| Media |
|
|
| Saturday, December 09, 2006 |
| 发展圣淘沙条件最佳 云顶得标无政治因素 |
南洋商报
（新加坡９日讯）新加坡政府在评估圣淘沙综合度假胜地（IR）所有竞标者的发展方案时，并没将政治与外交关系因素考虑在内，完全根据发展方案征询书中所列出的条件为考量。
新加坡副总理贾古玛教授周五在记者会上回应媒体针对圣淘沙IR发展权最终由云顶国际集团所赢得，是否受政治原因所影响时说，评估委员会只根据较早前所列出的评分标准和比重进行评估，因此，云顶得标是因为它提出最具吸引力的发展献议。
贾古玛说：“我们并没有把和个别竞标集团所属国家的双边关系考虑在内。云顶之所以得标是因为它的整体献议是最具吸引力的。这是竞标决策委员会，也是评估委员会的决定。
“如今云顶成功得标，我们展望与它们合作，发展一个世界级的综合度假村。我相信这将进一步加强两国之间的经济合作关系。”
纳吉：马新须停止争吵
副首相拿督斯里纳吉上月底在马新商业论坛上说，马新须停止争吵，并加强双边合作关系。他当时以竞标圣淘沙IR的云顶国际集团为例，说明马新两国互相投资，将有利于促进双边经济合作关系，而大马也欢迎新加坡政府通过淡马锡控股集团，参与柔佛南经济特区的发展计划。
这番表态普遍被外界解读为纳吉以外交关系，发挥政治影响力，来为云顶集团拉票。不过，新加坡国务资政吴作栋较早已回应说，新加坡不会为了同马来西亚加强双边关系，而特地把圣淘沙综合度假胜地发展权颁给云顶集团。 |
posted by Nobody @ 8:36 PM  |
|
|
|
|
| Genting-Star Cruises consortium wins Sentosa integrated resort project |
Yahoo
SINGAPORE: The Genting International-Star Cruises consortium has aced the Sentosa integrated resort project.
The result, just announced by Deputy Prime Minister Professor S Jayakumar at a news conference, came as no surprise as analysts had picked Genting as a frontrunner right from the start.
Its S$5.2 billion Resorts World At Sentosa will leverage on international brand names like Universal Studios, which will design 16 new rides specially for the resort.
Besides the Universal Studios theme park, there will also be three other water-themed attractions, including a surf pool.
Visitors will be able to observe some 700,000 fish species in one of the world's largest oceanariums.
Genting's proposal also includes six hotels with over 1,800 rooms for both leisure and business travellers.
Earlier, market watchers had picked Genting as a favourite to win due to its Asian experience.
The resort is expected to attract 10 million visitors and generate S$15 billion in tourism receipts by 2015.
The Sentosa integrated resort is expected to be ready in 2010.
The judging panel, made up of seven ministers, explained their decision.
"Genting submitted the most compelling proposal overall that best meets our economic and tourism objectives. In particular, the proposal reflects our vision for the Sentosa IR as a large-scale, family resort with its host of world-class family leisure attractions and other strong offerings. The attractions will position Sentosa and draw a significant number of new and repeat visitors," said Prof Jayakumar.
The Deputy Prime Minister added that the Singapore government evaluated the high-quality proposals carefully, before deciding that Genting fulfilled the key criteria such as the family leisure component of 22 attractions for the upcoming Universal Studios Singapore.
This will make it comparable to the theme park in Orlando, Florida.
However, the decision also boiled down to hard-nosed calculations.
"The total project investment is S$5.2 billion, which includes the land cost of S$605 million. We made a projection and the economic contribution of Genting's contribution will be largely similar to the Marina Bay Sands proposal, which is about $2.7 billion in value-add contribution to our GDP or approximately 0.8 percent contribution to the GDP and generate about 30,000 jobs throughout the economy in the year 2015," said Trade and Industry Minister Lim Hng Kiang.
The panel said they believe the two integrated resorts at Marina and Sentosa will complement each other very well, and allow Singapore to stimulate the growth of its meetings and conventions segment as well as the leisure segment to bring Singapore closer to its Tourism 2015 targets.
