Anthony Yeo / Guest Writer
The highlight of the Review (Insight) page in the Straits Times (ST November 7) highlighted lessons for local politics arising from Barack Obama’s historic and unprecedented election victory to become the 44th president of the United States.
The five articles raised questions on whether style, youth, the internet, colour or the grassroots matter in gaining victory in an election for leadership of a nation.
Whilst these are pertinent questions to deliberate on and debate, I wonder if we should not also consider another lesson for discussion. This is not about lessons for local politics but a very poignant lesson for local politicians about how to engage in political competition.
Focus on issues – not personalities
My thoughts were triggered by observations of campaigns of past and present American elections for the presidency and in particular from listening to the two speeches by Senator John McCain and President-elect Barack Obama.
The first observation is the manner in which candidates engage in political debates. Whether they did that in separate campaign trails or in direct opposition to each other in staged debates, there was always a focus on issues rather than personalities.
Of course in challenging each other on issues, references had often been made to the competency and the capability of the opponent. This was done in a spirit of competition, challenge and combat. They were seldom attempts at personal attacks.
In the process, what seemed to feature rather prominently was the lack of malicious intent. Neither was there any personal sensitivity despite occasional swipes directly or indirectly, at each other’s personal character.
There was also a stark absence of any personal affront and no talk about taking each one to court for libel, defamation or slander.
In fact, the media entered the fray with many comical portrayals of the candidates. This included Tina Fey’s mimicking of Mrs Sarah Palin’s campaigning performance. Palin was virtually ridiculed openly without her taking any offence.
Graciousness
Then there were the usual speeches by the victor and the vanquished following the election results. This part of the election was most captivating not for their speeches but the manner in which each acknowledged defeat or victory.
In this instance, what was most significant was the concession speech of Senator John McCain. He was gracious in defeat, magnanimous in offering congratulations and appropriately composed in conceding victory to Barack Obama.
What was most touching was the way he chided his supporters for booing when he urged support for Obama since he would be the next president. This was augmented by his comment that the frightful cruel bigotry of the past against the blacks should not be allowed to prevail as he hailed the entry of a black president to the White House.
McCain even pledged to work with Obama for the well-being of the nation despite being in the opposition’s camp.
On the part of the victor, there was not only gratitude for victory but a reciprocal demonstration of grace by Obama in acknowledging the generous congratulations of John McCain.
The rest of the speech had already captured our attention, admiration and adulation. It was not only focused on issues and challenges, it was also a pledge to embrace his opponents and all those who did not vote for him. In fact, he declared that he would listen to those who would disagree with him and to those who did not vote for him, he would want to be their president as well.
As I observed and listened to the campaigns all these months, culminating in the speeches by Senator John McCain and President-elect Barack Obama, I was not only viscerally moved but cognitively challenged. I was moved by their posture, composure and grace and cognitively wondered how our local politicians could emulate them in political encounters and endeavours.
Criticisms and confrontation part of political engagement
One wish I have is for our politicians to learn to focus on issues rather than engage in personal attacks, sometimes of a scathing nature. And if personal challenges are made to integrity, competency and quality for political leadership, may our politicians desist from threats of legal actions.
Perhaps part of the lesson to learn is to appreciate that challenges, criticisms and confrontations are features of political engagement and no one should take anything personally.
The other lesson to learn is to treat each other as opponents, not enemies. It is remarkable that the two American candidates could be debating vigorously at one moment and then shaking hands or even embracing at the end of a debate.
The sceptics would hail such behaviour as political showmanship but one cannot deny that there was no obvious demonstration of animosity or hostility despite differences between them.
Treat everyone as equals
One other considerable lesson has to do with how the candidates handled defeat and victory. Hopefully our politicians can be gracious in conceding defeat, instead of berating those who did not vote for them or threatening to punish them with penalties if they voted for the opposition.
