Which insurance salesman should you buy from?

[I wrote this on 21 Apr 2011, before the 2011 General Elections. It was first published on fearfullyopinionated.wordpress.com ]

So far one of the more prominent exchanges between the opposition and the PAP has been regarding this issue viewing the opposition being an “insurance policy”.  This figures to be a prominent thrust for the WP campaign, evidenced by the WP repeating this notion again when they unveiled their manifesto.  That alone should be reason enough for us to unpack this analogy and think carefully about what Mr Low Thia Khiang is trying to advocate.  But to make things even more interesting, the PAP has responded by saying that voting for the PAP is the “real insurance policy”.  Fascinating! So who is right?  Which insurance salesman ought we to buy insurance from?  The purpose of this post is to attempt to unpack both the WP and PAP’s analogies of “insurance”,  and hopefully reach a place where we can all better understand what both parties are trying to say.

But before we go there, let us recap the exchange:

I believe Mr Low Thia Khiang first puts forth this argument sometime in the first week of April.  I cannot remember the exact date nor the context which he said it, and my google attempts fail me.  It would be nice if someone can give me a link or two describing when Mr Low first said this.

Shortly after Mr Low made this argument, there were two quick responses from the PAP in reply.  One was by PM Lee during his Ministerial Forum at NUS, at which he made his “A-team” argument:  give the A-team the best chance of success instead of weakening the A-team “in the hope of buying insurance”.  DPM Teo Chee Hian also made clearly hostile comebacks to Mr Low’s argument when he was unveiling new PAP candidates.  DPM Teo makes two counterattacks: the premium for Mr Low’s insurance is too expensive, and when Singapore calls to claim that insurance, it cannot be delivered.

In response to PM Lee, Mr Low replied that “buying insurance is the right thing to do” and brings up medishield as an example.  In response to DPM Teo, Mr Low replied that the WP is not ready to form a government yet, but by voting WP candidates in, Singaporeans are “insuring” themselves because now they can “start the process of looking at the possibility of forming an alternative government in the future”, which is a pretty darn long verb phrase if you ask me.  This stand also appears to alienate WP from some of the other opposition parties such as SDP and RP, who claims that WP is making too many concessions. (More on this in another upcoming post)  DPM Teo also responds to Mr Low (on facebook).

Finally, during the recent YPAP 25th anniversary celebrations, MG Chan Chun Sing made a speech where he says “can buy insurance, but don’t buy the wrong insurance”.

____

There is so much rhetoric on both sides of the exchange that it is easy to get caught up in the emotions of the polemics (which is precisely the point of using rhetoric).  [I cannot resist making my own analogy – this is not unlike buying insurance from a certain financial agent because she is sexually appealing, smiles while she spends time talking to you about helping your financial life and sits close to you while she explains the policies, but you not paying any heed to the terms of the policy itself.]   As fun as it is to engage in polemics, I personally think that as voters we should strive to move beyond the rhetoric and to start thinking about the actual positions and arguments made by each side; and for this particular case, I believe there are real coherent arguments on both sides.

Nevertheless, one thing to keep in mind is that “buying insurance” is an analogy.  That means that certain aspects about voting for a political party resembles the buying of insurance, and the analogy was made particularly to highlight this resemblance.  However, like every analogy, not every aspect of insurance buying is identical to voting for a political party and hence that is why we cannot take analogies too far or too literally.  In fact, one rhetorical tactic is to intentionally take the analogy too far, and accuse the other party for making a lousy argument, which was what I think DPM Teo tried to do.  This is something to keep in mind when we start to think about analogies being used by politicians, including the (in my opinion) relatively cheesy analogy about sending a team to the World Cup.

_____

These are the key attributes of any insurance policy:

(1) What am I insuring myself against?

(2) What is the risk of this happening?

(3) How does this policy protect me from that?

(4) What must I pay as premium?

_____

First let’s look at the WP’s insurance policy:

(1) What does Mr Low want Singaporeans to insure themselves against?  He says quite clearly (and the PAP understands him) that it is to insure against the day the PAP fail as government.

(2) What is the risk of this happening?  Mr Low is quiet about this, but there are many of us who are very uncertain about what the PAP government will look like the day MM Lee is no longer politically active.

(3) How does this policy protect Singaporeans if that day happens?  This policy is to vote more WP candidates into parliament in GE2011.  As a result, the WP will grow by at least two ways.  Firstly, those elected gain experience by serving as MPs hence becoming better politicians.  Secondly, the WP will gain resources (from MP salaries?) and credibility which will in turn attract more candidates, and paricularly more talented candidates into WP, and subsequently into Parliament.  Over time, (I believe WP’s vision is to take over government by 2025) there would be sufficient talented WP MPs in parliament to form a shadow cabinet, and this shadow cabinet would either take over Parliament if the PAP meets some kind of downfall, or simply be voted in as majority in General Elections should the PAP fall out of favour.  This is what Mr Low’s vision is, which is (as the PAP has pointed out) a two-party system not unlike what you see in UK or America.