During the question and answer session, the panel was also asked if there had been any political influence after Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak made a plug for greater co-operation between Singapore and Malaysian companies.
Prof Jayakumar refuted this - saying the decision was made based on the merit of the proposal and not on the issue of bilateral ties.
"Genting was selected because overall, it presented the best compelling proposal in light of the RFP requirements and this was the decision of the TAA and the tender evaluation committee and so bilateral relations was not a factor. Let me say that now that Genting is successful, we look forward to working with them to develop a world class IR and I'm sure this will bolster the strong economic ties between two countries," he said. |
| posted by Nobody @ 8:26 AM |
|
|
|
| Tuesday, November 28, 2006 |
| Wee Shu Min |
Source
Source
Derek Wee
Thursday, October 19, 2006
mom's friend sent her some blog post by some bleeding stupid 40-year old singaporean called derek wee (WHY do all the idiots have my surname why?!) whining about how singapore is such an insecure place, how old ppl (ie, 40 and above) fear for their jobs, how the pool of foreign "talent" (dismissively chucked between inverted commas) is really a tsunami that will consume us all (no actually he didn't say that, he probably said Fouren Talern Bery Bad.), how the reason why no one wants kids is that they're a liability in this world of fragile ricebowls, how the government really needs to save us from inevitable doom but they aren't because they are stick-shoved-up-ass elites who have no idea how the world works, yadayadayadayada.
i am inclined - too much, perhaps - to dismiss such people as crackpots. stupid crackpots. the sadder class. too often singaporeans - both the neighborhood poor and the red-taloned socialites - kid themselves into believing that our society, like most others, is compartmentalized by breeding. ridiculous. we are a tyranny of the capable and the clever, and the only other class is the complement.
sad derek attracted more than 50 comments praising him for his poignant views, joining him in a chorus of complaints that climax at the accusation of lack of press freedom because his all-too-true views had been rejected by the straits times forum. while i tend to gripe about how we only have one functioning newspaper too, i think the main reason for its lack of publication was that his incensed diatribe was written in pathetic little scraps that passed off as sentences, with poor spelling and no grammar.
derek, derek, derek darling, how can you expect to have an iron ricebowl or a solid future if you cannot spell?
if you're not good enough, life will kick you in the balls. that's just how things go. there's no point in lambasting the government for making our society one that is, i quote, "far too survival of fittest". it's the same everywhere. yes discrimination exists, and it is sad, but most of the time if people would prefer hiring other people over you, it's because they're better. it's so sad when people like old derek lament the kind of world that singapore will be if we make it so uncertain. go be friggin communist, if uncertainty of success offends you so much - you will certainly be poor and miserable. unless you are an arm-twisting commie bully, which, given your whiny middle-class undereducated penchant, i doubt.
then again, it's easy for me to say. my future isn't certain but i guess right now it's a lot brighter than most people's. derek will read this and brand me as an 18-year old elite, one of the sinners who will inherit the country and run his stock to the gutter. go ahead. the world is about winners and losers. it's only sad when people who could be winners are marginalised and oppressed. is dear derek starving? has dear derek been denied an education? has dear derek been forced into child prostitution? has dear derek had his clan massacred by the government?
i should think not. dear derek is one of many wretched, undermotivated, overassuming leeches in our country, and in this world. one of those who would prefer to be unemployed and wax lyrical about how his myriad talents are being abandoned for the foreigner's, instead of earning a decent, stable living as a sales assistant. it's not even about being a road sweeper. these !!^#bags don't want anything without "manager" and a name card.
please, get out of my elite uncaring face. |
| posted by Nobody @ 9:52 PM |
|
|
|
| Friday, April 28, 2006 |
| Who's that CHIC chick? |
From the NewPaper
She mixes a mean drink, but minces no words. Workers' Party's Glenda Han answers our questions - straight
By Sylvia Toh Paik Choo
April 17, 2006
POLITICS is a tough number.
Once you decide to stand, there is no way to run, ever, from legitimately probing questions, among which are: What is your mother's maiden name? Do you have a pet? Where do you cut your hair? And, of late, tell us something about yourself that no one else knows.
