Education versus Regulating in Social Norms

A young boy was travelling on the Hong Kong MTR with his mother. The train was crowded and when 2 seats near the boy were vacated, he quickly climbed onto the seats. 

An elderly couple was standing nearby and the grey-haired old lady wanted to occupy one of the vacated seats. However, the young boy quickly stretched out his arms to stop her from sitting down. His mother was aghast at his behaviour and immediately asked him to give one seat to the old lady. He refused. The boy reasoned that elderly folks have privilege over seats marked Priority Seats but not those that are unmarked. Despite his mother's attempts to cajole him into giving up at least one seat, he remained adamant.  His mother then decided to take the boy down from the seats and to offer them to the elderly couple who expressed thanks for her act of kindness.

Human behaviour is the product of both nature and nurture. From a societal perspective, certain behaviours are less desired for their selfish overtures whilst selfless behaviours are deemed to be fundamental and crucial for social cohesion. Self-centred behaviours in group dynamics are deemed not to augur well for the development of strong team spirit and collegiality. Consequently, behavioural instructions are dispensed to mould desired behaviours and to change behaviours that are incompatible with the communal ethos of the society that we live in.

History has demonstrated that social norms are created through conquest, regulation and education but sustained through the latter two methods. When a new order comes into being, new social norms need to be put in place. By regulating through laws and rules, society becomes conditioned to behave in a manner desired to avoid the unpleasant consequences that follow with non-compliance. For instance, by legislating the indiscriminate disposal of waste in public as an offence punishable by law, people refrain from littering to avoid being fined. Over time, "not littering" behaviour becomes conditioned in the society where the anti-littering laws are applied and enforced. 

The problem with regulating behaviour is that people continue to behave in that manner because "the law says so." And they will behave strictly according to the letter. The place is kept free from litter to comply with the regulation. In the MTR incident, the young boy did not do anything wrong in refusing to give up his seat to the old couple as far as regulations go. Even adult commuters have displayed a similar behaviour and we have seen it here in our own trains and buses. Elderly commuters and those in need are seen to have a right over seats expressly reserved for them. For unreserved seats, they have no such right. 

By regulating behaviour with laws and rules, giving up a seat to someone who needs it more becomes a matter of rights. For those who are imbued with a strong sense of values, they will most definitely feel that something is clearly not right here. Unlike the use of education to inculcate desired behaviours by means of reasoning and persuasion, the use of laws and rules to regulate behaviour may often achieve an opposite effect. It's impact is further limited in time and space. Have we not often lamented the fact that many Singaporeans litter outside Singapore but do not do so when they return to our "fine" city? 

If we desire to create a more caring, gracious and harmonious society, which is essentially one that is endowed with a strong, deep sense of values, should we not rely less on regulating behaviours according to rights but more on educating people to behave based on the values of compassion and kindness? The difference in their impacts are apparent in the long run and we are already seeing them every day.

GE 2015: The 1st By-election

It was expected to happen anytime after GE 2015. The question was where it will happen first and it has been answered today. Bukit Batok SMC is up for a by-election. The MP who won the seat of Bukit Batok Town Council for PAP has resigned.

There were two by-elections following GE 2011. Both incumbents were from different parties and they resigned because of extra-marital affairs. The latest resignation was for the same reason and the by-election date will be announced in due course. While there are people who are interested in talking about why these marital affairs happen so often and speculating over whether there could be other MPs who are engaged in such "personal indiscretions", others are more interested in exploring the likely scenarios for the coming by-election. Who will be contesting and who will likely emerge as the winner?

This by-election presents a precious opportunity for another alternative voice to be heard in parliament and many aspiring candidates are already sitting up straight and contemplating. In GE 2015, there was a 3-way contest in Bt Batok in which the ward was won by the PAP candidate with 73.02% votes and the SDP's candidate garnered 26.38%. The independent candidate who entered a token appearance lost his election deposit with only 0.6% votes. Aspiring candidates in the upcoming by-election will need to assess their familiarity and appeal to the voters of Bukit Batok SMC before they take the plunge. It will be remiss of them to count on the intuition that by-elections tend to work against the PAP for no one can be sure of voters' behaviour on polling day.

