A Critique of Political Discourse and Engagement in Singapore’s Maturing Democracy
The recent debates between Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) Wong and Workers’ Party MPs left me feeling underwhelmed. If we genuinely care about combating populism, we need to connect those issues to the everyday concerns of the people. If we are focused on fostering a more mature democracy, we should be inviting public discussion that is meaningful and accessible. Unfortunately, this exchange failed on both fronts.
As a citizen, I didn’t feel engaged or invited into a broader dialogue about the issues at hand. Frankly, I didn’t even feel like I was being pandered to, which would at least have shown an attempt to reach out to the public. Maybe I’m just not the target demographic for this type of discussion.
The term “populism” is thrown around frequently, but why should the average person care? Imagine struggling to make ends meet—concerned with money, housing, and job security. How are these concerns addressed by vague discussions about the dangers of populism? It’s not that people cannot understand how populism damages democracies, but using the term without providing concrete explanations or relevance makes it unconvincing.
To effectively combat populism, we need to show people how it hurts them directly. Yet, the recent debates between the People’s Action Party (PAP) and opposition politicians failed to achieve this. The focus was on party responsibilities, but the bigger question is: how do these debates impact the everyday lives of Singaporeans? How are the fears and challenges faced by the people being addressed? And why should they care about the discussions in Parliament?
Engagement in politics depends on the communication skills of leaders. Political discourse should resonate with the people, as it’s through this engagement that ideas are tested and refined. A key element of good policy is ensuring it is politically feasible. Otherwise, we might as well abandon elections altogether.
A common rebuttal to this criticism is that everyday Singaporeans simply don’t have the patience for such complex discussions. However, I believe this response smacks of condescension. It suggests that the people’s concerns are invalid or secondary, which is the very attitude we need to challenge.
On the subject of “concrete alternatives,” another issue arises. This demand assumes that we all share the same values and priorities. It presupposes what is important to us and dismisses other concerns. The call for concrete proposals often ignores the very question of what we value or what goals we want to achieve.
Rather than focusing only on tactics and methodologies, we must first establish what our shared goals are. If a path is blocked, we can then work together to find alternative routes to our destination.
Both sides of the political spectrum often speak of maturing democracies, yet part of this maturation is engaging with the people and responding to their concerns. Policymakers must adapt their proposals based on public feedback. It’s tempting to demand certainty and fully developed plans, but this overlooks the importance of dialogue. Populist policies, while unfeasible, still reveal something important: they reflect the feelings of the people.
If a policy is ultimately harmful, public discussion will expose its flaws. However, dismissing a policy outright because it is “populist” stifles that necessary dialogue. Even when we engage with populist proposals, we move the discussion forward and gain clarity about what the public values.
The purpose of dialogue is to illuminate our priorities. As we work to find solutions, let’s ensure we don’t undermine the process by dismissing the very ideas that could help guide us. Ultimately, combating populism involves convincing people—and that begins with talking to them, not ignoring their concerns.