Miss Glenda Han is 30 and single, and pretty cool in the way some men would describe as 'hot'.
If one of the Dove shampoo ad girls ran for election, she'd be Glenda Han.
The deputy secretary of the youth wing of the Workers' Party is No 2 of four sisters. One sells cars, another is in the garment industry and the youngest is entering NUS.
Miss Han used to have a stake in Ig's Heaven, a shop stocked with quirky lifestyle objects.
She cashed in her quirky chips, took off to see the world (except South America), went to roost in Montmartre, the artists' colony in Paris, loved it and stayed two years.
'My arty-farty side,' she said, with a flick of her lustrous black hair. No, she was not a Dove shampoo girl...
'I like to paint. Still life, portraits mostly, in oils.'
When she is not flaring.
Flaring is what double-jointed bartenders do with liquor orders when they have an audience, you know, make a Cirque du Soleil juggle just to serve a Bloody Mary.
'Sure I can do flaring,' said Miss Han, a shareholder in Les Chameaux, a cocktail bar in Robertson Quay. But she does stop at bartop dancing.
Les Chameaux is 'camels' in French for her sojourn in France, and camels because she wanted 'something Middle Eastern'. She said: 'We have shisha.' (Scented smokes.)
Miss Han can mix 30 cocktails, and her favourite drink is the Cosmopolitan; but of course, it's Carrie Bradshaw's (Sex and the City) preferred tipple.
If you had to concoct a WP cocktail what would be the mix?
'Vodka base with citron for zest,' she said without a comma, exuding confidence.
Why am I not suprised that the slim urbanely dressed Miss Han shares an apartment with three single girls, but has no love life to speak of.
Pictures: Alvin Toh, Choo Chwee Hua
Her day job is in money brokerage, nights at the bar counter, and all the in-between time is given over to family and her pet cat.
'At first they were apprehensive, at the idea of my going into politics,' she said. 'But they did not dissuade me. Now they are supportive.'
CHILD OF THE REVOLUTION?
It was her years in the French capital that fired her political sensibilities. Home of the Revolution, the Rights of Man, the 1968 student riots heard around the world.
'In France, they debate over every single thing. The culture of politics is strong. Here, all people care about is the pursuit of wealth, bigger house, bigger car. They forget the small things.'
Like taking time out to chill rather than climb the corporate ladder? Like having the passion and the energy not to be apathetic?
'Many people don't dare (to take risks), because they think of what they have to lose. I follow my gut.'
And when her gut feels bloated - from one Cosmopolitan too many, she heads to the gym.
And the one thing no one knows...?
'Well, I bought a violin when I was in Europe. I should learn to play it.' |
| posted by Nobody @ 5:41 AM |
|
|
|
|
| Singapore opposition denies ruling party walkover election win |
AsiaOne
By GILLIAN WONG
Associated Press Writer
SINGAPORE (AP) -- Singapore's opposition parties on Thursday denied the ruling party a walkover victory in the May 6 elections by contesting more than half the seats in Parliament for the first time in nearly two decades.
The People's Action Party will be fighting an election to form the next government, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said on state television Thursday, the day candidate nominations were submitted.
"The opposition is contesting 47 seats, and we don't have a majority," Lee said.
In the past three general elections, the small, fragmented opposition gave the PAP a guaranteed majority before even a single vote was cast because they were unable to rustle up enough candidates. The last election in which the opposition contested more than half the seats in Parliament was in 1988.
Only 29 seats were contested in the 2001 election, which meant just a third of eligible voters were able to cast their ballots.
On Thursday, the country's main opposition parties - the Singapore Democratic Alliance, the Workers' Party and the Singapore Democratic Party - collectively fielded candidates to run for 47 seats in the 84-member Parliament.
Nominations closed midday Thursday.
"Opposition parties have galvanized this time around to give the incumbent a good fight," said Jeanne Conceicao, a researcher at the Institute of Policy Studies in Singapore. "They want to give Singaporeans a choice and have decided to field as many candidates as they can."
Prime Minister Lee, whose multimember constituency of Ang Mo Kio is being contested by a team from the Workers' Party, said: "We are eager to fight them, we're going to work hard and make sure we win convincingly."