(4) Mr Low doesn’t expound of this, but it isn’t hard to extrapolate what are some issues having more WP MPs in Parliament would be like.  Government would probably become more inefficient.  There would be some inevitable transformation of politics and policies being more populist and less long-term/pragmatic.  However, another perspective one might say that this is a “more progressive democracy” or is a “healthier political system” as what Mr Low had said.  Mr Low also mades the interesting argument that “conditions are good (economy growth, stable government), now is the time to buy insurance”.  He is saying, that because the PAP is so efficient and so stable now, we can afford to introduce some inefficiency and instability into the system, nothing too bad will happen [I think this is a particularly skillful move by Mr Low].  But the long term benefit is better because should there be a day the PAP will fail, the WP will likely be strong enough to take over.  Some short term loss in exchange for long term security. Depending on who you ask, exchange for some long term benefits too (i.e. more progressive, more democratic, etc.)

Some comments:  Mr Low’s argument hinges completely on point (1).  If the populace believes that there is no chance the PAP would fail, or believes that it is not very catastrophic should the PAP fail, then there is no selling point for the insurance.  (It’s like buying insurance for getting permanently injured due to falling meteorites, or buying insurance for having your ceiling lamp blown.  The former isn’t very likely to happen, and the latter isn’t a very big deal).  This is where the PAP’s tactics of constantly inducing fear into the populace about the risk of failure actually helps Mr Low and the WP.   The more people think there is a risk of governmental failure, and the more people think that the world will collapse when that happens,  the more likely they will see a need for insurance.  I see this as a brilliant masterstroke by Mr Low.  Also it is not hard to see why this stand would be unpopular with other opposition parties like SDP and RP, who want to claim that the PAP government right now as it is, is not good enough.  Mr Low takes the delicate stand of claiming PAP right now is not too bad, and right now we’re not as good as they are, but in the future we have the potential to be better than them.  It isn’t evidently clear to me on what basis Mr Low can make this claim, but it is not inconceivable to argue along the lines of PAP struggling with leadership renewal.

_____

How about the PAP’s insurance policy?

(1) Insure against what? Surprise, surprise, it is the same thing.  PAP wants to insure Singaporeans against the day the PAP fail as government, too!

(2) What is the risk of this happening?  The PAP wants you to believe that this risk is very high, and the consequences are very heavy.  It’s not hard to see this messaging when the PAP tells us that no one owes us a living, we live in a region of constant hostility, etc.

(3) How does this policy protect Singaporeans if that day happens?  It doesn’t. Instead, it protects Sinagporeans by trying to make sure that day never happens.  In other words, the PAP is saying put your faith in us.  Keep us in power forever and ever and ever.  And you won’t have to worry about (1) happening.  Of course you can trust us! And this is when they start talking about having a “track record”, “can deliver on its promises”, etc.

(4) The PAP wants you to think that there are no premiums to pay, but you know better.  Less civil liberties, the way governance is done with so little input from the populace, the populace having to deal with “hard truths” and “difficult decisions”, etc.  However, another perspective could say that we enjoy a standard of living and economic growth better than our neighbours, what’s there to complain about?  There is short term loss, and depending on who you ask, there might be less short term loss than WP’s insurance policy (more efficient government, less populist/more pragmatic long term policies etc.).  However, it is hard to argue that long term security is better than that of WP’s policy.  It only is so if you have great faith in the PAP system that it will churn out fantastic leaders batch after batch.

Some comments:  The PAP’s policy hinges upon the fear of (1) and great faith in the PAP that it will continue to do a good job in the future (and hence never run the risk of failing).  One can clearly see that this argument has zero effect on those who think the PAP is currently doing a lousy job (and hence maintaining the status quo is undesirable), those who do not fear the day PAP fails (the PAP is bluffing us with all these fear tactics!) or those who lack the faith in the PAP system that it will continue to do a good job perpetually (hence we have the “checks and balances” argument, or the no monopoly anti-trust argument).  This argument only works on those who think the status quo is desirable, and that the PAP has the potential to continue to churn out good leaders batch after batch.  Not many of such people in the blogosphere, but I suspect there are plenty around in the populace.

_______

So which insurance should you choose?  I think it boils down to how much faith do you have in the PAP system.  If you have little faith the PAP system will work in the long run, then buying insurance would seem to be a wise move, even if short term premiums are high.  This is analogous to buying an insurance policy which is worth it.  The risk is likely to happen, the consequence is of it happening is pretty bad, hence the premiums though expensive is worth it.  But if you have faith in the PAP system, in its track record, in its leadership renewal and never-ending supply of scholars, then insurance might not be good financial planning, since the high premiums does not seem to justify the likelihood of getting payouts.

So it turns out at the end of the day we’re kinda at the beginning of where we started.  Do you have faith in the PAP or not?

[Addendum:  I just came across a much better articulated article on the same issue, written by an individual much more intelligent than I am.  Please read it here. ]