White is a superior colour, all the rest is dirt

pic_201603_07Most of the comments I see on blogs and social media about the sudden resignation of PAP member of parliament David Ong have a tinge of schadenfreude. “Karma’s a bitch” is a popular phrase. It points out how the People’s Action Party’s 2012 hounding of the Workers’ Party for its then-MP Yaw Shin Leong’s extra-marital affair has boomeranged on themselves, not once but twice. In 2013, the PAP’s Michael Palmer fell from grace for the same reason, and now it is the turn of their MP for Bukit Batok, David Ong.

Obviously, having made an issue of marital fidelity over Yaw, the PAP cannot possibly paper over any similar behaviour among its own MPs. But as was pointed out in the blog Alvinology, the law of probability should have forewarned the PAP that since they have far more MPs than the Workers’ Party, they will suffer many more instances of such embarrassment.

Party leader and prime minister Lee Hsien Loong wants his MPs to be whiter than white. Given these precedents, it is now impossible for anyone in the party to be even a wee bit free-spirited in matters of the heart.

Over the weekend, this was the trending topic on my Facebook wall

Over the weekend, this was the trending topic on my Facebook wall

Schadenfreude is always enjoyable, but there is a more serious downside to this nonsense of trying to be whiter than white. Once again, it is an example of the PAP prioritising short-term tactics, leading them to make bad long-term choices. I don’t much care if this bad habit leads them to destroy the party. But the same myopic style often leads to bad choices for Singapore as a whole.

Let me elaborate.

Firstly, we should bear in mind that cheating is pretty common behaviour. Almost exactly a year ago, there was an article in the Independent (UK) that said “Although studies vary, research has shown that almost 60 percent of men and over 45 percent of women will cheat at some point in their marriages.”

pic_201603_08If this kind of ratio applies in Singapore — and I see no reason why not — then it means that we will disqualify about half the population from serving in politics. And not just in the PAP. Opposition parties, afraid of being made an easy target by the bigger ruling party, will naturally want to avoid nominating candidates who have tainted histories. Adopted as an unspoken rule, this seriously reduces the talent pool from which we pick potential leaders. It’s as bad and senseless as saying that only those whose heights are above the mean can stand for election; the half of the population who are short can count themselves out.

Leadership talent is not likely to correlate with marital fidelity; my guess is that they are totally independent variables. Sifting out half the population on the latter measure will mean sifting out half the talent on the former.

However, no trait stands in isolation. Traits often are associated with some other traits. There will be certain personality traits that are likely to be correlated with marital fidelity, even if leadership talent, as argued above, is not one of them. The selection process engendered by the “whiter than white” standard would therefore mean that Singapore will be selecting for these associated traits in our politics.

I’ll make a guess what these associated traits are.

Top of mind: placing great store in convention and conformity. Except for a lucky few who have found perfect partners, staying faithful in marriage is hard work. The PAP may say that therefore it is a good thing that they select as MPs individuals who are capable of self-discipline and hard work. But self-discipline and hard work are also choices we make. To which ends do we impose self-discipline and hard work upon ourselves? Every one of us is capable of these attributes, but each one of us choose slightly different goals to which to apply such labours.

If a person values convention and conformity, it is worthwhile to put self-discipline and hard work into them. If a person does not value these, why bother?

So, in creating a strong, nay exclusive, bias in favour of the maritally faithful, our political class becomes populated with people whose instincts and values are strongly in a conservative direction. Change, experimentation, innovation, and the celebration and acceptance of difference are harder for them to appreciate.

Between a valorising of convention and conformity, and a tendency to see themselves as representing the morally superior, we already see one simple outcome: a policy bias against single parents, with unjust effects on their children. Need I say more?

There is a second associated trait I’d be wary of. It springs from the way marital fidelity is cast as moral virtue. This is not to say it isn’t; deceiving and hurting one’s partner and children is nothing to be proud of. But there is a difference between doing right (or not doing wrong) and feeling egoistically virtuous for doing so. In our culture today, it is very hard to separate the two on this front. There is a strong tendency, reinforced by religious (and now, political) rhetoric to shine a halo on the maritally faithful.

Therein lies a danger: if we select MPs exclusively from this crowd, there will be a tendency too for them to see themselves as morally superior to others. Once on this slippery slope, it’s a short slide to seeing themselves as superior in other ways: We know better. We have the right answers. You should respect us for what we are (not what we do). Obey. We deserve a better standard of living. And higher salaries.


7 Responses to “White is a superior colour, all the rest is dirt”

  1. 1 yuenchungkwong 14 March 2016 at 13:57

    i dont disagree with what you say, but point out today there are just more temptations around. Women are less deterred from being slutty. There are all these ads telling you: use this product you will get more sex…

  2. 3 eqwebsg 14 March 2016 at 14:38

    Advisory from a Liar Contest website.

    Politicians and lawyers are not allowed to enter the World’s Biggest Liar contest because “they are judged to be too skilled at telling porkies”.

    And the 2015 winner is:

    World’s Biggest Liar crowned as muck-spreader reveals royal blood connections.
    Read more here: http://bit.ly/1QziKQZ

  3. 4 J L 30 March 2016 at 16:48

    Personally, I think it’s a dangerous and slippery slope if we value “competence” more than “character”, especially when it comes to leadership. In my humble opinion, both are equally important, and if I have to choose, character trumps competence. Running a country well shouldn’t be purely measured in terms of GDP growth or policy effectiveness. There is a burden of leadership that comes in the form of difficult decisions and role-modelling the right behaviours to the constituents.

    Being a president that has helped generate more wealth for a country (e.g. the Clinton administration) may only be a short-term way to assess his effectiveness. The longer term impact may be that all men in the nation now believe that, as long as I can be a successful commercially, my character does not matter. Family units, which form the foundation of society, will break down faster (as we clearly see now in US). Divorce rates climb, more kids grow up without good father figures, crime rate goes up, morality becomes so gray that what’s clearly wrong (and unacceptable 100 years ago) is now accepted as norms – all on ground that, as long as I do my day job well, my character does not matter.

    I like what Prof Kishore Mabuhbani said some months ago in a Saturday article – that it’s time for Singapore to shift away from value (creation) to values.

    Yes, what happened to the SG MPs may seem harsh, and I personally do not like the way that the other parties have been shamed publicly. However, I do support the position that these diligent but fallen men should vacate their leadership role.

    There is a price for leadership – and that’s not just the time and energy spent in office. Many times, the ultimate price is paid when no one is watching.

  4. 7 You slut! 1 April 2016 at 22:50

    ” morality becomes so gray that what’s clearly wrong (and unacceptable 100 years ago) is now accepted as norms”

    Yeah … like browns and blacks being equal to whites, daughters being equal to sons, questioning and scorning royalty and aristocracy, and the power of clerics over temporal matters……why .. go back a further 100 years and even slavery was a matter of controversy!

    yes.. I remember the good old days when some Chinese parents gave up baby girls to be adopted by others just because they were baby girls…yeah the good old days,…sigh…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: