Stop griping about the national conversation
Scepticism is a better word
It is disheartening to read the reaction on blogs and social media to the national conversation so far. Many online observers are already dismissing this as a meaningless exercise, while others are more keen to nitpick and criticise what the PAP has done in its attempt to engage Singaporeans.
Call me naive but I believe the PAP is genuinely interested in seeking our views as the country reaches a turning point with some hard decisions to make. I can’t see much incentive on them putting on a show just to placate the people; with elections some four years away, there is little political mileage to be gained. It would be much easier for them to continue to legislate as they deem fit and as they have done for so many years. The PM is putting himself on live TV facing potentially tricky questions when he doesn’t really need to. For that you have to give him some credit.
This government has been on autopilot mode with a single-minded objective of wealth creation for the past two decades, but now the noise of discontent has reached a point where it can’t be ignored any more. It is clear there are trade-offs to consider going forward. Should we stop chasing economic growth and look toward economic equality? Is it time to raise taxes to fund welfare spending? Are we prepared for rising costs if we halt the influx of foreign workers?
Singaporeans gripe that nothing will change because the PAP never listens (the irony is now we refuse to talk). For this, we need to draw a distinction between 2 types of change. The first relates to bread and butter issues in our everyday lives such as housing, education, jobs, foreigners, raising kids, cost of living, et cetera. These are more immediate concerns that the majority of the population are keen to address.
For these, the onus is on every one of us to contribute toward the conversation. Now, contributing doesn’t mean you have to go on dialogue sessions or live TV Q&A. You could write to population.sg, to the mainstream media, to the ministers directly on Facebook, or even blog about issues to put them up for discussion. Inaccessibility is no longer an excuse.
Every one of us faces these bread and butter issues, so nobody can claim to have nothing to say. Opinion and suggestions, whether good, impractical or seemingly trivial, contribute to the discussion and help inch us toward a resolution or compromise that hopefully benefits either society as a whole or specific segments that require help.
There are already positive signs that the PAP is listening. Education is now being addressed head-on, for example, with the scrapping of secondary school banding. The national conversation itself came about as a result of increasing calls on the government to rethink its obsession with economic growth that has led to social issues in overpopulation and income disparity.
You could choose to be cynical and lambast the establishment for anything and everything. It may make your blog more popular but that is not going to help our low wage earners or lower the cost of housing and COE. The poor and less fortunate tend to be the ones with the smallest voice, so it is up to those better able to articulate and reason to speak up for them. Even if it doesn’t result in anything, you have tried at least.
The other type of change relates toward ideological reforms such as greater democracy, human rights, freedom of expression, gay acceptance, et cetera. Here, it is easy to mistake Singapore as a first world country such as the US and the European countries. In civil mindset, we are but a rich developing country not unlike the wealthy Middle Eastern nations where women are not allowed to vote. Thus we get frustrated and impatient when we compare our civil laws with those of western first world countries with hundreds of years of civilisation and establishment of society.
Democracy and civil rights were not just parachuted into these countries. Ideological reforms are notoriously long struggles and any form of change is typically gradual. As unthinkable as it is now, slavery was only outlawed in America 60 years after import of slaves were first banned. The apartheid struggle lasted half a century. To this day, the UK and many other countries are still grappling with whether to allow gays the right to marry.
So any sudden and major ideological change of direction from our government is always going to be unlikely. As politicians, there is more to lose than gain from rocking the boat as not all of society might be ready. What occurs to you as a basic right may not appear so to your fellow countryman. That is why it takes time for societies to evolve and mindsets to change. For the activists and campaigners out there, the best thing to do is to carry on raising awareness and nudging our leaders towards that direction. It is difficult without doubt. Some will leave for more liberal lands while others stay for the struggle.
Look at Aung San Suu Kyi. She gave up her family and a stable life in Oxford, England to fight for her country. Those people close to her would probably have said the same things many of us have said, that it was hopeless trying to engage the junta and push for change. But for more than twenty years she persisted. After such a long struggle, there are finally signs of reform in Burma. So when we say the PAP never listens, how long have we been trying to engage them?
Of course, most of us will never be like Aung San Suu Kyi. But it goes back to the part about contributing however little you can. There will always be those who are apathetic, but if you had bothered to write critiques of the government, you are probably one who cares. Your time will be better spent if you speak up for what you care about instead.
The late Steve Jobs once famously said to John Sculley when courting him to join Apple: “Do you want to sell sugared water for the rest of your life, or do you want to come with me and change the world?”
Now ask yourself, do you want to gripe about the government for the rest of your life, or do you want to help change your country for the better?
[…] The Void Decker: Stop griping about the national conversation – Musings From Singapore: The problem with the national conversation: information asymmetries […]
Why cite Aung San Suu Kyi? Our own Chia Thye Poh was detained for over 30 years. Try starting a conversation on the abuse of the ISA and see what happens.