Hundreds of party supporters stood outside nomination centers across the island, waving flags and banners as they cheered.
Even with greater opposition participation in the poll, the PAP - which has ruled Singapore uninterrupted since its separation from Malaysia in 1965 - is likely to win an overwhelming majority.
The PAP has won praise for transforming Singapore from a tiny, resource-scarce territory into an affluent economic hub, and says it delivers on its promises of giving Singapore's 4.2 million citizens financial and social stability.
"This is the system that has delivered for Singapore," Lee said.
Singapore's economy enjoyed relatively strong growth in the past two years, with efforts to diversify the economy away from electronics and manufacturing following a recession in 2001 having some success. The government says the economy will likely grow 4 percent to 6 percent this year, after expanding 6.4 percent in 2005.
The government also recently announced a national budget with handouts to the city-state's citizens worth 2.6 billion Singapore dollars (US$1.59 billion; €1.34 billion).
In a replay of events during previous elections, Lee and his father are suing the SDP for articles in the party's newspaper that they say accuse them of covering up corruption at a local charity.
Critics say the ruling party's use of defamation lawsuits against opposition leaders and influence over the local media make it difficult for opposition parties to present their views to the public. PAP leaders say they welcome debate and file lawsuits only to protect their reputations.
|
| posted by Nobody @ 4:57 AM |
|
|
|
| Monday, April 24, 2006 |
| Workers' Party's Low says PAP 'not First World government' |
Yahoo
SINGAPORE : Workers' Party Secretary-General Low Thia Khiang has accused the People's Action Party of not being a First World government, and challenged the ruling party to benchmark itself politically against other mature democracies.
He was responding to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's charge that opposition members are not of First World standard.
Said Mr Low, "Yes, we are not First World standard. We are not shy to say that, we are realistic. We are not trying to blow a trumpet, we accept what we are today but we are progressing the younger generation, offering choice to them. But I believe that MM Lee is a fair person. I believe he must know that PAP is not a First World government as well.
He added, "All of us are aware that the PAP is benchmarking a lot of things, benchmarking ministers' salaries to market, so you always talk of international benchmarking. Perhaps it is time that the PAP should benchmark itself politically against international mature democracy standards."
Attacking the PAP's promise of upgrading in estates like Hougang and Potong Pasir if the residents vote for the ruling party, Mr Low accused the PAP of resorting to short-term carrot-and stick politics.
Mr Low said, "If I don't vote for the PAP, I will have no upgrading or if I don't vote for the PAP, I might lose something, my children may not be able to go to kindergarten -- these are very short-sighted and short-term interests. The election is supposed to be about macro issues, the future of the nation. You are deciding the future of the nation." |
| posted by Nobody @ 10:08 PM |
|
|
|
| Sunday, April 23, 2006 |
| 引导年轻人参与有意义的沟通 |
联合早报
● By Jeremy Cai
蔡自勉
You are trying to find your place in the world. You've just graduated, found a job, and achieved some form of financial independence and even a little success in your career. You believe that to be hostile is to be strong and to be anti-establishment is a sign of superior intellect and moral strength.
This is true for a group of 4th generation Singaporeans who engaged Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in a dialogue that has drawn much attention. It was an unpleasant awakening to what such a deluded psyche could signal about the future state of our country and society.
What appeared on the television was an appalling display of the participants lynching the Minister Mentor with a horde of well-gathered political rhetoric.
They were not there to quench a thirst for insight on issues that were close to their hearts.
They were not there to seek the opinion of someone who was in a unique position to give them a refreshing perspective; one that may potentially open up a new window for them to look out of, and to look down from the tower they had locked themselves in.
Their intention at the dialogue was stark - to carpet-bomb their target with carefully accumulated munitions and to make a statement with their new-found prowess.
It was particularly appalling because their target was an indomitable man who is held with the highest regard by people abroad, and at home, a man who is no less than a father who is concerned about the holistic growth and development of his children.
It is disturbing that some of his children had decided to make a statement for themselves by attempting to abuse him on national television.
