Simple is the Reason of My Heart

The Economics about Banning Political Films

I have been thinking about the political films discussion that took place during the Seminar on Internet Regulatory Reform. Two of my colleagues, Alex Au aka Yawning Bread and Gerald Giam have voiced their opinions about section 35 in the Films Act and their reaction to the comments made by Mr Cheong Yip Seng, the Chairman of the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMES). Alex Au is worried that AIMES may be trying hard to justify why section 35 should stay after hearing Mr Cheong's point about the high impact factor that a political film can sway how people think after his visit to a conference in Canada. To reinforce his point, Mr Cheong also cited that Japan and Korea were the other two countries that banned political films. On the other hand, Gerald took a different position by arguing that the political films act benefit PAP more than the other opposition parties. In this post, I adopt the relationship between the demand & supply with the impact of a political film to explain why banning section 35 is a worse option for the PAP to stay in power.

Remembering Tim Russert, Anchor of "Meet the Press"

I woke up this morning and read this piece of shocking news. For a moment of time, my heart just sank. Tim Russert (photo left, credited to NY Times), NBC News’ Washington bureau chief and the moderator of “Meet the Press” (my favourite political interview show in US) died yesterday. I have followed the show since the video podcast was made public and often looked forward to the next episode. A few things in "Meet the Press" that made me loved Tim Russert and how he made political discourse a civil and rational one. The first is how he interviewed his guests who are powerful figures in US politics or elsewhere. His style of questioning them in a firm and coupled with an apparent contradiction made by the guest has been effective. On top of that, he delivered in a moderate tone of civility. Second, his analysis of the political landscape in US is accurate and just last week, he presented all the scenarios on how both McCain and Obama can land down to 269-269 votes from all the electoral colleges in the US presidential elections. I often liked his use of history to assess the politicians of today, particularly, the recent discussion with the US Presidential historian, Doris Kearns Goodwin author of "Team of Rivals: the Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln " on how Obama will follow the example of Lincoln to bring his rivals to his cabinet should he elected President. My condolences are with the Russert family, and it is like losing an old friend when I heard the news. Tim Russert's style in political interviews has touched someone as far as I do in Singapore, who yearned that someday we can have this type of political discourse in the far far future.

My thoughts on "A More Perfect Union" by Barack Obama

For those who have read about race issues in the US, this speech entitled "A More Perfect Union" by Barack Obama is touted to be the most important one since Martin Luther King Jr's "I have a dream". After listening to this honest and bold speech about a sensitive issue (which is an out of bounds marker in Singapore) at the wake of 3am in Singapore, it rendered me sleepless and wrought with a heavy heart, perhaps pondering over my own future in career (that the possibility of moving to foreign shores in search of a better future) and thinking about a few issues in Singapore, particularly this incident about a mainland Chinese student seeking help.

On Gender and Minority in Singapore Politics

Lately, there is a lot of talk from our mainstream media journalists about women and minority candidates in Singapore politics (see this related article in the Online Citizen). Of course, it is partly inspired by the US Presidential elections, where the Democratic party is now having two prominent and interesting candidates running for the nomination. With luck, we might be seeing the first woman US President (Hillary Clinton) or the first black US President (Barack Obama). The problem is that both candidates are now locked in a battle characterized by two issues which are giving their campaigns a lot of problems. Those two issues are racism and sexism. Of course, both candidates have to settle on a truce such that things would not go out of hand between their supporters. Honestly, as a Singaporean, I don't have a problem that our Prime Minister or senior cabinet appointments to be filled by a woman or a minority candidate. However, we should not put ourselves into the situation of rational discrimination. It is important that these candidates are there because of meritocracy, i.e., they are competent to take up the top job regardless of their background. The best way to think about this whole issue comes from Colin Powell when interviewed by CBS: "He is putting himself forward not as a black man but as an American man who wants to be president of the United States of America ... We should see Barack as a candidate for president who happens to be black, and not a black candidate for president." Hence my answer to the situation is that "the candidate is putting him/herself forward not as a minority/woman candidate but a Singaporean cabinet/prime minister who happens to be a minority/woman."

New Hampshire Surprise: Comeback Kids Rocks!

