TOC News ? Misjudging politics in a conversation

Misjudging politics in a conversation

Published by The Online Citizen on September 27, 2012

By Howard Lee -

You know it is a slow news day when the Facebook posting of a Minister makes it to the news.

But given that the comments made by Lawrence Wong, Senior Minister of State for Information, Communication and the Arts (should we be worried?), referred to the National Conversations, in particular lending support to the legitimacy of the initiative, and Mediacorp which hosted the first two forums, perhaps a degree of self-interest was at play, too.

In truth, Wong's comments about how online vitriol has been 'politicised' would have done little to change the situation. It might have created a few new dirty words to hurl at the online community, but there is really very little logic to his argument.

For a start, conflating comments about Queenstown and partisanship at the National Conversation forums is inaccurate, demonstrated a lack in critical thinking, and just plain myopic. Or am I expecting a little too much from a Minister?

To be clear, the comments on the 'wayang' at Queenstown set up for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge was less about the People's Action Party, and more a fun jab at the Singapore public service's odd practice for excessive demonstrations to showcase something that is not natural to begin with.

I need not say any more about how the criticisms were levelled at the organisers and not the volunteers ? other writers, alluding to Vivian Balakrishnan's mistake during YOG, have done enough.

Yes, there were the usual comments that it was symbolic of the PAP putting up a show to present a picture-perfect scenario, but that hardly demonstrates partisanship. To focus on that is to miss the forest for the trees in all the comments made.

Within the jokes is a more serious message about how the public service needs to better understanding the realities of Singapore everyday life, and then try to align activities, even those of the demonstrative kind, closer to these realities, rather than pull out all the stops just to make an event look good. It would not have been the first or last of such views ? previous comments have been made when Singapore hosted other international events. But Wong has to be the one who calls such comments 'politicised'.

Our political leaders, beginning with Wong, need to understand that in any and every conversation, there are nuggets of wisdom that need to be paid attention to, instead of brooming them out together with those that they deem, or are wont to label, irrelevant.?

On the other hand, comments about the partisanship of the National Conversations need to be viewed in an entirely different light. Wong dismissed such comments as politicised vitriol, but the truth is that we have seen a history of how the PAP has, deliberately or not, excluded opposition party members, civil society and the more critical voices from public discussions chaired by the government.

If the National Conversations are supposed to be an improved version of citizen engagement, post GE2011, there needs to be a visible departure from this old mode of operation.

I believe that most Singaporeans who were unhappy with how the Conversations were conducted would not likely give two hoots about which opposition party was invited to join, so long as some are invited. Hence, Wong's comment on party preferences is seriously misguided.

We simply do not want to see a Conversation that is dominated by people who might be sympathetic of the ruling party's position on national issues, and are hence more likely to be part of the ancient echo chamber. How would we look forward, if so?

In other words, Wong and others like him need to realise that the ball is in the PAP's court to prove that they can be non-partisan, rather than lambast those who are raising the red flag on partisanship as 'politicised'. Proof is in actions, not words.

We want diverse voices, even oppositional ones that sit at the far ends of the fence of logic and possibility, to get to the bottom of matters and stimulate a hearty, if not heart-felt, discussion, rather than another consensus building show-and-tell. And Singaporeans have the right to expect the National Conversations to be like that.

And finally, to contradict his point on partisanship and add insult to injury, Wong ended his comments about the good things that the PAP has done.

While we might not doubt his political beliefs and convictions, Wong seems to have forgotten that people who wish to make Singapore better no longer see a need for political affiliation. Similarly, those online critics whom Wong slams for politicising the issue could just as well be people who are no less keen to see this country through to better times ? in politics, public service, citizen engagement, and everything else they care about and care to comment about.

Brushing aside these concerns is not only a detriment to the true spirit of an open conversation, but limiting the ideas and options that this administration needs to keep Singapore going.

HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!

If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.

Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com

Source: http://theonlinecitizen.com/2012/09/misjudging-politics-in-a-conversation/

Jessica Ghawi People Water Fred Willard Emmy nominations 2012 Ramadan 2012 Michelle Jenneke News