Worse yet, these few children clamoured over each other to get a go at him even as the indulgent father stood by, tolerating his disrespectful children's tantrums and even humouring them.
Undeniably, our society is an Asian society that, for all its westernisation and modernisation, is Asian in heart and mind.
The respect we accord to our seniors and our parents, the moral values we hold dear and our economic and social development are not mutually exclusive. Recent experiences with the new generation have shown how much we have deviated from the fundamental cornerstones of polite society.
Is it an indication of something that we have overlooked in the education of our future generations?
Not according due respect to the chief engineer and father of modern Singapore is not an indication that we have reached a new level of media or political freedom.
It merely illustrates, essentially, how far we are away from grasping the essence of a mature society capable of engaging with matters that will influence and shape the country for generations to come.
The Minister Mentor's indulging of the unruliness during the dialogue highlights a new era that we have entered–an era where there is a clear attempt to guide young Singaporeans towards civil, well-meaning engagement that is aimed at furthering the growth of the country.
It is ironic that even as the participants tried their utmost best to show the country the way to political freedom and expression, it was the person they were attacking who showed the path through his calm, collected air of a veteran statesman.
It is time we reflect on the paths we've travelled over the past few years and where it is leading us. The dialogue could be a big step forward if we recognise what we have missed and take positive actions towards rectifying it, or a big step backwards if we become disappointed and despondent, yet carry on with what we have been doing as if the advancement of economy will result in the advancement of society and its people.
May the dialogue not be an indication of where we are heading. The consequences are unimaginable and yet so tangible - a prosperous country with all its sparkling splendour and gaudy glamour and the decadence of the heart that will slowly eat out the facade and finally leave us with a hollow shell that will crash to the ground like a pyramid of cards with its base knocked in.
The writer is a twenty-something English-educated graduate student.
引导年轻人参与有意义的沟通
你还在为自己的人生定位。你刚毕业，找到了工作，在经济上开始独立，在事业上也已经小有成就。你认为采取敌对的态度是坚强的表现，对现有体制表示不满则是具有过人智慧和道德勇气的表现。
最近同内阁资政李光耀进行了一场引人注目的对话会的十名第四代新加坡人，大概便有这样的想法。他们的这种心态，不禁让我们对国家和社会的未来感到担忧。
在电视上，我们看到这些早有准备的年轻人纷纷向李资政发问，用中听但不中用的政治语言提出看法。
他们并不是要对自己关心的课题有更深刻的了解，也不是要聆听一名具备独特经验的智者为他们提出看待问题的独特视角。这视角可能为他们开启一个新窗口，让他们往外看，或者从他们把自己深锁在内的塔里往下看。
他们的用意很明显——用小心储存的弹药对目标进行地毯式轰炸，和刚获得的机会发表他们自己的意见。
他们的做法让人感到吃惊，因为他们的目标是具大无畏勇气，在海外备受推崇的李资政。在新加坡，李资政就像个慈父一样关心国家和国人的发展。一些人为了表达自己的看法不惜在电视上对他出言不敬，确实让人感到不安。
更糟的是，这些人争相与他交锋。对于他们无礼的态度，李资政却非常宽宏和包容。
尽管受到西化和现代化的影响，我们的社会终究还是个亚洲社会。我们对长者和父母应有的尊敬和我们的道德观，同我们的经济和社会发展并不是相互对立的。
对话会让我们看到我们乖离礼仪之邦这个社会基石有多远。在教育新一代国人时，我们是不是忽略了什么？
没有给现代新加坡的创造者和奠基人应有的尊敬，并不表示我们已经享有更多的媒体和政治自由。它基本上只是显示了，一个能够讨论影响和塑造国家未来的课题的成熟社会要具备什么素质，我们的理解还远远不足。
李资政对于对话会出现的无礼行为的包容，凸显了我们已经进入一个新的时代——政府努力尝试引导年轻人，为国家取得进一步的繁荣，同政府进行诚恳和有意义的沟通。
讽刺的是，虽然参与对话的年轻人尽全力尝试向国人展示通往政治和言论自由的途径，面对来势汹汹的问题的李资政，却以平和及泰然的政治家风范，让人们了解政治到底是什么。
我们现在应该反思我们过去几年所走的路，和它将把我们带往何处。如果我们认识到过去所忽略的，并采取积极的补救行动，那对话会可能让我们向前跨出一大步。
相反的，如果我们因此感到失望和沮丧，却依然固我，以为经济上的成就会带来社会和人民的进步，那我们可能会向后退一大步。
希望最近的这场对谈并不代表着我们未来要走的方向。因为其结果将是难以想象却又非常真实的——一个耀眼辉煌的繁荣国家，内部的衰败慢慢地腐蚀了亮丽的外表，最终只剩下一个空壳，一旦基础被打破，就会像叠成金字塔形的纸牌一样，彻底的倒下。
·作者是一名20多岁，受英文教育的高级学位学生。叶琦保译。 |
| posted by Nobody @ 12:19 AM |
|
|
|
| Saturday, April 22, 2006 |
| can you see where I'M coming from, Mr Lee? |
I Say
Lee Ching Wern
chingwern@newstoday.com.sg
WHEN I walked away from the recording of the television forum with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew on Monday night, I couldn't help thinking that a lot of what he said was true.
