World-class Déjà Vu

In the middle of my hallucinations of Potong Pasirs, I awoke to familiar words, images and feelings. When I first heard the PAP leaders calling the opposition parties not “first world” enough and the WP responding in kind saying that the PAP governments are not quite “first world” either and that credit for Singapore’s achievements should go to “first world” Singaporeans, it sounded like the usual putdowns between incumbent and opposition parties one normally hears at elections time. But there is a shift in the reciprocal political name-calling. We just have to contrast the putdowns of previous years or between the PAP and SDP in this elections and we will notice that there is actually quite a bit of civility going on here between the PAP and WP. No sullying of the other party’s members as petty and dishonest in the condescending effort to show off one’s righteousness and virtuosity, well, at least not yet, save for the James Gomez mountain of the minority form molehill. All the political tête-à-tête is rather “gentlemanly” to date.

But it struck me, what the hell does “first world” mean? And the déjà vu of my 1980s current affairs knowledge returned as apparitions that refuse to go away. It is a strange return to the rhetoric of the Cold War, where decolonization led to the formation of postcolonial “third world” nation-states that became the political and ideological battleground between the “first world” industrial democratic and “second world” industrial communist blocs. It recalls the epic of the “first world” West versus the “second world” East, with the “third world” South caught in between. And so I relived for a long instance, as I mulled over the PAP and WP statements, the déjà vu meanings of “first”, “second” and “third worlds” as they apply to Singapore today.

The PAP incumbent is not “first world”. In the immediate period after independence, the PAP governments were typical “third world” aspirants in terms of the desire to industrialize and achieve the material wellbeing associated with “first” and “second worlds” states. Politically, the governments chose the non-aligned “first” and “second worlds” combination of democratic socialism, but very quickly they lapsed into the use of authoritarian “second world” social discipline to mold Singaporeans into proper working shape for rapid export-led industrialization. In turn, to soften this social discipline and grow the local economy, “first world” mass consumerism was allowed to take root. Today, we have a highly centralized bureaucracy that plans and directs economic development, which is reminiscent of “second world” communist bureaucracies. At the same time, this bureaucracy has “first world” corporation characteristics of capitalist efficiency, profit orientation and high remuneration for chief executives. If anything therefore, the PAP governments were not “first world” politically or economically but were strange hybrids that were out of this world.

The opposition in Singapore is not “first world” either. Together, the SDA and WP represent the “first” and “second worlds” combination of democratic socialism forsaken by the PAP in its pursuit of “first world” Progress with “second world” social discipline. The opposition is therefore equally a hybrid, but one which expresses the original spirit on which the state is founded upon. It is an alternative hybrid that seeks to revive the postcolonial “third world” moment of fusing the political best of the “first” and “second worlds”: Democracy and Equality. This is not an archaic return to some innocent idealism. The very spirit is enshrined in our national flag, pledge and Constitution. Just because the spirit is buried under the weight of another idealism, Progress, which has been realized at all costs does not make it any less realizable. Neither is this an expression of regret; there is no point in harking back to lost opportunities and paths not taken. Now that Progress has been realized, is it not about time we realize the other ideals that Constitute our nation?

Singaporeans are not “first world”. Apologies to Low Thia Khiang, for I understand and appreciate his spirited defense of the dignity of the common people (and not the technocrats) who realized Progress. But I want to explore a different semantic with a twist. The citizenry is not “first world” because, for one, it is pervaded by “second world” fear, all completely out of proportions given that we do not exactly live in a police state (just a paternalistic one in threatening colonial drabs that resembles a police state). In the second instance, the citizens hardly have the same kind of “first world” freedom to voice their public opinion or organize without their bodily security being threatened by arbitrary laws such as the Internal Security Act. Instead, Singaporeans are “fourth world”, the epithet adopted by indigenous peoples in their struggle against powerlessness and dependency, the loss of their homelands and the erosion of their cultural practices in the face of the forces of Development and Progress. For are we not born and bred in this land but have little power against the forces of state housing and employment, are held hostage to selective upgrading and slum formation, and have technocrats invading every other aspect of our everyday life? The choice, like for any indigenous people, is clear: stand up and claim our rights or face extinction as a citizenry, as Singaporeans. Don’t let Singapore become a nation devoid of Singaporeans.