'PAP v PAP' :: In Conversation, Online

I've read Cherian George and Donald Low's 'PAP v PAP: The Party's Struggle to Adapt to a Changing Singapore' (October 2020). So I might as well have a listen on their thoughts about it as they do an 'In Conversation' webinar with fellow academics and moderators Teo You Yenn and Walid Jumblatt Abdullah. The 90-minute conversation is still available on YouTube. The book puts forth this opinion, 

A strong society comes from embracing diversity: not just in terms of having people who think differently and routinely challenge received widows and government decisions, but more from having the requisite institutions that check and constrain the state — civil society, Parliament, independent court, a free media (not just one that sees its role as 'nation-building'). It also means that our 'unity-in-adversity' narrative needs to be adjusted. The PAP government does not necessarily reject diversity and dissent, but it insists that in a crisis, it is time for debate and dissent to be suspended and that we should unite behind the authors. Yes, but only up to a point. In a crisis, the biggest cognitive threat a decision-maker faces is not disunity; rather it is the tunnel vision that comes from 'being in the trenches' for too long.

After 15 minutes, it was a bit painful to hear them struggle with audio, and minimal tech support. It worked fine over YouTube. Apparently it didn't stream well on IG Live. I didn't bother with facebook or Zoom. Hmmm. I think they're very noob at this livestream thing. Hurhurhur. They took a quick three-minute break just before 9pm to sort out the connectivity issues. I was highly disturbed by the panelists sharing a earbud, both sides. It was rather unnerving to see the earbud being passed between Donald and Cherian, and also Walid and You Yenn. This and grainy video? Okay, I stopped watching the visuals and simply went on audio-only. After all, I'm not there to see their faces. 👀😂

Anyway. The moderators noted the skepticism among tonight’s audience comments for the possibility of reform in our political system — not just because of internal dominant-party dynamics and also a weak civil society, as well as a general population that is politically immature and has been criticized as "soulless". The authors clarified that the book doesn't make predictions about the PAP making reforms or pushing for that change. The authors simply discussed the "possibility of change" in the book.

While the authors don't look at politics as a zero-sum game, the book did call PAP "a national movement, comparable to a religion." The authors opined that it's imperative to marry a strong state (technocracy or democracy) with sufficient democratic argument and participation. Then they totally sidetracked to lighthearted jibes about Raffles Institution and Hwa Chong alumnae. All right, gentlemen, moving on now. However, the football metaphors and analogies flew right over my head. Nope, I didn't understand that.

They discussed the definition of 'liberal' and also whether academics are too caught up in their own bubbles when they write or talk about politics that it ironically is as far removed from the Party or systems they critique. They admitted that while they're trained to poke holes in their own hypotheses, they will have blind spots, and hence they appreciate fellow academics' comments. Of course the authors had to mention Neo-liberalism and populism. 'Champagne socialists' are popping up everywhere. So are you living in a liberal bubble? I am. *shrug