The Medea strain
Friday, 10 April 2009, 6:13 am | 235 views
The limits of female advancement in the PAP
In patriarchal Greece of yore, two fictional women stood out for having been depicted as particularly charismatic and influential: the crafty Lysistrata, who forced the men to stop their wars by organising a sex-strike by women, and the formidable Medea, who was instrumental in winning for her husband his throne but who destroyed him when he betrays her.
The playwright Aristophanes portrayed Lysistrata as an unusually headstrong but still very feminine character; indeed, Aristophanes revelled in reinforcing stereotypes of the ‘weaker’ sex current during his time and their political involvement is framed within this context. Order is restored when the women – Lysistrata included – are restored to their traditional, submissive role after the war ends. In contrast, the Medea immortalised by the tragedian Euripides is fierce and utterly implacable, one who has – at least according to later-day feminist interpretations of Euripides’ play – thrown off the yoke of her gender’s conventional dependency and deference.
But it is the example of Lysistrata which seems more applicable to Singapore, at least in the context of the political sphere. Professor Kenneth Paul Tan of the National University of Singapore has written an insightful piece about how images of women are constructed and legitimised in the public sphere, using these ideas to explain the “Catherine Lim affair” of 19941. Ms Lim, a renowned Singaporean writer, made waves in 1994 with two commentaries that triggered a particularly forceful response from the country’s leaders.
Professor Tan argued that Singaporean women might have had to “outwardly disavow” their femininity and exhibit manly attributes to be taken seriously and succeed in fields dominated by men, since women are still regarded as being “primarily responsible for reproducing the nation”. One field in particular is politics, where Ms Lim Hwee Hua – who, incidentally, was made Singapore’s first female minister some weeks after Professor Tan’s piece was published – is personified as the kind of female politician the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) recruits because they reaffirm the “desirability of manly attributes” without posing a threat to male dominance.
At the heart of this system stands the chief patriarch, PAP founding father Lee Kuan Yew, who is the personification of the “masculine” state with all its protective attributes. In contrast, the people are portrayed with a “feminine” tinge: they are “selfish, ignorant, deficient and dangerous”, essentially unable to take care of themselves. That narrative reflects Mr Lee’s strong influence on the PAP as well as his own convictions: in a revealing letter to the press, his daughter recounted that her parents’ marriage was anything but an “equal partnership”, with her mother being a high-earning lawyer who coped with the traditional roles of wife and mother while Mr Lee was very much the traditional family patriarch.
According to Professor Tan, Ms Catherine Lim only managed to survive the Singapore establishment’s 1994 onslaught against her by concealing her criticisms with an outward show of feminine deference in “excess”. This made it “ungentlemenly” for the PAP leaders to come down too hard on her.
养精蓄锐,出类拔萃
Professor Tan’s framework helps to explain why women seem to be lagging considerably in Singapore politics. It took more than four decades for Singapore to get its first full female minister, and even then only 18 out of 82 of the current batch of elected MPs are female; prior to this, Singapore had 22 MPs in total during the period 1959-1997. That is a peculiarity that can’t be explained by societal trends alone, since Singapore scores fairly well in closing the gaps in secondary education and the number of professionals as well as senior managers between the sexes according to the 2008 Global Gender Gap ranking by the World Economic Forum. Furthermore, the opposition parties appear to have a better representation of high-ranking women: the chairman of the Worker’s Party (WP) and two members of the Singapore Democratic Party’s (SDP) Central Executive Committee are women.
It is therefore likely that adverse selection by the PAP plays a significant part in explaining the lack of women holding public office. Even Ms Lim Hwee Hua, now the leading female politician in the country, seemed to have alluded to it – commenting on her elevation to a ministerial position, Ms Lim told the press that men were “wasting talent” if they did not give women opportunities. Full equality still seems some distance away: even as Singapore gains its first female minister, questions are already being asked about when women will be given substantive portfolios (Ms Lim is currently a minister without portfolio and deputy minister in two other ministries).
The problem with such a policy of adverse selection is that it is difficult to see the PAP inducting women who might be genuine contenders for party leadership. Such female recruits would probably be rejected as potential threats to male dominance, or at least for as long as Mr Lee remains in the party. Presumably that would mean that the leadership would favour Lysistrata-types, who accept the patriarchal hierarchy, over Medea-types who might have little qualms about upsetting it.
Unfortunately, that sets a regrettable example for the rest of society, as it would only reinforce patriarchal notions. It might discourage women from even considering whether to enter politics, as it implies that only those who fit a certain mould will get the chance to serve in public office. It may also diminish the PAP’s own prospects of renewing itself.
Ironically though, it might mean that female opposition figures have a better chance of breaching the PAP’s grip on power. As Professor Tan has argued, the “Catherine Lim” affair showed a potential approach for criticising the government: “in a gently ‘spousal’ way to make a strongly argued point without incurring the state’s full-blown violence”. That already seems to be happening, with WP chairman Sylvia Lim espousing a centrist line in contrast with the more strident efforts of SDP’s Chee Siok Chin. Ms Chee’s unabashed advocacy has landed her in prison on several occasions.
But a more practical reason is that female talent overlooked by the PAP might thereby be inclined to pitch in for the other side. Perhaps it is time for opposition parties to start looking for female candidates who have the Medea strain.
