Fang Shihan >> TOC News
Almost as an apology to the theatrical tragedy staged during the Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum (KRMF), the young PAP sponsored forum, tantalizingly titled “Straight Talk: Is Singapore = PAP?”, seemed like the Q&A session that the ageing MM Lee never got to engage in.
Organised by the undergraduate-run NUS Political Science Society (PSS), the organisers, despite not disclosing their sponsors, picked the panelists for the ‘open discussion’ in a manner that painfully exposed the organisers’ biases.
No opposition politicians were invited to speak, and of the four panelists, three were PAP MPs (Chris De Souza, Zaqy Mohammad, Teo Ser Luck) while one was an NMP who is also an academic (Dr Paulin Straughan).
Thankfully, three other political science academics were hastily invited at the last minute (perhaps after widespread student disapproval of KRMF’s panel selections), to balance out the otherwise pro-PAP discussion.
In comparison with the huge crowd that turned up for KRMF, the attendance for this forum was less than remarkable – 160 people signed up but less than 100 eventually showed up. When asked why she would not sit in for Straight Talk, final year political science undergraduate Shirah Nair said that after experiencing the audaciously staged KRMF, she was put off attending any other event that included political discussions with the PAP.
Despite the small crowd, and the confusion of whether the event was a political discussion or a book discussion of “Men in White”, the event turned out to be surprisingly insightful.
Who writes history? Whose stories get to count as history?
As much as the PAP boasts of sticking to the ‘facts’, the only truth is that winners write Singapore’s history, though academics would wish otherwise. When asked to comment on “Men in White”, one panelist remarked that he would not call it history, though it makes for an interesting read; and contrary to previous pseudo-historical publications, it does not have Lee Kuan Yew’s ever-present imprint.
Yet the PAP’s representatives showed otherwise, evoking history time and again to validate their views. When queried on various aspects of the PAP, such as whether luck played a part in Singapore’s success, or whether the PAP finds it difficult to replicate itself, or whether the search for the next prime minister is already in process, all three representatives from the so-called P-65 generation reacted in a single voice, quoting previous PAP rhetoric and referring to what was written in Men in White.
Remarking that the book exposes the vulnerabilities of a nation, and displays the natural reactions of new guard party members, Chris De Souza, who must be given credit for digesting the whole tome, referred to the last section when PAP members, including himself, were interviewed. Echoing the hackneyed party line, he stated that,
“The day we are less than honest is the day we do not deserve to be in power. You can’t be corrupt in any way”.
(From Left: Chris De Souza, Dr. Reuben Wong, Teo Ser Luck, Moderater Dr. Brad Williams, Dr. Paulin Straughan, Zaqy Mohammad, Dr. Federico Ferrara)
One wonders how he would reconcile this stance with a recent declaration by Law Minister K Shanmugam that an increase in corruption cases is to be expected when two casinos open here in 2010.
This repeated defense of the PAP’s rightful place as the dominant party, justified by the legitimizing process of elections, would manifest itself in nearly every answer by any of the PAP representatives, regardless of the question. When asked if Singapore is the PAP, and whether the civil service is beyond fear and favour, Teo Ser Luck answered without hesitation that Singapore was not the PAP, because Singaporeans chose their party and they decide if the opposition has a role in parliament.
It was almost as though they had memorized the model answers for a set of ‘Frequently Asked Questions’.
Even so, it was clear that these young leaders had minds of their own. They obviously were not representatives of the PAP at large, especially those from the more repressive old guard.
In the second half of his answer, Teo Ser Luck maintained, “The younger generation think differently. We’re surprised that the party accepts our views.”
Zaqy Mohammad too insisted, “The hardest hits [during PAP meetings] are from our own MPs…. We know the ministers better and we know how to hit them the hardest.”
The difference between the old and the new was made more evident when they were asked what aspect of Singapore they would change, if they were one day made Prime Minister.
Teo Ser Luck, after some hesitation and clarification that this was his personal view and not the party’s, revealed that he would change the political system as he believed in fighting for votes during the elections. Zaqy Mohammad, showing some affinity with other young politicians from the opposition, said that he would like a law on minimum wage, contrary to what the Minister Mentor might think.
So what exactly is the PAP? Is it a hegemonic but paranoid party? Does Singapore = PAP? And is it the party to bring us forward into the future?