The results for the first primary in the US Presidential Elections are out. John McCain has managed to fend off Romney's negative ads and emerged the winner of the "Live free and Die" state. It is a miracle comeback for the 70 year old senator, but something more cataclysmic has also happened. Hillary Clinton beat Obama for the New Hampshire primary, and like Obama, she made history to be the first female candidate to win the first primary of the US presidential elections. Beating the  odds of a double digit lead claimed by the pundits, pollsters and media, she has managed to stop the Obama wave from going. So how did that happen? It will be of great interest to examine how Hillary Clinton has become the 2nd comeback kid since Bill Clinton did that in 1992. (Picture from Associated Press)

The Aftermath of Iowa Caucuses

The results are finally out for the Iowa Caucuses that kicked off the race for the nomination from the Democrat and Republican parties in the US Presidential
Elections 2008. Yes, it is bigger than the price for a barrel of oil went above $100 yesterday. This is an interesting election for the US because it is the first time that there is no incumbent president and vice president seeking office beyond 2008. Without doubt, the campaigning started so early that we have heard the candidates on their various positions from social security, healthcare, foreign policy and the economy over and over again for the whole of 2007. So, the winners are out: Mike Huckabee (former Governor of Arkansas, left - photo from Associated Press) and Barack Obama (US Senator, Illinois, right). What does this tell us the things to come? Over the whole year, I have been following this election and have a lot of interesting and exciting discussion with my American friends. Here are some thoughts on the Iowa Caucuses  and where this might be heading towards.

Fact Checking on Press Freedom/Stability in Singapore

Recently, an article from Channelnews Asia talks about Singapore's press freedom. The main gist of the article is to indicate that Singaporean citizens have a stronger preference for stability over press freedom as compared to the other countries in the world. This claim was based on a finding conducted by research firms GlobeScan and Synovate and was commissioned by the BBC World Service to mark its 75th anniversary. A few interesting findings are conveyed through the local press, for e.g. "Some 42 per cent of Singaporeans gave a 'good job' rating to government-funded media in accuracy and honesty, compared to 32 per cent for non-government funded companies. However, 51 per cent of Singaporeans were of the opinion that "ownership (of the media companies) is a major issue because you often see owners' political views emerge in the news'" (quoted from ChannelNews Asia article[2]). Of course, if you go to BBC [2,3] and download the actual report, you find that the local press did not report some additional information. So, what did they leave out?

Stephen Colbert for US President

I thought that this one is really funny. My favourite comedian, Stephen Colbert, after a week of dropping hints in Larry King and several talk shows including the Today Show with Jon Stewart, finally made the 'big announcement'. He's running for President, but only for his name to be appeared in South Carolina. It may be funny to note that in the following night, he was trying to fill up forms to get his name on the ballot for both Republican and Democratic nomination. Of course, to get your name on the Republican ballot, he needs to pay at least US$35K and Democrat, he has to either spend $2.5K or get 3000 democrats to sign off. Anyway, at least if you think that the field is over-crowded with Hilary, Obama, Mitt and Rudy, you can also see a political parody for this nomination.

It is a Political Reality from the Bicycle

Recently, Sze Meng, my colleague from Singapore Angle, talks about the type of qualities that the next Prime Minister should have. One interesting feature that he hope to see is that the next PM encourages a culture of dissent. Of course, the reality is totally different from the ideal situation. In relation to recent incidents such as identify gays engaged in jogging events as "illegal assembly" to not allowing members from Workers party to hold a cycling event in East Coast Park, the anachronism that some political parties are more equal than others comes to mind with this interesting example from Mr Brown. Yes, I smell double standards from our ruling party and seriously, find them really being silly, mean and ridiculous to assign a bicycle event as some political posturing.

The Business of Politics and Ethnicity

My colleague, Wayne Soon from Singapore Angle, has recommended me an interesting book over a cup of coffee last weekend. He told me that this book is so good that he could not take it off his hand. After reading it, I cannot but help to agree with him. Of course, being immersed as both a researcher and practitioner in business and entrepreneurship (otherwise, as Joseph A. Schumpeter termed it "Creative Destruction"), the book "The Business of Politics and Ethnicity: A History of The Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce & Industry" (published by NUS Press) by Sikko Visscher (University of Amsterdam), offers a pair of lens to the social and political history of Singapore from a different angle. Strangely, this angle come from a business entity which was formed in 1906. The Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCCI) is a leading cultural and economic organization dedicated to promoting the interests of the Chinese business community. We often hear so much about the government promoting entrepreneurship lately but yet so little about the world of outstanding business leaders and ex-presidents of SCCCI in Singapore from the past to the present,  from Tan Kah Kee (a well-known Chinese industrialist and philanthropist or "Henry Ford of Malaysia" in 1920s), Lee Kong Chian (Chinese businessman and philanthropist who started the Lee Foundation that I am indebted to for my PhD scholarship) to Wee Cho Yaw (incumbent Chairman of UOB bank).  So, I offer you a glimpse of the book after reading this treatise about an interesting civic institution that very few younger generation of Singapore Chinese Entrepreneurs (most of us are western educated) know very little about.

