The youngs are taught and inculcated to be pragmatic by their elders who are in turn social engineered to be pragmatic. Are they to be blamed for been apathetic to the political and social developments ?

I like your distinction between apathy and lethargy; one would suspect that it applies more widely beyond youth activism to wider civil society.

This distinction may imply that there is another feasible strategy towards liberalization from below as IMHO tackling lethargy may be less insurmountable than tackling apathy. It's hard to make people care if they are committed to not caring but it may be less difficult to mobilize people if we do indeed care but need that extra motivational push, that energizing encouragement that could be built up into a virtuous cycle.

Yoz Dansong!

"Local journalists should be given some good lessons in professional courtesy and public relations."
Ouchhhhhh! LOL has the journalist gotten back to you now?

"lethargy and fatalistic cynicism often hides behind the excuse of 'pragmatism'"
Nicely put!

I think youth activism, where youths voice their views and agenda, is there in the web. However, there is only so far one can go in the web. Web activism cannot affect change if there is no parallel strong youth activism on the ground. So yup, the youth are not apathetic since it is becoming more kickbutt in the web, but they are comparatively super lethargic on the streets.

"there has been a shift from overtly political activism to issue-based activism (such as environmentalism, animal rights, minority rights, the underprivileged), corresponding to the shift in larger Singaporean civil society."

But not all is buggered like you said as long as youths understand that activism is also "pragmatic" - it is practical to advance a common interest with like-minded people, get mutual support, networking, feel good, raise profile of issue to attract more interested folks. It is pragmatic to set up an interest-based guild, so to speak. Music for Good www.musicforgood.org is another effort that has a nice twang to it. A vigorous thumbs up.

scb:
Thank you for your comment and question, as they help to clarify two things.

One, as I have argued, young people are not apathetic, they are lethargic. I don't think Singaporeans have ever been apathetic. They may give up trying with the obstacles and even punitive devices placed in front of them, but they do care.

Two, I am not playing the blame game, but teasing out the cause and effect. The cause is the lack of structural opportunities for youth to act on and realize their ideals, the effect is lethargy. Thus, the difference is that a blame game does not intend to solve problems but to try and punish those who are 'guilty', while a cause-and-effect approach allows us to pinpoint the source of the problem to allow for intervention. Thus, ringisei is right, it allows us to formulate strategies to pull and push young people into action, to overcome their lethargy, thus leading to a virtuous cycle.

Hey TVD,
Haha, nope, not a whimper from the journalist. I shall henceforth transfer my lethargies to that front. No point.

You are right, a lot of sound and fury in the web. Hopefully, it will translate eventually to more activism in the real world. You know, one good way to make use of the web is for NGOs and civic groups to make use of group blogging to communicate with each other, among themselves and to the public. Much synergy to be gained through this method, and synergy is one thing that can negate lethargy.

That's a good point concerning pragmatism. It is time to tear that word away from the its 'excuse' or 'dismissive' ideological usage and employ it as a principle for turning ideals into reality. I think it was Tommy Koh who once said he was a pragmatic idealist, but I think such phrases become meaningless catchphrases too easily. We are all simply actors, some activists championing causes, and actors always have ideals that guide their pragmatic actions in reality. The question may be in the interpretation of reality, because the interpretation will define an action to be pragmatic or otherwise. I think this is the crux when people argue about pragmatism.

Please elaborate further on what you mean by activism. To what extent of the word should we allow? If we are allowed to pursue our ideology through activism, there is the concern of security and social stability at stake which our economy cannot hold. As a citizen, I understand the dilemma we all face as Singaporeans - we want the liberalization of this autocratic regime. However, when it comes to politics and doing what is best for the country, I am sure you would think otherwise.

Hey Blitz:

I don't think otherwise, precisely because it has to do with politics and doing what is best for the country.

Activism is exactly what you said: pursuing our ideology through action in the civil sphere. Ideology is not a bad word, it is a neutral term denoting a system of ideas and beliefs. The civil sphere denotes the space between the state (the formal political space) and the domestic realm (family space). The biggest activist in town is the People's Action Party with its strong grassroots base that realizes its communitarian ideology.

I seek liberalization of the civil sphere, where the state maintains regulatory watch but does not prevent political activism that does not break laws. And I think that is best for the country in the long run, and this includes the economy. We are an exception in modern history and in the contemporary world of having a free and developed capitalist economy but a restricted and atrophied political and civil sphere (see recent World Bank report). Exceptions do not last long in a system (the system here being global capitalism).

Now, activism may cover all kinds of civil action, including the most ugly kinds. As I have mentioned, youthful idealism and activism can be misused by demagogues, whether secular or religious. But I have enough faith in our governmental and legal system that such extremist activisms can be regulated and restricted. After all, we have a sound judicial system with laws such as the Maintenance of Religious Harmony and the Sedition laws. Do you not trust the government and the courts, even if you don't trust public opinion, to regulate activism?

Hi,

I seek liberalization of the civil sphere, where the state maintains regulatory watch but does not prevent political activism that does not break laws.

Perhaps I'm being a little pessimistic here, but no less valid imho... if I'm not mistaken, the current situation as it stands seems something like this "You can have political activism so long as it is deemed permissible i.e. if you are overstepping some OB markers, or growing too strongly however it is so defined, the state reserves the right to pronouce you illegal and shut you down" -- so much for regulatory watch ;-)

We are an exception in modern history and in the contemporary world of having a free and developed capitalist economy but a restricted and atrophied political and civil sphere (see recent World Bank report). Exceptions do not last long in a system (the system here being global capitalism).

I beg to differ that capitalism, though it may be the trend this century and probably last century as well, is the status quo around the world.. I view situations increasingly from a conflict perspective, which seems to also explain quite neatly the saying "the more things change, the more they stay the same".

I'll give the Singapore 'system' due credit: it has served us relatively well, so far, and indeed as Dansong has argued, can be considered an exception to the rule. My point is that the rule is not really capitalism as Dansong mentioned; rather it is that of conflict and its impact on society. When one powerful force arises, another will emerge. We see that all over the world, whether it is US invading Iraq, or Pakistani authorities clamping down on 'Islamic militants'.

Perhaps in Singapore's case that force has already arisen.. the more entrenched the administrators, the more deep-rooted the lethargy (so far as the people's involvement in getting good people into public office is concerned lol). While this may be fine for the next 5 to 20 years, what is to prevent a demagouge (to borrow Dansong's term) from overtly robbing the people of Singapore?

Sure if this occurs, maybe we would be finally awakened from our slumber and take to the streets...by then the damage would already have been done. Investors would have long fled, and we would need to start over, step by painful step, maybe even merge with our old neighbours (hmm that seems quite pragmatic coming from a self-confessed idealist!)

What our leaders have been trying to do is to stave off the irrepressible forces that surround us, and provide us with a semblence of order that is nothing like the rest of the world can provide. When times are good, as they have been for much of Singapore's existence, we have no reason to rock the boat. The thing is, when the torpedo hits, as it will inevitably will, will we have sufficient skills to survive?

My friends, let's keep our life vests on, and for our own good, learn to swim!

Hey spursfan,

Gosh, my words in bold italics look ominous. I was waiting for someone to poke holes at the regulatory watch point. Here's my rebuttal. A state that reserves the right to illegalize certain activities post facto and arbitrarily, and one that sets OB markers, that's not a state on regulatory watch but an interventionalist control-freaky absolutist state.

