It seems that now the current rage in the news is about THAT interview with the Minister Mentor of Singapore the esteemed Mr. Lee. According to what I have read there is a difference in the sentiments of the pre and post-65ers about the way questions were asked to the MM, with some saying that the young were rude, and did not respect the MM enough.
Well I watched that interview myself, and while I think that the young participants certainly didn't mince their words, I think it made for healthy discourse! Since when was a political discussion not a fiery affair anyway? I think Singaporeans have become so accustomed to seeing walkovers that they forgot that political debates are meant, and should always, be heated. I mean, there are two opposing viewpoints for goodness sakes! Do you expect one side to just meekly roll over and die? The fact that the young didn't hold back is also good as we need people to ask the uncomfortable questions. If you aren't interested in asking the uncomfortable questions why bother to ask? I don't believe anyone likes listening to cliched answers.
However, I like to point out something to our generation. Stop harping on and on about political freedom and freedom of speech and the need for an opposition unless you know what that entails and you are willing to sacrifice coming out of your comfort zone for it. It is just like our generation to jump on the bandwagon to embrace the "hip westernised ideals" of free speech, political opposition and other democratic slogans without knowing exactly what they are. You think America is the ideal? I think you haven't seen just what American politics is all about. Its all about money. I think the voters there have seriously less voter influence than the big corporations, despite all their democratic institutions. Think about this. Who pays for the campaigns? Who do you think the president will please first? That big energy corporation or your animal rights movement?
I bet if you ask any spiky haired teenager about politics, he'll probably say PAP sucks without knowing why, and just how it does. While I acknowledge that the PAP is not perfect, no party is and the way I look at it Singapore is not ready for a two party system just yet. Everyone is still perfectly comfortable with the PAP doing everything for them, but instead of saying so they say they are "afraid" that something will happen if they vote for the opposition. Bullshit. The truth is people are afraid of change and what that may bring. This is why I feel Singapore is still not ready for a two-party system. If you think differently, let your vote reflect it, or better still, contest if you think you have what it itakes.
However, I found one point made by the MM mildly disturbing. He says that politics is not all about voting, and it should best be left to a few good and capable people. While I acknowledge that politics is not all about voting, I absolutely disagree that it should only be left in the hands of a few people. When you leave power in the hands of a few, it corrupts. One only needs to look as far as NKF to see just how it does. Absolute power corrupts in such a way that even checks and balances put in place will fail. This is why I still believe that voting is essential, and that if possible politics should be in the back of the mind of every citizen, with a real avenue for everyone to contribute rather than soak up everything like a sponge the way Singapore is run now. Don't tell me about the feedback unit and speaker's corner. I think we take the cake for the worst attempts at political discourse ever.
Government decides this and that. We just follow like mindless sheep. How safe is that for Singapore really? While I respect MM Lee for all he has done, he will not be the one leading Singapore the next 50 years. The political scene can only change and I can only wonder if Singapore is ready for that.