Though the party is not monolithic, it obviously has tight boundaries restraining the personal political views that party members are permitted to articulate in public. Evidently these younger PAP politicians are the reformers from within, trying to rescue a historically important but increasingly unpopular hegemonic party. More apparently, they agree that there is a disjoint between the old party, and the party of the future. Our future.
The absurdity of the KRMF as a political dialogue between a historical artifact and a new generation seeking answers from the past is indicative of how lost we really are. The answers are not in the past. They are not in the PAP-chronicled history books nor can they be found in a tired old man who has obviously seen better days.
Yet the mere questioning of whether Singapore and the PAP are synonymous is indicative that we are in a transition of finding the anwer.
Singapore is the PAP for now. However, as we progressively ask: “Is Singapore = PAP?” and “Should Singapore = PAP?”, we inch closer to the answer of what comes after the passing of the PAP era.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————
Update 1 :
Shashikalah Krishnan, current President of NUS Political Science Society, has issued a statement to TOC. We publish it in full:
I would like to clarify that the forum organised by the NUS Political Science Society Straight Talk: Is Singapore=PAP? was not sponsored by Young PAP. Our sponsors were NUS Political Science Department and Office of Alumni Relations. We opened up the event to the public so that there will be more engement and increase the civic culture in Singapore. Young PAP was invited to participate as audience and the invitation also included young people who were from youth groups from the opposing parties.
I as the President of the Society would like to assert that the Society is non-partisan and that this forum was organised for educational purposes. This was stated clearly by our Department Head during his Opening Speech.
Thanks.
Yours sincerely,
Shashikalah
————–
TOC’s response:
When contacted by TOC, Professor Terry Nardin, Head of Department, Political Science, clarified that according to the PSSOC organizers, the Young PAP had originally agreed to cover food costs for the event, with other costs being covered by NUS or PSSOC itself. After being advised by Prof Nardin and Prof Straughan that Young PAP sponsorship would make the forum a political event, the organizers gratefully accepted Prof Nardin’s offer to cover the food costs from the Department’s budget. Because earlier efforts to include professors in the event had been unsuccessful, Prof Nardin also offered to recruit some colleagues to help out and to give the opening speech himself. Although the panel included several PAP members, the format was designed to allow different views to be aired by panelists and audience members.In his view, the PSSOC student forum was not a political party event held at NUS but an open discussion, based on a book about the PAP that has generated considerable interest, of the PAP’s place Singapore’s past and future, as seen from different perspectives.
TOC also contacted the administrative staff of the NUS Political Science department, who estimated that the crowd was between 170 to 200 people based on the 299 seating capacity of the auditorium.
When interviewed by TOC, Bernard Chen, a year 1 history major remarked that while the forum had the intention of being an academic discourse, the PAP’s party stand was being articulated in many instances. It would have been more appropriate if the forum had consistently focused on the discussion of the book; its pros and cons.
——
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
democracy dies when we can’t maintain a civil and respectful debate without resorting to flaming and personal attacks.
this is a maiden event organised by a student society that just got its bearings after taking office, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and not judge by this one event. can we blame our youth for being politically apathetic when we’re going to throw stones like this everytime they stand up and voice out?
Shashikalah said:
“I have always been proud to be a Singaporean but now, I am rethinking.”
And this is the President of the National university of Singapore Political Science Society talking.
In the face of criticisms (and not invalid ones), she might no longer be proud of being a Singaporean. I guess she must like that commercial very much, that one which says, “Hear only the good stuff.”
So sad.
Hi Confused or doublespeak,
I think you are going a bit too far for personally attacking the young lady.She is the President yes, but she is the Deputy Director of the event.She may be unduly influenced by her Exco members.
Is the YPAP member Kimberly Trump the Director of the Event?Who is the person who mooted the ideain the first place?
If you look at the facebook event page there is also a Abner Koh who is another member of YPAP.These two YPAP members organise events for YPAP.Don’t forget that the PSS Exco has two YPAP members.
Could it be possible that the 2 YPAP members in the Exco together with Kimberly Trump and Abner Koh put pressure on the President to host this event?
The President was probably an unwilling participant.It is not easy to turn down an event where you manage to get 3 MPs attending on your maiden event.That is very commendable.
All these guys are young.They have never worked.The adults in this charade, the Academics and the Panelists should have known better.
The problem is the YPAP members in the Exco and the Academics who oversee the club.They are doing a great disservice to the students.
The President, I repeat, is being made a scapegoat.So please lay off her.She already stated that she is not a member of YPAP and she already has clarified that she will not join YPAP.That says a lot especially in Singapore.
