Thank You, Sir! - On the Politics of Gratitude by Desirée Lim

I am humbled by such astute, pointed and insightful clarity from a young Singaporean on our political maturity as a society and nation.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/desir%C3%A9e-lim/thank-you-sir-on-the-politics-of-gratitude/10150178935113774)#!/notes/desir%C3%A9e-lim/thank-you-sir-on-the-politics-of-gratitude/10150178935113774)#!/twostoreys

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank You, Sir! - On the Politics of Gratitude

by Desirée Lim on Thursday, May 5, 2011 at 9:18am

Lately, I've been noticing a worrying trend in the sentiments of PAP supporters. Let's look at three examples, in order of verbosity:

On Twitter:

jetidalwave Celine Ong 
"Pap has been managing our country so well for so long, people aren't even grateful~ 14 hours ago"

A widely-read blog (http://xiaxue.blogspot.com/):
"But what I cannot stand is how the elections have shown how horribly ungrateful and thankless Singaporeans are.
No matter what a shitty job the PAP is doing now, it remains that a lot of their members have dedicated a big part of their lives to building everything we have today."

And, to top off the social media, a Facebook note (http://www.facebook.com/notes/daryl-gan/thoughts-on-ge2011/10150604377405201):
i am [of] the opinion that we lack a sense of gratitude for what the PAP has done. Sure the PAP has made a number of mistakes, but all in all i think they've done a good job and even if we do not agree on some of their policies, i think we should show some respect and gratitude to the PAP's leaders. To illustrate my point, i suggest we all put ourselves in Mr. Lee Hsien Loong's shoes for just a minute. A man of his qualifications and intellect can easily find another job which is less demanding and definitely higher paying. Yet he has chosen to put in the effort to sincerely and humbly serve an electorate that is often ungrateful and has frequently accused him of being the benefactor of despotism. If you were Lee Hsien Loong, wouldnt you want to just quit and maybe go work for Google or KeppelCorp? Why bother with serving people who do not appreciate what you've done? Why torture yourself that way? 

Shall we play a simple game of spot the difference? The answer is: there is none. Or, more accurately, there are two overlapping claims that effectively reinforce each other.

a) We should be grateful to the PAP for what they have done all this while.
b) We should be grateful to PAP members for sacrificing more profitable alternatives and altruistically offering us their governance.

Regardless of which party or politician they invoke, these claims do not sit well with me. Let's look at the first, which I believe to be the more common sentiment. On a logical level, I do not understand the notion of being 'grateful' to an institution that exists for - revelation! - the main purpose of serving a country's interests. I personally think that gratitude is, in an impersonal sense, necessarily tied to supererogation: giving more than is required. Consider donor recognition plaques. Perhaps, on some level, the rich are obliged to give back to society, but let's keep it simple by assuming that a philanthropist, having no relation to my charity, is not obliged to fund it. I would be tremendously grateful if a philanthropist were, indeed, to offer me a handsome donation of his own volition; enough to carve out his name on a wooden surface.

But what about agencies that serve a particular purpose? It is odd and awkward to say, I suspect, that I am grateful to the Royal Mail for delivering my parcel. Neither am I grateful to the sweet-voiced lady who helped me sort out my temperamental Internet connection. I'm relieved that my hairdresser Caz didn't screw up my haircut, but it doesn't quite translate into gratefulness. Above all, I might be glad for the existence of these services, especially when they prove themselves efficient (for my life is better off that they exist); yet I continue to believe that gratitude is an entirely separate matter.

Let's dig a little deeper. How, exactly, does gratitude function in our personal relationships? I have no contention with the fact I am deeply grateful to my mother, but should I be? On one hand, it is popularly thought that parents are morally obliged to give their children the best lives they possibly can. My mother might be, like the Royal Mail, viewed as merely carrying out her necessary function. On the other, perhaps she has gone beyond her call of duty by pampering me with a luxurious lifestyle. My answer to this disagreement is, simply, that it is irrelevant.