Social Political Blogging: Singapore vs US

Recently, I did an interview with Jude Yew, a Singaporean PhD researcher about the impact of new (or social) media in the past 2006 general elections in Singapore. During the interview, we started teasing out the differences in the social political blogosphere between Singapore and US. Coupled with the observation on the netroots activity in the US Presidential Elections 2008 and the evolution of the Singapore blogosphere after the 2006 elections, some interesting differences emerge from that comparison. 

Seperated By a Mental Bridge: Thoughts on the Iskander Development Region

Yesterday, the Malaysia-Singapore Joint Ministerial committee started their first meeting on the Iskander Development Region (IDR) in Johor Bahru. The conclusion of the first meeting leads to the committee forming four common task force groups to explore the areas (on environmental matters, boosting tourism, facilitating immigration clearance and enhancing transport links) identified by a previous meeting between Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (Malaysia) and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (Singapore) during their recent Langkawi retreat. The principle of the working groups is to achieve a win-win outcome for both countries and the committee will meet every quarter to discuss further cooperation and taking stock.

Parting Words of Tony Blair

Watching the last Prime Minister Questions (PMQ) yesterday, Tony Blair has finally handed his job to Gordon Brown (who have been eyeing and waiting for his turn to take over). His parting words to every politician from every different party in the parliament  make an interesting quote on how he conceive politics to be. So, here is Tony Blair's parting words from the parliament,

"Some may belittle politics but we who are engaged in it know that it is where people stand tall. Although I know that it has many harsh contentions, it is still the arena that sets the heart beating a little faster. If it is, on occasions, the place of low skulduggery, it is more often the place for the pursuit of noble causes. I wish everyone, friend or foe, well. That is that. The end."

Alternative Elite: Can they exist?

Sometime back, Gerald wrote an interesting article that discusses the need to have an alternative elite, echoing the view posed by a former civil servant, Ngiam Tong How (who I came across his book recently in a friend's office and flipped through a few pages). This notion of alternative elite has bugged me for some time because there is a notion that our society will have lots of difficulty in working towards a society where we can accommodate the views of the different social classes. While I appreciate Gerald's argument that the existence of alternative elite is to provide checks and balance to the ruling government, I want to present several arguments for and against the idea of an alternative elite, and hopes to extend the implications to the growth of our society in general.

Same Leadership, Different Era?

In the past two weeks, there has been some speculation and discussion in the mainstream media to what kind of personality constitutes the next Prime Minister of Singapore . If nothing really changes in Singapore politics or something cataclysmic pops up in our backyards, the next prime minister of Singapore should be from the ruling party. More or less, a brilliant CV and some leeway to prevailing paradigms (such as the "light touch" approach to new media and conservative attitude towards homosexuality and politics) are required. I will examine a set of different features that the new PM might need to have, given a changing electorate.

Sic Transit Blair

For the past week, this is one of the few headlines which will shook the world, not by surprise. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has decided to step down after ten years of reign. Tony Blair remains to be one of the few leaders who I admired in the world of politics. I remember one year before I departed Singapore to do my PhD in the UK, I saw him campaigning with his party to overturn the government ruled by the Conservatives. My mother (who don't know anything about politics) told me that this man will win the election because of his charisma. Seems that she is right. Over my next seven years of stay  in the UK, I saw him winning three elections (with the last one just before I return to Singapore. Here are some of my thoughts about his departure from politics.

Bloggers do not Save the World

Recently, Elia wrote a highly opinionated piece about the state of the Singapore blogosphere. He put forward a pessimistic view based on the recent departure of several high profile bloggers. Are we really in a state of disarray? While everyone has chipped in their opinions of the issue (Mr Wang), I find it surprising (or maybe I should not) that the burden of responsibility falls to the bloggers (particularly, the social political bloggers) to bring about some kind of change to the present sorry state of politics in Singapore. Instead of trying to justify why we are in such a story state, I want to pose my own opinions (based on some loosely information and facts) that I have observed over the past year.

A Political Move going both ways?

You have heard about the news that our Singapore PM has decided to freeze his pay for 5 years and donate the pay hikes to charity. A range of opinions emerged on his latest move from the blogosphere, with the most idealistic and perhaps naive (to my opinion) from Aaron Ng and the cynical from Molly Meek and Agagooga. So, what are the consequences of this political move? As I was listening to our PM's parliamentary speech, I began to speculate some possibilities behind this political move that has the propensity to go both ways.

Deconstructing Singapore Inc.

