In Other Words

A reply to the essay 'An analysis of political apathy in Singapore using game theory'

Alright and now something in response to the essay An analysis of political apathy in Singapore using game theory.

Game theory can indeed by applied to political activism. Not just in Singapore, but everywhere. In fact, I might say, that the essay would benefit from a broadening of its horizons. Almost everywhere it is better for the individual to accept what the government says and does, without complaint. Political activism and obstructing the powers that by (in game theory by not ratting out your friend, outside of game theory by speaking out against the established order) always puts the individual at risk. This is a subconscious given to the average mind. It has to be, as otherwise societies would not function.

After all, if everybody would disagree continuously with the government in power, then nothing would get done. Only if the masses accept the ruling government’s decisions, whether they like them or not, can a society manage to keep itself moving in more or less the same direction.

The reason that I think the bigger picture should be viewed is because then the difference between Singapore and more open countries can be seen. In my view this difference is not necessarily Singaporean apathy (though that is certainly present), but the high cost of political dissent. I think Singaporean apathy is more of a symptom, then the actual cause of the lack of political freedom. In the normal prisoner’s dilemma the costs are as followed:

10-10 / 0-20
20-0 / 1,1

in the Singaporean model, it seems to me that the cost of dissenting are raised, while the cost of agreeing are lowered (after all, Singaporean government has created quite acceptable living conditions). So the matrix would look more like this:

4-4 / 0-30
30-0 / 0-0

Suddenly everything becomes a whole lot clearer (I believe). Yes, apathy might hurt (it limits innovation and freedom of speech) and everybody voicing their political dissent would be good (things would change), but voicing your dissent alone, or in small groups, is far and far more painful. (you get kicked out of the country, or thrown in jail).

Apathy would, quite naturally, result. The fear of prosecution for speaking out against the government outweighs the small chance of changing things. What’s more, the clear and obvious choice made by most to choose the agreeable route makes it even harder for political dissent to begin.

In other countries the matrix might tilt towards political dissent not being punished so extremely. Thus more people feel free to voice their opinions, as they are willing to take the (minor) consequences. In yet other countries not dissenting might just be too expensive (twice a hundred, for instance) as the government might be very corrupt or just plain incompetent, then the people will rise up, simply because the alternative is not acceptable.

So what can we draw out of that (very jumbled) text? If my model is correct then Singaporean apathy is not the cause, but just a symptom. It would be reversed by A) lowering the perceived costs of social dissent or B) raising the perceived costs of maintaining the status quo.

I think both are already taking place, A) because the government can’t control all the mediums (like the internet) and is slowly accepting more from its people and B) because the Singaporean ‘youth’ finds a lack of freedom more and more unacceptable, as they travel around more and become more educated.

I realise this essay was a bit of a mix up of thoughts and ideas, but I hope it gives you an idea of some of my earliest (unedited) thoughts, I’ll try to write more on the matter soon.

posted by Symbol @ 17.8.04