Singapore Forum on Politics 2005
Speakers:
Mohd Nizam Bin Ismail, President, Young AMP
Alfian Bin Sa'at, poet and playwright
Alex Au, gay activist
Eleanor Wong, Associate Professor, NUS Law Faculty
Asad Latif, Senior Correspondent, The Straits Times
Chaired By:
Kenneth Paul Tan, Assistant Head, Political Science Department
While I have to admit that I have been enlightened on some points raised by the speakers as well as the crowd, I felt that the forum was something like a bad debate. The terms open and inclusive were not defined. The domain of discussion kept jumping all over the place. People spoke on different sides of the coin when it suited them.
Granted, the more controversial areas like political plays/movies and writing/talking about the opposition have always been clamped down and choked by the Gahmen. The Gahmen is still an iron-fisted prude when it comes to allowing anybody to speak about them in derogatory terms. Michael Moore style politics in Singapore? Might as well just surrender yourself to the ISD if you chose to make a personal attack.. less leceh.
Still, one of the audience raised the issue that the plays made the arts groups on the fringe tend to be reactionary to or does things that only reaffirms the political boundaries that the Gahmen sets.
The Gahmen offers the reasoning that the silent conservative majority will find the upstart minority offensive and thus, in the name of public good, clamps them down.
The problem about being a rebel or fighting on the fringe is that any compromise on their part to be accepted into the mainstream is seen as a cowardly loss of ground. And as the Gahmen continually turns them down, they gain the right to be openly cynical and uncompromising. Both sides don't compromise, no one wins, everybody loses.
But there is a need to say that yes, there have been cases of compromises by both parties and that the art/movie was made available to the public. But too little, too few.
The question is, are our arts groups taking the right approach? What is the best strategy for turning Singapore into a more open and inclusive society?
From the little I know, my conclusions are that the Gahmen still derides any attempt to question its moral/political authority and how it does things, especially on the more controversial parts. This conclusion will stay until the next time a play or a movie comes up and the Gahmen allows it to go on, untouched. Only by doing so will the Gahmen send out a strong enough signal that "yes, we are more accepting now." Mere words at a speech or rally just doesn't cut it. There were some very reasonable requests by the arts groups and cutting them out only made the Gahmen look ridiculous. But being affected by these and being cynical and disillusioned will serve no purpose.
The theme of the forum, "Towards an Open and Inclusive Society", allowed the range of discussion to go from fringe arts groups to talking about the sick, poor, old, handicapped and even to the Malay-Muslim community. Too wide a range to comment on.
The people who talk at these forums are, necessarily, the elite. Asad Latif talked about the necessity of taking into account the views and perspectives of the subalterns. An audience member noted that if you spoke for the subalterns, you are acknowledging the fact that these people are subalterns. subordinate, inferior, marginalized. I think we have to acknowledge this fact no matter how controversial it might sound. Throughout history, society has been led by its elite. The only forward is for the elite to rightly reflect and voice out the needs of the rest of society. Sensitive subject this, probably wanna leave it as it is first.
At the end of everything, we all made our way out to a steaming slipper lobster lunch (which I felt so inappropriate after talks of elitism) and I wonder what progress we have made in that lecture theatre the last 4 hours. There were times when I felt that the speakers were not presenting to us, the audience, but rather using the forum as an indirect challenge to the Gahmen. Such a forum seems to only serve out disillusionment.
It is too easy for us to slip into cynicism and disillusionment and if we do, nothing will progress. I think there is a social responsibility that we, as the "elite", have to carry out. To do whatever it takes possible to make the country a better place. We must believe we can make a difference no matter what the rules of the game are.
This post suddenly feels like the forum. Too many aspects to talk about till it becomes a little incoherent. Or maybe its just me.
Mohd Nizam Bin Ismail, President, Young AMP
Alfian Bin Sa'at, poet and playwright
Alex Au, gay activist
Eleanor Wong, Associate Professor, NUS Law Faculty
Asad Latif, Senior Correspondent, The Straits Times
Chaired By:
Kenneth Paul Tan, Assistant Head, Political Science Department
While I have to admit that I have been enlightened on some points raised by the speakers as well as the crowd, I felt that the forum was something like a bad debate. The terms open and inclusive were not defined. The domain of discussion kept jumping all over the place. People spoke on different sides of the coin when it suited them.
Granted, the more controversial areas like political plays/movies and writing/talking about the opposition have always been clamped down and choked by the Gahmen. The Gahmen is still an iron-fisted prude when it comes to allowing anybody to speak about them in derogatory terms. Michael Moore style politics in Singapore? Might as well just surrender yourself to the ISD if you chose to make a personal attack.. less leceh.
Still, one of the audience raised the issue that the plays made the arts groups on the fringe tend to be reactionary to or does things that only reaffirms the political boundaries that the Gahmen sets.
The Gahmen offers the reasoning that the silent conservative majority will find the upstart minority offensive and thus, in the name of public good, clamps them down.
The problem about being a rebel or fighting on the fringe is that any compromise on their part to be accepted into the mainstream is seen as a cowardly loss of ground. And as the Gahmen continually turns them down, they gain the right to be openly cynical and uncompromising. Both sides don't compromise, no one wins, everybody loses.
But there is a need to say that yes, there have been cases of compromises by both parties and that the art/movie was made available to the public. But too little, too few.
The question is, are our arts groups taking the right approach? What is the best strategy for turning Singapore into a more open and inclusive society?
From the little I know, my conclusions are that the Gahmen still derides any attempt to question its moral/political authority and how it does things, especially on the more controversial parts. This conclusion will stay until the next time a play or a movie comes up and the Gahmen allows it to go on, untouched. Only by doing so will the Gahmen send out a strong enough signal that "yes, we are more accepting now." Mere words at a speech or rally just doesn't cut it. There were some very reasonable requests by the arts groups and cutting them out only made the Gahmen look ridiculous. But being affected by these and being cynical and disillusioned will serve no purpose.
The theme of the forum, "Towards an Open and Inclusive Society", allowed the range of discussion to go from fringe arts groups to talking about the sick, poor, old, handicapped and even to the Malay-Muslim community. Too wide a range to comment on.
The people who talk at these forums are, necessarily, the elite. Asad Latif talked about the necessity of taking into account the views and perspectives of the subalterns. An audience member noted that if you spoke for the subalterns, you are acknowledging the fact that these people are subalterns. subordinate, inferior, marginalized. I think we have to acknowledge this fact no matter how controversial it might sound. Throughout history, society has been led by its elite. The only forward is for the elite to rightly reflect and voice out the needs of the rest of society. Sensitive subject this, probably wanna leave it as it is first.
At the end of everything, we all made our way out to a steaming slipper lobster lunch (which I felt so inappropriate after talks of elitism) and I wonder what progress we have made in that lecture theatre the last 4 hours. There were times when I felt that the speakers were not presenting to us, the audience, but rather using the forum as an indirect challenge to the Gahmen. Such a forum seems to only serve out disillusionment.
It is too easy for us to slip into cynicism and disillusionment and if we do, nothing will progress. I think there is a social responsibility that we, as the "elite", have to carry out. To do whatever it takes possible to make the country a better place. We must believe we can make a difference no matter what the rules of the game are.
This post suddenly feels like the forum. Too many aspects to talk about till it becomes a little incoherent. Or maybe its just me.
posted by undergradbyday @ 2:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home