| Media |
|
|
| Saturday, April 22, 2006 |
| 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  |
|
|
|
|
| About Me |
Name: Nobody
Home: Vietnam
About Me: Not important.
|
| Previous Post |
|
| Archives |
|
| Links |
|
|
|