Education for the Youth

Today (21/02/2005), the Straits Times has responded in full force on student activism, especially holding Minister Mentor Lee's comments at the Kent Ridge Forum on Jan 26 in high regards. Monday's ST is usually focused on the education scene among the youths in Singapore, so it acts as a weekly national reminder to them on important issues. For a considerable time period, a central issue has been the political apathy concentrated among the new generation of teenagers and that this would translate to a lack of patriotism in future generations. I've brought this up before, and this social phenomena has been relayed to me by the national press, so there is very little excuse for our top ministers to feign ignorance on the issue. I only speculate on how serious this "malady" truly is.

Nevertheless, the topic of student political apathy is being discussed in three articles. Student Activism- Is it just lip service? is an article written by a first year student in SMU. The writer, Teng Yi Ling basically appeals to youths to take charge, quit complaining, advocate their views and "stop being an empty vessel". Feel passionate about something? Walk the talk is a simple expose on a non-profit youth organization, AFUA, that advocates arts-based activities. There's also discussion about another youth employment organization (YES) and the role of the National Youth Council (NYC). The goals of these youth organizations are certainly worth applauding, though there's also good reason to investigate how these groups are being managed not only within their own intragroup politics but also within the surrounding socio-political context. Then there is Shake off apathy, step to the policy beat, written by an anonymous contributor to YouthInk, who also unequivocally demands that both parties, the government and the apathetic youth, (in his/her own creativity) learn to "tango" in increasing public awareness among youths by promoting youth-based organizations. In other words, the government should take a more intensive role in engaging with the youth.

Most likely, upon first glance, there is apparently nothing insidious about the promotion of youth empowerment and given that all the above articles were written by either head advocates or youths, it seems reasonable to suppose that the government is taking an active role. Recently, the government has not only encouraged youths to learn more about the national press but also produced their own sister newspapers targeted at youths. So by all logical conclusions, these articles are simply spun to only encourage MORE active participation in educating the youth, not that the present involvement is or was, in any way, absent, but simply to get more youths to obey to the tuteledge of governmental ideology and serve governmental power. In order to construct an urgent priority, it then proposes the fear that a apolitical young generation will only spell the end of Singapore.

Some police organizations do rely on the help of youth organizations to strength their resources and facilitate better understanding of the other party (be it deviant groups or the general public). Now this form of policing is refered to as community policing, and in some respects the local police does employ the same techniques. However, there is a strange contradiction here. Community policing was taken to be anatagonist with authoritarian policing, which means a style of controlling the population through the rule of force (physical, legal or other methods of disempowerment and deprivation). However, this kind of mutual exclusivity is not necessarily followed through in social reality, so we are able to witness degrees of polarity in a society such as Singapore.

The point here to make is that the education that is being instructed here, is by no means intended to facilitate understanding of youth culture. Previously, youth groups that have been antagonistic to dominant national ideology have been rooted out (I understand that references are needed for such a claim, but I think we can safely assume youth punk rock groups are not seen as a "friend" of any government position). The education that the national press endorses is conformity to the national government, and for better or worse, thats not political apathy, thats political parochiliasm thats being fostered. The nurturance of a political conscience is not developed by simply linking with a state ideology but to encourage independent thought and inquiry into social matters. There might even be a backlash as youths expect governmental consent before embarking on their own activities and this would only result, what seems more plausible, in engendering the expression of creative or political voices through a bueaucractic system of thought. This is hardly what any sensible person would call "empowerment".