I read a news report about a debate on whether or not the PAP has caused Singaporeans to be apathetic. The report was about a Young PAP dialogue session where a Mr Alex Tan had blamed the PAP for the apathy of Singapore’s youth today. Parliamentary Secretary Sam Tan disagreed with Mr Tan’s view saying that “it has nothing to do with the system” but more with individual choices. Several other MPs who were there at the talk went on to give examples of robust debate in Parliament amongst PAP MPs and so on.
I wholeheartedly disagree with PS Sam Tan on this matter. Did the PAP have any role to play in the apathy of Singapore youth? Of course it did! How could it not have, when it has been the ruling party for decades? Politics afterall is the engineering of a society. A party with a majority in power in government would have undoubtedly “engineered” society to a large extent, therefore resulting in the “product” that it has in the form of its society. This is of course not something unique to the PAP but what political parties do in general.
Of course I am not going on absolutes and extremes. Of course in every society there are exceptions and political factors are not the be all and end all in society. The PAP did not do everything (even if some of us think they do). Cultural factors, family practices, upbringing and individual characteristics would definitely play a part in shaping a person’s mindset and views on the world. They would of course have an impact on the choices we make. But one cannot deny the role that politics play in shaping a society. Being a country that was largely built on Confucianist values and rule-by-law approach, we have all been shaped by the values that the PAP had set out for us from the time of independence.
Having been a student and teacher before in Singapore, and currently being a graduate student in America, I can see the vast differences there are between the typical classroom scenario in Singapore and that in the USA. In my undergrad days in Singapore, I was not outspoken myself even though I had views. Then again, I don’t recall there being very fierce and robust debates amongst my other classmates either. For me, I must admit that I was a late bloomer in this aspect and had gradually become more comfortable in raising my opinions through the years. Regardless of what some of you may think about the media in Singapore, my career in journalism did help me greatly in this aspect.
As a teacher in Singapore, I found it hard to get robust debates going in class. It has happened and when it did boy, they were good ones but by and large, and I think this is representative of the general situation in classrooms in Singapore, students are happy to sit back and not express their views very much. It was something that my colleagues and I tried to change through different teaching methods and such. There were results, but with a different engineering of society, perhaps the results could be different.
Now, as a student in the US, I can see how different it is. At every lecture, regardless of what time of the day it is, hands shoot up to ask questions or to offer comments. My experience may not be representative of all American schools for I am afterall in graduate school…but still…it is different from what I would expect in a university in Singapore. The Americans are largely encouraged to speak up and sometimes this appears to be a “speak before you think” model which may not always result in the smartest of comments – but still with many more questions and comments coming, the potential for good debates are higher than in a class where only one or two hands are up.
In Singapore the general reasons people give for not wanting to speak up is the fear of being chided (or being sued, or thrown into jail etc) or the lack of knowledge about the world/the region/politics. Of course, one can also be sued for saying libelous things elsewhere including the US but the climate of fear among some quarters in Singapore are blanket ones for anything that is in disagreement with the government, even when comments are non-libelous. This perhaps has to do with the public reports on lawsuits between government leaders and several political activists over the years. With regard to the second point on not knowing much – I find that many American students in my class have had overseas experience through gap-year programs or through serving in the Peace Corps. They may not be representative of Americans in general but still, such programs which have brought them to countries in the Middle East, Asia, Latin America and Africa have opened up their minds in a way that staying in the confines of one’s own country cannot do.
Then again, thankfully, things are changing in Singapore. Perhaps not at the speed some of us want but the government realizes that the strategies used in ruling society two generations ago have to make way to accommodate a more educated, outspoken and opinionated citizenry. The Internet has given the process of opening up discussions in Singapore a great shove. It is interesting seeing how “lively” online debates are and there are some good quality debates on some sites. But it is also unfortunate that online debates by and large have not reached a desirable level of maturity as there is often a lot of name-calling, mud-slinging, and comments made not on fact or substance but purely based on frustrations. This can be disconcerting at times but it is in a sense to be expected as we are after all new to openly expressing ourselves (what more, for some, under the cloak of anonymity). It is a “nouveau” experience and with time perhaps we can develop higher quality debates online as people feel more comfortable with expressing their views and can do so with greater engagement and responsibility.
Barring comments that are rude, racist, vulgar, malicious or defamatory, I think we all need to start developing a greater level of tolerance for criticisms. This of course, includes the higher-ups in the government. There is no need to instruct bloggers to pull down an article just because it was critical about what some higher up said – doing so will only invite more criticisms and will fuel more frustration amongst Singaporeans. Some of these comments are quite valid and part of being a more inclusive society includes accepting that others may have views that are valid (or maybe even better), even if they are expressed rather cheekily.
Then again, this does not mean an “all systems go” approach in terms of freedom of speech and action. Lest one is deluded into thinking that freedom in all senses of the word is the panacea for all of our problems, look around us and you will see that that in itself is not the answer to a better society. There have to be controls – heck, where I am now in Massachusetts, the laws on alcohol are so much stricter than the ones in Singapore so even the US is not as “free” as we imagine it to be.
But allowing greater space for engagement, and developing a higher level of tolerance for criticisms and feedback will help Singapore “engineer” a better society, and hopefully, a less apathetic one at that.
P.S: I didn’t intend to write a post as I am in the midst of exams….but procrastination is indeed very tempting. Hence, I succumbed this time. I may be slow in responding to comments, though, but then again this is not a two-way dialogue, so perhaps there can be a good, engaging and responsible debate here amongst readers and bloggers alike.
*Off to my books!* 
Khartini is the C, M and I in CMIO. She is 1/4 Chinese, 1/2 Malay and 1/4 Indian. She is bad at Math but managed to figure these portions out with a family genealogy and calculator. Some people call her multiracial, but she prefers to be known as rojak.
She was a print journalist and an educator, and has dabbled in broadcast journalism, mountain climbing and wakeboarding (albeit in a sitting position). She has also been a clown for a day, no kidding.
She is in her 30’s and volunteers actively, including at weekly Meet-the-People Sessions.
She speaks and writes fluent English and Malay, knows pasar Mandarin and can speak some French to save her life. She recently completed her Masters in International Relations degree in the United States under a Fulbright Scholarship & a Tan Kah Kee Postgraduate Scholarship.
She loves books, and books love her.