The National Conversation: expect awkwardness in bringing understanding
Published by The Online Citizen on December 4, 2012By Ng Yi Shu -
From the outset, the National Conversation (or formally, Our Singapore Conversation, OSC) was presented as a platform for government and people to converse together ? more specifically, perhaps, as a national discovery of the diverse identities and futures we as Singaporeans want.
Even before the National Conversation citizen dialogues began, however, perceived failure in precedents led to cynics calling this a ?failed promise?; the make-up of the committee became subject to intense scrutiny, PM Lee?s TV forum members were investigated for links to the PAP and People?s Association, the Workers? Party and National Solidarity Party declined to join the OSC dialogue; and the SDP held their own forum but failed to bring on most opposition parties? well you get the picture.
Talk is now not only cheap, but potentially awkward.
That didn?t faze the committee, or the many citizens, interested or invested, from joining the many citizen dialogues held since the OSC?s inception early September.
The very belief that Our Singapore Conversation committee (or any government outreach project whatsoever) is simply a PR exercise has been ingrained into many opposition sympathetic cynics. But luckily, for the interested or invested citizens, this inhibitor of change hasn?t come to them yet. Yet, a certain amount of awkwardness remains inevitable.
?If enough people come, there will be enough ideas generated?
Some will point out it?s not the number people attend the citizen dialogues, but who attends them. Will the committee ever reach out to the people they need to reach out to the most ? the disenchanted, disparaged, voiceless and disadvantaged?
Herein lies the awkwardness of this conversation.
This awkwardness is something one might personally be able to relate to: being unable to communicate with someone whose opinions matter but feels alienated. There is no talk. Even if there is, talk is one-sided.
There has been much cause for citizens to claim that we are victims of the system ? periods of political oppression under the ISA, resulting in a (diminishing) fear of speaking; slightly racialist policies that subtly create racial prejudice, sullying the claim that we are a meritocratic nation; a culture of ?money is everything?, creating a society that perceives status as equitable to dignity; a perceived lack of social mobility?
Distrust is what the OSC committee faces. As OSC member Tan Chuan-Jin notes in his facebook note: ?? all it takes for us to connect better is just to reach out.? Yet, this reaching out has not been able to touch those who really need to listen.
Still, it is certainly unwise to deem outreach as useless. To do so is to give up on reconciliation and unity between the politically invested parties of this nation. But it is definitely important to recognize that outreach is a two-way process, and through many assurances, the OSC committee has tried as much as they could to make it so.
Creating our future: the citizen dialogue
It is then certainly promising (or possibly optimistic) to note that many of the ideals presented during the 2022 headlines exercise of the citizen dialogue included a wide variety of views and values.
There was no effort to steer the conversation in anyway whatsoever ? the interests of the vocal majority within the dialogue room were evident. In fact, there seemed to be no effort to control the conversation, even after my declaration that I was a writer for TOC. A separate registration for another citizen dialogue by a contributor was accepted even though it was blatantly outlined in the application that he was part of The Online Citizen.
Social issues came out first: ideal work-life balances, accepting rather than tolerating, socially-oriented citizens, redefining (or as a member put it, broadening definitions of) success, having us as first for families, retirees and dreamers (True to our competitive spirit, we want to be first in many things)? A plucky participant brought up the ideal of a free press, with political parties paying for political advertisements rather than influencing political news.
However, one trait existed in many of these group-sharing sessions (as I personally experienced): the desire to develop society in the ?intangibles? ? for example, being the happiest country in the world; being Singaporeans with a big heart?
These views do align with the government?s vision of building a home with heart and hope. But they are not an alarming symptom of people saying what the PAP wants to hear.
Who doesn?t want happiness? Who doesn?t want a loving society? Who doesn?t want to chase the five stars of democracy, peace, progress, justice and equality?
The awkwardness comes when citizens define happiness differently. Guaranteed jobs for Singaporeans clash with ideals and values of meritocracy. Redefining success might make some lose out while broadening its definitions might make some wary of the death of failure. Political parties? desire for fairness might eliminate minority representation; but shouldn?t race be non-existent as an issue?
We all have different hopes and dreams. Perhaps all we need to do is to accept this diversity; to trust that beneath this diversity lies common themes and common wants.
Building a home in many ways
My optimistic partner in the sharing session told me that he believed that Singapore is a land of opportunity. His story was one of modern social mobility, where his hard work brought him to where he was today.
To some, it seems that our younger generation has slackened off. It is often lamented that young people are apathetic and unhappy with their chosen careers. A recent Gallup survey even reports that we are faced with an emotion deficit.
Contrast that with the deep passions young people have in the citizen dialogue and elsewhere ? on the podiums of the Speakers? Corner, political websites and so on.
To quote Minister Tan Chuan-Jin: ?Everyone of us is an individual with choices.?
Indeed, we all have choices; but sometimes they are not presented as clearly as the party logos on the ballot paper. Therein lies yet another potentially awkward part of the National Conversation: when most of us don?t know what values we harbour, who we are, and who we want to be, we are asked to choose what we wish to see in society in 2022 ? and asked to make what we wish for happen.
Perhaps the final objective of any National Conversation should be to bring clarity as to who we are, what homes we want to build, and what habits we want to nurture in future Singaporeans.
Clarity: what we do to get it
So how do we gain clarity? How can this conversation seem not that awkward?
It has everything to do with the political choices we make in everyday life. In this ever changing world, a broad understanding of the contexts around the issues that concern us is paramount for clarity of choice. Ultimately, this boils down to a simple choice of listening or not listening.
Even so, it is paramount that we speak our minds. In this aspect, the OSC has done perceptibly well: my facilitator exhorted us to mention every issue we were concerned about, so that we do not leave with the feeling of having forgotten to say something.
Even with its awkwardness, the National Conversation so far has been interesting at the very least. It may even turn out to be a promising aspect of change in our ruling political party.
I would thus be optimistic here ? the current era of politics is an exciting time for our generation of Singaporeans; an exciting time of change and participation. If you would like to, do take part in any way you can.
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
leon panetta luck sag awards 2012 nominees sag awards pro bowl 2012 roster yamaguchi road house
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.