I think the case in Singapore is somewhere in between, because the absolutist state does not care for public opinion, and public opinion matters in the political system here. The state here is not the regulatory -watch state either because it does not seem to trust the citizens enough to let go of its reins, but over the years, it is liberalizing, though in a painfully slow rate, sometimes taking a step back to take one and a half forward. Notice that I said 'I seek liberalization' not 'we have a liberal'.

Implicit in my argument is that this liberalization can only happen if political activism increases, not to confront the state but to engage the state, so that our leaders and civil servants can learn to trust the people and shed their control-freakiness, and to create a virtuous cycle that breaks down lethargy and increase the trust quantum among Singaporeans.

Your comments are very rich and thought-out, so give me a breather and I will respond to the second part of your comments.

Hey Dansong,

Thanks for the kind words -- just my two cents' worth lol.

I agree that there seems to be a slow movement towards liberalisation of the civil sphere, with particular emphasis on the word "slow"...

We could debate on the absolutist/regulatory-state continuum (on a scale of 1-100 if you like) forever, suffice to say that figures (and statistics for that matter), however objective they may present themselves, are ultimately subjective and open to interpretation.

Will keep contributors' quotations to italics subsequently ;-)

spursfan,

Agree with Dansong that you have raised some most excellent and thoughtful points. :-)

the current situation as it stands seems something like this "You can have political activism so long as it is deemed permissible i.e. if you are overstepping some OB markers, or growing too strongly however it is so defined, the state reserves the right to pronouce you illegal and shut you down

The KTM disagrees with this view. In the KTM's opinion, the current situation seems more like, "you say something that irritates the establishment, the establishment will give you one tight slap". Case in point is Catherine Lim and Mr Brown. At the end of the day, the KTM thinks it's all fair. There is no reason why the establishment ought to be kind to those who disagree with it. People who want to disagree with the establishment just better be able to stomach some hard knocks.

It turns out that folks such as Catherine Lim and Mr Brown are not particularly combative and do not respond equally robustly. But then, Catherine still writes (and publishes in the ST); Mr Brown -- he gets back at the establishment in his own way. (mai hum, mai hum, mai hum, mai hum .... ) :-) All's fair thinks the KTM.

Your view about dissent being made illegal probably arises from the SDP camp, which in the KTM's opinion is a lost cause. Singaporeans have a lot to learn from Mr Brown.

While much has been said about oppressive regulation and what not, the KTM agrees with Dansong, that's it's more lethargy than anything else. Also, the increasing self-centeredness of the younger generation has caused activism to be less attractive. Activism doesn't pay well (or at all) in $$$-terms lah.

My point is that the rule is not really capitalism as Dansong mentioned; rather it is that of conflict and its impact on society.

The KTM has spent much time thinking about this issue and he has come to the conclusion that it's all about income inequality and unmanaged (unmanageable?) expectations.

When one powerful force arises, another will emerge .... Perhaps in Singapore's case that force has already arisen.. the more entrenched the administrators, the more deep-rooted the lethargy (so far as the people's involvement in getting good people into public office is concerned lol).

The administrators are pretty entrenched, period. Nothing at all about being MORE entrenched. Revolutions are more often than not struggles between classes (i.e. the have's and the have-not's). Dun believe what they say about dunno what ideology. That's all pretty bogus in the KTM's opinion.

While this may be fine for the next 5 to 20 years, what is to prevent a demagouge (to borrow Dansong's term) from overtly robbing the people of Singapore?

Well, the fact that the establishment in and of itself is not entirely EASY to control. LKY is probably the only living person to have the clout to exercise the form of control you seem to be insinuating. :-P

The KTM is of the opinion that you are right: the system is fraying at the edges, but the prospects of a collapse from within caused by the ascension of a despot is significantly more remote than a gradual collapse arising from a failure (or perhaps inability) to respond to the changing demographics and attitudes.

The KTM is of the view that the Government really isn't doing so great in terms of public opinion, and to some extent, it's not so much a result of active bungling, but rather a passive inability to manage public opinion. The KTM believes that this phenomenon will eventually show up in the polls.

The thing is, when the torpedo hits, as it will inevitably will, will we have sufficient skills to survive?

We have to give our people (and the human race) some credit. When push comes to shove, people will find a way to survive. Perhaps life may not be so good, but people will survive. You can look around in the neighbouring countries. Are people surviving? Yes, they are. Whether or not you want to survive in the same conditions as our neighbours is a separate question.

To some extent, Singaporeans have a choice -- but then, perhaps they don't. The KTM believes that the present system as we know it is not sustainable ad infinitum. The forces of nature (globalization and what have you) are not to be reckoned with. It's seriously not clear that the Government has the instruments at its disposal to delay the day of reckoning indefinitely. The best we can hope for is that the day doesn't come in our lifetimes.

Hi KTM,

I've been reading your articles and I must say they are excellent ;-) Having said that, I have a few clarifications...

The KTM disagrees with this view. In the KTM's opinion, the current situation seems more like, "you say something that irritates the establishment, the establishment will give you one tight slap".

I find this analogy really interesting. Supposing we have a father talking to his son in this manner, we won't really think much of it, right?After all it's the parent's right to discipline the child. However, I tend to take the view that the relationship between government and the people should be on an equal basis. I understand that one plays a leader role, and the other a follower role. Still that doesn't mean that the roles are unequal.

Which is why I find the analogy a little troubling as well, because while one side has specified its terms of the relationship, can the other side 'slap' back more often than once every 4-5 years without being branded/sidelined? More relevantly, can Gahmen receive as much as it gives out in terms of 'slaps'?

It turns out that folks such as Catherine Lim and Mr Brown are not particularly combative and do not respond equally robustly.

I refer to history, 1994 if I'm not mistaken. Our beloved CL made a comment on an 'affective divide' between Gahmen and the people, and was challenged to form a political party by PM Goh. She was notable in her absence, before staging a revival in recent times. I've not been reading Mr Brown ever since he went mainstream, but I've heard of a few incidents where Gahmen is threatening to use the good ol' legal machinery on him... so much for not responding robustly ;-)

Your view about dissent being made illegal probably arises from the SDP camp, which in the KTM's opinion is a lost cause.

I agree that SDP's cause under Dr Chee is a goner. However, pardon me as I have a slightly cynical view on dissent. I've asked myself, "Why are blatantly irrelevant people such as Dr Chee permitted to campaign, while others like Mr Tang and until recently JBJ sent to virtual exile?" Perhaps it's the principle of 'lesser of two evils' at work. It is apparent to me that there is more than meets the eye, and I don't mean that there are Transformers in the Gahmen lol...

Also, why are CL and Mr Brown tolerated? Is it genuinely because Gahmen believes they have a point to prove, or is it because they want people like KTM to believe that it is liberalising? I'll leave it to the discerning reader to decide.

The KTM has spent much time thinking about this issue and he has come to the conclusion that it's all about income inequality and unmanaged (unmanageable?) expectations.

I agree that as far as Singapore is concerned the conflict shows itself most clearly through the income-gap. However in terms of the global scale of things, there are other things at play imho. Recently doctors (earning good wages) were caught trying to bomb London and Scotland. There is a book our recently on confessions from a former jihadist, which may be good reading if you have the time.

Well, the fact that the establishment in and of itself is not entirely EASY to control. LKY is probably the only living person to have the clout to exercise the form of control you seem to be insinuating. :-P

I'm not saying that it's easy; though it would probably be easy for demogouges. As for the other point, I'm not saying that the current leadership is overtly robbing our people. Based on existing data available to the public (and lack of transparent records thereof), I don't know if it is *covertly* doing so either ;-)

The KTM is of the opinion that you are right: the system is fraying at the edges, but the prospects of a collapse from within caused by the ascension of a despot is significantly more remote than a gradual collapse arising from a failure (or perhaps inability) to respond to the changing demographics and attitudes.

