Xtra-insights: Talk the talk or walk the walk?
Thursday, 30 October 2008, 12:58 pm | 1,255 views
Rachel Chung / Columnist
In order to make a difference in the climate of socio-political awareness, we do have to question ourselves too – are we opposing for the sake of opposing?
Recently, two incidents made me think about how much our average Singaporean cares about his or her country and fellow citizens. Is it the sense of superiority that makes one shy away from his less fortunate fellow men? Is it the comfort zone that we are cocooned in that makes one turn a blind eye to the plight of another? Or is it the relentless pursuit of materialism in our society?
Perceived Superiority
I met a young man in one of the recent events I attended. He had taken the initiative to introduce himself to me. He struck me as confident and well spoken. In the course of our conversation, the topic of the structured investments saga came up.
His take was that “you make your bed, you lie in it.” I agree with him – to an extent. Savvy investors who knew what they were buying into – mid to high risk structured investments – should bear the responsibility of their calculated risks and if I may say so, greed. However, I mentioned that there is a group of investors with whom my sympathies lie – these are the retirees who had invested most, if not all, of their life savings and folks who are lowly or not educated. These people had been reassured that the structured products were ‘just like fixed deposits’ and that they are “principle-guaranteed”. What did he think about that?
He smirked and uttered, “Darwinism“. Basically, he had little or no sympathy for uneducated or poor people. He said that there is a reason why some people will always be poor and that he identified with the wisdom of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s ‘eugenic beliefs’. I also got the feeling that he really doesn’t care about the ‘unglamourous’ things in life and that he was keener to talk about my previous experience in the fashion industry. ‘For the good of Singapore, there should really be only people just like you and I, young educated professionals who are sophisticated and intelligent’ and ‘it’s people like us who will shape the nation and make it competitive.’ He went on to say, “Anyway, the government will take care of people like that,” referring to the less fortunate, “That’s what we pay taxes for.”
I managed a polite smile and excused myself.
Does the problem lie in our education system, or in our urban culture that encourages the pursuit of materialism and creature comforts?
The Cocoon of the Comfort Zone
The second incident happened when I attended a wine tasting session. There were people from all walks of life – professionals, business people, engineers, housewives etc. Perhaps the wine did a good job of loosening some tongues, so I had people talking to me about everything under the sun – from business to the economy and even blogging and bloggers. As usual, I did not talk much as I preferred to hear what others had to say. I would offer words of agreement and encouragement to keep the conversation going.
I was surprised to learn that the general consensus towards socio-political bloggers was that they are a bunch of government-hating, flag-burning ‘activists’. When queried, a few names tossed up were a few of the “extremist anti-establishment blogs”. One of the ladies even said that the purpose of these blogs seemed to be ‘opposing for the sake of opposing’. Some were prejudiced to the extent that anyone who remotely questions what the government does are automatically branded government-haters.
These people have comfortable lives, are used to their comfortable lives and do not want anything to disrupt their comfortable lives. I can understand that. After all, humans are inherently selfish. But to deny that there is a group of people who has a very real need for government help ,is at best, ignorant. To sneer at others who are trying to reclaim the rights of their citizenship and who are consciously civic-minded is, at best, short-sighted.
However to play the devil’s advocate, they cannot be faulted for being aversive to extremist opposition or anti-establishment individuals or entities. A different point of view, the propaganda in the mainstream media, the behaviour of some activists and the precedent success of the ruling party – all contribute in varying degrees to the current ennui of the people.
In the course of that conversation, it was mentioned that the opposition is ‘good at pointing out where the PAP is lacking, but when I ask them what they can do for us, they have no concrete plans or abilities.”
Is this an indication that people are not necessarily pro-establishment but are left with no choice because of the calibre of the opposition? Are people apathetic because the ruling party is the ‘lesser of the evils’?
Perhaps the ruling party has also succeeded exceedingly well in this area – so much so that in keeping us well-fed and clothed, the need to question other intangibles ceased to be so important.
In order to make a difference in the climate of socio-political awareness, we do have to question ourselves too – are we opposing for the sake of opposing? Are we being moderate, reasonable and temperate in our criticism of government policies, or are we blindly criticizing the government for the sake of taking an anti-establishment stance?
Talk the talk or walk the walk?
Very often, socio-political bloggers are seen as armchair critics – in that we criticize but ‘fail to provide any real solutions’. Incidentally, the prevalent mood is that there is no point being socially or politically aware – that ‘there is nothing we can do anyway’.
I beg to differ. Here are some examples which would prove such assumptions wrong:
- Bloggers took to speaking at Speakers’ Corner when the hike on public transport was announced. In their speeches, they addressed different points of concern. A comprehensive paper was also developed and submitted to the Public Transport Council.
