Fear : real or perceived ?
-
Disclaimer : I was not at the forum. I did not write this article also.
'Climate of fear' a hot feedback topic
This perception and the political apathy among S'poreans are raised at forum
By Rebecca Lee
A FRESH graduate, he was unafraid to ask the first question at a public dialogue.
But the request he made before he posed the question gave a foretaste of the subject that was to dominate the dialogue last night between Singapore's youths and a Cabinet minister.
He asked the media not to publish his comments.
He did not give a reason for his fear, but it symbolises the climate of fear in Singapore that impedes public debate, said many among the 150 attending the two-hour forum organised by the Feedback Unit. The topic was whether today's Singaporeans are truly apathetic.
Whether real or perceived, the participants agreed that the climate of fear is a root cause for the political apathy in Singapore.
Singapore does not have a culture that encourages political debate and differing views, said the graduate from the National University of Singapore.
'The signal one gets is that if you have a different view, you will get into trouble,' he said, pointing to the current defamation suit against opposition party leader Chee Soon Juan by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.
It prompted Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, Mr Lim Swee Say, to explain at length on the need for a politician especially to defend his personal integrity, as he needs to gain the trust of the people in order to mobilise them.
Mr Lim was quick to add, to the group of youths aged between 17 and 30, that he does not expect them to agree with him fully.
The assurance notwithstanding, Mr Viswa Sadasivan, who chaired the meeting at the Singapore Polytechnic, said that even if the fear was irrational, the perception is worrying and ought to be examined.
The need to create a more level playing field in politics so that opposition parties are not stymied was another issue which generated much debate.
One said the redrawing of electoral boundaries before a general election created a non-level playing field while another said the nine-day period of election campaigning was even shorter than that for the election of student councillors at her junior college.
Other issues the youths raised included the need for more critical thinking in schools, the need for the media to use the space it has more creatively, and for a distinction to be made between the People's Action Party as a political party and as the Government.
An executive in a multinational company questioned the Singapore system, in which scholarship holders seem to be put on the fast track to success, undermining the meritocracy that this society professes to value.
Mr Lim countered by recounting his personal experience. His swift rise at the Economic Development Board and later becoming a minister was not handed to him on a silver platter.
He said he got where he was in his career through hard work. 'For a simple reason. I can't even speak proper English,' he said, professing that he can't even pronounce the letter 'R' properly. -
I forgot to add .... I did not edit the article also.
-
Originally posted by The Barracuda:
I find this answer by LIM very interesting "on the need for a politician especially to defend his personal integrity, as he needs to gain the trust of the people in order to mobilise them." DO YOU GAIN THE TRUST OF THE PEOPLE by instilling FEAR in them?
Disclaimer : I was not at the forum. I did not write this article also.
[b]'Climate of fear' a hot feedback topic
This perception and the political apathy among S'poreans are raised at forum
By Rebecca Lee
A FRESH graduate, he was unafraid to ask the first question at a public dialogue.
But the request he made before he posed the question gave a foretaste of the subject that was to dominate the dialogue last night between Singapore's youths and a Cabinet minister.
He asked the media not to publish his comments.
He did not give a reason for his fear, but it symbolises the climate of fear in Singapore that impedes public debate, said many among the 150 attending the two-hour forum organised by the Feedback Unit. The topic was whether today's Singaporeans are truly apathetic.
Whether real or perceived, the participants agreed that the climate of fear is a root cause for the political apathy in Singapore.
Singapore does not have a culture that encourages political debate and differing views, said the graduate from the National University of Singapore.
'The signal one gets is that if you have a different view, you will get into trouble,' he said, pointing to the current defamation suit against opposition party leader Chee Soon Juan by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.
It prompted Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, Mr Lim Swee Say, to explain at length on the need for a politician especially to defend his personal integrity, as he needs to gain the trust of the people in order to mobilise them.
Mr Lim was quick to add, to the group of youths aged between 17 and 30, that he does not expect them to agree with him fully.
The assurance notwithstanding, Mr Viswa Sadasivan, who chaired the meeting at the Singapore Polytechnic, said that even if the fear was irrational, the perception is worrying and ought to be examined.
The need to create a more level playing field in politics so that opposition parties are not stymied was another issue which generated much debate.
One said the redrawing of electoral boundaries before a general election created a non-level playing field while another said the nine-day period of election campaigning was even shorter than that for the election of student councillors at her junior college.
Other issues the youths raised included the need for more critical thinking in schools, the need for the media to use the space it has more creatively, and for a distinction to be made between the People's Action Party as a political party and as the Government.
An executive in a multinational company questioned the Singapore system, in which scholarship holders seem to be put on the fast track to success, undermining the meritocracy that this society professes to value.
Mr Lim countered by recounting his personal experience. His swift rise at the Economic Development Board and later becoming a minister was not handed to him on a silver platter.
He said he got where he was in his career through hard work. 'For a simple reason. I can't even speak proper English,' he said, professing that he can't even pronounce the letter 'R' properly.
[/b]
On his other remark "'For a simple reason. I can't even speak proper English,' he said, professing that he can't even pronounce the letter 'R' properly ", obviously not everybody who speak proper English had a "swift rise" in EDB. Reading it the other way, he seems to say that "scholarship holders can have a swift rise to the top even if he can't speak proper English.
everybody in EDB work hard also you know, minster minister....be fair to them. -
It is up to the government to take the first step do something to remove such perception. Review its actions that give such "image problem" and make changes.
-
What do you expect when even NMP's gets the retort that some subjects are out-of-bound? If they truly are keen to listen, then such retort should never happen, especially to an NMP they approve.
And of course, all their other past actions seems to tell us they are not tolerant of alternative views. People learn from their past action and if this is how they have been responding, then people learn to just shut up. One simply cannot ask for opinion and at the same time tell people to shut up when opinions defers.
So, perceived or real? You judge. -
I think the fear of a rebuttal and fear of prosecution is different leh.Originally posted by Qitai:What do you expect when even NMP's gets the retort that some subjects are out-of-bound? If they truly are keen to listen, then such retort should never happen, especially to an NMP they approve.
And of course, all their other past actions seems to tell us they are not tolerant of alternative views. People learn from their past action and if this is how they have been responding, then people learn to just shut up. One simply cannot ask for opinion and at the same time tell people to shut up when opinions defers.
So, perceived or real? You judge.
I think must people feel scare that will be lock up or say something that may get them into serious trouble.
A rap on the knuckle is nothing. I got rap before also.
The term OB markers is an overused term. Its not the subject matter but the intention of the speaker that counts. People must be able to raise controversial and sensitive topics in a responsible and non-provocative way.
A lot have been said and written on these so-called OB markers. The material is available for those who care to look for them.
-
Well, from a practical perspective, it may be difficult to differentiate between the two. Take for example you getting a warning from an authority, be it a warning from a TP, a teacher, your parents, your boss etc. Now, after this warning, what is your thought? That you should be careful least the warning becomes a punishment. This, I afraid is what goes on in the mind of most people when they get a warning or a unfriendly rebuttal.Originally posted by The Barracuda:I think the fear of a rebuttal and fear of prosecution is different leh.
I think must people feel scare that will be lock up or say something that may get them into serious trouble.
A rap on the knuckle is nothing. I got rap before also.
The term OB markers is an overused term. Its not the subject matter but the intention of the speaker that counts. People must be able to raise controversial and sensitive topics in a responsible and non-provocative way.
A lot have been said and written on these so-called OB markers. The material is available for those who care to look for them.