Donaldson Tan
The first thought in my head after watching National Solidarity Party’s National Day Message video (transcript available here) is whether the key theme of the message is solidarity or sympathy. The only tangible difference between solidarity and sympathy is that the former embodies activism in unity. Yet the hardly inspiring NSP ND Message is only a compilation of familiar woes:
- Singaporeans are saddled with fear, insecurity and confusion.
- The authorities act as if to preserve an underclass.
- Our retirement funds are hit by escalating housing and healthcare costs.
- More and more Singaporeans are loosing their homes.
- Lack of comprehensive welfare for Singaporeans.
Where is the inspiration?
Solidarity calls for activism motivated by shared sympathy. Yes, we may all agree with the complaints but what is stopping us from acting on it? Apathy? A sense of helplessness? English Philosopher John Stuart Mill once said, “A state which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands, even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men, no great thing can really be accomplished.”
Society consists of individuals who encounter each other as free and autonomous agents. They enter into contracts largely through choice irrespective of their circumstances. To keep such relations striving, individuals need to have a sense of their own potential and society’s through captivation and inspiration towards certain goals. The purpose of order is thus to create a safe environment for individuals to interact, to exercise their will and to maximise their own potential.
The role of Government goes beyond establishing and preserving order. And as potential candidates for Government, the role of political parties goes beyond highlighting problems and offering solutions. While the Government and political parties must realise they play a key role in inspiring the citizenry, the citizenry must also recognise that the Government and political parties are also its instruments to exercise stakeholdership.
Constructing our common identity
Secretary General Ken Sun lamented, “After 50 years under a solo, authoritarian leadership, Singapore can only project a somewhat vague national identity There is hardly any local song, language, food, fashion or cultural trait with which Singaporeans can truly identify with its nationality.” Not that I want to be a wet blanket, how could NSP miss out something as omnipresent in our society as Singlish?
As transferable characteristics, language and values are the glue that hold us Singaporeans together. As a medium, Singlish describes our values in the most endearing terms such as Kiasu-ism, Kiasi-ism, Bopian-ness whether we are Ahmad, Ah Beng, Ah Neh, Atas or Munjen. Although Singlish has been around since our colonial days, there is notable absence of any reference to our shared heritage and history. There are no Singlish idiomatic expressions that relate to our historical milestones and local folklores.
The humble hawker centre is also one of our national institutions. Virtually every Singaporean dines at hawker centres regardless of economic status or social standing. It is the place where we share common experience and mingle with Singaporeans of other races and religions. We attribute our frequent visits to the hawker centre to our gastronomic fixation on food, yet air-conditioned restaurants offering high-quality cuisine are hardly as popular. Despite the heat and poor standard of service, we will gladly join long queues in the hawker centre. As Singaporeans, a visit to the hawker centre is a humbling experience we all share.
We don’t want sympathy. Emphasising our common identity would have done NSP more good in promoting solidarity.
Closing remarks on presentation
There is plenty of room for improvement. I appreciate effort to present the speech in English, Malay and Mandarin. Yet the speakers lack charisma while their hand gestures have been distracting. Given that this is a National Day Message addressing every Singaporean, I would expect better audio quality too. The National Anthem was cut short abruptly as soon as the display of the National Pledge was over. A better approach would have been to gradually mute the melody of anthem. Lighting in the videos was horrible. In particular, the speaker’s face in each video is loomed in shadow. There is a strong amateurish tinge to the video.
—-
Related posts:
- Deep sympathy and solidarity with the people of Haiti
- TOC On Site: More than 1,000 gather at Burmese temple in solidarity
- Seeking a fair settlement
- NSP’s May Day Message 2010
- Reform Party seeking alliance with SDA
NSP seems to have completely disappeared on the media’s radar.
Oxford Dude is right. NSP’s sun is setting. Donaldson’s advice is good, but will NSP be able to improve their presentation or find a spark of inspiration? It doesn’t look promising.
@1) Oxford Dude on August 21st, 2009 10.47 am
And you can see why just watching their video and taking a peek at the articles they have. It’s almost funny.
IMO they look, sound and write like they’re lost with no clear goals in mind to contribute to prosperity. Only there to sound out Singaporean voices. Just like us. And perhaps I appreciate the effort that they want to unite Singaporeans, but so does every one else for that matters.
I won’t call it an Epic fail. But their ND speech don’t deserve a high grade either. Good try, and I hope these guys have some clearer goals in mind on what they want for Singapore, and how they’re going to go about it.
Well, will get straight to the point.
1) Wrong foot start. Nothing in NSP’s message suggested that they wanted sympathy, given that it is defined as wanting sympathy for the party. The word may have been derived as a conclusion but it needs more substantiation, e.g. if NSP had asked for people to support them at the end of the message.
2) In all other critiques so far, no parties escaped the accusation of not putting forth issues people want to hear. Having the benefit of affording to sing from both sides of the tongue as a non-partisan entity, it was not unexpected that subsequently one of the critiques would contain the opposite of it and it was now – that NSP was a compilation of “familiar woes”. One thing I feel TOC should do is to show each of the critique writers what the other writers wrote, so that they won’t run into the “damn if you do, damn if you don’t, damn if you stay still” wannabe.
3) At least 25% of the essay, especially the section “Where is the inspiration?”, doesn’t address the NSP’s message, but the writer goes on to say his own things. One can have his own view, but that is not the same as going out of point.
4) Singlish is being far from recognised by Singaporeans themselves as a cultural identity. That was NSP’s point – not only the government but the people. Even Singlish-speaking parents do not encourage their children at a young age to speak Singlish.