As we bombarded him non-stop with questions about an unfair political playing field, the lack of a strong Opposition and the issue of apolitical Singaporeans, he addressed our frustrations one by one with such clarity that you had to wonder for a minute whether your arguments held any water to begin with.
Young Singaporeans rant about a tilted political playing field, he said, but whoever said that politics was fair?
You lament the lack of a strong Opposition, but are you prepared to leave your comfort zone and join one?
Mr Lee's point was, because we are well taken care of, there is no motivation for most people to make such a sacrifice; those with the ability to step up to the political plate would rather make more money.
And should the party whites be tainted one day, the People's Action Party (PAP) will naturally be displaced, said Mr Lee. Because then, competent people will inevitably feel the impetus to come together and fight the PAP for the sake of better lives.
Above all, politics is not about elections or voting. Politics is about life, the Minister Mentor said.
I can see where Mr Lee is coming from.
But even as I try to look at things from his perspective, I wonder if he is doing the same to understand where we are coming from — that what young Singaporeans like me want, does not necessarily clash with what the PAP Government wants.
As a young Singaporean, I want an opposition — not to bring the PAP down, but to provide an alternative. A healthy dose of competition always benefits consumers.
I want checks and balances — not because the PAP is not doing a good job, but because I'd rather not get to the point-of-no-return before a group of people rise up against a rogue Government.
I want to talk about party politics freely without having to join a party — not because I want to slander the PAP, but because I yearn for a lively discourse that can lead to a greater political and social consciousness.
And surely our Government, which has the best candidates available in Singapore and an impeccable track record, can withstand a few biased comments?
I resent the restriction on podcasting — not because we are all avid fans of Dr Chee Soon Juan; most of us probably haven't even listened to his recordings offered on the Singapore Democratic Party website — but because I think we should not be deprived of the right to judge for ourselves what's gibberish or not.
I accept the fact that there is no such thing as a completely level playing field anywhere in the world, but surely there exists varying degrees of fairness?
Politics is about life and bread-and-butter issues, but surely having fewer unnecessary restrictions adds to this quality of life?
I do not think the pursuit of intangible wants such as more political breathing space necessarily has to be at the expense of tangible needs such as my job, my Medisave and my children's future.
Do a good job, and I will vote for you whether I watch Martyn See's Singapore Rebel or not.
What we need is for the PAP to have more confidence in its own merit and record, and to understand that what we young Singaporeans want, really, is not so sinister.
Otherwise, even if we go through another 10 candid forums, we will still be running along parallel lines that will never converge.
The writer is a journalist with Today. She was one of 10 Singaporeans under the age of 30 who participated in the forum, "Why my vote matters — A dialogue with the Minister Mentor", broadcast on Channel NewsAsia on Wednesday. The repeat telecast is at 6.30pm today on MediaCorp Channel 5. |
| posted by Nobody @ 7:39 AM |
|
|
|
|
| Speak up ... but politely please |
Today
Wednesday • April 19, 2006
Yvonne Lim
Voices & Commentary editor
SPOILT brats, ingrates, whiners, disrespectful upstarts.