For the victor, one wonders when the day will come when local politicians adopt the attitude of Barack Obama, in being benevolent to the opponent and reaching out to those in the opposition camp. Regardless of whom they vote for, all who vote for the opposition are still citizens of the nation and would obviously want a stake in its welfare.
If it were difficult to appreciate the opposition for who they are and even if politicians do not wish to adopt Abraham Lincoln’s attitude that “we are not enemies but friends” in the political arena, at least may there be no hostility.
The more I ponder over the behaviour of McCain and Obama the more I find myself engaging in some hopeful reverie that our local politicians will acknowledge and appreciate that whichever camp they are in, they are all working for the nation regardless of their political agendas
There is no need to discount or demean intentions of opponents as our ruling party have been prone to do by constantly ascribing ill-intentions to their political agenda. After all, for better or worse, politicians are still one of us and even if they were from the opposition, it is unthinkable that they would wish to demolish whatever has been achieved in Singapore.
To that extent, I too have a dream for Singapore. Hopefully I can live long enough to experience this dream becoming a reality.
———
Good Morning, Gilbert Goh Keow Wah @6.29 am # 44
“I agreed with what you said. I noticed that TOC has somewhat degenerated into a PAP slinging site. Netizens need to be aware that for the site to be neutral and above-board, it has to welcome pro-establishment comments and such bloggers not be subjected to name-calling and silly mud-slinging.
If netizens can debate logically by raising their views without criticising each other’s opinion and character, then this site will be a solid one.”
There is no need to sweat the small stuff. Everything is cool. Try to see TOC as just a public square. Nothing more or less. Today, this the happening place. Tomorrow it’s anyone’s guess. I really don’t see the need to impose structure, symmetry or even a way of thinking here that is acceptable.
For me, it just doesn’t make ANY sense to fashion TOC into ANOTHER real world facsimile of Singapore. We already have that already. Why do we want to build another real world version of Singapore online? Besides if people really want to buy into more of the same stuff, they can just as well vote with their key boards to go to stomp, razor tv, channel 5 and of course our beloved rag.
As I said, it’s a public square and people should be allowed to stand up and even shout out whatever they feel happy or unhappy about, providing of course they don’t breach any laws and understand that we live in a world of implications and consequences. If they feel like telling people, if they don’t slouch, they stand 2 inches taller. Or falling in love is like succumbing to a haunting refrain. Then I say, carry on.
Only remember one thing; be it PAP, WP, SPD or even some lunatic fringe organization like the Mickey mouse club, just DON’T expect EVERYONE to agree with you – one thing about the internet is while everyone is free to say anything, you cannot stop people from thinking and deciding accordingly.
As I said, don’t sweat the small stuff – just go with the flow – this is not something that we should necessarily fear; but rather understood.
Breathe….relax….let it come naturally.
SD (Internet Liaison officer of the brotherhood)
Agree with singaporedaddy.
TOC provides the platform.
We live in the real world – views are not 50% pro 50% against.
TOC comments gives an indication of PUBLIC Opinion. I hope Gilbert understands this term.
It so happens that for many issues, the public commented the way they did based on what they honestly feels.
Gilbert, don’t be angry.
43) Alex Ong (eX.A.K.R.)
You have given a very good take on the political situation in Singapore at
the moment. It would have been perfect if you had included the people in
your opinion.
Where do the people stand amid all this mud-slinging and most ungentlemanly
behaviour. For you see, even as the political showdown is played out before
our eyes, we, the people, have to live our lives while the episodes are being
shown in the big screen.
I do not know if you included me in your assessment that I might be one who
wish ill on LKY, I would like to state clearly that this is furthest from the truth.
I respect the man for what he has done for Singapore.
Unfortunately, I do not know if it is a blessing or a curse for him to continue
to be in politics. This sentiment is largely due to the presence of his son,
more so his being the PM of Singapore. Has this resulted in LKY being more
skewed in his thinking? Probably trying too hard to protect his own legacy
and ensuring that his son could also live up to it? This may just be speculation
on my part. The point is, amid all these, Singaporeans could well be the
victims of such impressions.