- In addressing some very pertinent concerns about the deregulation of internet controls, 13 bloggers submitted a paper to Dr Lee Boon Yang, Minister of Information, Communication and the Arts.
- When the enhanced Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) Package was announced in the National Day rally by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong this year, it sparked robust feedback from some expectant mothers and fathers because the starting date was slated to kick off in January 2009. Apparently the collective voice was heeded as the government then decided to backdate the starting date to 17 August this year.
- Tan Kin Lian took the lead to address concerns of affected investors in the Lehman Brothers financial saga, assisted by volunteers like Andrew Loh, Goh Meng Seng, myself and other bloggers and non bloggers.
The reality is, all of us can do something in our own little ways. The question is whether there is enough perceived importance to warrant a reaction. Personally I find it better to be aware than to be ‘blissfully kept in the dark’.
After all, do we want a society where people who are socially or politically aware are branded as “radicals”, and people like Tan Kin Lian who step out to help (without monetary compensation) are sarcastically mocked as “heroes”?
I hope not.
———
Xtra-insights is a fortnightly column by Rachel Chung. She also blogs at xtralicious.com.
———
Email this article to a Friend
Bookmark this
I have nothing to say to the young man who showed no sympathy for uneducated and poor people. I shall pray for his salvation and the salvation of his children.
As for those who speak up against the govt (even remotely) and are accused of being nothing more than loud hailers with nothing in substance to contribute to the betterment of the society at large, I have this to say to your accusers:
Why do people behave this way? Why do they rant and curse and feel they are being marginalized? Who can they talk to?
I understand that in the old days, I’m not that old but old enough to have heard, the older generation were so fearful of discussing issues, any issues, that do not speak well of the govt. The most well known cliché at that time was “don’t talk, walls have ears”. So, nobody talked. Each kept a bottle in their heart to deposit whatever grievances they might have.
Later, when JBJ won Anson, tongues were loosened up a little. Now can talk, but be careful what you talk about. So, there were small private gatherings of people who came together to talk issues. Most of the time they were scolding and cursing the govt more than they were discussing anything of substance.
When more opposition MPs were voted into parliament in later elections, it grew into coffee shop talk. Now, people, strangers, were getting together to talk politics openly.
Again, they were mostly doing the same cursing and scolding of the PAP govt. Some good ideas were thrown up but these were mostly few and far in between.
Through these stages, the vocal lot were always the minority. There was no one to lead them, to direct their grievances into coming up with something more constructive and more objective. Here was a ship with full board but no one to sail it.
We have now entered into a new phase. We can now talk in space. We can talk about anything under the sun. We have leaders in cyberspace – TOC is one of these. There is leadership. There is participation. There is involvement. There is usefulness. There is a new found Power.
40+ years of bottled up anger, frustrations and helplessness are all suddenly released – all at once.
How do you think these emotions can be released. Yes; more ranting. It has to be. After 40 years of feeling helpless, we now have the opportunity to speak our minds and speak we will – in the most blunt and direct manner – to show the level of our frustrations. We must expect this. What is so surprising about this. The cause of this is oppression.
We must allow and understand that there has to be channel for these folks to release themselves. WE MUST READ EVERY WRITTEN WORD, HEAR EVERY GROAN, FEEL EVERY DROP OF TEARS & UNDERSTAND EVERY HEARTBEAT – to know the pain these folks have been carrying. This is their cry and message, the cry of one who cannot adequately put their pain into words.
Where do we go from here?
We have to let the crying continue. We have to bear with the pain of these folks who have been ignored and marginalized; yes; marginalized.
Who are we to judge their cries when we don’t feel their pain?
For the rest of us who are still sane, probably because we were fortunate not to have to go through what our forefathers have gone through, we would do well to take hold of the steering wheel and be the coxswain of the ship. A captain has to be found.
Leadership is the missing link. IS that you?
Mao Zedong once said something to the effect of: “If you can provide people with jobs, housing, food, they will be obedient”.
Looks like our dear leaders have taken this Communist leader’s words to heart.
I think the whole thing about Darwinism is an insult to the human race.
Sure, people get to the top based on their merits. But to dismiss the concerns for those who are lower down in the pecking order speaks of arrogance and heartlessness.
While meritocracy should be a pillar of our society, it should never be seen as an end to itself. Rather, it should be viewed as a means to an ends. A meritocratic system must also inculcate soical responsibility and values-oriented education. Otherwise we’ll just be a bunch of miserable animals in a little red dot.
I will ignore the cynical negative people that mock me as “hero” or gossip that I have an ulterior motive.
