|
ON THE ELECTION RESULTS IN MALAYSIA (above) AND TAIWAN: If the PAP wants to continue to gain the people's support, it must maintain a clean and capable gobernment. it must continue to strive for a better future for Singapore. -- PHOTO: AFP
|
|
|
What inspiration can the Singapore Government draw from the elections in Taiwan, Malaysia and even the United States?
Their situation differs from ours. Like many Singaporeans, I follow the news of the elections in Malaysia and Taiwan on TV and other media.
My conclusion is that if the PAP (People's Action Party) wants to continue to gain the people's support, it must maintain a clean and capable government. It must continue to reflect people's views and continue to strive for a better future for Singapore.
If the Government is unable to satisfy these basic demands, then it is unworthy of the people's support.
Voters will say: 'I will not vote for you. I'm kicking you out.' That is completely reasonable.
Facing the new media and the recruitment drive by the opposition parties, what changes do you think will take place in the next general election?
The next general election is three, four years away. There will definitely be new developments in new media.
Some of our media regulations were set before the previous General Election.
Some people describe it this way: One year in new media is equivalent to seven years in the mortal world. Therefore, five years of changes in the new media in one term of government is equivalent to more than 30 years in the mortal world. It's a completely new world.
We have to renew regulations to meet the needs of the new age. We will review whether we should relax some of the regulations.
However, we will proceed with caution to avoid creating a negative impact.
It is no longer a new thing for Singaporeans to create blogs online. People can now make video clips. Previously, it was podcast. Now, it is vodcast. People film their own video clips, and upload them on YouTube.
People also use the new media to release news. It is not a problem if they are factual reports. The problem is that online video clips vary in nature.
Take Fitna as an example. It is a short film on Islam, and spreads extreme anti-Islamic views.
The United States also has such a phenomenon. Michael Moore's movies are politically motivated. He is very anti-Republican and anti-Bush. You may be misled by his documentaries if you do not understand his background and motives.
Another related problem is how do you refute views that are wrong.
If a newspaper report is wrong, readers can write in to refute it or the newspapers can carry another report to clarify matters.
The newspaper readership is rather fixed, but it is difficult to identify readers or surfers online. How do you find them to clarify the truth? There is no way to do this. This is a problem.
Another problem has to do with the nature of certain new media.
For example, YouTube clips and political advertisements are very similar. Political advertisements cost a lot of money, including production, buying airtime on TV or print advertisements.
Singapore politics will turn bad if political campaigning costs a lot of money.
From a narrow perspective, if political parties have to produce advertisements, the PAP will have an edge because we have the resources to do so.
However, from a broader, national perspective, it is not a good thing. This is because many people will be willing to donate money to parties that need money, but political donations are never unconditional.
You win the election and after you come into power, the donors will politely 'seek payment for debts'. What do you do for such debts of gratitude?
In developing countries, this often turns into a problem of corruption. In the United States, it is not called money politics, but campaign financing.
(John) McCain has adopted a clear stand on reforms on this problem, but he still has to campaign. He has no choice as the system is such that he has to raise funds for political advertisements.
I do not hope for Singapore to go this way.
Election culture
You once said you 'hoped to see in Singapore a serious and objective election culture that judges things as they stand'. Has Singapore achieved that?
I think things are better now, but they still need improvement.
The content of newspaper reports is definitely more substantial. The level of debate is also higher. Of course, not every article has fresh views, but the overall standard has risen.
In Parliament, the standard of our MPs is not bad, objectively speaking. They may not speak as well as their counterparts in developing countries, Australia, the United States or Britain, but our standard of debate is rather high.
Our MPs do a lot of preparatory work and they speak with substance. Of course, at times, their debates may not be exciting enough, but they do their homework and put forward good views.
When debating the Budget, they may have only two, three minutes to speak, but they speak convincingly and their opinions are worthy of consideration.
Some Nominated MPs have also generated much buzz with their controversial views. The Government may not agree with them, but it is good that they speak their minds freely in Parliament and they should do so. By doing so, we have reached our objective of setting up the NMP system.
As for the opposition MPs, they actually seldom debate in direct opposition to the Government.
Chiam See Tong does not speak as much now. Sylvia Lim speaks rather carefully and seems restrained. Of course, this is good.
Although Low Thia Khiang is very smart, he seldom debates on the core substance of policies. He seems more keen on catching the Government on its shortcomings, so as to embarrass the Government.