About LKY and how long more he may live, this is something we, the citizens
must consider. We and our children will live beyond him and if there is a
possibility of the PAP running in trouble thereafter, then we too must consider
in all honesty what we ought to do now. Can we ignore this and just hope for
the best?
So, you see, taking into consideration where Singapore would be heading
after the death of LKY is not the same as cursing the man. It is a serious
and a very valid consideration.
What will happen to Singapore and Singaporeans then? Don’t we want to
start planning for such eventuality? What should our plan be?
This is no laughing matter and we MUST not side step the issue.
All said, I appreciate your sharing very much. Good take. Thanks.
To: Sugardaddy/Unreplied Questions
Hi thanks for your comments.
I am not angry just airing my thoughts here haha.
Don’t worry, I am not that petty. Just maybe hope there will be more mutual respect of each other’s views however divergent.
I understand all of us have different views but mostly anti-establishment.
So if someone gave credit to the ruling party we should let it be instead of battering that comment. That person will think twice of coming in here again.
We should welcome both pro and anti establishment comments or else this site will be very one sided and that is not very healthy right?
BTW the person is not me – I am merely making a statement here after reading this site for the past one month or so. I have enjoyed it rhoroughly.
51) singaporedaddy
Bravo! And so it should be.
28) PAP Anonymous on November 14th, 2008 5.46 pm
… Except for PAP, the rest of the other political parties in Singapore are lost causes – not united, bad funded, not leadership, not trusted by the people, and no consistency.
PAP is the best choice out of no choices. You all just don’t get it: without PAP, Singapore is doomed………..
——————————————————————–
How is the PAP funded?
Did PAP have much experience when they were founded?
How many years have they accumulated already? With so much experience, do you not expect much?
Yes , there is a lack of choices and maybe that is why….
When something has NEVER happened before, how can you jump to conclusion? Very dangerous mind you have.
56) Call me Mr Okamoto on November 15th, 2008 9.10 pm
PAP is the best choice out of no choices. You all just don’t get it:
without PAP, Singapore is doomed………..
ya ya, so smart said only,
with today’s PAP, Singapore is doomer and doomer and . . . . . bo liao, finished, game over, ka poot, wan le, see liao, pok liao, siao liao . . . .
48) lim on November 15th, 2008 10.11 am
Suggesting copying practices from other countries without proper justification is strange. Its like suggesting allowing legislators to throw punches at each other like the Taiwan legislature.
>>>> No, that was not the case. That was saying what is happening in TW. Not saying good or bad. Don’t jump to conclusion.
Yes, TW legislators fight. That is why that is what we should not have. The danger I see in you is your jumping to conclusion and making sweeping statements. Democracy is a concept. How democracy is practised depends on the people. Evil or bad people will abuse it. Does this give you the sweeping excuse to deny more Freedom? You might as well say no gun should exist in this world since some people accidentally kill others? You need to understand that this world is not perfect and nothing can be perfect. We need to make things more towards perfect. The fact that things can never be perfect does not give you the reason to deny efforts towards perfection. Your thinking is dangerous and shows me you are biased and fear Freedom and power to the people , for some reason.
—————————————
Are views in this blog created by 1 person?
There are many different viewers here who comment on the articles.
The FACT that many individuals comment with their own views that either criticise or are unhappy views shows the REALITY. You have to learn to accept reality. Else maybe you are living in Denial? Respect the majority’s views / stand / opinion. We have chosen to live in a Democracy, so lets maturise it!
We do not live in a Dictatorship. this I am sure you agree. I agree.
I read Straits Times political senior correspondent Lee Siew Hua wrote on Saturday, November 15, 2008, “Goodness gracious me! A tip for Singapore – US politician shows how rivals can reconcile for nation’s good”
Then I read Mr Anthony Yeo’s on the same subject, I think.
