Wanted: Truth, courage, civility in public debate

National conversation will call for rational and reasonable discussions

By Warren Fernandez, The Straits Times, 2 Sep 2012

Let me tell you the truth. So declared Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong last Sunday, just before plunging into what was one of the more controversial topics of his two-hour National Day Rally address.

Just what was the bad news? Taxes will go up within the next 20 years.

The logic was hard to fault: As the population ages, and medical costs rise, social spending will go up. Taxes will have to do so too, to pay for the increases.

It seems like a no-brainer. But judging by the reactions online - fewer likes and less positive comments on PM Lee's Facebook page - this does not seem to have gone down well.

That, despite the fact that he was only pointing to a possible tax rise not next year or soon thereafter, but within the next 20 years.

Mr Lee was doing the reverse of former United States president George H. W. Bush, who had declared "read my lips, no new taxes", only to have to eat his words later. The PM was alerting Singaporeans to the reality that one day, taxes may well have to rise in line with spending, and whoever is in charge at the time should have the political gumption to do what was necessary.

Being upfront with voters has long been a hallmark of politics here. Singapore's first prime minister Lee Kuan Yew and his colleagues used to hit out at opponents for offering free rice, free bus rides, or school places with no fees. Thankfully, not many voters were swayed by the freebies.

This talk of taxes going up, however, runs against the grain. Most politicians love to talk about plans to boost spending, but are loath to say exactly how these might be paid for. Many voters seem happy to go along with the charade so long as someone else bears the pain. The result is rising national debt.

Such political prevarication has eroded public trust in governments around the world. A Pew Research survey last year found that only one in three Americans trusted their government in Washington to do what is right just about always (4 per cent) or most of the time (25 per cent).

But Singapore politics is evolving. The politics of survival is giving way to what some call the politics of plenty. Faced with more assertive and demanding voters, less inclined to buy into the old mantra of pain for long-term gain, will Singapore go the way of other democracies where being honest with voters is considered politically "courageous" - meaning foolhardy - if not suicidal? Will voters here, like those elsewhere, punish leaders who tell them what they don't want to hear?

Take, for example, the debate over the Government's supposed "dash for economic growth at all costs". Many believe that society here can afford to sacrifice some growth, in order to ease some of the stress and strain on the people, and boost their quality of life. It might even mean more babies, some suggest.

Yet, those who push this line often don't make clear just what slower growth might mean and who would be worst hit. The upper and middle classes might well enjoy a slower, more relaxed pace of life, and get by quite nicely with slightly less. But the brunt of the impact of slow growth is likely to be felt at the lower end, where it could well mean fewer jobs and less opportunity to improve prospects and lives.

Indeed, those who have been calling for measures to close the widening income gap in our society - an eminently laudable goal - should also make clear that this could well entail higher costs for some of the services provided by those who do these jobs.

It's called putting your money where your mouth is, even if it means having to pay higher bus and taxi fares, service and conservancy charges, or even taxes, in exchange for better quality services, as well as a more equitable wage system and society.

No doubt, some will say that this can be done simply by cutting government spending, curbing procurement lapses, eating further into the national reserves, or making "social investments" that will somehow pay for themselves. Perhaps, but every time I hear such glib solutions, I can't help but wonder if I am being told the whole truth.

Honesty is in especially short supply in some online discussions. Some commentators are wont not to let facts get in the way of a good post. Armed with a megaphone and a mask, they are quick to pour scorn and hurl abuse at anyone with a view contrary to theirs. They attack their opponents in vicious and vitriolic ways, seeking not just to counter arguments, but also to flame others into submission.

Lamentably, the result is often that other commentators, including some journalists and even politicians, are put off and choose to stay out of the fray, giving rise to a form of political correctness that reflects, and amplifies, the views of a vocal minority.

I was glad, therefore, that the Prime Minister called this group out, and forcefully too, when he highlighted how some online sites and posts have given rise to an impression that Singaporeans are an increasingly xenophobic people.

Like many others, I believe that these views are not reflective of most Singaporeans' attitudes towards foreigners, even if many are unhappy that the pace of immigration in recent years was allowed to exceed society's capacity to absorb the new arrivals.

So, if we are to embark on a national conversation on these important and difficult issues, truthfulness, courage, and civility in national discourse will be critical. Without the ability to have a sensible, honest discussion, Singapore could go the way of other democracies.

The warning signs are clear. In a recent article, for example, the well-known American columnist Tom Friedman noted the rise of what he calls "popularism".

"It's the über-ideology of our day. Read the polls, track the blogs, tally the Twitter feeds and Facebook postings and go precisely where the people are, not where you think they need to go. If everyone is 'following', who is leading?"

Today, Mr Friedman continued, "anyone with a cellphone is paparazzi; anyone with a Twitter account is a reporter; anyone with YouTube access is a film-maker. When everyone is a paparazzi, reporter and film-maker, everyone else is a public figure".

The upshot of this is that leaders are under scrutiny like never before. "It doesn't discourage the best of them, but the ridicule and the constant interaction from the public is making it more difficult for them to make sensible, brave decisions."

Don't get me wrong. To argue that Singapore needs a political culture that allows for robust discussion but still rewards brave and sensible decisions is not to say that we are all likely to agree on everything, or must uphold the status quo.

The truth cuts both ways. In initiating a national conversation, the PM has posed some searching questions for Singaporeans to ponder: What kind of society would we like to have? What kind of people do we want to be? And what do we need to do to get there?

Their answers will be complex; not always in black and white, but often in subtle shades of grey. Some truths will be reaffirmed, as Education Minister Heng Swee Keat put it. But, if truth be told, others will call for more than just recalibration or refreshing.

If the national conversation is to be meaningful, leaders and voters alike will have to have the courage to face the truth.