"Populism" has become a focus of the government's policies of the government's debate last week, and it is very rare. In the last day of debate, Bi Danxing, the leader of the Congress opposition, agreed to the view that Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Huang Xuncai, that is,Everyone should say no to populism.Obviously, no politicians will admit that we are on the line of view of people, and we can only listen to it and watch it.
But what is populism?In the context of Congress debate, populism is obviously not good, and it is not conducive to the healthy development of democracy, so it is unanimously denied.If you trace the roots, it actually has various definitions.As far as the usage of general news media is concerned, populism refers to politicians to use some topics to incite the emotions of the people, anti -governors (systems), anti -elite classes, thereby achieving the purpose of picking up votes.Therefore, such as former US President Trump and former Brazilian President Posonaro, all of which are populist politicians.
What is the populism that the Singapore Congress has recently debated?In the past, our understanding of this word was very direct, which means that some politicians put forward the claims of voting and publicity in order to fight for votes, such as free education and medical care.This time, Huang Xuncai gave him a clear definition.He said: "Popularity is politics that suppresses the truth, masked the truth, the post-truth, and the facts that distort the facts for political interests.The political parties that are rooted in Singapore may get some short -term benefits, but in the long run, it will cause great harm to Singapore and Singapore. "
He went on to say: "As far as the government is concerned, our position is very clear. We refuse all forms of populism and adhere to honesty and integrity when formulating policies. If the government does not meet these standards, we look forward to the opposition party.Do this. You must do this. We look forward to this. On the contrary, if the opposition party proposes that we think it is the idea and policy of populism, we will also point out and emphasize our concerns, and this should be.The consensus of Singapore's political and democratic development. "Bi Danxing immediately agreed.This is an important reference point for "watching it".
In fact, Huang Xuncai has expressed such expectations in the debate on the first day.He expects to hear the opposition party's actual alternative policy plan in this debate and the remaining term of the government, rather than speculating the idea of clever or populism.The rigorous replacement policy of the government.
The so -called little by little to weaken the people's trust in the government, and in the current popularity, it is to cut the sausage.Politically, this is a very powerful approach, because it operates a gray area.You are not easy to put it on a populist hat.For example, you said that the government should only use half of the reserves' net investment returns to contribute. He said why he could not use 60%?Is this populist that can be controversial, but it must be cutting the sausage, and it is easy to get the favor of voters.For another example, you said that you have to increase the consumption tax, so he said, why not raise the rich tax, corporate tax, etc.?This can also win the favor of some voters.
The most terrible thing is that now with social media, it has contributed to the way of cutting the sausage.Because a person can form an online army to make no noise for all kinds of opposition.However, Bi Danxing did not take the move to Huang Xuncai, but adopted the practice of avoiding his front. It admits that the workers' party cannot achieve the alternative government at the stage.EssenceFrom the perspective of cold -eyed viewers, this is equivalent to saying: Now we don't have to put forward any alternatives, anyway, we can't do the government anyway.
It is worth noting that Huang Xuncai and Bidan Star have also mentioned another issue with extremely prominent democratic politics today: in developed democratic countries, democracy has embarked on the disagreement of public opinion differentiation and polarization.Take a look at these countries, populism has taken root and caused great harm to these society.In this regard, the United States can be said to be the most prominent example.The United States, which has been high in democracy for many years, is now the worst demonstration of democratic politics.
Politics in general, in general, will inevitably go to such a end, that is, even Israel is no exception.Without external threats, the internal fighting immediately worsen, and the interests of the interests between the political parties (and the interest group behind them) quickly floated on the table.At that time, Israel was described as Chu Ge when it was established that year, and with the support of the spirit of the Jewish recovery, so it showed unity and the muzzle.But now the "threat" from the Arab world has faded (except for Iran), and the fighting of various political parties is unprecedentedly fierce.The proportion represents the situation of large and small political parties and political fragmentation.
Therefore, the future development of Singapore's democratic politics will inevitably face two major issues.One is the development trend that is difficult for political parties to avoid, and the other is the issue of populism related to this.One party (DAP) leads has always been the advantage of Singapore's politics.But with the gradual disappearance of the old generation of voters, this situation will gradually change.The help of social media will accelerate the transition process.More and more people believe that we need more voices and opinions, and believe that there should be more debates in Congress. Only in this way can we balance the government and generate better policies.More and more people also feel that more party competition can produce better talents in governing the country, or when the DAP has changed a day, there is a reserve rotation.
But it turns out that these are theoretically correct.Each political debate almost ended with their own opinions; the result of fierce competition between political parties often appears populist politicians.The overall result is the party's opposite (if the two parties are evenly matched), social differentiation.In Europe and the United States, the same is true of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan in Asia.Political debate can seem to be scattered, which makes the general voters confused and confused. Finally, it is to vote by loyalty to political parties. The victory is often the most important candidates for political parties and politicians who know how to manipulate people's emotions.This is not to deny competition, but just to point out that political parties will inevitably form a political fight, and the above results will appear above.
The acting party and a group of capable founders who appeared in Singapore were historical accidents, not inevitable.As the sense of crisis during the founding of the People's Republic of China gradually faded, and the voters who had lived in hardships gradually exited, the new "Singaporeans" who grew up in relatively comfort and stable growth would inevitably have different ideas, and they would gradually be separated from reality.Political desire.It is required that people are descendants and long -term thoughts that inhibit and delay the desire in front of them will become more and more difficult.In fact, this is human nature, otherwise the dynasty and the country will not have the reincarnation of prosperity.
Therefore, Mencius has a famous saying: born in worries and died in peace.A protagonist in an English science fiction novel published in 2016 also said something that is often cited on the Internet: the difficult times have created a strong person, a strong man -made day, a comfortable day, a comfortable dayCreated a weak person, and the weak artificial period became difficult.Whether the new "Singaporeans" of the future generation can be surpassed the "law" of the reincarnation of prosperity and decline, this is a question that can only be answered.
The author is a former journalist, a former member of the Congress