I do hope that our leadership will have the moral fibre to stand up to a despot should one arise. A third alternative suggested by a respected associate is where the ruling party splits up due to 'irreconcilable differences'

The KTM is of the view that the Government really isn't doing so great in terms of public opinion, and to some extent, it's not so much a result of active bungling, but rather a passive inability to manage public opinion. The KTM believes that this phenomenon will eventually show up in the polls.

I believe that the signs are already there. That the PM polled slightly lower than the national average may be a cause for celebration among the vocal minority. And yes, I think they do need a PR overhaul.

When push comes to shove, people will find a way to survive... The best we can hope for is that the day doesn't come in our lifetimes.

I agree that people will survive, but at what cost? We're likely not to witness such an event, though our children probably will...

Cheers

Hah, take a breather and here's a whole bag of issues raised that would need a phd thesis or more to tackle. Spursfan, you should do your own sociopolitical blogging, public opinion need thinkers like you (maybe you already do, where?). On the subject of 'public opinion', I disagree with KTM ...

that the Government really isn't doing so great in terms of public opinion, and to some extent, it's not so much a result of active bungling, but rather a passive inability to manage public opinion. The KTM believes that this phenomenon will eventually show up in the polls.

Governing the nation is not the same as running a company. This is Singapore, after all, not Singapore INC, contrary to the pronouncements of technocrats with CEO fantasies. In a highly literate society with educated citizens, and Singapore is such a society, public opinion can only be 'managed' to a limited extent. This does not mean that Singaporeans are smart, but something else is at play. In such developed societies, public opinion, and I don't mean the rants of noisy middle-class bloggers, reflects the political economy of conflicts endemic in any developed society reacting to the policies of the day. It is the active policy-making of the government that is eliciting the active opinion-making of the public.

This is where I want to bring together a point KTM and spursfan apparently diverge slightly on their views. Spursfan emphasizes external conflicts impinging on Singapore, i.e., the torpedo or the jihadist. KTM emphasizes the emerging socioeconomic inequality here. They are interrelated and deeply connected to the global capitalist status quo - so that the socioeconomic alienation of muslim minorities in Western countries tend to promote jihadist fundamentalism. What I am saying is that my argument about capitalism is based on a conflict perspective too, and the point is that a democratic order tend to be able to absorb, disperse and resolve the internal conflicts and external shocks to the system that are, both of you are right, inevitable, but because shocks are endemic in a competitive capitalist system.

Dan,

In a highly literate society with educated citizens, and Singapore is such a society, public opinion can only be 'managed' to a limited extent ... In such developed societies, public opinion, and I don't mean the rants of noisy middle-class bloggers, reflects the political economy of conflicts endemic in any developed society reacting to the policies of the day.

Singapore may be highly literate, but it doesn't mean that people can think. Though that's not to say that the citizens of other countries fare better. :-) We can disagree on the extent to which public opinion can be "managed". Make no mistake though, the KTM is not referring to managing the opinions of the noisy middle-class bloggers either. The KTM has spoken to a number of "common folks" who care little about politics and most definitely do not blog.

What I am saying is that my argument about capitalism is based on a conflict perspective too, and the point is that a democratic order tend to be able to absorb, disperse and resolve the internal conflicts and external shocks to the system that are, both of you are right, inevitable, but because shocks are endemic in a competitive capitalist system.

Alamak, that's only because in a democratic society, folks have this illusion that they are governing themselves. What that does for the general welfare of the people is questionable. :-)

Hah, take a breather and here's a whole bag of issues raised that would need a phd thesis or more to tackle.

Thank you. I'm supposing that you mean this figuratively; otherwise I must admit to being severely flattered.

Spursfan, you should do your own sociopolitical blogging, public opinion need thinkers like you (maybe you already do, where?).

Until very recently all blogging of this nature has been done InMyHead.com lol... perhaps I may take up your suggestion in future; for now I am grateful for what I'm provided with @ SA, thanks again Dansong!

Governing the nation is not the same as running a company. This is Singapore, after all, not Singapore INC, contrary to the pronouncements of technocrats with CEO fantasies. In a highly literate society with educated citizens, and Singapore is such a society, public opinion can only be 'managed' to a limited extent.

I'm not sure I share your confidence that Singaporeans in general can perceive the difference between the current state of affairs in our island-nation and that of a huge corporation. Having watched The Matrix and The Island, I marvel at the establishment's ability to 'turn reality into fantasy', and all "for the good of the nation" as well. Either our CEOs, oops, I meant our leaders are superb at whatever it is that they do, or... they *genuinely believe* their pronouncements ;-)

I'm going on a fairly cynical slant in the next few paragraphs; please bear with me. The game as I see it is quite simple: to manage public opinion, the establishment permits the holding of elections every 4-5 years, according to the Constitution. If the fragmented opposition does not unite (by some unforeseen circumstance), and if the ruling party manages itself such that it does not become split down the middle, the latter will in all probability virtually secure a significant proportion of the number of seats available by Nomination Day.

Throughout each day of the campaign, generously pepper the voters with consumer benefits such as upgrading or tax rebates, or at least make it seem so. Watch for any slip-ups by the opposition, and use these to highlight the risk of a change in the government of Singapore (though I suspect that, in substance, the term is 'the management of Singapore Inc.') For good measure, sprinkle little bits of fear in the form of "national security", "racial harmony", "welfarism" and "anti-globalisation". Dress all these up as logic, accessorise with statistics, figures, charts and other numerically-intensive forms of data. Once election results are announced, the public opinion figure shall be obtained, and shall remain as a point of reference i.e. be filed away till the next election, and normal operations will resume for another 4-5 years.

Any interruptions during the interim will be dealt with, summarily or otherwise. Elements deemed 'non-useful but tolerable' shall be sidelined from, subsumed into the system, or somehow allowed to remain as 'impractical intellectualisation' or 'harmless entertainment'. Elements deemed 'non-useful and intolerable' may be removed from the system, forcibly or otherwise. So much for managing public opinion.

Along with my conflict hypothesis, I would rather say that It is the active policy-making of the government that is eliciting the *non-active* opinion-making of the public lol.

From a CEO standpoint, based on prior data analysis, employees are likely to remain sufficiently distracted to be able to mount any meaningful form of resistance i.e. motivation to convert their formidable lethargy into forceful action is expected to remain low.

Spursfan emphasizes external conflicts impinging on Singapore, i.e., the torpedo or the jihadist. KTM emphasizes the emerging socioeconomic inequality here.

I do agree that socioeconomics have a major part to play in the Singapore scene. I mentioned the jihadist more to illustrate that most or all conflicts of a global impact may not necessarily have anything to do with the income gap. The torpedo is rightly read as a symbol of external events that may directly impact on Singapore.

Socioeconomic inequality notwithstanding, are we as a society ready to rally together when crisis strikes us directly? How strong is our social fabric as a nation currently, and how is the establishment steeling us for such an event? To borrow a theme from Harry Potter's latest film, dare the Minister say that Voldemort has returned, and are we ready for him?

They are interrelated and deeply connected to the global capitalist status quo - so that the socioeconomic alienation of muslim minorities in Western countries tend to promote jihadist fundamentalism.

Respectfully, I think you're on shaky ground here Dansong. Recent events have suggested that the income gap is an unlikely cause of the rise of fundamentalism in the West. Would it be more plausible to view that the source of conflict is in fact disenfranchised (and in all likelihood, reasonably well-to-do, if not filthy rich) intellectuals who *no longer believe* in capitalism. While I have mentioned that I do not subscribe to the view that capitalism has always been the way of the world (peek a little beyond the 16th Century for evidence), I (grudgingly) concede that it may have been the prevailing force for some countries since the 20th century.

