New media and politics on CNA

I was interviewed by Channel NewsAsia’s Zainudin Afandi for a story on the increasing importance of the new media such as blogs and the Internet as a form of political expression in Singapore.

The programme, Insight, will air on Thursday 21 Aug at 8.31pm on CNA. I’m told other interviewees include Workers’ Party chairman Sylvia Lim and Foreign Minister George Yeo. Do tune in if you’re interested.

In the meantime, do check out an article I wrote for Opinion Asia, Untangling Singapore’s web of Politics.

.

One dis-united people?

This is like totally a copyright violation but I think its so important that all Singaporeans, especially Chinese Singaporeans, read this heartfelt piece by Straits Times journalist Nur Dianah Suhaimi.

It makes me feel ashamed that I myself have harboured some of the prejudiced and stereotyping attitudes described. Yet, I find I’m still in a minority in Singapore who cares to admit that the prejudice of the majority race is a problem.

Until we tackle this problem of prejudice at its roots, all the official exhortations of practicing “tolerance” and organizing “racial harmony days” will only be window dressing for the real problem that’s preventing us from being that “one united people”.

————–

The Straits Times, Aug 10, 2008

Feeling like the least favourite child

By Nur Dianah Suhaimi

When I was younger, I always thought of myself as the quintessential Singaporean.

Of my four late grandparents, two were Malay, one was Chinese and one was Indian. This, I concluded, makes me a mix of all the main races in the country. But I later realised that it was not what goes into my blood that matters, but what my identity card says under ‘Race’.

Because my paternal grandfather was of Bugis origin, my IC says I’m Malay. I speak the language at home, learnt it in school, eat the food and practise the culture. And because of my being Malay, I’ve always felt like a lesser Singaporean than those from other racial groups.

I grew up clueless about the concept of national service because my father was never enlisted.

He is Singaporean all right, born and bred here like the rest of the boys born in 1955. He is not handicapped in any way. He did well in school and participated in sports.

Unlike the rest, however, he entered university immediately after his A levels. He often told me that his schoolmates said he was ‘lucky’ because he was not called up for national service.

‘What lucky?’ he would tell them. ‘Would you feel lucky if your country doesn’t trust you?’

So I learnt about the rigours of national service from my male cousins. They would describe in vivid detail their training regimes, the terrible food they were served and the torture inflicted upon them – most of which, I would later realise, were exaggerations.

But one thing these stories had in common was that they all revolved around the Police Academy in Thomson. As I got older, it puzzled me why my Chinese friends constantly referred to NS as ‘army’. In my family and among my Malay friends, being enlisted in the army was like hitting the jackpot. The majority served in the police force because, as is known, the Government was not comfortable with Malay Muslims serving in the army. But there are more of them now.

Throughout my life, my father has always told me that as a Malay, I need to work twice as hard to prove my worth. He said people have the misconception that all Malays are inherently lazy.

I was later to get the exact same advice from a Malay minister in office who is a family friend.

When I started work, I realised that the advice rang true, especially because I wear my religion on my head. My professionalism suddenly became an issue. One question I was asked at a job interview was whether I would be willing to enter a nightclub to chase a story. I answered: ‘If it’s part of the job, why not? And you can rest assured I won’t be tempted to have fun.’

When I attend media events, before I can introduce myself, people assume I write for the Malay daily Berita Harian. A male Malay colleague in The Straits Times has the same problem, too.

This makes me wonder if people also assume that all Chinese reporters are from Lianhe Zaobao and Indian reporters from Tamil Murasu.

People also question if I can do stories which require stake-outs in the sleazy lanes of Geylang. They say because of my tudung I will stick out like a sore thumb. So I changed into a baseball cap and a men’s sports jacket – all borrowed from my husband – when I covered Geylang.

I do not want to be seen as different from the rest just because I dress differently. I want the same opportunities and the same job challenges.

Beneath the tudung, I, too, have hair and a functioning brain. And if anything, I feel that my tudung has actually helped me secure some difficult interviews.

Newsmakers – of all races – tend to trust me more because I look guai (Hokkien for well-behaved) and thus, they feel, less likely to write critical stuff about them.