By not aligning with the YPAP, she has already lost opportunities.She is bringing balance into the community.So we have to respect her for that.
So Shashikalah, if you are reading this, don’t be disheartened.I may have posed some very difficult questions but they were towards the organisers who are refusing to take responsibility and also your teachers whom refuse to acknowledge them as lecturers or professors.They are treating Singaporeans like Secondary School students.This is a forum held at an Institute of Higher Learning, not a social studies lecture catered for 13-14 year olds.
So PSS Exco, don’t let your President down in future events.It’s a big responsibility and I believe she has carried herself very well here despite the criticism.
All the best Shashikalah.You can only grow stronger from this.
26/10/09
Shashikalah is the President of NUS Political Science Society and haas forgotten that she must also toe the line so long as she is a student of NUS, besides President of NUS Political Science Society, unlike universities in HK, Macau, Australia, New Zealand. PerhAPS she has awaken from her sleep.
Regards
Andrew
Hi Shashikalah,
No point asking anymore as I know I would not get an aswer. I take back what I said and sincerely apologize to you if I have offended the society or yourself. Like I said, it is a good experience and you will grow stronger. But my apologies. However, I reserved my right to ask these questions. Looking back at my messages, i would also apologize to Kimberely and the organizers. However, i standby what I wrote. Sorry to all.
In response to Confused or doublespeak:
I am writing this as a fellow Singaporean and not as a NUS student or the President of a Society.
My thoughts were in no way a reflection of PSSOC. I am not one who believes in listening to just the ‘good stuff’. In fact, I welcome all your criticisms. Arent Singaporeans suppose to be nice and supportive of one another? Here (in this discussion forum), however, Singaporeans have been unreasonably attacking a student group that is innocent and has just started taking baby steps. Using inappropriate terms such as stupid and dumb is not acceptable and is offensive. A foreigner who sees these will certainly not have a good impression of our society. How then can a proud Singaporean remain proud?
Despite this incident, I am still proud to be a Singaporean. But one thing that I have realised is that some Singaporeans do not make use of opportunities given to them (in this the forum that we organised). Instead, it seems that they take every opportunity to demoralise people. It would have been better if you guys had instead tried to voice out your unhappiness regarding the political structure to the appropriate authorities. You would have at least made a change!
108) Insider
You have every right to make these accusations, though being anonymous does diminish your integrity somewhat. Similarly, I have every right to dispute these allegations because whatever you said simply isn’t true.
Firstly, I did consult the people in the department regarding the event. How else do you think I found out that it was initially sponsored by the Young PAP? Dr. Nardin, as you can see in his statement, has backed up this statement. The only thing worse than defending a deceitful act (since the event was marketed as a non-partisan event, but with 3 PAP MPs. Do you really think we’re stupid?) is conducting a smear campaign on a report that has published nothing but the truth.
Secondly, I did not mention the PSAA anywhere in this article. You may want to re-read it. I also didn’t mention that KRMF was organised by PSSOC. I doubt the organisers, organising a big event for the first time (as they have admitted) would be up for the task anyway.
Thirdly, I still stand by my stance that without the last minute inclusion of the PS professors, the event was heavily partisan. I don’t know why you are trying to argue against something that is so blatantly obvious.
Fourthly, I am not in WP, or any opposition party at that. Some readers have also accused me of being a member of Reform Party. As a writer of TOC, I have to maintain a non-partisan stance and I will only report on the facts as I see it.
Lastly, I am not anti-PAP, nor pro-PAP. I report on politics which encompasses a plurality of parties and views. You may want to re-read the article again because I do regard the young PAP favourably. And if you do not know, I am a big fan of our foreign affairs ministry and I think they have done a terrific job over the years. Unfortunately this has also led to others accusing me of being pro-PAP.
I leave it up to the readers to decide what’s ethical and what’s not.
Shihan, I think the whole thing started due to your claim that the forum was YP sponsored. You said that you did your research prior to the event and that you did realise that it was initially supposed to YP sponsored. This is where you have to note. The word is ‘initially’. I was there at the forum and the society actually had a ppt presentation in which they had clearly stated that the organised were ‘NUS PS Department’ and ‘Office of Alumni Relation’. Since you did not see YP’s name there, you should have understood that the society made a change. And if you were unhappy or suspicious about it, you should have approached the organisers and not should not have written as you wanted.