The point is, today, perhaps more than ever, we are beginning to see an organised movement that is attempting to oppose capitalism and what it purports to stand for. The income gap therefore is a convenient catalyst for disillusioned intellectuals to fan the flames of hatred and terror, so that the rest of the world may stop its existing way of life, and either (1) mourn in self-pity and despair (2) perish for persisting in capitalist beliefs (3) identify with their cause, and kowtow to fear, oppression and potentially chaos.

Unfortunately, it appears that the impoverished peons do not know any better,and are willing to rally behind a cause falsely declared as just, while their leaders sit about in relative safety knowing that so long as the system is in place, more will apply to join the ranks of the desperate. For this reason our leaders have rightfully taken an extremely serious view of the situation. No longer can we assume that if jobs are provided, the guns will be abandoned. Something deeper is taking place, and requires societies to remain strong and united if the challenge it poses is to be overcome.

What I am saying is that my argument about capitalism is based on a conflict perspective too, and the point is that a democratic order tend to be able to absorb, disperse and resolve the internal conflicts and external shocks to the system that are, both of you are right, inevitable, but because shocks are endemic in a competitive capitalist system.

This may well be the case. However, I am afraid that the time is approaching where the fundamentals of capitalism will be challenged to the core, not unlike the good ol' days of the Cold War. The only trouble is, this time, the enemies are from within... just saw your post KTM -- similar sentiments expressed here, only my tone is probably somewhat darker ;-)

Hey KTM, I see we disagree on some fundamental views on the people/masses/mob and democracy. My view is that people can think, but the lethargy that has set in has caused them to choose not to -- and with the lack of practice, it is hard to start up again. Democracy, in allowing the space for the profusion of different ways of thinking and of robust debating which manifests the value of the different ways of thinking, will reduce mobthink and reinvigorate thinking. I believe we are already seeing this in bloggosphere. The question is whether this incipient democratization would be allowed to permeate the body politic.

On democracy proper, well, with a thinking population, the illusion won't stand, and the people will understand representational politics better than today -- that they are being governed by representatives that they periodically choose based on thinking about deliverables on general rather than personal welfare. Its quite the virtuous circle, democracy --> thinking --> democracy...

Spursfan, I think my above comment speaks somewhat to your Matrix analogy ... I totally share your cynicism (it pervades my motivation to research and write), but there is always the real hope in zion, otherwise what is left to do but run (perhaps to another matrix)?

And I share your view that the social fabric is rather weak or frayed, but the question is how then do we proceed to repair it (which implies understanding why it frayed in the first place) as a nation and as citizens (not via state-run campaigns ad nauseaum)? Democratization is part of the solution, I would argue.

On the point of the relatedness of socioeconomic marginalization and fundamentalisms, let me elaborate. Yes, so far, many of the spectacular fundamentalist terrorists (and this includes every major religion out there) are from the disenchanted middle-classes. But to see this just this correlation between middle-class status and recent spectacular terrorism is to miss the larger picture. The large bulk of the infrastructural and ideological support for them comes from movements that are constituted by largely disenfranchised lower classes. Look at it from another angle, the middle-class fundamentalist is caught between the disenfranchised lower classes and their 'traditional' plebeian culture and the 'respectable' upper and middle classes of the 'modern' majority culture, with the latter tending to block their socio-economic advancement as well. In this sense, they are also marginalized, with one exception, they have access to information, ideology, skills and network to express their marginalization in terrifying ways. Disillusioned intellectuals indeed. Again, if they had a real democratic stake in society, perhaps they won't be disillusioned in the first place?

I do share the impending end-of-capitalism view, but largely from a different angle, I think (perhaps not, as you have not quite elaborated on yours).

Dan,

My view is that people can think, but the lethargy that has set in has caused them to choose not to -- and with the lack of practice, it is hard to start up again. Democracy, in allowing the space for the profusion of different ways of thinking and of robust debating which manifests the value of the different ways of thinking, will reduce mobthink and reinvigorate thinking.

Fair enough. Let's look at a case study. Which country is arguable the most democratic country in the world? USA right? Good. By your theory, having been exposed to so much democracy that it's probably coming out of their ears, Americans definitely can think better than any other people on earth isn't it?

We all know Bush managed to cut taxes. How did Bush cut taxes? He told his people, "Do you want the Government to spend your money for you or do you want to spend your money yourself?" What's the result? The poor paid less tax, but the rich paid EVEN LESS TAXES. Can we truly expect the masses to understand the implications of the policies they support?

Of course, people can argue that democracy will throw up (sounds like puke) enlightened leaders who can educate people yada yada.... This is another theory that the KTM is pretty skeptical of.

Let's face it: the structure of our society is not conducive for something like that to happen. The country is not in crisis. In fact, it's too darn well-run. Run like clockwork. The young and bright really dun see a compelling need for them to "save the country". Most feel like they are free to pursue their own careers, interests, whatever, and more often than not, this pursuit takes them overseas. Is it ironic that if Singapore was in more of a mess that more younglings might be inclined to try to stay behind and "save the country"? Again, this is the KTM's theory.

W.r.t to thinking, the KTM's view is that democracy isn't the thing that's lacking. The problem probably lies in the education system more than anything else -- but that's just the KTM's theory again. :-)

Another point about thinking is that people can only stop to think if they got the time to stop and think lah. Given the pace of life in Singapore, who got time to stop and think? Probably only the kah pohs like KTM and the rest of the bloggers. Do such people constitute the majority? So these kah pohs are supposed to be leaders of thought? Yeah right. :-P

And you know that, this rhetoric on what lack of freedom of speech really irritates the KTM. The KTM believes that there is actually sufficient room to say what needs to be said (just take a leaf from Mr Brown). Most just don't have the confidence and/or intellect to open their gaps.

Hey KTM,

The USA is too big and patchwork-federalistic to be considered as a democratic whole. If we take, perhaps, the most democratic of states, say California and New York, which did not vote for Bush, yups, I would say that they are able to think better than many countries and all non-democratic countries. The Bush example ignores the complexity of politics in USA, which I do not consider the most democratic country in the world, because of its wacky federal, state rights and electoral-college system. I know the powers that be in Singapore like to use the USA as the decadent liberal other, but that's just the usual western/empire-bashing rhetoric. In terms of exemplary case studies of democracy, I would go with Sweden and Finland, and yes, the folks there think much better and a lot more than other countries. One indicator, their 'innovation quotient' is much higher. I've got a natural distaste for enlightened leaders, and that's not my point, its the system that I am referring to.

Country too well run? Nicely put, it is TOO well run, a machine without much shock absorbers. I don't think we need a crisis for people to sit up and do their part, it is enough if they have a stake in the system. Over the decades, the state has tried to inculcate the stakeholding through, among other things, controlled housing provision and marketization, but with globalization and the mobility of the middle classes, this was not enough. And thus GCT's turn to civil society and that painfully slow liberalization I mentioned, affirmed by LHL a couple of years back (and so far so good, except for the IMF bump). But it looks like too little too late, too much brain drain already. And the govt is still groping around for that brilliant post-HDB stakeholding silver bullet.

Sure, education, of course, and this is also intertwined with democratization. I believe Wayne and I had a discussion about this last June here over two articles. An autocratic education system, both in its administrative structure which treats teachers like cogs in the machine and in its pedagogy which treats students like yet-to-be-molded cogs, is not going to encourage thinking. I don't know about your side, I'm fighting almost daily battles just to preserve and enhance whatever democratization that has happened in university education over the last half decade.