/// The PM is putting himself on live TV facing potentially tricky questions when he doesn’t really need to. For that you have to give him some credit. ///
No worries here. There won’t be any tough questions as the so-called “public audience” is packed with PAP grassroot activists and friendly parties.
/// Should we stop chasing economic growth and look toward economic equality? Is it time to raise taxes to fund welfare spending? Are we prepared for rising costs if we halt the influx of foreign workers? ///
You are sounding exactly like the PAP who thinks in binary modes – either yes or no, black or white, everything or nothing. There are a wide spectrum of options in between.
Who says we should stop chasing economic growth? We are saying economic growth is important, but not the be all and end all. Are economic growth and equality mutually exclusive? How about sustainable growth, but not growth at all costs? How about spreading the fruits of growth more evenly instead of winners take all?
Our welfare spending is miniscule compared with developed and and evening developing countries. Much more can be done for welfare before we need to raise taxes. For a start, stop squandering billions in investments gone sour. Stop buying $600 chairs and $2,200 bicycles. Stop paying politicians with the highest pay in the world.
Who says anything about halting the influx of foreign workers. Bring in foreigners in moderate amount, like we did for the first 30 years since independence. Not an influx (your own word) or tsunami (my own word) where we bring them in by the millions in the last 10/20 years.
What do u mean by it is ironic that people refuse to talk?
People have been talking about national issues for the longest time since internet empowered them to do so. All the PAP has been interested to do all these years is to find ways to control the talks or to dismiss them as rubbish. If the PAP really want to find out what pple are talking, they just have to dig up >15 years of postings on the internet to find out what they have missed out. Why the need to restart the talking when it is already ongoing?
I clearly understand your arguments. Good points raised and you are bold to voice out notwithstanding the backlash you might get from PAP critics. The 2 comments by “Mark” and “The” are irrelevant to the points you have raised.
I am currently staying in the US due to my job commitments and I have witnessed the abundance of freedom has caused much social ill over here.
Whether the writer is from PAP or is leaning towards it does not matter. Look at what he or she wrote. Surely what he/she has said is logical. At least we have tried if we speak up for the poor, the disenfranchised, and if the rulers failed and is still in denial mode, surely by 2016 (latest) we can show how we felt and vote them out. By then if the Conversation showed no improvement of any kind, the Opposition can use that as an election platform to throw them out.
Let’s give the benefit of the doubt and works toward a better Singapore. The ones in power has the trump card, we can but only try to play by the rules. Even small crumbs can be food for some.
Well said.
There is nothing logical about what the blogger is saying or what the PAP is doing in this National Conversation thingy. The assumption behind this silly exercise is that nobody has been talking about national issues and so they need to organise this campaign to get people to start talking about national issues.
Nothing is further from the truth – people have been talking about national issues on various platforms before the internet, and brave people have been talking on the internet the last 20 years or so despite all the nasty labels thrown at them by the PAP and MSM, and people are still talking all the time on various platforms even before HengSweeKeat has started his PAP-approved talk sessions. If you care to think about it logically, the National Conversation does not significantly add anything new.
People posting on TOC, blogging, talking in public forums, election rallies, writing articles and books etc, are not considered talk but must talk to HengSweeKeat then considered talk? Got logic meh?
I cannot fault the blogger’s logic – but that doesn’t mean that it’s true.
Honestly if you touch your heart – why does it have to come to this sort of state-managed ‘conversation’ whereby they people who talk are selected carefully, the press moves on an agenda led only from the viewpoint of a single party and even the topics of contention steer clear of many fundamental issues that many have been talking about all this time? eg. the loaded electoral system, ISA etc. It’s pathetic!
There is no need for all this if party control over all arms of the state esp the press were less overbearing. Surely, the voices of Singaporeans would then flow forth freely and the govt would be getting valuable feedback from ALL strata of society.
Thanks for all your comments.
Yes we are all frustrated with the government, and I don’t know if anything good will come out of this conversation.
But if we continue to feel indignant and believe that nothing will every change, then nothing probably will. We have to make do with what we can.
oh puhlese! how many times are we supposed to believe them before we stop?
we’ve done so several times. we last believed them in may 2011. so far, a few inconsequential tweaks. nothing fundamental has changed. in fact, there are even more foreigners coming in.
and from the way they’ve narrowed the conversation — suddenly, we’re only looking at stones and putting them back, after being promised the slaying of sacred cows — there is no reason to believe them At All. esp when we’re hoarse from talking and talking and talking and not being listened to.
they can read cant they? so they can go read blogs and comments and letters etc, as suggested, and find out the problems. no need to manage expectations no need to explain themselves all over again.
Change will surely come when they lose one more GRC the next time round.
Why only one GRC?
I think East Coast, Bukit Timah/Holland, even Marine Parade is ripe for the picking. Then there are the single wards like Joo Chiat, etc.
It is up to the people how many wards they want the Papies to lose
No…the point is not to ‘make do ‘ if it’s unsatisfactory. Govt should fear the people not the other way round. Let us not play victim – and what logicpolice has suggested will be the best way to avoid this!