These were accusations hurled at the 10 young panellists of last week's Channel News-Asia dialogue with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, as they found themselves under fire for both their questions and the cut-and-thrust manner in which they had asked them.
One was Today's own senior reporter, Lee Ching Wern, who followed up last Wednesday's broadcast with a commentary, "Can you see where I'm coming from, Mr Lee?" (April 14) — on the same day an older generation Singaporean, Mr Hazra Osman Ghani, called the panellists "shallow" and "ungrateful" in an emotional letter.
William Teo Jui Wah could not agree more. "They 'know not Caesar' and where the water flows from!" he declared of the participants, all under 30 years of age and most of them journalists.
"It is perfectly all right to have different views. But the way the questions were asked and what we saw in their body language, suggested that they are no better than kids and should be sent back to school.
"MM Lee was too kind to them. If they were foreign journalists who conducted themselves in such a way, they would have been 'grilled'."
Not that they weren't. Mr Lee's questioning of reporter Ken Kwek on his comments about a climate of fear made Dionne Kho uncomfortable. She quoted the part of the exchange when Mr Lee said: "I allow my grandchildren to speak back to me but from time to time, but when they are out of bounds, I put them in their place."
But out of the 30 or so readers who wrote in, at least 10 felt the participants had it coming.
Wrote Sunny J: "It seems you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth, and it is for 35-year-olds like me to put you back in your place. You should be humbled by the fact that a great iconic leader such as Mr Lee is giving you a lesson in politics and life … Learn open-heartedly from the elders who built this nation with blood, sweat and tears."
Another "post-65-er", Kwan Foon Sim, observed: "The panellists obviously wanted to be heard, but not to listen and learn from MM Lee. I was ashamed that many didn't even exhibit basic courtesy when asking their questions."
But were the participants being unnecessarily rude to Mr Lee, or simply being candid and open? There were those, such as Mohd Rosle Ahmad, who hailed the young Singaporeans' "gloves-off" approach (April 14) for dispelling the myth of the "fear factor" in Singapore politics.
Anne Lim Siew Kim commended Lee Ching Wern for daring to voice the observation: "There is an impression that the PAP is arrogant." Lim felt she was "presenting a point of view that could have provided valuable feedback to the PAP. It is a pity she was not given a chance to say more on the issue".
Boris Chan thought the panellists showed "they have a good understanding of a public segment that sees the need for political diversity".
But Foo Kok Jong thought their arguments for a level political field were shallow.
"These are not arguments. These are simply ideals, not necessarily shared by everyone."
After all, Foo said, what is there to stop any citizen from voting for the Opposition or talking about politics in the kopitiam, online or at Speaker's Corner? "Walk the talk," the self-described PAP supporter told the participants. "You want an active Opposition? Go join an opposition party and strengthen its resources and ability to compete. Until the Opposition parties match PAP in terms of calibre and reach, there can be no viable alternative."
Steve K Ngo felt what the forum showed was that young Singaporeans "want choices, like the variety they get when shopping for their favourite dresses or computer gadgets". "They have grown bored of PAP … But politics is not the same as fashion or food. A wrong decision about clothes and restaurants is unlikely to critically affect the future," Ngo adds.
"I doubt most young Singaporeans today know what is real suffering and challenge. They are raw and naive but aggressive — this is a formula for disaster. Although many are highly educated, that does not mean that they are necessarily wise."
But others felt much good came out of the controversial forum, even if it highlighted a generational gap.
Acknowledging that the reason for this divide was that today's youth could never fully understand the struggles and uncertainties of the 1950s and 1960s, 16-year-old Jessica Nobes wrote: "The dialogue was an appropriate avenue to let doubts be cleared, for better mutual understanding. I was glad that some of the views I shared were voiced and some of my questions answered.
"If we do not have mutual understanding with the Government now, what good will it bring in the future? Muffling opinions will only encourage youth to find other platforms (often undesirable) to voice their opinions. Maybe it will turn into anger, without clear understanding."