Pace of life, yeah, well, its related isn't it? When we can't innovate, we have to increase our productivity either by intensifying work within existing office-hours or extend office-hours just to keep up with the competition. We can't think, we can't innovate, we can only work harder, then no time to think, no time to innovate, got to work harder. That's the depraved cycle that is opposite of the virtuous cycle I mentioned. In any case, most of my best thinking is not done in bloggosphere, though I am enjoying this debate tremendously and have a discourse with you is comparable, but spending long nights over drinks and food with friends talking about politics and life - and they are the busy people we are talking about, not like us :). Nah, I am not the thought leader with my friends despite the permanent head damage, thought leadership emerges from the discussion, which is, ahem, democratic in nature.

Freedom of speech exists in bloggosphere (be vigilant, even in peace time), to a large extent, but no where else, not when we have the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act. True, many do not have the confidence or motivation (due to lethargy) to blog, but since I do not think the people lack intellect, I guess it is easier for me to 'idealize' that things can change and improve and therefore act accordingly. What else can we do?

BTW, spursfan seems to have started his/her own blog, it appears, partly because of the debates going on in SG Angle. There might be some confusion though, spursfan is calling his/her site Singapore Patriot too, which has caused the first SG PatriotGerald to post a disclaimer rather quickly. Welcome spursfan.

Dansong,

Yes, I have been sufficiently moved to create a blog, thank you for your suggestion :-) Somehow it has made its way to 'Mainstream Blogosphere' as it were -- totally unintentional I can assure you as I am very much a novice in blogging and modern communication tools in general lol... Apologies to Gerald -- with all respect, I have *never* heard/read of you, oops...

With The Matrix & The Island, I believe it takes a minority to arouse and activate the rest of the population to rally towards a just cause. They would, however, be somewhat maniacal in outlook to even consider that somehow the status quo would be altered, logically speaking. In other words, what we need is a Neo (more likely group than individual) to take us to Zion, to borrow the Matrix analogy. The price (bankruptcy and/or incarceration would be a bargain, imho) is too high for most to bear, especially given the current economic climate. Which is why I agree with KTM that such sea-change will (unfortunately) in all probability come about only through a time of intense crisis.

How on earth did we get here (being the state of our social fabric)? Look no further than my (pet) conflict theory, which in KTM-speak (if I may) boils down to "Gahmen talk so much, so I diam-diam lah..." & "Gahmen talk like no need money lidat; I say one word wrongly ah, maybe must pay $17m... aiyah, earn money better, less trouble..." If you've not watched Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, basically the children are left to fend for themselves as the administrators squabble over *whether* there is an impending crisis in the form of the dark lord Voldemort.

Thankfully, so the story goes, the children, with the help of a few 'teacher-activists' manage to stave off the threat, while the Minister belatedly realises that the danger is clear and present. There are remarkable parallels between the story and our political status quo, but I shall not belabour the point here ;-)

The solution: "Children, I'm afraid you're on your own..." i.e. do what you think is right, and let the establishment catch up later.

I suspect that the fundamentalism issue will spill further from capitalism and onto democracy, which means (at least) three cans of worms. These can be dissected away from this post; probably onto an upcoming response which I intend to post in the next few days...

KTM,

I totally understand your somewhat dim view the 'American model of democracy' -- after all this was the same system that took move than 3 weeks to decide who would be its leader :-p

On the non-thinking issue, I agree that the large part of the problem is systemic, although I would hesitate to pinpoint that schools should bear the brunt of the responsibility. Having said that, I don't remember the content of what I was taught in school; rather what remains are the friendships and other 'life-lessons' that occur both within the outside the school environment. Would parents be too 'busy' to guide their children, and if so, wouldn't this be a sign for Singaporeans to stop catching up with the past/present and start slowing down for the future of our nation?

Hey spursfan, will you consider modifying the title of your blog, just so to differentiate between yours and Gerald's SG Patriot? Blog titles are a matter of identity, and I suspect Gerald may not be pleased that his identity has been duplicated even though it is not intentional at all. Besides it is rather confusing and I think cumbersome to start referring to Gerald's blog SG Patriot I and yours SG Patriot II (sounds like missles!). Since we in SG Angle is kinda responsible for moving you in that direction, we, especially me, feel rather bad for Gerald. So, thanks in advance for considering it.

Dan,

In terms of exemplary case studies of democracy, I would go with Sweden and Finland, and yes, the folks there think much better and a lot more than other countries. One indicator, their 'innovation quotient' is much higher.

Well said. Perhaps the KTM can clarify that he's not saying that democracy is necessarily bad. Simply highlighting that it's not the panacea to the world's problems like some claim. We also have other examples of supposedly more democratic regimes in the region like Indonesia and Phillipines. Where has democracy brought them?

I've got a natural distaste for enlightened leaders, and that's not my point, its the system that I am referring to.

Interesting thought. Actually, the KTM's punchline is that systems don't matter -- it's the people (leaders) that matter, and it is the KTM's believe that NO system can tolerate bad leaders. America may seem invincible at this point, but the KTM believes that it's more a function of history than systems -- and all great empires fall, even the great Roman empire. :-)

Over the decades, the state has tried to inculcate the stakeholding through, among other things, controlled housing provision and marketization, but with globalization and the mobility of the middle classes, this was not enough. And thus GCT's turn to civil society and that painfully slow liberalization I mentioned, affirmed by LHL a couple of years back (and so far so good, except for the IMF bump).

Good point. Then the question arises: why is there even a need to "inculcate the stakeholding"?? Can loyalty or a sense of belonging be "trained"? What is loyalty?

This may seem like a funny story, but it's real. The KTM has heard about this chappy who is so pissed with his NS experience that he used to pay the minimum fare on the buses, not so much to cheat, but to "get back" at the system. Perhaps the sort of passive resistance (weapons of the weak) that Wayne once alluded to? Whatever the case, the KTM is not impressed. Blame it on the Government, the Education system. Whatever.

The KTM agrees with your points on the "autocratic education system" and the "We can't think, we can't innovate, we can only work harder, then no time to think, no time to innovate, got to work harder" cycle. What they show is that there are SYSTEMIC issues and when it comes to systemic issues, talk is cheap. You may know exactly what's wrong, but you may not be able to fix it.

Let's take the Education system for example. Some (many?) say that the system is broken. The KTM believes that it's not so much the system that's broken, but that the quality of (some of) the principals and teachers is the problem, but hor, you have some 30,000 principals, HODs and teachers. How are you going to 'fix' them? Most (all?) of them were trained under the old regime, and we expect them to now be able to train our children in "critical thinking" because times have changed and the education system cannot just be a factory production line. How do we do this? Send them on critical thinking workshops?

To give MOE some credit, the KTM believes that things are actually improving, but people should recognize the scale and structural difficulties of the problems.

spursfan,

Welcome to the blogosphere.

I agree that the large part of the problem is systemic, although I would hesitate to pinpoint that schools should bear the brunt of the responsibility .... Would parents be too 'busy' to guide their children, and if so, wouldn't this be a sign for Singaporeans to stop catching up with the past/present and start slowing down for the future of our nation?

Well said. Parenting is another huge issue -- but to tie back to the Dan's "we can't think, we can't innovate, we can only work harder, then no time to think, no time to innovate, got to work harder" cycle, the state of things really isn't surprising is it? Perhaps the KTM sounds too fatalistic, but seriously, all things happen for a reason.

