Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Singapore Speak: Who's Obama?
Tharini raises a valid excuse for the McCain camp slogan in a foreign land:
"I don't think that Singaporeans don't have any opinion about the elections in the States. I have met many Singaporeans who have their opinions on many issues that go on in their own country as well as what happens overseas, including the elections.Talking to any random Taxi driver could prove that :) However, I think the issue lies more on them... Read more ... Read Morefeeling that expressing their opinions will not matter rather than them not having any opinion at all.
If their own country has always made them feel that expressing their opinions would either be futile or get them into jail...why wld they think that expressing their opinion on international issues wld make any difference to their lives?"
I had brought up the discussion on a social network thread about an article from the Huffington Post (Death of Rovian Politics). Obviously when I mentioned a "similar effect" occuring in Singapore, it was in the context of SG's own politics, but the thread seemed to have somewhat diverged to SG's general globally apathetic view on politics. It did produce an interesting link to the Gallup World Poll. But my point was that we cannot afford to underestimate 'potential' of political expression, because that ultimately feeds indifference both towards exercising and infringing that right to speech. It does not justify regulation of what you can broadcast online, as I'm sure the Singapore Democratic Party will argue. Politicians will find the internet is a level playing field, and as Arianna Huffinton points out, the cost for assuming otherwise is a very unforgiving and costly one.
Nonetheless, it's still interesting to bring up the subject Tharini raised. You would think that on the contrary, s'poreans would have more liberty to express their views on global issues. It's an argument steeped in apathy but tries to disguise itself as one of reason. One fought on self-gain, and not of principles.
"I don't think that Singaporeans don't have any opinion about the elections in the States. I have met many Singaporeans who have their opinions on many issues that go on in their own country as well as what happens overseas, including the elections.Talking to any random Taxi driver could prove that :) However, I think the issue lies more on them... Read more ... Read Morefeeling that expressing their opinions will not matter rather than them not having any opinion at all.
If their own country has always made them feel that expressing their opinions would either be futile or get them into jail...why wld they think that expressing their opinion on international issues wld make any difference to their lives?"
I had brought up the discussion on a social network thread about an article from the Huffington Post (Death of Rovian Politics). Obviously when I mentioned a "similar effect" occuring in Singapore, it was in the context of SG's own politics, but the thread seemed to have somewhat diverged to SG's general globally apathetic view on politics. It did produce an interesting link to the Gallup World Poll. But my point was that we cannot afford to underestimate 'potential' of political expression, because that ultimately feeds indifference both towards exercising and infringing that right to speech. It does not justify regulation of what you can broadcast online, as I'm sure the Singapore Democratic Party will argue. Politicians will find the internet is a level playing field, and as Arianna Huffinton points out, the cost for assuming otherwise is a very unforgiving and costly one.
Nonetheless, it's still interesting to bring up the subject Tharini raised. You would think that on the contrary, s'poreans would have more liberty to express their views on global issues. It's an argument steeped in apathy but tries to disguise itself as one of reason. One fought on self-gain, and not of principles.
Comments:
<< Home
I would like to clarify something. It isn't true that Singaporeans don't have the liberty to vote on international issues. They very well do especially with the dawn of the internet. But when there are more pressing issues that they are struggling with at home, it is not right to expect them to be in the mental state of mind to focus on international issues.
This is like asking a starving man to vote on an international issue. And if that man's response is that he needs to have some food before he can even think about voting,is that considered a selfish act?
Thinking about it, in the US, the amount of people who voted in the past years was small. If many Americans who are directly affected by the elections are not voting why are you looking to the rest of the world? I think it's more important to fix what's wrong in one's own country before trying fix what's going on in another.
A number of Singaporeans including myself are lucky enough to have left Singapore and to have had the chance to develop our self-confidence to speak up and formulate opinions on many issues. Still I feel there is so much that I don't know about, especially about what goes on in another country and I will never truly know unless I live there and live the people's lives.
This is like asking a starving man to vote on an international issue. And if that man's response is that he needs to have some food before he can even think about voting,is that considered a selfish act?
