In the movie "What Women Want", Mel Gibson is a macho man advertising executive who suddenly, by a freak accident, can hear women's thoughts. Suppose the same happened to our politicians. What would they hear?
The KTM realized recently that while he is very clear about what he expects from the Government, his views are likely not to be representative of the general population by a long shot. What is really important is not what the KTM thinks or wants, but what Singaporeans at large want.
To the politicians, it might be important to understand what the people want because that's how they supposedly win votes; to the non-politician kay pohs like the KTM, the answer to this question is also of great interest because it provides a basis on which to evaluate the "goodness" of the Government (since intuitively, a "good" Government would be one that gives the people what they want?).
Furthermore, the answer to this question is likely to be a difficult one. Like women, Singaporeans are not a homogeneous bunch. The needs and wants of different segments of society are likely to be different. The employees will want more protection, while the employers will prefer less labour regulation; the poor will want more subsidies and the rich will want to pay less taxes. How do we reconcile the differences and often conflicting needs and wants of the different constituents? Is there a scientific and "fair" way to deal with this tussle?
Yes, we all know that we want a "government of the people, by the people, for the people," but exactly WHAT are we talking about? If we cannot articulate clearly what we want, then it's hard to work towards it --- and even if we got there, we would not realize it.
Too many questions, too few answers. The KTM is keen to hear the views of SA readers on the above issues. :-)
Comments (8)
I want a place where they are not short changed for stuff.
If i pay S$3.00 for a plate of Kway Tiao, it should come with Hum, chili sauce, Kway tiao, Bean sprouts and some noodle nicely cooked.
I want a government which is transparent in its dealings of singaporean money. accountable for its actions. (good and bad) which does not cling on to power. I want a government which is not corrupt.
I want a place to live and not a place which every hour i am reminded about GST.
I want a place where the rich pay as much in proportion of taxes as compared to the poor.
Posted by Rowen | January 21, 2007 10:42 AM
ST said the strongman decides what's best for you. period.you can't argue against clean toilets. the logic is, if the toilets are clean, your standard of living thus affirmed therefore you should be contented and grateful. it care not what,when,why and how defecation is manufactured and subsequently disposed.
Posted by kaypoh also | January 21, 2007 10:52 AM
KTM, this isn't a request for a wishlist, is it? :)
I'm now reading The World is Flat by Thomas L. Friedman (i've come late to the world of economics, yes), and in it he speaks half-jokingly of a Wall Party and a Web Party as political parties. The Wall Party would be in favour of more protection and more subsidies, while the Web Party would move for less labour regulation and lower taxes for the rich, to use your example. I agree with his splitting of worldviews along those lines, and don't think the "conflicting wants and needs" of the two groups can ever be reconciled either morally or in practice. Perhaps wiser heads than mine will have an alternative proposition.
Moving on....
Is there a scientific and "fair" way to deal with this tussle?
:) First of all a viable opposition in Singapore. Thereafter more democracy in politics, maybe? The best practices of economics and government are completely beyond me at present.
Posted by cognitivedissonance | January 21, 2007 7:28 PM
Rowan & kaypoh also,
Thanks for sharing your views.
cognitivedissonance,
No, actually, this is not a call for a wishlist. This is like a public perception survey. The KTM is pondering over the said problem and needs some data points to help him along, hence the appeal for views. :-)
At some level, this is also a call for people to think about this question on what exactly they want from the Government. The KTM surmises that most people can't even articulate what they think is a good government because this is not a question they think about. :-) Most people only complain about things that affect them directly (e.g. let's not raise the GST, etc.) and stop there.
Why is it important to think about the big picture? As you say, no government can satisfy everyone and there will ALWAYS be complains no matter what --- and Singapore is quite perculiar in the sense that the so-called election results really mean squat (how can it be an objective evaluation of the government when barely half the population votes?). Therefore, only with a holistic view of what's to be expected, can we make some reasonable statement about the "goodness" of the government.
Posted by Kway Teow Man | January 22, 2007 2:55 AM
I want a local newspaper that report bad news about the government and their leaders.
Posted by zulu29 | January 23, 2007 1:18 PM
I want a government that delivers, and has a way to let my parochial mind know whether and by how much my expectations have shifted upward over time, such that while it is to everyone's benefit to hold the government accountable and to push it to deliver more, I am aware whether I am asking for too much.
[Actually I don think this "awareness of expectation" is really a Garmen's job as it should always strive for the better rather than reminding us to check ourselves. It should be the role of educators in society (parents, teachers, friends, civil society, perhaps media or blog etc). But it seems to me their voices are like a drop of water overwhelmed by the ocean. Perhaps the Garmen can consider taking up partial role.]
Posted by yizheng | January 25, 2007 11:46 AM
zulu29,
Tell me more: how does local newspaper that report bad news about the government and their leaders make your life better?
yizheng,
You say that you want a government that "delivers". Can you elaborate on what you want delivered? The whole point of this exercise is to ascertain exactly what people want delivered and then perhaps work out some kind of KPIs to assess the "goodness" of the Government.
One question that is swimming in the KTM's mind is the following: is it true that people actually dun know what they want in a Government to begin with?
Posted by Kway Teow Man | January 25, 2007 12:48 PM
I mean a government that delivers well the public goods.
The first is law and order (security, secure property rights and contractual obligation). As Olson and Huntington explained, I see the difference between order and anarchy as more fundamental than between democracy and autocracy. Without it, there is no point discussing freedom, justice, equal opportunity, election or whatever..
Other public goods are such as conducive environment for economic growth (bread and butter), justice (as in existence of social mobility, equal opportunity as opposed to equal outcome, effective judiciary), and freedom (this is harder to specify.. I see myself now as having the freedom that I desire, I don't need the freedom to demonstrate and strike)
Looking at the link above, I've just noticed you talked abt equal opportunity and shades of socialism too months ago, interesting :-)
Posted by yizheng | January 25, 2007 4:21 PM