Recently, I had a conversation with several colleagues about this essay. I told them I never thought of myself as being particularly patriotic. One Chinese colleague thought this was unfair. ‘But you got to enjoy free education,’ she said.

Sure, for the entire 365 days I spent in Primary 1 in 1989. But my parents paid for my school and university fees for the next 15 years I was studying.

It seems that many Singaporeans do not know that Malays have stopped getting free education since 1990. If I remember clearly, the news made front-page news at that time.

We went on to talk about the Singapore Government’s belief that Malays here would never point a missile at their fellow Muslim neighbours in a war.

I said if not for family ties, I would have no qualms about leaving the country. Someone then remarked that this is why Malays like myself are not trusted. But I answered that this lack of patriotism on my part comes from not being trusted, and for being treated like a potential traitor.

It is not just the NS issue. It is the frustration of explaining to non-Malays that I don’t get special privileges from the Government. It is having to deal with those who question my professionalism because of my religion. It is having people assume, day after day, that you are lowly educated, lazy and poor. It is like being the least favourite child in a family. This child will try to win his parents’ love only for so long. After a while, he will just be engulfed by disappointment and bitterness.

I also believe that it is this ‘least favourite child’ mentality which makes most Malays defensive and protective of their own kind.

Why do you think Malay families spent hundreds of dollars voting for two Malay boys in the Singapore Idol singing contest? And do you know that Malays who voted for other competitors were frowned upon by the community?

The same happens to me at work. When I write stories which put Malays in a bad light, I am labelled a traitor. A Malay reader once wrote to me to say: ‘I thought a Malay journalist would have more empathy for these unfortunate people than a non-Malay journalist.’

But such is the case when you are a Malay Singaporean. Your life is not just about you, as much as you want it to be. You are made to feel responsible for the rest of the pack and your actions affect them as well. If you trip, the entire community falls with you. But if you triumph, it is considered everyone’s success.

When 12-year-old Natasha Nabila hit the headlines last year for her record PSLE aggregate of 294, I was among the thousands of Malays here who celebrated the news. I sent instant messages to my friends on Gmail and chatted excitedly with my Malay colleagues at work.

Suddenly a 12-year-old has become the symbol of hope for the community and a message to the rest that Malays can do it too – and not just in singing competitions.

And just like that, the ‘least favourite child’ in me feels a lot happier.

Each year, come Aug 9, my father, who never had the opportunity to do national service, dutifully hangs two flags at home – one on the front gate and the other by the side gate.

I wonder if putting up two flags is his way of making himself feel like a better-loved child of Singapore.

———

.

Of eggs and baskets

The Sage of Singapore has spoken again.

This time he told his grassroots supporters: “You vote in a Div 3 Government instead of a Div 1 Government, the whole economy will subside within three, four years. Finished!

The Straits Times reported that he said that to vote anything but top quality into office could lead to, among others, job losses and falling property prices.

“We will be worse than our neighbours…”

On restless youths, he said: “They say: ‘Oh let’s have different parties change and be in charge of Government.’ Is it that simple?”

“If ever the PAP goes corrupt, weak, it’s finished. You will have to look for a new team, and a new party. That will be very difficult. So just watch and make sure nothing goes wrong with the PAP.

I am reminded of some English saying about eggs and baskets.

Amidst all the fear-mongering about the opposition bogeyman, there was a sliver of hope in what he said.

“We know that Singapore wants (an) opposition to check the PAP. We’ll find a way to have more voices inside the assembly, but not at the risk of voting in a Div 2 or 3 Government.”

I take it to mean that the ruling party is considering allowing more alternative views to be aired in Parliament. Which would mean more than the currently allowable three non-constituency MPs? Or even more nominated MPs? Or perhaps they simply won’t be so plain mean to our earnest but feeble opposition (apart from a certain Chee) and give them a level playing field to build up their ranks with more quality candidates.

If I were a PAP campaign strategist (which I am obviously not educationally qualified to be), I would advise them to liberalize politics significantly. In one fell swoop, they would pull the rug under the opposition’s feet. After all, most people who support the opposition do so not because they think the opposition is more capable of leading, but because they don’t like the PAP’s dominance, arrogance and unfair play.

