish but having little impact on the existing structures (both legal and electoral) that restrict popular or liberal democracy. This rejected motion only reinforces such a belief.

 

#6: Inconsistent government rhetoric: It also demonstrates the inconsistency between calling Singaporeans to be more politically interested and aware but at the same time denying them the chance to exercise their vote. I guess the message is: yes to volunteerism, no to voting.

 

For the majority of Singaporeans, this will sail over their heads. It’s not sexy. It’s not a hot-button topic like transportation, GST, ERP or any other bread and butter issue. What a pity. It would have been in their interest to watch the stillbirth of a democratic institution in Parliament today.