To 107)Straight Talker on October 26th, 2009 11.26 pm
Is there a reason why you chose my nick and decided to post an apology?Why would I want to apologise to Kimberly and the organisers? Stop twisting and putting words in my mouth.
My questions have not been answered.Could it be possible that the 2 YPAP members in the Exco together with YPAP members Kimberly Trump and Abner Koh put pressure on the President to host this event?
Was the Men in White book sold at the event?Why were the MPs offering their autographs when the 2 of them are in Parliament because of a WALKOVER.Even the YPAP Chairman got into parliament through the GRC.What have these P65 MPs contributed of significance to the PAP?
Nice try 107)Straight Talker.Maybe you should go into the fake goods business.But when you get caught, don’t bother apologizing.
Shihan, you yourself said that professors were invited as a last minute arrangement. Even Professor Terry Nardin admited this. Even if this was done at the last min, it was still made. So how could you claim that these arrangement were done as a remedy to the Kent Ridge Ministeral Forum? You even said that the organisers were biased in choosing the panel. Did you even talk to them regarding it? Whether they approached the opposition or scholars. Even though it was a last min thingy, it does not pull out from the option that they did try to make it an academic forum. The question here is not about if the arrangement was not made, it may have been partisan but to look at what was presented to you and judge for that. Shihan, you made the society seem as partisan when you said that the panelists were carefully selected. Have you attended any of their previous events to come to that conclusion or even make it seem as such? If you have never attended any of their events or even know what they have done, I would say that you are being biased.
I also attended the society’s PS Luncheon that was organised prior to forum. The exco was introduced during the luncheon. Abner is not a part of the executive committee and Kimberly is the society’s Vice-President. Pls get your facts right before you guys talk.
To “Insider-Ivan”, “Justina Tan”, “Bryan Teo”, “Philip Chan”, “MaryAnn_1988″,
All the above nicks have the same IP addresses and all of the comments by them are directed at Shihan in a very personal manner – including bringing her personal life into the comments.
This is utterly disgraceful. And if whoever you are is a student of NUS or a member of the NUSPSS, you should be utterly ashamed of yourself.
Andrew Loh
To “insider”,
Your threat to Shihan is taken very seriously and we will act accordingly.
Andrew Loh
The conclusion from all the responses just simply put it that many of the people are getting very frustrated with local politics and get very irritated when they see and hear their names. Looks to be overwhelming and revolting.
To all:
I am a political science graduate, though I thank my lucky stars that I wasn’t subjected to the corrupted and toxic, made-for-Singapore-by-the PAP version of the discipline that I hear my poor Singapore-educated colleagues have to endure. In POLI 201 – “Introduction to Political Science” – the very first prerequisite for all other political science courses, we were introduced to the academic definition of “public”, a very fundamental concept in political science since political science is also a study of everything that is in the public interest. It would seem that my Singapore-educated peers have not got that far even after three years of a political science education. Suffice it to say, I’m not surprised.
The reason that I bring the above up is that we seem to have forgotten, a peculiarly Singapore habit I might add, that the NUS, including the organizers of the forum NUS PS Department and Office of Alumni Relation, is a public institution funded by all Singapore taxpayers. As such the interests of ALL Singaporeans must be served, if not at any one event organized under the auspices of the NUS, then over the course of its existence as an institution. Those interests – if we are talking about political interests – can only be served by including the entire spectrum that exists in Singapore. The Opposition is not one party but several; all of them should be represented at one time or another for the chief reason that they represent the political interests not only of the student body but the Singapore electorate at large. The tuition fees that Singaporeans have contracted to subsidize the students with is an insurance that those same students will use their education to serve the ENTIRE Singapore public upon their graduation without favour.
Both the sponsors and the organizers, NUSPSS have been negligent on each and every count.
Just what were the organizers thinking when they initially created a platform only for PAP MPs – as if the PAP is hurting so badly from a severe lack of a platform for itself after having muscled out all others who are not in perfect allignment with their fascist ideology – and then included three academics but only as an afterthought?
If as treasurer of NUSPSS Julian Ho says, that this experience has put off the society from organizing any future forum, then I say that this is indeed music to my ears.
If “organizing” forums is an exercise in partisanship towards the PAP only at all times, then we might just be better off with no political forums at all; I’m sure the traditional media will pick up on any slack.
No PAP. No members of The Opposition. That sounds far more like the level playing field that we – taxpayers whose interests have been in a state of permanent neglect – have been clamouring for.
That’s equality.
This thread is now closed for comments.