In fact, I’m told from sources in the media that PM Lee is going to announce a significant liberalization of the Internet in his National Day Rally speech this Sunday — not that it will really make much of a difference to bloggers and online rebels.

.

What I wanted to ask the Australian PM

I took an afternoon off from work to attend the 29th Singapore Lecture at the Ritz-Carlton, during which Kevin Rudd, the Australian Prime Minister delivered a keynote address.

I had a few questions to ask him, but unfortunately despite being one of the first to stand up in front of the mike, DPM Jayakumar, the lecture’s chairman, overlooked me.

Anyway some friends whom I bumped into there wanted to know what I was going to ask. So here goes…

My question relates to your proposed Asia Pacific Community, which would include ASEAN, East Asia, India, Australia and the US. I think this is an important idea for people in our region to discuss. But as you know, good ideas don’t always get off the ground.

Your idea has received a rather frosty reaction from ASEAN. How do you plan to push through your idea while allaying the fears that this is an Australian-led initiative that might end up sidelining ASEAN?

If the APC were to be centered around ASEAN, just like the East Asia Summit is now, would you support it as strongly as you do now?

What has the reaction to your idea been like in Beijing, Tokyo, Seoul, New Delhi and Washington?

If anyone has an insider’s answer to my questions, do let me know!

YouthQuake: The Evolving Role of Women in Singapore

A plug on behalf of my friend Bernard who is organizing this.

—————-

“The Evolving Role of Women in Singapore”

The Workers’ Party Youth Wing is holding a public forum as part of the YouthQuake Forum Series. This forum series is into its fourth installment. The topic for this session focuses on how youth can propose and carry forward a refreshing new approach to women issues in Singapore. YouthQuake offers an excellent opportunity for Singapore youth to exchange ideas and experiences and we are confident that the forum topic will stimulate participants to debate and discuss. We thus encourage you not to miss such an occasion where you can keep pace with the pulse of today’s youth in a pleasant and stimulating atmosphere and experience the dynamic nature of youth-centric issues.

YouthQuake: The Battle Cry of Singaporean Youth

The details of the YouthQuake Forum are as follows:

Date: 16th August 2008 (Saturday)

Time: 1430 hrs – 1630 hrs.

Venue: Workers’ Party HQ, 216-G Syed Alwi Road #02-03

The speakers for this event will be:

1. Dana Lam- Teo

Dana will be providing an overview on the story of feminism and a history of women’s activism and achievements in Singapore since independence in 1965 and how the role of women in Singapore society has evolved over the decades. She will also be touching on what the women’s movement is all about and why is it relevant today. Looking ahead, Dana will conclude by speaking on certain issues that she believes will be most relevant to AWARE in the current internet age.

2. Lee Lilian

Lilian believes that no women in Singapore should be taking on the burden of single motherhood willingly and single-handedly. Her presentation entitled “The predicament of a single-mother in Singapore” shall illustrate how the stigma of being a single mother still exists in Singapore society and why we should accept single-motherhood as a respectable part of our society. She will also propose some recommendations on how the government can provide a better support network for them.

3. Koh Kai Lin

Kai Lin’s presentation entitled, “1.29 to 2.1” is a reflection on boosting the birth rate among young women in Singapore and why financial incentives unveiled in recent years to encourage married Singaporeans to have more babies have failed to significantly cure Singapore’s baby blues. She will be offering creative and radical measures aimed at boosting Singapore’s flagging birth rate. What exactly works best for young women in the local context will also be discussed.

4. Selene Cheng

The working women in Singapore has to grapple daily with the ideals and responsibilities imposed on them by the nation, society, family and the organisations they work for. Selene will be examining the roles of working women in a globalised economy and will offer suggestions on how businesses and the government can go about creating flexible work opportunities for women.

In order to assist in the organisation of this forum, kindly confirm your attendance with Bernard Chen @ bernardchen@wp.sg or email the Workers’ Party Youth Wing @ youthwing@wp.sg by 14th August 2008 (Thursday).

