Xue Jianyue / Pictures by Damien Chng
Despite some technical mishaps, which resulted in a failure to webcast the forum to other sections at the venue, The Online Citizen (TOC) and Talk Politics held a successful Year in Review 2009 forum which looked back on the year’s political, social and economic issues in Singapore. Over 120 people turned up, many of them tertiary students and young working adults.
For three hours at the Post Museum, five guest speakers gave their frank and passionate takes on the Singapore media, history, economics and politics. Mr Ravi Philemon, representing TOC, got the evening going with a recall of what TOC had done in the past year. The floor was then given to the five guest speakers – Mr Loh Kah Seng, historian with ISEAS (Institute of Southeast Asian Studies), Mr Tan Tarn How, playwright and research fellow at IPS (Institute of Policy Studies), Nominated Member of Parliament, Ms Audrey Wong, Ms Braema Mathi, co-ordinator of human rights group MARUAH, and Mr Leong Sze Hian, president of the Society of Financial Services Professionals.
For Mr Loh, 2009 saw a return to history, with a new book – Men In White – documenting the history of the leftists in Singapore, which was published last September. Shortly after publication, the book faced many criticisms from different segments of society, from the government to ordinary citizens, including many younger Singaporeans born after independence. One of the authors, Mr Sonny Yap, lamented that the allegations made in cyberspace were factually inaccurate.
However, Mr Loh felt that the acute reaction showed Singaporeans youth were not apathetic . “Whether the allegations are true or not, what is important is that they are allegations,” he added.
The mainstream media and the alternative media failed to address key questions during the Aware saga earlier this year, said Mr Tan. Important topics such as the rules of civil society, the meaning of the word ‘democratic’ to the Aware exco, and contents of Aware’s sexuality programme lacked discussion.
“Instead of focusing on what the mainstream media did, people should ask what they did not do,” said the IPS researcher. Mr Tan had written the research paper, Assessing Media Coverage: The AWARE Controversy as a Case Study, on the Straits Times’ coverage of the Aware Saga.
While the mainstream media, in particular the Straits Times, fulfilled the basic functions of a media when left on its own, the nature of coverage changes when issues such as religion, secularism and elections are raised, he said. For example, when the topic of religion and secularism was raised during the Aware saga, the government began to express concern to the editors, and the editors had to use their professional judgment to decide what lines could not be crossed.
To Mr Tan, what happened during the Aware EGM is an instance of an unformed public sphere in Singapore. Even though one of the main players in the public sphere is the mass media, it finds it hard to do its job. “If the mainstream media is unable to do [its] job, is the new, alternate media able to do [the] job?” he asked. “I think that question remains unanswered. It depends on many factors other than the media itself, such as larger societal issues.”
Ms Audrey Wong addressed concerns that the arts is becoming too politicised, especially by young artists who are reluctant to join certain organisations because they perceive them as political. In addition, local artworks always seem to be having “some kind of dialogue with the state”, dealing with a unidirectional relationship between the state and the people. Furthermore, local artists have to contend with censorship and to get funding from the National Arts Council.
However, she observed that things changed during the Aware Saga. “When we were watching the Aware saga, it became quite clear to us that in Singapore, even though we have an unformed public sphere, it is no longer just a one directional thing,” she said. “There are a lot of natural conversations happening now. People are mobilising and contending with each other.”
Ms Wong also wondered if the organisational abilities of artists helped to cause the perception that artists are more politically savvy. For example, when artists organise support for their projects, they would communicate through online networks.
However, when it came to nominating an NMP for the arts, many Singaporeans were reluctant to step forward. Although they can go online, set up blogs and express their views, they are still reluctant to go further than that.“If you believe strongly enough in something, than you have to take action,” she said
Former president of Aware, Ms Braema Mathi, focused her speech on the activities of Singapore’s human rights group, MARUAH, and on the Aware saga.
She felt that many had missed the ‘lock-down approach’ adopted by those who planned the takeover. Nonetheless, she felt that the Aware saga had sensitised Singaporeans to the challenge of maintaining secular space in Singapore, and highlighted the need for deeper discussions on the role of religion in politics. . She also noted how TOC has grown, becoming the very public sphere which was perceived to be lacking here.
The last speaker, Mr Leong Sze Hian, gave a hard-hitting, yet humourous speech on the economic policies in Singapore, and the need for more transparency concerning these. He dealt at length on the CPF Life Scheme which was introduced in 2009.
“Why is transparency so important?” he asked. “Look at the statistics on how much Singaporeans have when they retire… We are the only country in the world that excludes the lowest 25% of the population because they don’t have enough when they retire at 55. What’s the purpose of a national pension scheme when you exclude those that don’t have money?”
In the break-out sessions which followed, the five speakers were joined by Mr Justin Ong, president of the youth wing of the Reform Party, and Mr Jarrod Luo, honorary secretary of the youth wing of the Singapore Democratic Party. The sessions saw lively exchanges on the perceived absence of the opposition parties during non-election periods and on the Aware saga, among others.
——
Ms Braema Mathi’s speech and half of Mr Leong Sze Hian’s speech can be found here.
Mr Loh Kah Seng’s speech can be found here.