5) The “hawker centre” analogy is poor. One might as well talk about “Lu Bian Tan” in HK and hamburger joints in USA. There are eateries everywhere in the developed world.
The hawker centre analogy is good. It is but food and the joints that serve them, be it McDonald’s or ‘Lu Bian Tan’ or hawker centres, that gives the people a common identity, as an American or Hongkee or Singaporean or…
Hi ACR,
This is intended as a critique, not an argumentative rebuttal.
Got this kind of standard of Opposition how to win election leh?
Stranger: Read the NSP message again and it did not say there was NO culture of significance, it said there was LITTLE culture of significance and one that “we can truely claim OUR OWN”. Hawker centres also exist in Malaysia especially in KL. Any suggested example should be unique to Singapore. After much difficulty did I think of Orchard Road, which proves the point. What about HDB flats? I think that is unique to Singapore.
Oxford Dude: Whether a critique or rebuttal or whatever name, it attempts to debunk the points and/or share an alternative, contrary view, right? Similarly, mine is does the same to the critiques. As I said from the start, I am exercising my brain cells and overall, all the criticisms whether by TOC articles to the parties or me and others to the TOC articles are in an encouraging, healthy spirit (although admittedly not everyone does it with healthy intentions).
Despite its lack of experience and expertise in video production which is obvious, the NSP deserves some praise for its effort in at least trying something than just putting up a usual written statement.
Presentation-wise, a few points to ponder:
(1) The orange uniform with 2 dark patches are not exactly flattering for politicians.
(2) The video is too long, unless the speaker is really good or eye-pleasing.
(3) No eye contact – the speaker was not looking into the camera as he spoke.
(4) The filming would be better with a half-body shot, cutting away the redundant hand gestures.
Don’t want to be cruel to NSP but politics is cruel. So here is my take on the video message – TOTALLY CRAP! BUT! BUT! Good honest effort. I like. BUT! Pls lar. How can cut national anthem out like that? And why need to have national anthem in all 3 videos? Very tiring leh. Listen once enough already.
Kenn Sun, must speak better la. If election speak like that, no one understand what u say!
And that Malay guy, aiyo! Relax face lar. So fierce la. I watch also very scared. Eyebrow must relax, bro.
That chinese girl, aiyo! Hand gesture relak la. You fighting tai chi ah? LOL! But your mandarin tekkkong! Very clear. Good.
I am disappointed with the comment online regarding NSP. I do want to voice out my view regarding message NSP ND Mesage. Firstly, I do thing the only NSP and SDP ND message do mention and pointing out what common Singaporean are facing (full prospective) instead some political party advertisment (promoting party manifesto). The content of message pointed the most wided range of Singaporean disappointment of government and desire of change from the authorities.
Please for God seek stop pin pointing about presentation gesture and video production. NSP is not mediacorp. I am sure you will produce something worst if you do it yourselve for the first time.
NSP, keep up the good work. Contiune to voice out for the people. That what we want a political party for.
You called that a political party?
They win “Harbans SIngh” Award hands down.
I try to be fair and not putting down NSP, but it seems to be a non-branded opposition party without clear ideology.
I am just disappointed of how difference the online community prospective and needs from the real voice in commuinty we live in. I seem to be very clear of the message from all party ND message. All I thing is NSP & SDP is trying to focus and gather all Singaporean back to real situation rather then enjoying in the dreamland created by the PAP.
Funactiver, I clearly acknowledge that being politically aware is important and lacking in Singapore. However, I do see a downside of the political-aware – tend to think too much and read too much into things that it misses primary cruxes.
Perhaps that applies to me as well. :)
Hi Funactiver,
Every opposition political party is trying very hard to be the People’s voice. Every opposition political party also highlight the same problems faced by the People. The “compilation of familiar woes” does not give NSP a unique characteristic for anyone in general to identify himself with. NSP has to work harder by creating a brand for itself.
Video could have been better produced.
the initial playing of the National Anthem is very corny, and the videography skills is damn lousy.
Message is too long that after 2 mins, I did not’t want to continue on.
However, as this is their first try, I will cut them some slack.
Good effort by the NSP, I believe you can go better next year.
I simply think that many young online members need to come back to the fundamental of what is politicis instead of idolizing on leader with branding. We have been brain wash for 50 years of PAP ideology mind set like looking forward to LKY branding instead of the PAP as a whole. PAP is suffer in difficulties of finding and building a new leadership. All we going to contiune and suffer what PAP is facing. Are we sending message to encouraging all the other political party to follow the same footstep for this mistake?
Lets not forgeting that a politician must take up the courage to do all this best to improve livinghood for all people. As a citizen it is our duty to pratise our right and up hold unity and strenght of our nation, but not on branding and idolizing.
Hi Wat Sup,
Do you know what’s the meaning of 有勇无谋 ?
Hi Oxford,
Let face the fact, wat I mean is the moral stand for Singapore of the politician. I do not want to choose a cunning leader to be my MP, either from PAP or Opposition. I have seen much. I am simply looking for a moral break through in Singapore Politics.
Let not discuss such a topic here. It seems becoming a personnal attack.
NSP wishes to thank everyone for their kind comments. It is also through such advice and criticism that one can learn and improve on one’s future performance. Our video shoot was our first ever attempt to utilise the new media. Admittedly, we were inexperienced. Coupled with our limited resources, the outcome was regrettably poor. Although some criticisms were cruelly harsh, we were nevertheless glad to have found some snatches of support here and there. We know that the public is not easy to please, but please don’t be easily offended as well. We sincerely promise a better effort the next time around. Thank you once again.