The moral of the story is that society today and its endemic problems are significantly more complex than what can be explained away as "the Government's fault" and more often than not, CANNOT be solved simply by a change in regime. The KTM believes that at the end of the day, everything is determined by the quality of our people (and leaders).

Dan,

I must admit to not really comprehending the full implication of the launch of my blog -- would never have expected that one of the first reactions was "Hey, you stole my name!"... just goes to show what cyberspace is unlike any other phenomenon known to mankind :-)

In terms of the URL I agree that Gerald has a point, as do you wrt the blog title. Still I wonder, if one truly regards such matters as tantamount to duplicating an IC, wouldn't one register it with all relevant authorities i.e. if I wanted to register for a passport as a secondary form of identification (wordpress in this case), would I not make sure that it is linked to my primary identification (being blogger)?

I will rename the blog title A Peek Into the Singaporean Patriot's Soul, and once I find an alternative URL (respectfully I would maintain that I am within reasonable bounds to have 'patriotic' and 'Singaporean' in it), the existing wordpress blog will remain dormant.

Would you concur with such an approach?

Hey spursfan, i think blogging identity is even more important, meaningful and vain than the ubiquitous pink card. Luckily for me, I dun think anyone in their right mind in singapore will call him/herself dansong. Dun think you should change the URL, I think your blog title change is already quite adequate to differentiate between Gerald's blog and yours, but only imho. Welcome again!

Hey KTM, Indonesia's democracy began only in 1997, and this case is interesting because it shows how an autocratic system with very little shock-pads (much worse than Singapore, of course) quickly fell apart with one unexpected external event, the Asian financial crisis. Its ten years now, and the country is actually in a much better shape than before 1997, so this case does show, to some extent, that democracy can bring about economic growth/turnaround in an 'Asian' country. But there will be bumpiness ahead, mainly because of teething problems, particularly because the Indonesian democratic system hinges on decentralization and federalism, somewhat like the US, particularly the US in the 1780s when the new American nation almost disintegrated because of conflict over federal and state powers, and of course indonesia is in a more precarious global situation. We won't have this problem since we are a tad small for decentralization/federalism.

On the Philippines, democracy began during the American colonial period (after the US displaced Spain as the colonial rulers in 1898-9), and the American democratic system with its federalist and strong separation of powers aspects were crafted on a patrimonial and agricultural Filipino society (patrimonial being akin to the paternal father-child relationship that spursfan has cited you on). This created a lot of problems, too much and too long to propound on here (the Philippines was a case study in my phd research, so I got so much to say about it!). Bottomline: major corruption and violence dominated and perpetuated by regional/provincial elites manipulating the democratic system -- and when the people revolted, usually helped by leftist organizers, the army took over. As evidenced by the latest round of extra-judicial killings by para-military and military forces, especially journalists, democracy is quite broken there. It is quite perverse: freedom of speech existing with state violence.

BTW, I wouldn't argue either that democracy is a panacea, never did, so I would agree with you on the panacea bit, though my argument is not that democracy is 'not necessarily bad' as you put it. On the contrary, it is necessary and good for our nation's future (though not sufficient, which brings me to the next point), that democracy must be part of a cocktail of medicine, and that part which will synthesize the rest of the cocktail and make it work. Alright, got to take a breather, will respond to your other points soon.

Hi Dansong,

Thank you for the advice. I have since decided to follow my neighbourly tendencies, and have taken steps to (reluctantly) leave my initial blog dormant i.e. no new posts will be made there. Not to fear, the new blog has been christened 'The Singaporean Patriot's Soul', and despite my considerable lack of technical blogging savvy, is, by divine grace and mercy, up and running again. I'd pick self-censorship over establishment-imposed censorship anytime ;-)

On democracy though, while the comparisons of the forms of democracy in various countries across time and space are useful in understanding more about how the democratic experiment may prevail in Singapore, I hesitate very much to 'join the dots' as it were, and proclaim that our position in the global scale of things is secure by any stretch of the imagination. In these days of modern technology, one would be much tempted to attribute the chaos and violence one watches/reads about/listens to *outside* of Singapore's borders, and not really ponder on whether such events could in fact transpire in our island-state.

I agree that decentralisation and federalism per se would probably not constitute a genuine threat to Singapore. However, being a Gen X'er, I am rather sensitive to any potential source of conflict (pet word), underlying or otherwise, that threatens to fragment our (fragile?) social fabric. Chief of these is racism. Not to sound alarmist, but it really wasn't long ago that we had long-time inhabitants of this island at each other's throats (to put it mildly), or rather *having* each other's throats, or worse (I hope the young ones are reading this)...

In this backdrop of resentment and violence in Southeast Asia, and with the ghosts of our recent past in the background, I believe that the values that we hold dear can hardly be described as being firmly in our grasp. If anything, the assurance of our nation's *survival*, much less our model of democracy (or sense of values as it were), is rather tenuous. Any of these external events could have a contagion effect on Singapore, economically, politically or socially speaking i.e. the torpedo effect. Furthermore, if social cohesion continue to be left to our beloved administrators, campaigns, decrees and establishment-sanctioned pronouncements, then in the event of social implosion, Singapore as we know it could transform into Bosnia in the mid-1990s in hours, not days i.e. the time-bomb effect.

While we may not be able to control what goes on in other countries, we should be more than able to take stock of what goes on within our borders. For a start, let's revive the good ol' kampung spirit in our daily lives. This is one aspect where the establishment seems to have a less-than-stellar track record, not that it's their fault. After all, as KTM might question, "Since when was Gahmen in charge of my kampung?"

I am kinda wondering why KTM keeps harping that democracy is bad, since the reason for democracy in any country is that it provides a way to do checks and balances on the government. Of course, the beauty of the American system is that governments change and things can turn back from bad to good and vice versa. Yes, KTM can talk about taxes, and he should start reading what has been happening in US politics, where George Bush and his administration are now getting all the subpoenas, checks and blocks from the Democrats. That is when democracy can make corrections and bring justice to people who made mistakes (for e.g. Donald Rumsfeld and John Bolton). Just because someone is doing something right but screwing everyone else, does not make him or her not accountable to the public. Of course, I am only talking about the rest of the world with a democratic system.

Bernard,

I believe upon closer scrutiny of KTM's comments one would find that he is *not* saying democracy per se is bad; rather it is the people who run such a system that more critically determine whether the nation achieves the desired results.

I'm not sure if the fundamental premise of democracy is to provide a check and balance mechanism on the government. There have been, and still are, other options available e.g. the military, monarchy, revolution (in a warped way, where the nation appears to be in a perpetual (balanced?) state of conflict and strife. I can however relate to democracy as a system where checks and balances on each aspect of society i.e. the state, media, business interests, unions, common folk, etc. are inherent.

Whether what I call 'fixed term democracy' (as is the case in the US) or 'rolling substitution democracy' (as evident in Afghanistan & Palestine, and to a lesser extent in the Philippines and Japan) is a model for other nations to emulate is very much debatable. Indeed even the much-vaunted 'parliamentary democracy' model brought forth to much of Asia through Britain flatters to deceive, as far as the results in many Commonwealth countries go (not that it is perfect in the Houses of Commons and Lords to begin with lol).

Which leaves 'representational/issues-based democracy', which exhibits itself somewhat in the US. I'm not certain that such a variant of democracy would serve Singapore's interests, however desirable it may have sounded in the past to this author ;-)

My hope is that we can utilise conflict in its various guises -- heated (but reasoned) debates in Parliament, even more reasoned debates in Singapore blogs lol, public dissent, weapons of the weak, personal example amidst the chorus of naysayers -- to allow for the rise of good leaders and followers who are regarded by all Singaporeans as being genuinely able to lead our nation towards a bright future.