Thinking about it, in the US, the amount of people who voted in the past years was small. If many Americans who are directly affected by the elections are not voting why are you looking to the rest of the world? I think it's more important to fix what's wrong in one's own country before trying fix what's going on in another.
A number of Singaporeans including myself are lucky enough to have left Singapore and to have had the chance to develop our self-confidence to speak up and formulate opinions on many issues. Still I feel there is so much that I don't know about, especially about what goes on in another country and I will never truly know unless I live there and live the people's lives.
Hello Vogue, don't I know you from somewhere... :)
I wouldn't be surprised if this sentiment was perpetuated and common amongst s'poreans. But here are two things wrong with that a) I don't speak because it doesn't make a difference; and b) I don't speak because I can't. Both are fallacious and pretentious reasons not to utilise the vast resource that is the internet. Again, the main point of my original post linking to the Huffington Post was really the relationship between politics and the former. I can't honestly say I care for what S'poreans think of US elections, never mind their own. They've got enough on their plate and we can't impose high expectations of a nation that really is young and slowly being born into a liberal society. It's also unrealistic that everyone will have an opinion on everything, regardless of nationality, race, creed etc. But coming back to the original hypothesis of SG's apathetic culture, you're right that they have the privilege of free thought on global issues. Hence why they should have no reason to fear persecution that political documentary makers have endured such as Martyn See (Singapore Rebel). Having said that, 3 years on and Martyn See's documentary has transended regulation and survives today because of the internet. Finally, my reasons for finding the notion that political expression does not make a difference a selfish one, is because it pays no acknowledgement to the works of activists and the likes of Chee Soon Juan whom have struggled hard to earn what progression, no matter how small, that we have today. Their political careers are assumed to have no meaning if political expression does not matter, and there is nothing worse than the collective thought of this sentiment. Going by this logic, it is pointless to join Amnesty, animal rights, a feminist movement or whatever cause that you strongly believe in as a Singaporean. The argument is a lazy one, but the observation is more than likely accurate. Let's not forget Obama stands for the presidential race today for one of the world's greatest superpowers only because a man once had a dream in the 50s and 60s to defeat racial oppression against all odds. I can sympathise with apathy and respect a lack of opinion to a certain extent, but to blame it on not being able to make a difference just doesn't make it in my books.
But as they say, it takes two to tango. And the internet will remain merely an entertainment medium unless used otherwise.
Post a Comment
I wouldn't be surprised if this sentiment was perpetuated and common amongst s'poreans. But here are two things wrong with that a) I don't speak because it doesn't make a difference; and b) I don't speak because I can't. Both are fallacious and pretentious reasons not to utilise the vast resource that is the internet. Again, the main point of my original post linking to the Huffington Post was really the relationship between politics and the former. I can't honestly say I care for what S'poreans think of US elections, never mind their own. They've got enough on their plate and we can't impose high expectations of a nation that really is young and slowly being born into a liberal society. It's also unrealistic that everyone will have an opinion on everything, regardless of nationality, race, creed etc. But coming back to the original hypothesis of SG's apathetic culture, you're right that they have the privilege of free thought on global issues. Hence why they should have no reason to fear persecution that political documentary makers have endured such as Martyn See (Singapore Rebel). Having said that, 3 years on and Martyn See's documentary has transended regulation and survives today because of the internet. Finally, my reasons for finding the notion that political expression does not make a difference a selfish one, is because it pays no acknowledgement to the works of activists and the likes of Chee Soon Juan whom have struggled hard to earn what progression, no matter how small, that we have today. Their political careers are assumed to have no meaning if political expression does not matter, and there is nothing worse than the collective thought of this sentiment. Going by this logic, it is pointless to join Amnesty, animal rights, a feminist movement or whatever cause that you strongly believe in as a Singaporean. The argument is a lazy one, but the observation is more than likely accurate. Let's not forget Obama stands for the presidential race today for one of the world's greatest superpowers only because a man once had a dream in the 50s and 60s to defeat racial oppression against all odds. I can sympathise with apathy and respect a lack of opinion to a certain extent, but to blame it on not being able to make a difference just doesn't make it in my books.
But as they say, it takes two to tango. And the internet will remain merely an entertainment medium unless used otherwise.
<< Home
.jpg)
