Nothing is as it seems, Minister

Headline: "Nothing is stopping youths from speaking up: Vivian"

This assertion has been raised a few times, and it is enlightening to see that today's youths are starting to question their leaders and claim their right to speak. Unfortunately, in forums and in the national press, a fancy sanitized picture is glossed over the intricate problems that hinder our struggle to speak.

Here are the interesting tidbits that deserve critical analysis:

"The first asked for a speakers' corner at the proposed youth park at Orchard Road - an idea first mooted by opposition MP Low Thia Khiang in Parliament a fortnight ago, but which Dr Balakrishnan had shot down.

Referring to this, the student asked: 'Does this mean that the Government is taking a more conservative stance towards youth in politics?'

Dr Balakrishnan's response was that there already are various avenues for youths to speak out, such as The Straits Times' YouthInk pages, a section with stories written by youths; the national youth forum; and the Feedback Unit's Internet portal.

Reiterating the point he made two weeks ago, he said there was no need for another speakers' corner especially since the existing one in Hong Lim Park is not successful.

'Why has it failed? Because Singaporeans are sensible people and have decided that there's not much point going up there standing on a soapbox, yelling at the mosquitoes and the flies."

One question was left opened, but deserves an answer. Is the government taking a conservative stance towards youth? Vivian didn't directly answer this but instead implied there are more open avenues (all of which deserve greater scrutiny). Various avenues for speaking up doesn't indicate a more liberal stance. It only suggests that the participants are given more locations to speak, but doesn't necessarily entail that there are other curbs on speaking up, such as laws, regulation and censorship. Just by studying the avenues Vivian suggested, namely the Straits Times' YouthInk page (do we seriously need to debate on the kind of standards the articles would appear in the ST), the national youth forum (again, another avenue dominated quite substantially with pro-PAP youths), and the Feedback Internet Portal (which is controlled by the government, and hence has legitimacy to censure certain voices), there leaves little doubt that the conservative stance is still in place, has always been and will continue to be. What has merely happened is the insidious approach to displace the youth's suspicions into broader channels of (regulated) communication, where the government has a more powerful and wider net to exercise power over.

But perhaps Vivian is right on his last point. Singaporeans are "sensitive people" who are well aware that the implementation of such soft "solutions" do not touch the heart of the issue, and that what they have to say deserves the ears of other Singaporeans, not mere insects. The question is, can they be allowed to say it openly and freely?

"He stressed that the youth park should not be made into a 'partisan political space'.

'I don't think we should let it be hijacked by politicians playing petty political games, scoring petty political points."

Nobody, has suggested thus far, that the youth park be used for partisan political space. In fact, since political advertising and gerrymandering is strongly prohibited, it leads to the conclusion that the youth park can be utilized for open discussions that don't pander to "political gamescoring". But let's return to this point later on....

"Another student asked why Singapore did not adopt liberal democracy, and had felt 'the need to be restrictive in order to be cohesive'.

In a similar vein, there were also calls from others in the audience for greater freedom of the press and media independence.

Given the abundance and free flow of information in this age of globalisation and the Internet, a young woman asked how the Singapore media could be credible if government controls were not relaxed.

Dr Balakrishnan said that even as a young man, he never felt 'inhibited' to speak up and his views were never censored.

In fact, he challenged the students to tell him if there was one thing they wanted to do, but which they were being prevented from doing.

No one among the 900 students present took up the challenge.

As for the local newspapers and news programmes, he said they could more than hold their own against the international media.

Far from wanting the media to be pro-People's Action Party, the Government's main concern is that the media be honest, accurate, and pro-Singapore, he said."

This bit largely pertains to media, democracy and independent press. Let me state, with outright disapproval, that Dr. Vivian has the cheek to suggest that just because as a young man, he never felt "inhibited", means that the others don't reserve that right. But this is an element of political scoring, suggesting that one can win the entitlement to "freedom of speech" if he subscribes to the PAP doctrine. He then further suggests that local newspapers and programmes (all of which are under the government's control) could hold their own against the international media, which is a remarkable statement to make. By no means, could the entire resources of SPH or Temesek Holdings hold their own against the international media, instead it would be more appropriate to state that they make better servants of national policy, who perpetuate in advocating the national cause outside critical scrutiny. The last remark doesn't even deserve a rebuttal, everyone is pro-Singaporean, nobody at the youth forum, as anyone can tell, was anti-Singaporean, and neither should the media have the authority in recognising who is "pro" or "against" Singaporean. That kind of decision is reserved only for the public, not the government system or the dominant ideology that dictates it.

Which, all really comes back one full-circle to Dr. Vivian Balakrishnan's warning about scoring "petty political points". Who is exactly doing that now?