Photos of the forum can be found here.
——
“Judging by the turnout, Singaporean youth are NOT apathetic. ”
Again , this is onesided.
Basing on a small number of 120, it is claimed that singaporeans are not Apathetic?
How about i rephrase the ‘news’ as ”
“Judging by the turnout, 99% of Singaporean youth are Apathetic. Thats pathetic! ”
Feel free to disagree with me.
#1
You’re quick. I’d say Singaporean youth are unexpectedly non-apathetic. How about that?
oh, lest i be misunderstood, I am happy that despite 120 turned up, though not as many as i hoped. Its always good to have these events to discuss issues of Public Interest.
We need to know.
We need to know also the Need to Know what we want to know.
Lets liberate the minds of citizens before its too late.
Shihan,
You are spot on! I like your work covering news for TOC and writing meaningful articles for us readers. Will help spread your articles around where possible.
Keep it up!
I had time to go to the event that day. I knew about it beforehand thru TOC.
But i choose not to turn up not because of TOC but i was worried that i would say the wrong things in front of the people from IPS. So, i ‘siam’ such events. I turn up at Hong Lim park as many times as i could.
I wish I could be there….
Hmm..
Let’s try not be like our MSM.
Surprising turnout ? Yes
Encouraging signs ? Yes
Dispelling the myth of apathy among Singaporean youth about key issues concerning their country ? Not yet. (Can’t assume answer to be a no, just in case there were actually a million who wanted to turn out but had various reasons.)
We need more meetings like this. Good job TOC. It’s a tough long road ahead, but can we get more to travel this path?
It’s nice to be amongst people who agree with you. It’s nice to pat your own back once in a while.
Most importantly, in my opinion, is – For those who are unable to vote, are you able to sway votes? Are we able to create a real momentum that we can start feeling it in the ‘streets’, where we will be able to look and nod at each other knowingly?
Good forum and good turnout, keep it up!
5) Goranisovich on January 2nd, 2010 11.35 pm
IPS is under the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at NUS. Why are you afraid of an academic?
#9 Oxford Dude,
I agree with you, there is nothing to be Afraid of IPS. Absolutely nothing. Zilch.
Wiki on IPS reveals :
“Institute of Policy Studies
The Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) is a think-tank dedicated to fostering good governance in Singapore through strategic policy research. It focuses on Singapore’s domestic developments and external relations taking a multidisciplinary approach with an emphasis on long-term strategic thinking. Established in 1988, IPS merged with the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in 2007.
”
and
“The Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy is a school of the National University of Singapore (NUS). ”
and the dean accordingly is Kishore Mahbubani.
Now, with such a background, like Lee Kuan Yew’s name related to it and LKY being the founder of PAP and MM , what is there to be Afraid given the Credibility and track record of this guy?
This is not the 1st time IPS people like Tan Tarn How have worked/engaged with TOC. And this time , an NMP joined in. A MP Nominated by the most credible person in singapore.
Okie, to be fair, I not sure who founded PAP. But LKY was the leader in its 1st election. According to another wiki :
“The party was formed in 1954 by English-educated middle-class professional men who had returned from their university education in the United Kingdom. The PAP first contested the 1955 elections, in which 25 of 32 seats in the legislature were up for election. The party won 3 seats, one by its leader Lee Kuan Yew, the election going to the Workers Party’s David Saul Marshall.”
I recall that TKL was among the 1st if not the 1st on TOC to suggest that youths are not apathetic.
Lets assume there are 500,000 youths in singapore.
120 / 500,000 = youths are apathetic.
either that or the youths could not be reached/Engaged.
But i’ll admit, with efforts by TR and TOC all the other credible blogs, more youths have woken up. But ‘more’ or ‘many’ is just a relative term. It does not quantify the real extent.
So, allow me to ask :
Why does it seem to me that TOC is promoting the idea that youths are not apathetic? What is the motivation behind? what is the objective you like to achieve? Is it WISE to go around assuming with 120 , the youths are not apathetic? It would be fair to say they aregetting less apathetic but this meaning is different.
I do hope my post be allowed to live for asking a question that begs to be asked.
120 is a start. Congratulations. TOC is gaining strength. I hope your readership will improve so that more people will know the truth about singapore politics and its government.
#2
shihan mei mei,
Singaporean youth are definitely not apathetic, they are well learned and they listen.
They ought to participate in shaping Our HOME, the very HOME we live and for our children.
Whether the majority of youths in Singapore are apathetic or not .. what’s indicative is that there was a good 120 odd at the TPANL that were interested in local affairs.
I for one know that I’ll be bringing more friends the next time round something is organised
Its a good feeling to see that despite its so-not-singaporean to be involved in politial discussions, it is reassuring to see quite a handful of youths dare to turn up.
We need people like this. People with guts and confidence in themselves.
In times , like in future, when there is some wrong done there would be someone standing in Hong Lim Park to voice up for the rest who are meek.
It would have been great if the brotherhood sent one of their diplomats there. I have always been fascinated by whether they speak as well as they can write. Just my 2 cents. Perhaps the Liaison officer can look into this matter in future events such as this
purchaseknock off coach bagswith coupon