BL,

I am kinda wondering why KTM keeps harping that democracy is bad, since the reason for democracy in any country is that it provides a way to do checks and balances on the government.

First, perhaps the KTM can quote for you exactly he said about democracy:

Perhaps the KTM can clarify that he's not saying that democracy is necessarily bad. Simply highlighting that it's not the panacea to the world's problems like some claim.

Next, the KTM must apologize for rambling too much and not being too coherent above, which is probably why you seem confused about what the KTM is trying to say. Permit the KTM to try to redeem himself.

Is democracy bad? No lah, of course not. A gun can kill people. Does it mean that a gun is bad?

Democracy is of course the best thing since sliced bread lah. A government "of the people by the people for the people" leh. How can you get better than that?

But hor, to borrow HS's kungfu analogy, democracy is like a dunno what precious sword left behind by dunno which ancient esteemed sword maker. Cuts metal like dirt, as the Chinese say.

However hor, while a swordman's skill is enhanced multiple-fold wielding the sword, one does not become the invincible swordsman by possessing the sword alone. To be that invincible swordmans, one needs the right kung fu AND the inner strength. Otherwise, it's pretty hollow and one can easily be defeated in combat.

The problem is: there are many of such swords and most of these fellas who wield such swords think themselves the invincible swordsman.

Singapore? We use a sledge hammer, but it's pretty darn effective. :-) The precious sword without the Invincible Sword Skill and accompanying Inner Strength formula is pretty hopeless. To trade the sledge hammer for the sword prematurely will be disastrous.

Hopefully the KTM has made himself clear. If not, then boh pian. This is the best the KTM can manage. :-)

KTM,

You state: "To trade the sledge hammer for the sword prematurely will be

Is it premature now, and why so? When did you think we can trade the sledge hammer for the sword? Isn't this the key question? How will we know when we can trade the hammer for the sword?

I think Jefferson quote may be useful in this discussion: "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson

Sze Meng,

Is it premature now, and why so? When did you think we can trade the sledge hammer for the sword? Isn't this the key question? How will we know when we can trade the hammer for the sword?

You have asked all the right questions. :-) The KTM hates to disappoint you, but he doesn't have the answers to them. :-P

An analogy is but an analogy lah, so dun have to take the KTM too seriously. Jefferson said it well, "if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education" (emphasis mine). Our education system is very good hor? :-)

KTM,

And so the gung-ho Singaporean larrikin goes 'kung-fu'... very nice indeed.

"All swords look good, but the swordsman is not at peace.
When the swordsman is ready, the sword will become as one,
even if it's a rusted piece of jagged metal..."

Cheers ;-)

Hey KTM, sorry, been busy, you said, systems don't matter -- it's the people (leaders) that matter, and it is the KTM's believe that NO system can tolerate bad leaders. America may seem invincible at this point, but the KTM believes that it's more a function of history than systems -- and all great empires fall, even the great Roman empire

The thing is that systems create and select leaders and even define what is good or bad about leadership, so on top of performing what the functions they are supposed to do, systems have to renew themselves by reproducing leadership. And you are absolutely right, it is a function of history, but socio-political systems are historical in two senses.

First, a system usually has time factored into its operation, 'wear and tear' if you like, and this is related to inter-generational succession of leadership throughout the machinery of the system not just at the top. Now, in terms of the two things that systems have to do, (a) perform their functions (for example, make Singapore thrive economically), (b) renew themselves by reproducing leadership, they may very well be related, AND in Singapore's case, definitely related - Why? Because in order to do (a), it has created an disciplined and obedient population through its autocratic education system, cultivated an elite corps of scholars disconnected from the ground and trained in technocrat-think, allowed those who did not fit in (and these are the creative and independent lot) to migrate. And this has an impact on (b), since the pool of potential leadership shrinks in the population of obedient followers, cultivated leaders are caught up in groupthink, and the diasporic Singaporeans have little connection back here since they are labeled quitters.

Second, the system is historical in the sense that it is functioning within a larger systemic environment with its own historical time, that is, capitalism which is probably on the rising curve of its 3rd or 4th wave of globalization since 1500s. What is prominent in each wave, as I have been arguing, is democratization, and one may even add that each wave brought with it a particular kind of democratization. Singapore has been an exception resisting this democratization. Question is, how long can it hold out and at what costs? On this point, spursfan has a good point about conflict, chaos and violence. I have a lot to say about racism, but I agree with spursfan that racism, internally and externally, will be the ugly monster that rears its head when our system 'implodes'. That's why democratization is important, we need shockpads against the external 'torpedo' and also internal resilience against 'implosion'. And to second spursfan in his response to BL, I agree with our prime minister that we must find our own form of democracy, adapted to our conditions, though I don't think, given the history of his speeches, I would agree with the form he proposes.

And this brings me to the point about 'talk is cheap when it comes to systemic issues' argued by KTM. On the contrary, talk is expensive because whenever the govt wants to reform or fix the system, it calls the formation of an exclusive committee that coordinates a whole network of smaller committees with links to non-governmental, grassroots and professional organizations for an intense period of consultations and feedback. Talk is necessary for systemic reforms because the govt needs to tap into the expertise of whole range of people and also to mobilize the people to assist in the reforming of the system. But such a way of doing reform, creating transient networks and elite committees render the talk very expensive since it creates a false scarcity of ideas and expertise contained in official channels. Wouldn't democratization the talk make it much cheaper and more profitable for the reforms?

On the educational system, one last point before I get back to my work, I don't think it is faulty. In fact, the problem with it is that it is working too well to the point of dysfunctionality (rather than malfunctioning), churning out disciplined unthinking robots to feed the economy. And to fix the dysfunctionality, instead of loosening control, the techno-social-engineers have added to the system more functions, to create caring citizens via CIP points, to cultivate creative citizens via IP requirements etc. The system is working at its maximum capacity perfectly at over-time. If the system doesn't explode, the robots will!

Dan,

The KTM admits that he has over-stretched himself by saying that "systems don't matter". Of course systems must matter. :-P Moving on ....

I don't think, given the history of his speeches, I would agree with the form (the PM) proposes.

Perhaps you can share with us (i) what form you think democracy should take in Singapore; and (ii) how do you think we can get there from here.

Wouldn't democratization the talk make it much cheaper and more profitable for the reforms?

The KTM must admit that he's not particularly enamoured with the dunno what Minsterial Committees for this and that, but then hor, it's not clear what democratizing the talk means either. Would you like to elaborate on what this means in *REAL* terms? It is unfortunately not clear to the KTM.

On the education system, regardless of whether you characterize it as "faulty" or "dysfunctional", the end result is still the same: it's supposedly broken and needs fixing. What needs fixing and how to fix?

Of course, waiting for you to ask, as I dun wan to be presumptuous. Its a treatise-in-progress, so I will give you a sketch, plus need to run off in a while. Democracy should not be simply formal-representational nor should it be check-and-balance, as we are a city-state not a federation of states nor a provincial polity. The funny thing is that I think the form democracy should take is the vision the PAP began with - grassroots democracy with dense networks of communication and trust running horizontally and vertically - something the party began building but ended up doing two things, monopolizing the networks and fusing state-government-party together in a stranglehold that led to over-structuring and hollowing out, causing the lethargy that I speak of in the article. How to get there from here: (1) make RCs truly representative of the estates through democratic elections, but non-partisan (right now it is partisan and undemocratically appointed), (2) hold town council and mayor elections, this can be partisan, freeing the constituency MPs to do political representation on the national level, (3) removing registration requirements for civil society organizations, government can regulate via sedition/maintenance of religious harmony laws, (4) remove licensing requirements for the media and the government ownership instrument in printing press law, government can regulate via sedition/maintenance of religious harmony laws, (5) limit GRCs to 4-people teams since proportion of Chinese to non-Chinese is 3 to 1 to fulfill original intent of GRCs.