At Hong Lim, over 50 people came to thank me for helping them to voice their grievance. They said, “Mr. Tan, even if we get back nothing, I want to thank you for what you have done for us”.
I hope that this positive spirit will overcome the negative people that is bred by our materialistic society and education system.
Kin Lian,
You have my support. Don’t be discouraged (I know you will not). When good deeds are said and done, citizenry by and large are intelligent enough to differentiate. It is not rocket science and does not need a person with “GRADUATE” degree to see the difference.
Cheers!
Mr Tan Kin Lian,
here’s another vote of support for you.
go!…..go!…….go!……….:)
I understand that in the old days, I’m not that old but old enough to have heard, the older generation were so fearful of discussing issues, any issues, that do not speak well of the govt. The most well known cliché at that time was “don’t talk, walls have ears”. So, nobody talked. Each kept a bottle in their heart to deposit whatever grievances they might have. – gemami (#1)
Yes. The chilling effects of Operation Coldstore that affected the old folks can still be felt today. The biggest blow to active citizenry, in my opinion, is the shutdown of Nanyang University (Nantah). Nantah was the pride of the Chinese community in Singapore. It was built and funded by the Chinese community.
PAP has infiltrated into every sector of civil society. Today, NTUC and its affilitated trade unions are led by PAP members. The National Council of Social Services is the NTUC-equivalent of Voluntary Work Organisations (VWO) and its senior management is infiltrated by PAP ranks. The People’s Association is also an organisation where PAP members lead in social and grassroot activities. All these implies, but not confirms, that PAP approval is needed in taking up matters of civil society,
However, civil society belongs to the citizens, and not the government. Civil society is the platform for active citizenry in the way we see fit. TOC is a step forward in the direction of building civil society in Singapore . Through organising collective unity at the level of civil society, we can demand for accountability, transparency, welfare and push for action in the right direction. Civil Society is pro-Singaporean and pro-Singapore.
Alex
‘A meritocratic system must also inculcate social responsibility and values-oriented education.’
How true. Instead of thinking of ways on how to ‘boost primary education’, they should improve on the National Education part – which is essentially more of a partisan propaganda tool more than a social awareness education.
Mr Tan
I believe that as long as I am answerable to myself and God, there is no need to bother about naysayers and haters.
Rachel (#8),
NE should be scrapped. One of my friends was selected to present a NE topic to MOE couple of years ago. He was selected because he was the top student of his class. However, his presentation was cancelled at the last minute when his school realised his presentation is a criticism to the social studies and NE.
He applied critical analysis, which he usually used on studying history, on Social Studies and realised that Social Studies omitted a lot of details on Singapore’s post-WWII history and that most things that are taught in the Social Studies syllabus are one-sided interpretation.
For example, we were taught about how the Hock Lee Bus Riots caused a lot of trouble for everyone, but there was no mention on how the bus company had marginalised the bus drivers. We were taught in Social Studies how Lee Kuan Yew lead the cabinet to negotiate independence from the UK but not how Lee Kuan Yew usurped PAP leadership from Lim Chin Siong, who should have been the rightful Prime Minister at that time.
Scrap NE and social studies. Stop poisoning our young with propaganda.
7) Donaldson Tan
I am glad that there are people like yourself to share with us a part of our history that otherwise would be forgotten, lost.
We have the historical ‘facts’ as written by pro-PAP authors and these are mostly slanted to glorify itself. The people’s version of history must be written and it is those who have lived through those times that can give us the true picture of what really transpired in those days.
I believe that the older generation – at least those who are still level-headed – has a lot to share with the rest of us. We need to encourage them to share before they bring it away with them – forever.
I have not been so engrossed in any sort of readings for quite sometime now, even though I am a bookclub member at my working place, but this has changed since I became aware of TOC.
The sharing of ideas, commentaries, and level of discussions on most topics are of very high standard. There are so much to learn and i truly hope the older generation who have posted comments here would continue to show us what we have been missing – a true love for our country, a desire to see Singapore restored to its former glory where the people’s value counted more than the dollar.
Donaldson
“Scrap NE and social studies. Stop poisoning our young with propaganda.”
It’s not only NE and social studies ie. at lower levels of education.
Misrepresentation exists even as high up as A Levels. During my study of Southeast Asian history I was led to believe that Lim Chin Siong was ‘evil’ and ‘the antagonist’.
Donaldson
I agree. Which is why I wish that they can focus on the core social education it should be instead of using it as a partisan propaganda tool.
But after taking off my rose tinted glasses, I find it more realistic to do the pertinent teaching myself. In conversing with my daughter, I always tell her to think for herself and not to take even what I tell her for granted.