Historically, Bt Batok SMC had been close to being an opposition ward before GE 2015. It was abolished as a single-seat ward in 1997 after PAP won it narrowly against SDP and merged twice - first with Bt Timah GRC (in 1997) and later with Jurong GRC (in 2001). It was restored as a SMC in GE 2015 only to see a by-election barely 7 months later. 

The voters of Bt Batok SMC will have a second chance to exercise their voting power and to present their message. How they vote will now be the focus of public discourse, as will be the likely candidates for the by-election. We wait with abated breath to see what message the voters of Bt Batok SMC will be sending to all of us.

The Un-elected Members of Parliament

The idea of allowing the citizens of a state to elect their parliamentary representatives is a fundamental feature of democracy. The citizens vote in a general election who to send into the highest policy-making body in their country to be their representative and to decide their future. 

In a majority electoral system, the candidate with the highest votes in a particular constituency gets elected into parliament. By contrast, in a proportional electoral system, political parties are allocated seats based on the proportion of the votes their candidates win. In either system, the idea remains that members of parliament are elected. An unelected representative in parliament is therefore anathema to the concept of democracy.

NMPs ("Nominated MPs") and NCMPs ("Non-Constituency MPs") belong to a special category of parliamentarians. They exist only in our political system and nowhere else.

NMPs have not been elected by the citizens but appointed by Parliament to speak purportedly as independent, non-partisan voices. However, because our parliament is consistently overwhelmingly represented by one political party, the NMP is largely perceived to be nothing more than a political appointee for one party. They serve for two and a half years, representing sectoral interests in civil society and do not have to answer to the voters of any constituency. The NMP scheme has been around since 1990 and it is interesting to note that no former NMP has ever ventured to participate in the general elections despite having gained invaluable experience in parliamentary work.

The NCMP scheme has been around longer than the NMP scheme. It was implemented in 1984 and allows NCMPs (Non-Constituency MPs), who were unsuccessful electoral candidates at a general election, to be sent into parliament. NCMPs are deemed elected to the post by vitrtue of their standing as the highest election losers. Given that every electoral candidate contests to win a constituency and not to lose, it is hard to accept the argument that NCMPs are deemed elected to Parliament. The notion of an elected NCMP was finally demolished by Parliament's recent approval to transfer a NCMP seat from one losing candidate to another (Click HERE).

The two unelected MPs' schemes have drastically changed the concept of democracy as it existed in Singapore at the time when the first general elections was held in 1959. In the last 57 years, we have evolved a political system that has become a pale shadow of what it used to be - that was when all MPs must be elected by the people in a general election. The current electoral system is reminiscent of the colonial system of elections where the predecessor of our Parliament, then known as the Legislative Assembly, comprised of both elected members and appointees of the British government. Whether this circular evolution of our political system augurs well for the future of our young nation is something that only time can tell. And it would be hard to gainsay the suggestion that our generation will not be around to find out the answer.

Plans are now afoot to further tinker with the NCMP scheme by giving NCMPs the same voting rights as elected MPs (Click HERE). Many on the opposite side of the divide have expressed their misgivings about these changes. But from a practical perspective, an NCMP appears to stand in a more enviable position than an elected MP in that he/she is freed completely from the burden of running a town council and could dedicate more time in parliamentary work. NCMPs are also not prevented from continuing with their ground engagements with the voters in their chosen constituency and the only apparent disadvantage is that the elected MP would have more resources at his disposal and a wider reach to the same voters. This does not seem to be worthy of concern to someone who had already lost in the elections. At least as NCMP, he/she has now every opportunity to lend an alternative voice in Parliament.

The real question to ask about these changes to expand the number and role of un-elected MPs and future modifications in the same vein, is the extent to which our rights as voters in what remains of our democracy are being diminished when there are Members of Parliament who are not elected by us but have the privileges of speaking and voting on all matters that concern us. If we carry these changes to their logical conclusion, will Parliament end up having the power to constitute itself without an election?