The education system should be liberalized too so that democratic and national education can be truly realized. See my very old post, last year, on democratizing the schools. And since we are on this subject, there is a big difference between broken/faulty and dysfunctional due to perfect operation, because you can't fix things in the latter, rather, one has to start scaling back. Scale back the curriculum, remove compulsory CCA and CIP and other projects, give the teachers more time to be creative and teach. If anything needs fixing, revamp and reform NIE and give teachers the best liberal arts education there is, so that they first learn how to think before going out to teach thinking.

On the REAL terms of democratizing the talk. Well, I am running out of time. Will elaborate further. Basic thrust is this, if we believe that the best answers to issues and problems, the truth if you like, lies not in individual minds but as arising 'sui generis' from the meeting of many minds, then talk is the basis of solving problems, a necessary a priori to 'pragmatic' action. If so, this talk comes at an expensive price in an autocratic setting since networks are scarce and have to be built up and engineered with lots of political investments. This is linked to my above argument on grassroots democracy, since in the latter, the networks are already there and active. More soon...

Dan,

Slight delay in my response due to work and a fair bit of writer's block lol...

Fundamentally I am concerned about placing 'system' at the centre of the issue -- as things stand we would plausibly head nowhere since, if I'm reading you accurately, the system is doing this, that and the other... which begs the question, just who is running this system? ;-)

What I mean is, sure there is a system, but what is it there for? Yes, to generate *meaningful* results for the nation, and more importantly, to ensure that it remains relevant for all Singaporeans i.e. an inclusive approach to dissent, if you will. The people of ancient China were largely left to their own devices, and the intellectuals could debate ideas with the emperor with genuine hope of reform (when the imperial system is properly applied). I do not recall the emperor setting up government institutions to take over enterprise (sure taxes were a bummer back then, but these were ploughed back into infrastructure, alongside the occasional palace or two lol).

In this context, I agree that our system is perfectly flawed, mainly because it is serving an entirely different purpose than which it was originally intended. As such, it is the people who will need to reform it (before they explode) i.e. return the system to its original substance of genuine democracy, Parliament notwithstanding.

I agree that the cost of 'talking' is rather impressive; it is the quality of these talks that cheapens the process somewhat. I am more inclined to bypass the so-called official channels in favour of 'letting a thousand blogs flourish' as it were.

My ideal form of democracy in Singapore would involve nothing short of a radical transformation of the political scene, by which I don't necessarily mean the removal of the incumbent party. Indeed the fact that local and national issues are mixed to the convenience of all parties is a matter of concern. I find it hard to believe that MPs are overworked (though they could be seen as such). A Parliament split that distinguishes local from national politics may be workable, as is the notion that such elections be staggered over 2 years i.e. local elections in 2008, national elections in 2010.

In a sense the above more or less mirrors your sentiments in (1) & (2). (3) is reasonable, but the 'little pragmatic creep' in me would say that (4) and (5) are likely non-starters for the next 20 years at least.

As regards education, I have to say that the system is far more perfectly flawed than the political system, unfortunately. The fundamental premise for institutionalised education in Singapore (and many other countries, developed or otherwise) is to mass-produce employees for the workforce, and is likely to remain so in the long-term. Having said that, all is not lost.

Being a product of the much-maligned system myself (though one might say that I am an atypical product!), rather than leave it to the system to mould us, why not learn *outside* the system as well as within it? A handy wireless link i.e. radio in my day, to the BBC initiated my interest to explore beyond my shores. These days one would probably have podcasts downloaded onto MP3s; ease up on the pop/hard rock/emo. Read the papers, literally at first but gradually learn to read between the lines; thrash the fashion mags. Read more blogs such as SA; stop that senseless video and check us out ;-)

Hey, dansong, I'm a JC1 student in Singapore who wishes to use this piece on Youth Activism in my current project as part of my research material. However, the project criteria requires me to present an article with decent author credibility. Seeing as you go under a moniker and have rather abstract profiles at both Singapore Angle and Blogger, I couldn't really produce anything better than stating the criteria needed for submitting of articles to Singapore Angle and the credentials of its other writers, which my teacher-in-charge promptly rejected. As such, some sort of reply on your credentials would be really appreciated. Sorry for making such a request here, but I couldn't find your email address anywhere. Thanks in advance. My email address is as the link on my name.

Apparently there is no link on my name. My email address is as follows:

shadez_0vblue@hotmail.com

Hi student,

I posted the following on my blog but am reposting here:

I am too busy with work-related projects these days to keep up with blogging, sorry thus for the late reply.

It is perhaps somewhat ironic that you are posting this in my s'porious logic series. I don't get your teacher's requirement for 'decent author credibility'. Is this dependent on occupation? If it is, it is extremely flawed, for an office does not make a man/woman, and a teacher is not always right.

Besides, what I have offered in the article are opinions and arguments, not researched facts. The opinions and arguments are in themselves credible insofar as they are original and can be criticized and debated. I do not see any reason for not quoting my opinions and arguments as they are, regardless of my semi-anonymity (and those who can be bothered to dig just a little deeper into my blog sidebar would find out my 'real' identity), especially since they are public and open for all to read.

Perhaps this reflects a very pernicious and s'porious-logical culture in Singapore, where only 'expert opinions' are given weight, when the strength of the argument and opinion does not depend on the coherence, logic and evidence given, but the primary occupation of the opinion-maker. Well, it smacks of elitism, but worse, a very unthinking elitism that reflects an authoritarian culture.

In any case, I would rather you not use my article as 'evidence' for your own argument, for my opinions are not facts -- and this is another horrible error on the part of the media here and student research projects, using 'expert opinions' to substitute for facts to prove one's point. Evidence would come from, say, interviews and surveys of youth activists in your case.

Aiyah read between the lines lah. What really is 'student' trying to advance as a thought, logic or even idea? He is trying to say,

if you are anon, then you are nothing i.e credibility = stepping forward / no cred = anon.

I think we can be rest assured. This is just another cheap counter insurgency campaign to depict online anonymity as a menace and a feature that should be stamped out in our net.

If you look closely at the MSM the softening exercise has already begun in earnest, this is merely an extension of the propanganda machinery. This is how things work in singapore. How do you sell a fire brigade? Start a fire lah!

Guess what, it makes me want to be more anon. Previously, I was indifferent, now I will remain anon just to irritate those idiots.

Watch out registration is coming! Now I know why those deregulate the net ppl are so adamant to exclude the anon crowd. They all in one boat. Its nothing more than a power grab!

Take cover!

"Perhaps this reflects a very pernicious and s'porious-logical culture in Singapore, where only 'expert opinions' are given weight, when the strength of the argument and opinion does not depend on the coherence, logic and evidence given, but the primary occupation of the opinion-maker. Well, it smacks of elitism, but worse, a very unthinking elitism that reflects an authoritarian culture."

I have alot of admiration for the position you have taken. I believe many of us may one to say the same thing, but may not have either the guts or be able to find the right words

Thanks and keep it up. I really hope the Singapore Angle will continue writing again. It used to be such a busy site with all types of good and interesting write up.

Hey Everyone

Great article! Thanks! Great reference and debate for my research topic on comparing Youth Activism in SG and US. And the comments are even richer in depth!

Thanks
the newbie.