That is also another reason why I am blogging. I hope that when she is older and starts reading my blog, she can look beyond the scope of knowledge she is being subjected to.
Thanks for your sharing. There is much knowledge and facts that we either do not know or have forgotten with time. These should be documented for future generations.
Personally I find it better to be aware than to be ‘blissfully kept in the dark’.
=====
Good for you but do understand that, for the many of those people you overheard at the wine tasting activity, ignorance is usually bliss.
Many Singaporeans cannot handle cognitive dissonance in politics.
Here are my experience dealing with Straits Times journalist over the years:
> Often, I get interviewed by a new journalist that is not familiar with the subject matter and did not do the homework. I have to spend time to explain the basic of the issue
> They refuse to show me what they intend to write, indicating that this is the Straits Times policy.
I have often been embarrassed by mistakes and sometimes by deliberate attempt to protray a negative aspect. At one time, I refuse to entertain journalists from the Straits Times, due to bad experience. I suspect that Straits Times, being the dominant English language paper, has grown to be arrogant and does not care about the customer (i.e. interviewee).
The journalists from the other papers seem to be more cooperative and understanding. I have good working relationship with the Chinese papers.
I hope that Straits Times editor will review the polcy and allow the journalist to show the script to the interviewee, so that any mistakes could be corrected.
Ignorance is bliss for many but there is also that boiled frog effect – we never know when we are cooked alive
Engagement at home, society is essential cos “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” (Edmund Burke), not to say that evil is rampant in our government or society, but there is a propensity in each human to do good or evil.
I am reading Parenting for a Peaceful World by Robin Grille. His book tries to show that parents can help correct the tyranny, war, human right abuses and ecological destruction of this world by bringing up children with care and love instead of triggering off a violent and oppressive side to humankind. He likens as well workaholics to people with substance abuse – both given to soul numbness. I think many Singaporeans are like that – they refuse to think or engage in any political or social discourses, even to discuss controversy in their own professional fields, choosing instead to mindlessly keep doing what they do.
I am terrified of sending our girl to school here, any sort of institutions where she would be “managed” – coerced, forced, blackmailed, subjected to any sort of “learning” she is not ready or want. Thankfully she is only 19 months old but already she has a mind of her own. And I encourage her to be assertive, to make known her wishes.
Often when I look at what’s going around the world, and sometimes in Singapore, I shudder, and writing really helps. For example, I am afraid to see this big gambling den completed. Sometimes I have this horrid vision of Singapore turning into this mega fun city of free prostitution (anyone with a social visit pass can sell themselves here), gambling and mindless computer games. It seems many Singaporeans prefer to live like rats – work in jobs they don’t really care for, to buy things they don’t really need, numbing their brains with all kinds of ‘fun’ which does nothing to improve their intellectual or emotional well being, or those around them.
I would hate to think that it is a planned thing – that the education system first kills all of us by cramming us with knowledge we don’t need, doing endless 10 years series papers to further numb our skulls, and with all that sleep deprivation, we are then driven into careers which are seemingly good for us. Of course when we cannot handle all that life throws at us, we can always take sleeping pills or subject our bodies to alcohol or go for drug testing to further vegetate our bodies and minds.
OK, enough venting…what can we do to encourage people to engage in political discourses and be active citizens? Teach our own children to do so, show them how, stop obsessing with grades and materialistic things in our own lives, join movements like Freecycle, give generously and be unafraid to use hand me downs, encourage others to join in discourses, think deeply and reflect on their actions and words.
Referring to the guy at the wine tasting session, I think compassion, taking stance on social justice and preserving human dignity are qualities people cannot really learn from books, they have to get it by having experienced and felt it keenly in their own lives. For family holidays, sometimes it is a very good thing to go volunteer to spend a day at an orphanage in Cambodia, or a workplace for women and their children in Africa, just to get ourselves out of our comfort zone, and see the effects of war or genocide, so we think clearly and have fresh insight what we want Singapore to be, and how we should create civic society.
thanks rachel for sharing.
“Does the problem lie in our education system, or in our urban culture that encourages the pursuit of materialism and creature comforts?”
i believe it’s the society, our environment that give raise to materialism.
“I was surprised to learn that the general consensus towards socio-political bloggers was that they are a bunch of government-hating, flag-burning ‘activists’. ”
gemami (#1) has given us overview of the situation. i can understand the pent-up frustrations of some of our citizens.
rachel, other than TKL saga, for i haven’t been following the other events that you’ve mentioned. to counter low rate birth rate, the govt has come up with a new M&P package. i applause the govt action in bringing fro the starting date of the policy. how about the other two events you’ve mentioned? has anything been done or has the authority response to the recipients?
gemami (#1):
“For the rest of us who are still sane, probably because we were fortunate not to have to go through what our forefathers have gone through, we would do well to take hold of the steering wheel and be the coxswain of the ship. A captain has to be found.”
you have said it all. but it’s not easy to find a captain with charisma, who has a vision and who can also empathize with the man-in-the-street.