This is very different from his impassioned speeches at election rallies. His attitude is that his responsibility is just to criticise government policies and not to propose alternatives.
The value of doing so is limited. Such a strategy neither enhances policies nor raises the standard of political debates.
Does coffee shop talk meet the criteria of the serious and objective election culture that you envisioned? Some academics and commentators see their responsibility as just to provoke the Government into new ways of thinking, regardless of whether their views are right or wrong. How do you regard such an attitude?
I do not know if this is your interpretation of them or their real intention.
My opinion is that many of those who criticise the Government or cannot accept government policies genuinely feel their opinions are not wrong.
Although we go all out to explain policies to the people, they may not understand completely and accept totally, especially the finer points of the policies.
It is not difficult for people to accept the broad principles of policies, but for the finer points, it is not easy.
Actually, if we test people's knowledge of the policy details, I think journalists and PAP MPs may not make the passing grade.
Therefore, I think the people who criticise Electronic Road Pricing or means testing are not just doing it to provoke the Government so that the Government will have new ways of thinking.
The people truly do not see why the Government is proposing such measures. The Government has actually explained, but they remain sceptical about the policy.
Nevertheless, some things have to be carried out. If you conduct a poll on whether national service should be implemented, I believe the majority of Singaporeans will support it.
However, if you ask them whether we should have goods and services tax, I think many Singaporeans will say we shouldn't. We have to accept the fact that we cannot get 100 per cent support for everything.
Can ministers laugh at themselves?
Online, there are still many people who would present what a minister has said in another way. Would it not bring leaders closer to the people if they could laugh at themselves?
We should know how to laugh at ourselves. That is very necessary. If we show a stern face every day, not just the people, but also our family members will find us repulsive.
However, if the people feel you are like a clown and lose respect for you, will your words still carry strength? Will people still take your opinions seriously?
In the United States, journalists covering the White House organise a 'Gridiron Dinner' yearly where the President and Vice-President are invited to attend and personally go on stage to create comic relief.
I think it is fine if one does not go overboard in ridiculing oneself.
However, I observe that the real motive of this dinner is not to create the opportunity for the President to draw closer to the people, but to dampen the respect that journalists accord the President. We should strike an appropriate balance between self-ridicule and respect.
Instead of falling for the pranks of others, could our leaders work on their image, so that they would cause people to feel that they have more character and are more colourful?
We can do more in this aspect, but we do not want to create a personality cult.
I feel journalists should focus their reports on a leader's opinions and views towards policies and events.
Occasional reporting about the clothes he wears, his personal style and his hobbies is not a problem.
However, it may not be a good thing if the private life of a political figure becomes the main news item.
At the same time, not every minister is willing to go public about his personal life and hobbies. Even if they are willing, their families may not agree because they also hope to have privacy.
People see government salaries going up and are of the opinion that the Government should also satisfy their various demands. How would you handle these expectations?
If you ask MM Lee, he would say Singapore needs a bad government for a period of time for people to be aware of the world situation, the true reality.
After that, everyone would realise what actually is a good government.
I do not want to take such a route. I hope to think of other ways for Singaporeans to understand our situation, compare it with other countries, and I hope the people understand what we should do to keep to a more steady path of development.
How far is the Government willing to go in abandoning old views?
We are willing to start from scratch when considering every problem.
Other than the very basic principles, there is no policy that cannot be discussed and reconsidered.
Of course, it is unlikely that we will change basic national policies like whether Singapore needs independence, whether we need a multiracial country, whether we should maintain our meritocracy system.
However, apart from these policies, we are willing to reconsider other policies.
Nevertheless, we must understand that for policy changes, today you may think that they are correct, and the day after tomorrow, after some thought, you may say why were you so stupid at the time for not seeing the consequences.
Policies must be flexible, and yet have long-term stability. These are two conflicting considerations, but we should strike a balance between them.
Look at China. They have long-term and relatively stable policies, especially in foreign affairs.
Their consideration is based on China's national interest. Their perspectives towards the United States or South-east Asia are consistent and stable. They can bide their time over 10, 20 years.
It is difficult for the United States to maintain such stability because its leadership changes every four years.
Even if the President comes from the same party, the Cabinet members will change, with new ministers, a new Secretary of State and new perspectives.
|
