The first time I read WE-FIRST in a headline, my eyes rolled right out of my head.
This tends to happen with GovSpeak – so I’m used to picking my eyes back off the floor and sticking them back in. Sitting back after all that effort, I had to ask myself…why?
I’m a social sector guy, a community believer. I grew up being the kind of dude that stays silent on my personal opinions if it keeps the peace. I want everyone to be thriving and happy. I look for those in the margins. The collective should never be oppressed for the benefit of an individual – I will fight for this principle.
Shouldn’t I be 100% We-First?
If “we” is first, who comes second?
The problem with these slogans is nobody really wants to define the key terms. Who is the “we”, and what implications does “first” have for those who are not us?
We First could easily be a slogan for injustice, racism or (upholding an) apartheid. I’m not saying it is meant to be – actions louder than words and all that – but that’s the first problem.
No definition, no meaning.
(I should clarify.
Because of my eye condition, I didn’t read past any headline that had WE-FIRST in it. But I’d guess that’s 80% of us anyway, so the critique of these two words alone is justified in my book. Soundbites as policy is not the game I wish we played, but it’s out of my hands.)
who is (not) “we”?
The other problem can be summed up in a phrase that I’ve had to say to myself and others countless times recently: we are not our government.
With 40% of the people on our island being low-wage migrant workers who aren’t allowed to run for elections, vote or even meet their parliamentary representatives (cos they don’t have any), the “we” already excludes a lot of people.
But even for the rest of us, the governed and the governors are not the same. Despite Singapore being a representative democracy, they don’t actually represent us.
This is both fact and opinion (dont pofma me) – here’s the maths: 90+% seats are for PAP when 40+% voted against the PAP. There’s a lot of talk about greater gender balance and humble backgrounds but almost none about having parliamentarians who are actually working jobs that citizens work everyday, live in homes that citizens live in or earn incomes that citizens can even dream of.
we first? but they not like us, no matter how much they pretend.