I think conspiracy theories or mockery cannot diminish the contribution of Mr Tan. I value his contribution. No singaporean has voiced up for singaporeans like he have been doing, and not asking for a single cent. Some need money in order to work, else they won’t serve. For this alone, I believe his contribution has gone down in history.
selamat wong khia soo.
事不关己，漠不关心。(not affecting me, why should i care).
i had a conversation with a fellow Singaporean today (about the public transport system), and inadvertently talked about Tan Kin Lian vs Goliath in the Lehman brothers minibond issue.
I’d wanted to help, but i think my physical location inhibits me from any real contribution. However, I have admiration for Kin Lian, and sympathy for those who are misled.
Being practical Singaporeans, we are used to that mantra, “I look out for myself, you die your business”. That is selfish but practical, which I can’t fault it much.
The problem with Singapore is that we don’t have a real community support network. All that PA or CC community thing is but official organs serve more to “inform and educate” than to really help you further any grassroots participation. The whole idea if “i look out for myself” reminds me of those stories where eventually, you are next to be shot down after those who were shot down before you. The very fact is that people could have grouped together and fought it and had a chance of winning, but since “it doesn’t concern me”, each was taken down individually, and you will be next in line.
I’ve talked to people who helped out in the mccain and obama campaign. It amazes me to what extent they do just to carry out their beliefs and further their cause, with or without hidden agenda.
The rule of PAP to divide and conquer had been around too long. The “heartlander” label, pushing people into pigeon holes and caging them there forever. This is modern feudalism and caste system. Why are we allowing this preposterous perpetration?
I also don’t believe in just talking (esp in the blogosphere or coffee shop). The PAP has precisely allowed such venting channels in hope to pacify the emotions of dissent and hope that the “acceptance” psychology can set in after.
We should not settle, and there is no reason to settle. We need capable opposition, not just opposing just for opposing sakes, but just to serve as a check and balance officer. This person need not be a COE, he/she can just be a secretary like function, just be in the loop and have the authority to demand more transparency to accounting records and other statistics. Bring them all out in the open. With more transparency and information, we can discuss, dissect and analyze situations and issues to come out with real solutions.
The “opposition” has always been chasing air and lack solid data to back their arguments. But that’s a chicken and egg problem. There is no data to chase after, and all claims cannot be sufficiently substantiated. Do we need solid data to know if you fall off a high building you will die? No we don’t, we know it happens, we have seen it. Of course there is a fallacy in that (causation, correlation).
I was really concerned about Singapore but I felt I was pushed into subservience and constantly challenging the oppressive workplace and political culture of Singapore.
I wish I could contribute in my own way, but there wasn’t a real avenue to do so. I’m tired of talking to a wall. At least the walls can produce an empty echo. Talking to any of these PAP related organs is like talking into a vacuum.
事不关己，漠不关心。(not affecting me, why should i care).
i had a conversation with a fellow Singaporean today (about the public transport system), and inadvertently talked about Tan Kin Lian vs Goliath in the Lehman brothers minibond issue.
I’d wanted to help, but i think my physical location inhibits me from any real contribution. However, I have admiration for Kin Lian, and sympathy for those who are misled.
Being practical Singaporeans, we are used to that mantra, “I look out for myself, you die your business”. That is selfish but practical, which I can’t fault it much.
The problem with Singapore is that we don’t have a real community support network. All that PA or CC community thing is but official organs serve more to “inform and educate” than to really help you further any grassroots participation. The whole idea if “i look out for myself” reminds me of those stories where eventually, you are next to be shot down after those who were shot down before you. The very fact is that people could have grouped together and fought it and had a chance of winning, but since “it doesn’t concern me”, each was taken down individually, and you will be next in line.
I’ve talked to people who helped out in the mccain and obama campaign. It amazes me to what extent they do just to carry out their beliefs and further their cause, with or without hidden agenda.
The rule of PAP to divide and conquer had been around too long. The “heartlander” label, pushing people into pigeon holes and caging them there forever. This is modern feudalism and caste system. Why are we allowing this preposterous perpetration?
I also don’t believe in just talking (esp in the blogosphere or coffee shop). The PAP has precisely allowed such venting channels in hope to pacify the emotions of dissent and hope that the “acceptance” psychology can set in after.