The difference is so astounding that
I pen my thoughts at http://www.feedmetothefish.blogspot.com
To each, his/her own.
Peace.
feedmetothefish
singaporedaddy:
I agree with you. On the internet, anyone can say whatever he or she pleases, and that no one else has the right to stop him or her to say it. The problem I have here, however, is how they say it, and how that affects the parallel situation in the real world. In many ways, the attitude of the people on the internet is a reflection of their hidden attitudes in the real world, and it does reflect the kind of people we really are. I don’t have a problem with their opinions, even if they do not click with my own; once they start taking it too far though, it’s really a good cause to worry which direction our political discourse is going towards, not only on the virtual space but also in the real world.
Glibert:
I won’t really argee that TOC has degenerated into an anti-establishment rathole; TOC per se is, I find, one of the more neutral and objective political discourse web site in Singapore. Many other sites I have seen are often slanted very heavily towards either side of the debate; some of these are the real ratholes of mudslinging, in my honest-to-goodness opinion. Of course, I won’t be naming any sites, but I do hope most of you know which particular sites I’m thinking here. I rather think that much of the mudslinging here is carried out not by the writers of the articles here, but by the visitors instead, which is something that generally happens with local political discourse elsewhere on the internet, no matter where the web site stands.
Loyola:
As long as the establishment wishes to continue their vice-like grip on power, it’s probably not possible for them to give us more room; consequently, the law of equal and opposite reaction comes into play, with the opposition also holding onto their extreme views. It eventually degenerates into a catch-22: nothing happens unless one side gives way first, but given the amount of distrust both sides have with each other, neither side wants to be the first to give way to each other for fear of being taken advantage of by the other side.
I rather think that much of the mudslinging here is carried out not by the writers of the articles here, but by the visitors instead, which is something that generally happens with local political discourse elsewhere on the internet, no matter where the web site stands. – Alex Ong (#60)
That’s why TOC should not have a forum, but retain the current format of a commentary thread. A website forum will have a life on its own, which may be detrimental to TOC’s cause or reputation. I guess improvements are required perhaps in breaking down the commentary thread into 30 posts per page.
Loyala:
I just read today ST online and got a shock on the heading spoken by PM Lee: “Singapore will be better off with a one-party dominating party,” (words to that effect).
What has happened to him? It puzzled me as being so highly educated and intellectual he could have utter such a remark? It just shows absolute power is devastating to the country.
My heart ached when I see how the ruling party bulldozed through so many unpopular medicine down our throats. There is no way for compromise – it’s my way or make way!
It only goes to show that the showdown will be at the polls. Singapore should be more ready than GE 2006 to show what they want for their own country.
The day has arrived for our country to be brave and show what they are make of. Even if we have no upgrading or higher valuation on our flats let us sacrifice so that others may have a better life!
just read today ST online and got a shock on the heading spoken by PM Lee: “Singapore will be better off with a one-party dominating party,”
He had been saying this for some time now. The last time he gave an analogy of countries sending their soccer teams to play in the world cup. He said Singapore, like the other countries has room for only one National team. He questioned where the logic is for a country to send out two teams.
Imagine this sort of stupid mind games that went unchallenged? The shitty times did not even venture to question him further.
So, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to hear him say that Singapore has room for one party only. But he can say all he wants. The future history of Singapore has yet to be wriiten and the ones who would be writing them are you and me.
Gemami:
YA Singapore will be poorer in the future for sure. We will be handicapped by such governance. Though we may be progessing well economically, we are left very far beind in terms of human rights and political space.
We have all got a foretaste of the adverse dominance of one-party politics and Singapore by now is no fool. Even aunties and uncles now may think twice about the lighting strike as they have all being strike by the high cost of lightning.
Something is very wrong in my country and I am very worried and disenchanted.