Entangled Contracts

There is a very convenient way of analysing politics in Singapore. It is what most 101 undergraduates studying political science will be exposed to. It is a seductive way of intellectualising political discourse vis-a-vis Singapore. I am talking about the fabled "Social Contract". That between governance and the governed, there is an implicit social contract where rights of freedom are willingly given over by the governed to governance in exchange for security and stability.

Social contract theory draws its roots from democracy theory founders like Hobbes, Locke and Rosseau and to a certain extent, JS Mill. It has been used to explain and justify the evolution and establishment of liberal democratic systems of governance. At its base, social contract pre-supposes certain assumptions of human morality, or more accurately, human excesses which require limits in the form of governance; albeit an enlightened form of governance under democracy. There are lengthy theoretical disputes regarding social contract theory, this entry skirts them all. Let focus instead and place the Singapore Social Contract under scrutiny.

What is the Singapore Social Contract? Since young, we have been drummed with explanations that Singapore is what it is today because of the economic miracle. For this economic miracle to be achieved, the Singaporean gives up some of his liberties such that Singapore can be rendered stable and secure for its Economy to continue growing. But it is not one-way, the Government guarantees that you will have an education, affordable housing and adequate social services. So that is the Social Contract much simplified. If conditions are met, the Contract and its terms are renewed every four years when Singaporeans go to the polls to decide. The election is a manifestation of Contract renewal. Extending the lease.

Underlying this Social Contract are the assumptions. The assumptions of what will happen if the contract fails. If people do not honour this Contract. Quite simply, the social fabric of Singapore will tear apart. What we know of as Singapore will cease to exist. Our small size, our fragile social harmony will all disappear once the Contract ceases. The Hobbesian spectre of war of All Against All will prevail in Singapore. At the same time, the economic miracle of Singapore will burst. No more growth. No more money. In the Singapore context, only the PAP has exclusive rights to the Social Contract. This has been reiterated time and again. Any other Contract offered to Singaporeans are time-bombs. Scary indeed. Hence, the Contract, manifested as that piece of paper which Constitutes Singapore, the Constitution, has to be treasured. Held sacrosanct for our survival. And us Singaporeans as signatories based on that plactic card, identifying our citizenship, which we call an NRIC, give our acquiescence to take away some of our liberties so that there will be no time-bombs, no wars of All Against All.

But what if the social contract is just a figment of the imagination? What if social contract theory is just a very attractive theoretical grounding to justify systems of dominance? What if the social contrat is an over-determined term? What if, there is no such thing as a social contract in Singapore? That the two words are but empty signifiers devoid of contextual association to time and space? Do we dare think beyond this.

Its only a thought experiment. Lets suppose that there is no such thing as a social contract. Lets consider this possibility : social contract theory was especially attractive during the early years of Singapore's existence, because then, the threats were much closer than now. There were the racial riots. The Cold War was on. Wars in vietnam, in Afghanistan were realities close by. So based on social contract theory, Singaporeans then should have most willingly gave up their liberties in exchange for the security provided by dynamic PAP. But something is not right here. Singaporeans then did fight for their liberties. Singaporeans fought against the imposition of language policies. Singaporeans fought against forced closures of newspapers. Singaporeans fought against forced resettlement. They fought against conscription into National Service. They all lost. But the Government was proved right. Their policies were indeed successes, at a social cost surely, but still successes.

Than we look at today. Where we are still asked to compromise some of our liberties for continued economic stability and security. But surely, the pre-suppositions of an all out war of All Against All can no longer be held up as a justification in today's context? It cannot be held up as resolutely as in the past. but then what of dissent, how do we challenge this pre-supposition? This leads us to the ultimate clincher of the fabled Singapore Social Contract if we look at this logically. By giving up the liberties at the outset, when we "signed" the Contract, we have become toothless to resist each new Social Contract presented every four years. We gave up our liberties remember? thats too simplistic an argument. More accurately, from that starting point of a Social Contract, we signed away the institutions to challenge the Social Contract effectively. There is no break contract clause in the Social Contract. It is illegal and unlawful. It is commonly termed as Revolution. So we are at a point of the Contract where if governance is doing well, we reward them with another contract. If Governance is not doing well, than the assumed Chaos predicates that we sign the same Contract. Chichken and egg? Not even that. There is only the Contract.

The Social Contract in Singapore is a myth. There has never been a social contract. It is but a theory, albeit an attractive one, to justify perpetual political dominance. Until we understand and get it ingrained in us, that there is no social contract in Singapore, it will be impossible to imagine fundamental changes in Singapore. Even foreign observers like the Financial Times slips into this conundrum too as seen in its latest report on Social Contract in Singapore under strain. There is no social contract in Singapore. There is only a political party, a Government machinery and social institutions which have become utterly and incestuously entangled in the governance of Singapore. So entangled that each cannot see a means of survival as independent entities which they rightly are.

Quote of the Day

"The more visonary the idea, the more people it leaves behind. this is what the protest is all about. Visions of technology and wealth. The force of cyber-captial that will send people into the gutter to retch and die. What is the flaw of human rationality? It pretends not to see the horror and death at the end of the schemes it builds. This is a protest against the future. They want to hold off the future. They want to normalize it, keep it from overwhelming the present. The future is always a wholeness, a sameness. We're all tall and happy there. This is why the future fails. It always fails. It can never be the cruel happy place we want to make it." -- Don DeLillo, Cosmopolis