The Singapore we know and love
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Singapore we know and love
This is not aviation related, but I can't help myself. Many readers of Pprune would be at times mystified by certain correspondents negative attitudes toward Singapore. Isn't it a free democratic country? A bastion of ideals. Hmmmmmm , well I offer the following editorial from the Straits Times as a pointer, without further comment.
Once again, sorry for the non-aviation relatedness of this, but I couldn't resist.
The Straits times
THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2000
A Corner to shine in.
NOBODY can contend that the idea of having a Speakers' Corner here, as a forum for public discourse without undue hindrance, is not a good one. If the essence of civil society is the state engaging its citizens as participants, not treating them as subject peoples, this can push out the bounds a bit more. It can only be good. On the Government's corner, it can mean it is raring to defend its record, as it always is, against any takers even the odd one who may be sharper than the best of the parliamentary probables the ruling party's talent scouts can uncover. It need not even be all serious and grim. The Speakers' Corner may turn out to be a release, for people to express themselves on nothing that might give public-order monitors heartburn. Why, then, is there such negativity in the limited feedback the subject has drawn?
In a word, it is control, or the suggestion of control. Because a permit is required, there is a tendency, rightly or wrongly, to question the Government's seriousness of intent. Even the Home Minister's assurance that permits can be granted "liberally" does not seem to have made an impression. As long as validation is necessary, it is thought the authorities can filter out those likely to be troublesome. Only those adjudged "kosher" would get the nod to speak. The Speakers' Corner would then be a parody of its stated objective. Is all that justified? One needs to be sensible: Neither prejudge the Government, nor underestimate the public's apprehension. Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong would not have lent his support to the idea if he did not think it would help in Singapore's political development. He would not be made party to a farce. He had early reservations, but has relented. But a public assembly is a public assembly, in whatever plumage, so a form of official permission-the better to engender responsibility and accountability-is not onerous. The most vocal of critics would not recommend a free-for-all, either. That said, there is enough in what feedback points out about contrived spontaneity for the authorities to come up with a way of evaluating applications that would satisfying the need for public calm, yet allow intending speakers maximum latitude.
Will the Speakers' Corner take off? Assume the permit issue is disposed of to everybody's satisfaction. The onus will shift to those Singaporeans who have felt expression here to be unfree, or circumscribed, to show themselves and have their say. They cannot blame anyone but themselves if they stay hidden or vent their spleen in private. This development imposes a parallel duty on the Government. It has been robust in its execution of policy, and spirited in exposing opinions and positions it thinks can do harm to the country if they gained currency. The Speakers' Corner would die a quick death if the first concerned citizen who presents a credible contrary view on a matter of public interest is systematically taken apart by government ministers. Sheltered Singaporeans are not renowned for their thick skins.
Governing is earnest business. But there are times when better results can be achieved if the government of the day took itself a little less seriously on a given issue, and the public did not imagine the authorities to be waiting to pounce on them. We think a Speakers' Corner is worth a stab at, although the feeling is strong that publicity-shy Singaporeans are liable to favour the comforting cocoon of the Internet and newspapers'letters pages to unload themselves.
Once again, sorry for the non-aviation relatedness of this, but I couldn't resist.
The Straits times
THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2000
A Corner to shine in.
NOBODY can contend that the idea of having a Speakers' Corner here, as a forum for public discourse without undue hindrance, is not a good one. If the essence of civil society is the state engaging its citizens as participants, not treating them as subject peoples, this can push out the bounds a bit more. It can only be good. On the Government's corner, it can mean it is raring to defend its record, as it always is, against any takers even the odd one who may be sharper than the best of the parliamentary probables the ruling party's talent scouts can uncover. It need not even be all serious and grim. The Speakers' Corner may turn out to be a release, for people to express themselves on nothing that might give public-order monitors heartburn. Why, then, is there such negativity in the limited feedback the subject has drawn?
In a word, it is control, or the suggestion of control. Because a permit is required, there is a tendency, rightly or wrongly, to question the Government's seriousness of intent. Even the Home Minister's assurance that permits can be granted "liberally" does not seem to have made an impression. As long as validation is necessary, it is thought the authorities can filter out those likely to be troublesome. Only those adjudged "kosher" would get the nod to speak. The Speakers' Corner would then be a parody of its stated objective. Is all that justified? One needs to be sensible: Neither prejudge the Government, nor underestimate the public's apprehension. Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong would not have lent his support to the idea if he did not think it would help in Singapore's political development. He would not be made party to a farce. He had early reservations, but has relented. But a public assembly is a public assembly, in whatever plumage, so a form of official permission-the better to engender responsibility and accountability-is not onerous. The most vocal of critics would not recommend a free-for-all, either. That said, there is enough in what feedback points out about contrived spontaneity for the authorities to come up with a way of evaluating applications that would satisfying the need for public calm, yet allow intending speakers maximum latitude.
Will the Speakers' Corner take off? Assume the permit issue is disposed of to everybody's satisfaction. The onus will shift to those Singaporeans who have felt expression here to be unfree, or circumscribed, to show themselves and have their say. They cannot blame anyone but themselves if they stay hidden or vent their spleen in private. This development imposes a parallel duty on the Government. It has been robust in its execution of policy, and spirited in exposing opinions and positions it thinks can do harm to the country if they gained currency. The Speakers' Corner would die a quick death if the first concerned citizen who presents a credible contrary view on a matter of public interest is systematically taken apart by government ministers. Sheltered Singaporeans are not renowned for their thick skins.
Governing is earnest business. But there are times when better results can be achieved if the government of the day took itself a little less seriously on a given issue, and the public did not imagine the authorities to be waiting to pounce on them. We think a Speakers' Corner is worth a stab at, although the feeling is strong that publicity-shy Singaporeans are liable to favour the comforting cocoon of the Internet and newspapers'letters pages to unload themselves.
