Elitism
Necessary - and divisive
Despite cushion of a broad middle class, it could propel Singapore into an ideological divide. By Seah Chiang Nee.
Apr 9, 2006

TRANSFORMING a Third World slum into a successful modern city has created an elite class in Singapore in one generation that in the West took hundreds of years to develop.

It didn't exist 40 years ago when the state became independent and the people were mostly poor and owned no property. The rich were few in number.

But with education and wealth, Singapore became a middle-class society and gave birth to an elite force in almost every field - from schools to business to politics.

As in America and Britain, elitism is both a necessity as well as a divisive force in Singapore.

I learned this reality from a Math teacher when I was studying in a missionary secondary school. One day, he pulled out a share certificate and explained how the stock market and capitalism worked.

"In capitalism, the elitist class is the biggest economic contributor," he said. "It helps to create most of the jobs and pay the biggest share of taxes."

Don't get me wrong. He was no snob but merely teaching the realities. Capitalism breeds intense competition and elitism from the school system to the business world. And in politics, too.

In the last generation, the politicians, whether from the People's Action Party (PAP) or the opposition, have come from the heartlands.

They were hawkers and bicycle shop owners, etc; people with passion but little education. Armed with a fiery tongue and the ability to work up a crowd, they won elections and kept their seats.

An example was a former classmate, Robin Sim Boon Woo, who disappeared from my life before high school graduation. The next time I saw him, he was speaking in an election rally at a largely Indian constituency - in Tamil.

He also campaigned in Malay, Mandarin and English. Robin was a PAP MP in a rural constituency fighting off the pro-communist Barisan Sosialis for many years.

He told me years later how he would do things like driving a constituent's sick wife to a sinseh or attending marriages, funerals and birthdays.

"I knew every household in my ward by the occupants' names, how many children they had and where they studied and I made regular visits, election or not," he said.

Was that necessary? "Yes. My rival lived in the area and bonded well with the residents. I had to do better," he said.

Singaporeans today no longer care for these less educated hardy politicians, preferring graduate MPs who can manage their housing estates well. Unless you have a degree, you are not MP material.

But the pendulum may have swung too far.

For the coming election, the ruling party has unveiled 15 new candidates who largely come from the elite class or scholars, businessmen and professionals.

Some have good connections, but almost all are likely to be good problem-solvers and managers of people's estates.

However, they are not politicians capable of fighting and winning seats on their own steam in a straight fight.

For the ruling party, these elites are both a winning formula and a political liability.

They are co-opted from their workplace, not from the party ranks, a unique political practice that people outside Singapore are not familiar with.

With few exceptions, these elites have little grassroots or political background.

"PAP MPs are rich or successful elites, lawyers, doctors and CEOs and some of them are arrogant," a critic said. "Do they really understand the plight of the lower class?"

Some Singaporeans would like graduate MPs who are also passionate politicians and are able to debate the government on unpopular decisions.

The present crop is not selected for, or renowned in, its debating abilities or even inclination that is sought by many younger voters.

These citizens want MPs who can strenuously represent their feelings in Parliament - not just defend the PAP's interests.

While the power elites have played a big part in Singapore's development, it is also - like in the West - becoming a target of criticism, especially when times are bad.

The widening gap between the rich and poor has accentuated Singapore's divisive line and caused resentment among the lower class. Some of them feel they are neglected or ignored even as the republic prospers.

It has prompted Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to warn his party colleagues and top bureaucrats not to behave arrogantly or show off their wealth.

Because of the presence of a predominant middle class, there is no visible class struggle in Singapore. But some sociologists fear the future could see greater divisiveness, even a threat to national unity.

"The power-elite network is the real time bomb in Singapore," declared a critic named Sneering Tree. "It must be destroyed because the members' loyalty is not towards Singapore but towards each other."

The unhappiness of the poor is serious enough for the government to distribute cash - for the first time in history - to all, particularly among the bottom 30% lower class. This, of course, is not a long-term solution.

The economic downturn has resulted in a backlash among some disenchanted citizens against the power elites, which may affect the coming election. The precise extent can be gauged only after all the votes are in.

If it shows up in the ballot papers, it could propel Singapore into a new ideological phase.

Elitism in the West is frowned upon by liberals but defended by the conservatives and it may happen here.

At the moment, middle-class Singaporeans are neither ideologically inclined nor very class conscious, and would probably prefer it stays this way.

(This was first published in The Sunday Star on Apr 9, 2006).