We should not settle, and there is no reason to settle. We need capable opposition, not just opposing just for opposing sakes, but just to serve as a check and balance officer. This person need not be a COE, he/she can just be a secretary like function, just be in the loop and have the authority to demand more transparency to accounting records and other statistics. Bring them all out in the open. With more transparency and information, we can discuss, dissect and analyze situations and issues to come out with real solutions.
The “opposition” has always been chasing air and lack solid data to back their arguments. But that’s a chicken and egg problem. There is no data to chase after, and all claims cannot be sufficiently substantiated. Do we need solid data to know if you fall off a high building you will die? No we don’t, we know it happens, we have seen it. Of course there is a fallacy in that (causation, correlation).
I was really concerned about Singapore but I felt I was pushed into subservience and constantly challenging the oppressive workplace and political culture of Singapore.
I wish I could contribute in my own way, but there wasn’t a real avenue to do so. Perhaps Singapore has lost me for good, and I wonder if it’s forever. But hopefully something will lead me back, and that thing had better not be chicken rice.
Hi everyone,
The most encouraging sign is that young Singaporeans, especially students, are at least taking small steps to speak out. (Here’s a preview: In the coming weeks, some students will be speaking out on something related to a national issue which have been in the limelight in the last few years.)
When TOC was set up, there wasn’t any intention to be what we have become. It was only meant as a blog where a few friends would come together to voice our opinions. But as things went, it sort of took on a life of its own. Haha.
The point is this: Do what you can, do what you feel. Don’t be too afraid. Just be honest in your belief and don’t hurt anyone intentionally. Engage the issues and don’t cast aspersions and make personal attacks against anyone – even members of the govt or the PAP. Or for that matter, even opposition members.
I am hopeful that Singapore in say 10 years time will be very different – not just economically but also politically.
There is a deep longing for something better, something which addresses the deeper needs and desires of our people. Yes, economic survival is important – but so are other things.
I do not, for one moment, believe that PAP MPs are crooks or bad people. They simply are not. Perhaps what they do not realise is that their fear of S’pore going down the drain if they were not in charge, is over-exaggerated. And this has given rise to a whole spectrum of policies and laws which are stifling the spirit of our people.
But on the flip side, if the people themselves are afraid and disinterested, then they too should hold part of the blame. It takes two hands to clap.
And so, we need people to speak up, to stand up. To not be so afraid.
I am quite proud of our writers here. They use their real names – which is something quite scary in the past to do. This is a small step but an important one. It is putting part of yourself out there. And this is significant. So, I am proud of the writers.
Each one of us who are so-called “politically-aware” needs to go out and make others politically-aware. The opposition parties can only do so much. Ordinary Singaporeans need to do their part too.
At the end of the day, if you are sincerely and honestly concerned about our country, then it is your responsibility to stand up and speak. No one else will do it for you. Neither can they.
So, yes, there are people like those “wine-drinkers” in this article. But if we think their views are quite atrocious, then doesn’t it mean that we have to work harder so that our children do not end up holding those same views?
Regards,
Andrew Loh
(((( 19) shibuyume on October 31st, 2008 1.14 am
The rule of PAP to divide and conquer had been around too long. The “heartlander” label, pushing people into pigeon holes and caging them there forever. This is modern feudalism and caste system. Why are we allowing this preposterous perpetration? ))))
You hit the nail on the head.
These are examples of how the PAP govt divide and rule. Typically but not obvious to most Singaporeans, their divide and rule agenda is clothed in some higher ideal of nation-building, social harmony, equality. Nobody can say they haven’t put in their efforts at that. For example, all races are, apparently, “equal” and enjoy gtheir respective spaces. These are all true. But they stop short of really trying the weave the different races into a mix. Being Singaporean means interacting with all the different ethnics in our daily lives — talking, working, eating, even loving (for some). But look the shows on TV. They go to great lengths to force you to pay $110 license fee for every TV and radio set you own in your house, in your car and in your office, for the production of “community programmes”. It would have been a lot easier if our locally-produced Chinese programmes incorporate Ahmad and Samy into their scripts — that would be Singaporean flavour. Same for the Malay dramas, and the Tamil ones too. But no, Chinese dramas are all in Chinese, Indian dramas are all in Tamil and Malays ones the same. Are the Govt REALLY serious about forging a Singaporean identity? Then all these dramas should exude that Singaporean flavour – complete with actors speaking some Malay, some Tamil, some Chinese and English as well, so that all Singaporeans get to watch their dramas complete with our true local multi-racial flavour. The TV has a huge influence on the Singaporeans’ psyche. Yet, as an instrument for community building, the programmes they churn out are doubtful in terms of achieving those aims. If anything, the programmes keep each one in his own box as defined by his race, day in day out.
