Change of Tide

The Singaporean populace had exchanged their political freedoms for economic and national survival in the 60s. This was born out of necessity. The social contract that was bound between the people and the government was evident. We did not question much the government's initiatives, policies, enacted laws, modes of institutions, and motives. We had in fact allowed, trusting that it was in our very best interest as a community, the government to "run our lives" in ways that they saw fit, and most importantly to take care of its citizens. In return, we toiled and contributed towards nation building, towards the betterment of our own lives, including those of our future generations. Unfortunately, the people in general have become politically deaf, mute and blind. Incapacitated, if you will.

Fast forward to present times. This social contract between the government and it's people is wearing thin. It has over the years suffered much wear and tear, over numerous policies and issues which the people have felt and perceived as being not to their best interest. Broadly, these included (not limited to) :
1) Population birth schemes, incentives and disincentives
2) Management of CPF
3) High cost of living (transportation, healthcare, education)
4) Growing income disparities
5) Education system mechanics at primary and tertiary levels
6) Foreign talent scheme

People have become more educated, generally more affluent, and more keenly attuned to the world around them. It is only natural that they question, and are more discerning over the choices that are placed before them.

The dynamics of this contract changes with the times. It has never been cast in stone, and it should never be. Our constitution guarantees certain basic rights to its citizens. Part IV of the Singapore constitution guarantees the following :
1. liberty of a person
2. prohibition of slavery and forced labour
3. protection against retrospective criminal laws and repeated trials
4. equal protection
5. prohibition of banishment and freedom of movement
6. freedom of speech, assembly and association
7. freedom of religion
8. right to education

The people have begun to respond to the change in dynamics of this social contract with the government, while at the same time maintaining its continued demands of a government. Chiefly, self preservation as a society. After all, the government is "OF the people, BY the people, and most importantly FOR the people".

The people have also noticed that the government is slow to respond to the changing dynamics. Whilst clamouring for change, it is inevitable that raw nerves may have been touched.

Disagreement produces debate but dissent produces dissension. Dissent (which come from the Latin, dis and sentire) means originally to feel apart from others. People who disagree have an argument, but people who dissent have a quarrel. People may disagree and both may count themselves in the majority. But a person who dissents is by definition in a minority. A liberal society thrives on disagreement but is killed by dissension. Disagreement is the life blood of democracy, dissension is its cancer. (Daniel J. Boorstin, “Dissent, Dissension, and the News,” The Decline of Radicalism: Reflections on America Today, Random House, 1960.)

It has been said, regardless of your political inclination (left or right, liberal or conservative) that requiring the people to respect and support their leaders regardless of merit has typically been the hallmark of fascist, oligarchic, or otherwise totalitarian governments.

I fear the walk down this slippery path.