Ephraim Loy applauded the Government for engaging the youth. Also noting the number of young new candidates in the PAP's line-up, he said this showed "the young are not forgotten. And knowing that the tagline of the PAP's manifesto was inspired by a student shows how much our views are valued". |
| posted by Nobody @ 7:04 AM |
|
|
|
|
| forum meant to provoke |
Today
Thursday • April 20, 2006
Lee Ching Wern
chingwern@newstoday.com.sg
A FEW days ago, my father was having dinner at a coffeeshop near our home when he overheard this conversation between two middle-aged uncles about me.
"You got watch the Lee Kuan Yew programme on TV or not? That girl say PAP hao lian (arrogant). How can?! Those youngsters have no respect for elders," said the first one angrily in Hokkien.
His friend replied: "Bo dua bo suay (too big for their shoes). How do their parents teach them?"
And the other day, on my way to work, I spent the entire cab journey listening to some "experts" on a Chinese radio programme slam us for being rude, lacking in public decorum and Asian values.
These views are echoed in a number of scathing letters written to me as well as to the newspapers (mostly by Singaporeans in their mid-30s and 40s) in the days following the telecast of Why My Vote Matters — the forum with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew that I participated in together with nine other young Singaporeans.
Apart from saying we were rude, some people accused us of trying to impress our friends. Some even questioned our upbringing.
I am deeply puzzled and disturbed by the reactions.
This backlash shows not only the vast gulf that exists between the generations, but also how far Singapore is from opening up and how close-minded many still are.
Did we question Mr Lee the way we did on TV because we are a bunch of disrespectful ingrates who are blind to his contributions to Singapore?
If you thought so, consider this: All television programmes are produced with a determined angle and style.
Perhaps you were expecting something akin to the forum that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had with Singaporeans recently, which was a lot "milder".
But was the dialogue with the Minister Mentor meant to be the same? Ask yourself, why were there so many journalists on the selected panel?
Was it, perhaps, meant in the first place to be a more provocative, vigorous and spontaneous exchange that touched on the "unspeakables"?
If you had watched BBC's infamous HARDtalk programme, you would have seen its former host Tim Sebastian accusing, snarling at, interrupting and pointing fingers at political leaders from all over the world — Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong included.
Was Mr Sebastian week after week attacked personally for having no decorum and respect for these great people? No. And not because of his Western upbringing either, but because the show and its reputation was built on just such an approach.
The show's guests knew what they would be in for — if they didn't want the nasty debate, they would not have gone on it.
That is not to say our forum last week was anything like HARDtalk. And we are obviously no Tim Sebastians. But the principle is the same.
If MM Lee wanted to give us this leeway to "speak back" to him on national television, and if we were encouraged to be uninhibited and not to cower when he pointed out our ignorance — who is to say we behaved inappropriately?
To those viewers whose criticisms of us participants were motivated by their deep personal respect for the Minister Mentor, I ask: Is it not MM Lee's prerogative how he wishes to engage us?
Certainly, we had no intention of showing MM Lee any disrespect, but should we have censored ourselves so as not to offend viewers?
To those of you who felt we raised issues that were both unrealistic and unrepresentative, for goodness' sake, this forum had a specific scope.
We were not the ones who initiated the dialogue. We did not decide the rules of play. But it seems to me now that some people have chosen to penalise us for participating.
If you ask me, I think it was a great forum.
Not because our arguments were flawless or the answers were perfect, but because, suddenly, every Singaporean — young and old, including those who never did care about politics — is talking about it in the coffeeshops, on the MRT, in schools and on the Internet.
Isn't that precisely what we set out to achieve?
The writer is a senior reporter
with Today. The participants of last Wednesday's forum reunite to tell their side of the story on the programme, "That Dialogue - Was I Rude Or ... ?", tonight at 8.30 on Channel NewsAsia. |
| posted by Nobody @ 6:57 AM |
|
|
|
| Friday, April 21, 2006 |
| Why My Vote Matters |
The video clip.
 |
| posted by Nobody @ 2:19 PM |
|
|
|
|
| About Me |
Name: Nobody
Home: Vietnam
About Me: Not important.
|
| Previous Post |
|
| Archives |
|
|
| Links |
|
|
|