And that’s good for the PAP. Divide and conquer.
On a lighter note (it’s Friday), Rachael shows why S’porean men do not get the gals (S’porean or otherwise).
They don’t find out gal’s tastes, views before saying anything. S’porean guys, you want to show her you how smart or how much of LKY clone you are, or do you want SEX?
FTs, especially Indian or Ang Moh, want sex. So they focus on what gal is saying and agree. And stupid S’porean gal think that these FT value her for her brains, when all they want is SEX.
Have fun. TGIF.
19) shibuyume
<<>>.
This is one of the biggest hurdle we are facing at the moment.
On the one hand, we are accused of not speaking up and be involve in nation building. We are told that we always have to be nannied, we’re being taught how to behave (no chewing gum, no spitting, be courteous, more babies etc), we’re being fed with ‘what’s good’ for us and the list goes on……….
On the other hand, when we offer alternative solutions or when we cry out, we’re being told off that we are nothing but a nation of whiners.
Do we then stand still and wait for the right things to happen around us? Even our alternative representatives in parliament have gone silent. What else can we do?
We need to try something new. Something never tried before. What have we to lose? My suggestion, as I have been suggesting for some time now, is to amplify the voice of online discussions. We must create a platform for everyone and anyone with a voice to share to come together. We must shout with one voice. We must create a new power.
Just look at the ‘power’ of TOC. So many issues have already been addressed because of the voice that rings out from here . . . minibonds, yishun herb garden, CSS, just to name a few.
We must continue in the same vein and make this voice even more powerful today than yesterday.
One thing I’ve learnt over the years, is that it is often easy to offer an idea or solution but pursuing the implementation of that idea is altogether a different matter. It is true for myself that the latter half of “the life of an idea” is what keeps me from being an actual activist.
I still feel, however, that armchair critics can have their roles to play:
1) highlighting or recognizing problems, even if they do not have any clear solutions in mind.
2) offering ideas and solutions that activists might be able to take up and pursue.
Of course, there are triggers for when armchair critics turn into activists … when the annoyance resulting from a problem becomes greater than the costs of ignoring the effects of a problem. Happens in supercomputing research … happens in life
.
Ah.. sounds familiar. Another of those “get out of my uncaring elite face..” ?
Could it be that such mindset is propagated top down? It causes the society to be void of human spirit, and people in the society is reduced to and treated as mere statistics. Bad for the society.
22) Lee Chee Wai
agree with you – this is why it is so important to have a central figure, one who can bring our voices into the open – just like HLP.
we need to bring in someone with stature. If we can’t find one, make one – just like TKL. It takes time but what have we to lose?
Methinks that armchair critics also have a huge part to play when they are given such a good platform like TOC. At least they bring pertinent issues to the fore and sometimes, even provide inspiration for subsequent actions to be taken, like what Rachel says.
I think everyone has a part to play. No need for armchair critics (bloggers) to prove that they are otherwise.
—
In order to make a difference in the climate of socio-political awareness, we do have to question ourselves too – are we opposing for the sake of opposing? Are we being moderate, reasonable and temperate in our criticism of government policies, or are we blindly criticizing the government for the sake of taking an anti-establishment stance?
—
Are “we” questioning ourselves? Or do “we” think “we” are above such questioning, that “we” are superior?
The questions are not answered by:
—
Talk the talk or walk the walk?
Very often, socio-political bloggers are seen as armchair critics – in that we criticize but ‘fail to provide any real solutions’. Incidentally, the prevalent mood is that there is no point being socially or politically aware – that ‘there is nothing we can do anyway’.
I beg to differ. Here are some examples which would prove such assumptions wrong:
—
Which only claims that socio-political bloggers are not armchair critics (and armchair critics are not intrinsically bad, and are also useful in some senses as pointed out). It only claims that the criticisms of socio-political bloggers have materialized as real life acts with real life consequences. It does not say whether it is useful or not, justified or not, good or bad.
Hi Rachel,
What a well-written article,i strongly believe @ this point of time,its easy for anyone of us to play the blame game,the matter of the fact is the true nature of a person will always be revealed when unforseen circumstances or peer pressure can tilt the mentality of an individual,take me for example,i’m vocal,outspoken,confident,forthcoming,relentless,in pursuit for a better life,i strive to improve every day,guess what people will tell me?
“Dude,what is your problem?Have you gone bonkers?Are you out of sync?”
Society will always keep contradicting between right & wrong,what is important is doing the right thing in the presence of fear,with courage & nerves of steel!