Past performance no guarantee of future results

Straits Times Forum, 26 July 2008:

Opposition yet to show it can deliver, unlike PAP

I REFER to Wednesday’s letter by Mr Alvin Tan, ‘JBJ must be careful if he wishes to espouse Singapore’s cause’.

I admire Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam for his fighting spirit. Even though he is 82, he is still actively engaged in politics. I hope he will retire graciously.

I welcome an opposition, provided it is constructive and helps Singapore make progress.

I have been through six or seven general elections. At each one, the opposition candidates always seem to have the same agenda. They criticise government policies and fight for freedom of speech, but they say nothing about how to help raise national productivity or revenue.

The People’s Action Party Government has given us a well-run system. Because of this, all my siblings have at least 10 years of education, they own Housing Board homes, and their children can have a tertiary education and hold stable jobs.

This is what we want for our future generations.

I would like to recount an incident in the 1960s, when I was a secondary student.

I had the opportunity to meet then-prime minister Lee Kuan Yew at the official opening of Outram Hill Community Centre. He had walked from Outram Road up Outram Hill. The moment he offered me his hand, I did not hesitate to shake it.

I had the feeling then that Singapore was in good hands.

Voting for the opposition now, in the light of what the Government has promised and fulfilled, would amount to dismantling what it has achieved, and moving backwards.

Lee Choon Wah

As investment advisors point out: Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

I agree that the Opposition has till now not been able to offer plausible solutions to the problems we face, or will face in the future. However, Singaporeans need to be careful not to simply dismiss the need for an opposition, just like the PAP does.

If anything, the best buffer against Singapore’s future slide is a capable and honest opposition that can take over the reins if the PAP should fail — and it will fail eventually, just like the Romans, Greeks and Egyptians did. (Obviously it is inappropriate for me to compare the PAP with the greatness of the ancient Romans, Greeks and Egyptians.)

Obama: Dissent does not make one unpatriotic

Barack Obama delivered another stirring address in Independence, Missouri a few days before the American independence day. In his speech, he defined what patriotism meant to him. So much of his speech is applicable even to Singapore and Singaporeans. Below are excerpts from his remarks. The full text of the speech can be found on at the Washington Post blog.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMbBuEoEYnk&hl=en&fs=1]

Dissent does not make one unpatriotic.

No party or political philosophy has a monopoly on patriotism.

Patriotism starts as a gut instinct. My grandfather explaining to me that we could do anything we set our mind to do.

What makes America great is not its perfection, but the belief that it can be made better. Our revolution was waged for that belief. That we could be governed by laws, not men. That we could be equal in the eyes of those laws. That we could be free to say what we want, and assemble with whomever we want. And worship as we please. That we could pursue our individual dreams but the obligation to help others pursue theirs.

Patriotism is not just loyalty to a place on a map or a particular people group. It is also loyalty to America’s ideals. Ideals for which anyone can sacrifice for, or defend.

Patriotism can never be defined as loyalty to a particular leader, or government or policy.

Mark Twain…once wrote: “Patriotism is supporting your country all of the time, and your government when it deserves it.”

We may hope that our leaders and our government stand up for our ideals…But when our laws, our leaders or our government are out of alignment with our ideals, then the dissent of ordinary Americans may prove to be one of the truest expression of patriotism.

Recognizing a wrong being committed in this country’s name; insisting that we deliver on the promise of our Constitution – these are the acts of patriots, men and women who are defending that which is best in America. And we should never forget that – especially when we disagree with them; especially when they make us uncomfortable with their words.

Beyond a loyalty to America’s ideals, beyond a willingness to dissent on behalf of those ideals, I also believe that patriotism must, if it is to mean anything, involve the willingness to sacrifice – to give up something we value on behalf of a larger cause.

true patriotism cannot be forced or legislated with a mere set of government programs. Instead, it must reside in the hearts of our people, and cultivated in the heart of our culture, and nurtured in the hearts of our children.

It is up to us to teach them that it is good to give back to one’s community; that it is honorable to serve in the military; that it is vital to participate in our democracy and make our voices heard.