There are two things that stop me from seeing mother, as akin to postal service. The first is that, unlike the latter, which exists purely for its function, mothers are not the same. They are people with life-plans, ambitions, yearnings separate from their children. Caring for us inevitably involves a conflict with some of their own interests. Because it might be retorted that mothers are obliged to give up their interests, I think my second point is more salient.  Motherhood is not a job: it is a designation of kinship, of a relationship between two individuals. And I believe that we, as humans, frequently show our love for others by being grateful for the role they play in our lives.

You might ask what these observations have to do with the PAP. I am told to be grateful because they have "managed our country well for this long". Returning to my previous examples: am I grateful to the Postal Service for successfully delivering my parcels? No, because any less would mean they were doing a crappy job. Likewise, the PAP has most emphatically not gone beyond its call of duty. I think another problem for Singaporeans is that we confuse designations of roles and functions with designations of kinship. Why is this happening? If I am allowed to speculate, I draw your attention to another part of a): "what they have done all this while". Ever since Singapore's independence, which tends to demarcate the start of national memory, the PAP has been the only ruling party we have known. Key events in Singapore's development are attributed to the PAP, reminding us of how, if not for them, our lives would be unbearable. (I would be a maid in another country.) In our national narrative, the party comes to adopt distinctly human traits: determination, resolve, kindness. In short, it's just like family.

Perhaps we are now in a better position to contemplate the second claim. It is a natural corollary of the first; if the PAP has supererogatory qualities, so do the people within it. Evidently, Lee Hsien Loong went beyond his obligations as a human being to become our Prime Minister. For that reason, we ought to vote him in again.

Am I the only person who thinks this is ludicrous?

I don't deny that entering politics has an air of nobility to it, the same way being a teacher, or a health worker, is an honourable job. I had a brilliant teacher who actively chose teaching over a high-paying job as a lawyer, because he believed it to be more meaningful. I admire Chee Soon Juan for giving up what could've been a cushy life in an ivory tower, to agitate for democratic rights. There is an element of personal sacrifice. Yet, what does this have to do with guaranteeing them their jobs? Should my teacher, then, never be sacked, even though he fails to impart the syllabus? I don't mean to say that Lee Hsien Loong is a terrible Prime Minister who should be immediately deposed. What I'm trying to underline, instead, is that we employ individuals based on their ability, not their good intentions.

I am sure many will protest that we should employ politicians of sound moral character; who display their sincere desire to serve the nation. I would love to believe this of my pet politicians. If there were some way I could ascertain that they were, without a doubt, benevolent individuals, I'd be deeply relieved. Still, my point is that public personas are never perfectly transparent, and while seemingly exemplary character adds tremendously to their appeal, we are best off focusing on the material benefit they can deliver. I am also surprised at how much b)'s line of thought conflicts with the common justification behind our ministers' notoriously high salaries. I quote our Prime Minister: "It is critical for us to keep these salaries competitive, so as to be able to bring in a continuing flow of able and successful people." His reasoning is that we need ministers to be paid highly, so as to attract talented people into the political field; god forbid that they all become doctors, lawyers, academics. Is the underlying suggestion not, then, that PAP members join politics largely because of its material benefits? Whatever your conclusion, these ideas are patently incompatible.

In closing: I am not, in the least, a fan of our politics of gratitude. I can understand its origins, and why our citizens think very differently from people in other countries. To my knowledge, it is a sentiment rarely, if ever, expressed in Britain. People understand that certain parties are responsible for certain enactments. Labour had a strong part to play in the attempt to reverse Thatcherite policies, but this does not stop the British from criticising Labour for its various failings. People do not tell each other to shut up because Labour once helped develop the NHS. I think our tendency towards simplistic gratitude is a symptom of how immature and stunted our democracy is, and we best abandon this nostalgic, irrational, backward-looking mindset if we wish to progress any further.

PS: This note is public - I shamelessly request you to pass it on if you think my conclusions are important.

Edit: I feel I should clarify this point. I enthusiastically encourage people to add a personal touch to their interactions with others, no matter the capacity we encounter them in - it's a recognition of our shared humanity. I like showing service staff my appreciation, even if it is their job. But, taken so far that it's a reason not to appraise them objectively and identify their flaws, this is no good.