My two cents worth of my humble opinion…..
A7X!
An extremely insightful article.
I too question whether some commentators oppose for the sake of opposing. I have no doubt that healthy debate about the government and its policies (and its politics) are necessary. However, some commentators seem to only read an idealistic declaration or statement, like the UN Declaration of Human Rights, or similar documents, and simply base every argument on how the government does not provide us with such and such rights. There is nothing wrong with such arguments, but I do believe it is of greater relevance to write about real, specific issues, rather than spout idealistic rhetoric in every post.
And thanks for listing the achievements of the concerned bloggers in your article. I’ve never known about these achievements, besides the latest assistance Mr Tan Kin Lian has provided to the investors. I believe this should be the direction in which socio-political blogging in Singapore should be headed.
It does not say whether it is useful or not, justified or not, good or bad. – Dingfeng (#28)
There is no such thing as a blanket description for all offline activism that has been taken up by social-political bloggers. In any case, this is just a form of activism, and the success of the activist campaign often depends on the activist himself, his fellow team-mates and public support for the matter.
Activist campaign can be as simple as raising awareness on issues to originating and promoting proposals relating to public policy. One step up from activist campaigning is lobbyist campaigning whereby it gets personal with key decision makers.
Personally, I would give campaigners the benefit of the doubt as each campaign is quite independent from each other, unless they share a common theme and there is centralised coordination of efforts.
In order to make a difference in the climate of socio-political awareness, we do have to question ourselves too – are we opposing for the sake of opposing? Are we being moderate, reasonable and temperate in our criticism of government policies, or are we blindly criticizing the government for the sake of taking an anti-establishment stance?
My take on this is very simple. As I have shared above in #1, and, to simplify it further, I believe we are looking at a very diverse category of socio-political bloggers.
We have:
a. those who oppose for the sake of opposing
b. those who blindly criticize the govt for their own reasons
c. those who follow the crowd
d. those who are neutral
c. those who are ‘moderate, reasonable and temperate”
e. those who put down anti-govt commentaries and suggestions
f. those who sit by the side and contribute occassionally without taking any stand
g. those who contribute with ideas, suggestions and action plans.
I am sure there are many more we can add to the list but the point is, how many in the Netizen population falls into category g?
Many would fall into the other categories and this is why we see a lot of comments, remarks even, that does not directly affect the exchanges in a forum.
However, we cannot side-step the fact that these comments do bring about an impact that might be lacking in a ‘civilised’ discourse. We cannot therefore diminish this impact but have to take it along during our discourse. These is the ’soul’ of the discourse.
To really ‘walk the talk’, I would prefer to think that the larger group are those from categories a to f, waiting for direction from an ochestrator – one who is more likely to come from group g, the minority.
Thanks everybody for your insights and comments.
I am glad to see that these few months there are changes to our political scape. Now we can protest openly in HLP when previously we can’t. This is a major step forward which LHL needs to be appreciated.
I also heard that Poly students are protesting against the expensive public transport cost and this time round at Bugis Junction. This is to be applauded and it shows that our youth are not all politically apathetic.
We have a long way to go to procliam that we have freedom of speech and democratic rights. People who protest elsewhere still get charged in court and there is hardly any freedom of speech here.
I just saw the recent US election and was moved to tears by Mr Obama’s victory speech. More significantly, I felt hopeful that if a black man can win against all ods to be the first black US President, surely our country can change for the better?
Our country needs to be less materialistic and more humanistic. Even the govt knows that if the people are hooked on moeny matters they will not stand in the way of how the govt wants to run the country.
We all can see that during this difficult period, there are already two major groups that stood up tp speak their mind in a most unusual way.
More than 500 investors gathered at HLP for the past few weekends to hear TKL who assisted them to sign a collective petition. Poly students have also openly protest in Poly campus against the steep transport cost.
So far, I did not hear of any official word from the govt on these two incidents meaning that they are agreeable to the public outburst so far. However, how far can we over step the OB markers? CAn we carry on like this? Will there be a backlash from the auhtorities? Your guess is as good as mine.
Andrew Loh said it well when he mentioned that so long as we do it within legal boundaries and from the heart without attacking anyone maliciously in the process, we should be safe.
There is still alot of fear out there as for too long we associated speaking out with arrest and what the authorities have done to the opposition politicians. If the public saw more of what TOC or Poly students have done and nothing untoward have happend to them, I am sure they will step out from their comfort zone and join us.
I foresee that a new dawn has arrived on our political shore. Just as Mr Obama created history as the first black US President, TOC also has created it’s own history by bringing the people’s issues out in the open here and in HLP.
To that, I say a big thank you from the bottom of my heart.