And it is up to us to teach our children a lesson that those of us in politics too often forget: that patriotism involves not only defending this country against external threat, but also working constantly to make America a better place for future generations.

That is the liberty we defend – the liberty of each of us to pursue our own dreams. That is the equality we seek – not an equality of results, but the chance of every single one of us to make it if we try. That is the community we strive to build – one in which we trust in this sometimes messy democracy of ours, one in which we continue to insist that there is nothing we cannot do when we put our mind to it, one in which we see ourselves as part of a larger story, our own fates wrapped up in the fates of those who share allegiance to America’s happy and singular creed.

Govt’s graduate equation needs balancing

During last year’s National Day Rally speech, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced plans to set up a fourth university in Singapore, targeting 30 per cent of each cohort to enter publicly-funded universities.

However, based on the past week’s news, it appears the Government is now preparing the ground for a possible downgrading of these plans.

More education could mean less growth: Minister

On 11 June, TODAY reported that Singapore Polytechnic had just launched a scholarship programme to groom top students to be future ministers. The report hinted that university degrees may not even be necessary to reach the highest offices in the land. Polytechnic diplomas could suffice.

Later that day, in his first major speech since his appointment, Education Minister Ng Eng Hen told an Australian university alumni gathering that “more education does not necessarily mean more growth”. He cautioned against a “fixation” with numerical targets for undergraduate enrolment, and said that “expanding education thoughtlessly may actually weaken the link with growth”.

This was also reported on by TODAY on June 12th.

The minister then sounded another alarm that increasing university numbers may reduce the overall quality of education. He further warned that universities could drain teachers from secondary schools. (It is puzzling why the minister thinks future universities will be staffed by National Institute of Education graduates, rather than PhD holders.)

Most of Dr Ng’s postulations were quoted from the book, Does Education Matter?: Myths about Education and Economic Growth by Alison Wolf, a professor at King’s College London. The minister’s press secretary pointed this out in a reply to TODAY on 14 June, wherein she accused the paper of “inaccurate and misleading” reporting.

Having read the minister’s entire 18-page speech, I thought there was nothing inaccurate or misleading about the article ran by TODAY. The minister quoted extensively from that book, and spent the next five pages of his speech arguing that more university education may not lead to economic growth, and that our technical institutes (ITEs) and polytechnics are serving our needs wonderfully. It is not unreasonable to assume then that Prof Wolf’s theories lined up with Dr Ng’s own views and, by extension, those of the Government.

Foreign talent and the “flexible labour policy”

The Government has always been unapologetic about its utilitarian approach in moulding the education system to meet market needs. However, foreign employment figures over the past few years point to a failure of the education system in producing the skilled manpower that employers are demanding.

As of December 2006, there were about 83,000 Employment Pass (EP) holders in Singapore[i]. The EP is a work pass for foreigners, usually degree holders, whose monthly salary ranges exceeds $2,500. These professionals are commonly referred to as “foreign talent”, who possess the skills and talents that our local graduates lack — or so we are told.

This means that Singapore is short of about 80,000 university graduates to support the economy. It doesn’t make sense for the Government to constantly lament about the shortage of local knowledge workers and import wave after wave of foreign talent, when it can solve this problem by providing more university places and financial support for Singaporeans to complete their higher education.

The Government has explained that it wants to maintain a “flexible labour policy”, which sees it issuing more work passes during boom years, and cutting back during economic downturns.

While that sounds good in theory, the reality on the ground may not be so straightforward. There is no guarantee that during lean years, employers will suddenly awaken to their patriotic duty to retrench only foreigners and retain Singaporeans.

In fact, the additional costs of employing Singaporeans — paying CPF, granting National Service and maternity leave — mean that the pragmatic choice for employers would be to fire the Singaporeans and keep the foreigners when profits are down.

One step forward, two steps back

The Government seems to be taking one step forward and two steps back on the issue of university education. Back in 2003, a committee helmed by Dr Ng himself rejected the idea of setting up a fourth university. Now even with the commitment from the Prime Minister to expand local university places, he seems to be tempering expectations.