***
1 Kenneth Paul Tan, “Who’s Afraid of Catherine Lim? The State in Patriarchal Singapore”, Asian Studies Review, March 2009, Vol. 33, pp. 43-62
Friday, 10 April 2009, 6:13 am | 235 views
The limits of female advancement in the PAP
In patriarchal Greece of yore, two fictional women stood out for having been depicted as particularly charismatic and influential: the crafty Lysistrata, who forced the men to stop their wars by organising a sex-strike by women, and the formidable Medea, who was instrumental in winning for her husband his throne but who destroyed him when he betrays her.
The playwright Aristophanes portrayed Lysistrata as an unusually headstrong but still very feminine character; indeed, Aristophanes revelled in reinforcing stereotypes of the ‘weaker’ sex current during his time and their political involvement is framed within this context. Order is restored when the women – Lysistrata included – are restored to their traditional, submissive role after the war ends. In contrast, the Medea immortalised by the tragedian Euripides is fierce and utterly implacable, one who has – at least according to later-day feminist interpretations of Euripides’ play – thrown off the yoke of her gender’s conventional dependency and deference.
But it is the example of Lysistrata which seems more applicable to Singapore, at least in the context of the political sphere. Professor Kenneth Paul Tan of the National University of Singapore has written an insightful piece about how images of women are constructed and legitimised in the public sphere, using these ideas to explain the “Catherine Lim affair” of 19941. Ms Lim, a renowned Singaporean writer, made waves in 1994 with two commentaries that triggered a particularly forceful response from the country’s leaders.
Professor Tan argued that Singaporean women might have had to “outwardly disavow” their femininity and exhibit manly attributes to be taken seriously and succeed in fields dominated by men, since women are still regarded as being “primarily responsible for reproducing the nation”. One field in particular is politics, where Ms Lim Hwee Hua – who, incidentally, was made Singapore’s first female minister some weeks after Professor Tan’s piece was published – is personified as the kind of female politician the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) recruits because they reaffirm the “desirability of manly attributes” without posing a threat to male dominance.
At the heart of this system stands the chief patriarch, PAP founding father Lee Kuan Yew, who is the personification of the “masculine” state with all its protective attributes. In contrast, the people are portrayed with a “feminine” tinge: they are “selfish, ignorant, deficient and dangerous”, essentially unable to take care of themselves. That narrative reflects Mr Lee’s strong influence on the PAP as well as his own convictions: in a revealing letter to the press, his daughter recounted that her parents’ marriage was anything but an “equal partnership”, with her mother being a high-earning lawyer who coped with the traditional roles of wife and mother while Mr Lee was very much the traditional family patriarch.
According to Professor Tan, Ms Catherine Lim only managed to survive the Singapore establishment’s 1994 onslaught against her by concealing her criticisms with an outward show of feminine deference in “excess”. This made it “ungentlemenly” for the PAP leaders to come down too hard on her.
养精蓄锐,出类拔萃
Professor Tan’s framework helps to explain why women seem to be lagging considerably in Singapore politics. It took more than four decades for Singapore to get its first full female minister, and even then only 18 out of 82 of the current batch of elected MPs are female; prior to this, Singapore had 22 MPs in total during the period 1959-1997. That is a peculiarity that can’t be explained by societal trends alone, since Singapore scores fairly well in closing the gaps in secondary education and the number of professionals as well as senior managers between the sexes according to the 2008 Global Gender Gap ranking by the World Economic Forum. Furthermore, the opposition parties appear to have a better representation of high-ranking women: the chairman of the Worker’s Party (WP) and two members of the Singapore Democratic Party’s (SDP) Central Executive Committee are women.
It is therefore likely that adverse selection by the PAP plays a significant part in explaining the lack of women holding public office. Even Ms Lim Hwee Hua, now the leading female politician in the country, seemed to have alluded to it – commenting on her elevation to a ministerial position, Ms Lim told the press that men were “wasting talent” if they did not give women opportunities. Full equality still seems some distance away: even as Singapore gains its first female minister, questions are already being asked about when women will be given substantive portfolios (Ms Lim is currently a minister without portfolio and deputy minister in two other ministries).
The problem with such a policy of adverse selection is that it is difficult to see the PAP inducting women who might be genuine contenders for party leadership. Such female recruits would probably be rejected as potential threats to male dominance, or at least for as long as Mr Lee remains in the party. Presumably that would mean that the leadership would favour Lysistrata-types, who accept the patriarchal hierarchy, over Medea-types who might have little qualms about upsetting it.
Unfortunately, that sets a regrettable example for the rest of society, as it would only reinforce patriarchal notions. It might discourage women from even considering whether to enter politics, as it implies that only those who fit a certain mould will get the chance to serve in public office. It may also diminish the PAP’s own prospects of renewing itself.
Ironically though, it might mean that female opposition figures have a better chance of breaching the PAP’s grip on power. As Professor Tan has argued, the “Catherine Lim” affair showed a potential approach for criticising the government: “in a gently ‘spousal’ way to make a strongly argued point without incurring the state’s full-blown violence”. That already seems to be happening, with WP chairman Sylvia Lim espousing a centrist line in contrast with the more strident efforts of SDP’s Chee Siok Chin. Ms Chee’s unabashed advocacy has landed her in prison on several occasions.
But a more practical reason is that female talent overlooked by the PAP might thereby be inclined to pitch in for the other side. Perhaps it is time for opposition parties to start looking for female candidates who have the Medea strain.
***
1 Kenneth Paul Tan, “Who’s Afraid of Catherine Lim? The State in Patriarchal Singapore”, Asian Studies Review, March 2009, Vol. 33, pp. 43-62