The argument that having more universities will lower overall standards is a red herring. No one wants the National University of Singapore (NUS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU) and Singapore Management University (SMU) to lower their standards and rankings. There is no reason to expect this to happen if a fourth or fifth university were to be set up. Why can’t each university be the “best in its class”? A culture of excellence is, after all, the Singaporean way.

Even if Singapore were to go into recession, Singaporeans will still be better off as unemployed graduates than as unemployed non-graduates. After all, if graduates can’t find jobs locally, they can more easily seek employment overseas. This is one of the key benefits of making Singaporeans “world ready”, as the Government aims to do.

Political cost of higher education

Why does the Government seem reluctant to drastically expand graduate numbers? Compared to other developed countries, Singapore’s proportion of graduates is dismal. Only 23 per cent of each cohort in Singapore graduates from university. In Australia, 60 per cent hold degrees. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average is 36 per cent.

Perhaps the Government realises that having “too many” educated citizens may be politically inconvenient, especially if the economy does poorly and graduate unemployment numbers increase. With their stronger ability to articulate grievances, vocal graduates may require our highly-paid ministers to spend much more time thinking of the right way to “fix” them or “buy” them over.

Already, support in Singapore for a more pluralistic government is highest among the educated classes. A post-2006 election survey conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies found that most Workers’ Party supporters were from the upper-middle and above household income group. A higher proportion of respondents with university qualifications also felt there is a need to reform the election system.

The fourth university: yes but not quite?

We can expect that in the coming months, the Ministry of Education and its “nation-building” press will continue to wax lyrical about how wonderful our ITEs and polytechnics are, and how their graduates find jobs much faster than university graduates. They will sound more warnings about how more graduates could mean poorer overall quality — just like “those other countries”.

Finally, Singaporeans will be informed that the fourth university will be set up as promised, but it will be just a small liberal arts college with a cosy 200 or so students.

Meanwhile, thousands of Singaporeans, desperate for a university education, will continue to flock to overseas universities each year, in pursuit of that degree that they could have obtained at a much lower cost had there been more places in local universities.

More graduates needed for knowledge economy

A fundamental shift in mindsets with respect to university education is needed. Our knowledge economy needs many more graduates, and it will be better to fill the skilled positions with Singaporeans rather than importing more foreign talent.


Update: Since this article was first publised on 17 June on The Online Citizen, the government has announced that Singapore’s fourth university will eventually be a liberal arts college taking in up to 2,500 students annually. I’m glad I was wrong on this count. However, its intake will still fall way short of the 4,000 students who go to Australia year each seeking university degrees.

——————–

Related articles:

· Increasing access to higher education imperative for Singapore

· Education is the best social welfare

[i] Figures provided in a reply by then-Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen to a Parliamentary question on 17 July 2007.

Passport blunder: It’s Singaporeans who are negligent

First they let a dangerous terrorist slip away during his toilet break, and Singaporeans were told we were complacent.

Then, they let a retiree get through the checkpoints with the wrong passport. Now we are told we are negligent.

Straits Times, 25 June

Passport blunders leave S’poreans stranded
By Jessica Lim

SINGAPOREANS are a negligent lot when it comes to passports, travel agents told The Straits Times on Wednesday.

It is not common for travellers to make a mad dash to the airport with the wrong passport, some said, but added that,more often, they show up at the airport with expired passports or without the required visas.

Some forget their passports altogether.

Travel agencies contacted by The Straits Times say they make it a practice to call travellers before their flights with reminders to pack their passports and check that everything is in order.

Despite this, one in 10 will goof up every month….

Dr Teo Ho Pin, who chairs the Government Parliamentary Committee for Law and Home Affairs, also called on travellers to exercise some responsibility.

He said: ‘In the most recent case, it is a genuine mistake, but that is not an excuse. If you travel with the wrong documents, you’re breaking the rules.’

It seems this government and the press that they control are intent to shifting the spotlight to Singaporeans’ shortcomings whenever they make an embarrassing blunder.

In this case, the GPC chairman for Home Affairs, the ministry responsible for this blunder, has the nerve to lecture Singaporeans on exercising responsibility.

When will a real leader stand up and accept responsibility for these “appalling” mistakes?

.