During the ministerial salaries debate, we hear the arguments from both sides of the house whether it is justified to pay our ministers with high salaries. Watching the debates via videocast from CNA,  the term "Singapore Inc." has popped up a couple of times. We all know that the term Singapore Inc is a popular nickname used by different people from academics to the layman to describe Singapore. Basically, the analogy is to think of Singapore as a multi-national corporation rather than a country. One distinctive feature is that our government owns investment corporations such as Temasek and GIC which have moved across the globe to acquire new assets for the country. Is it really good in the long run that our country should become fully Singapore Inc? Here are my thoughts on why we need to remove the "Inc" off the term if we want to stay as a nation.

Flags of Our Fathers

Two unrelated events prompted me to think about the story about the  founding fathers of Singapore. The first came from reading the book "Lee's Lieutenants" by Lam Peng Er and Kevin Tan, which depicted the story about the roles and achievements of 15 interesting men who in 1959, accepted the leadership of Lee Kuan Yew, our ex-Prime Minister of independent Singapore and now our Minister Mentor. The other event is a night spent with two friends, Bjorn and Michael who I spent an evening in Ice Cool Bar, Singapore Management University talking about the politics of Singapore from the present to the future. For some time, my thoughts revolve around two interesting questions, "Is it necessary to politicize our youth?",  and "How does our history help to shape our future?". I believe that I have addressed the first question with a simple answer that we should not politicize our youth. Ultimately, people should be able to think for themselves what they want, from making personal decisions that can affect the individual to following the political ideology of his or her choice. The second question is not easy to answer because we did not know much about our founding fathers other than our Minister Mentor. Oftentimes, not many people even know what rights a citizen is entitled to as stated by the Singapore Constitution.

If we start from the first question, the opinion is that the freedom to choose decides on how we shape our near future from our past and present. In every nation which proceed from infant to maturity, the struggles they face often look different from those who do not share their perspective in the future. That is because the future is different. The dogmas of the past is inadequate for the stormy present. Unfortunately, with the change of guard for every generation, the context and viewpoint in how our founding fathers made their decisions on different aspects of nation building (from the economy to national security) will be interpreted differently. So, how do we ensure we are carrying the flags of our forefathers, not just our political leaders, but the many citizens who have toiled with blood and sweat to create a better future for us, the younger generation?

The First and Last Word

A Game Theory approach in tackling the Mainstream Media in Singapore

Recently, during the interviews with Pei Juan (the honours student working on a project about social-political bloggers, mentioned by several bloggers) and Linda (who is doing a case study on Singapore Angle), I summarize a strategy how bloggers can handle the mainstream media without the fear of being misquoted. The strategy is a pragmatic example of this so-called "power" that Kitana and Aaron purported about citizen journalism and new media. Of course, the strategy is successfully deployed on my previous engagements  with the political roundtable and the BlogTV.SG. On both occasions, if you have read between the lines in both my posts on the issue, they are deliberately constructed to ensure that I will not be misquoted or allow a particular interesting segment to be aired.

In essence, the strategy is a collective effort using the wisdom of crowds (another web 2.0 concept) from my colleagues in Singapore Angle and rely on simple game theory on how the bloggers can circumvent the mainstream media even if they may have the first word to distort your quotes. The catalyst that led me to coin the term the "last word strategy" came from a conversation on citizen journalism and web 2.0 with Kevin, Preetamrai and Benjamin Koe in the recent E27 event IV: You are the Media. In fact, Benjamin Koe provides a pedagogical viewpoint on how I casually called it the last word strategy.

I will explain why the last word strategy works so well on both occasions. If you are afraid of being misquoted by the mainstream media in Singapore, you can adopt two approaches: one, taking the stone wall defensive approach to disengage with the MSM (which is what Mr Wang believes, and I call this the old paradigm which the nay-sayers, critics and pessimists loved) or two, leverage on the weakness of the mainstream media to create the most optimal and rational outcome.

The Sum of All Fears

In the midst of a slow news day where political conferences like the "Freedom of Speech: How far can you go?" in NUS (which I attended and I will be writing a review of some issues in Singapore Angle) and "The Penal Code" in the Workers Party HQ, another piece of news has taken the limelight in Singapore. In the words of Mulder and Scully (from the famous X-Files series), of no surprise, "They (PAP) are here." [1]. My cynical follow up to that answer is, "Why am I not surprised?". It is not the action, but the declaration of the intention that will change the dynamics of the blogosphere and online forum. The war on the internet is finally happening. Should we be afraid? If you have a streak of paranoia inside you, the real question will be, "Why did the press leak it?"

Campaign in Poetry and Govern in Prose

"You campaign by poetry. You govern in prose."
- Mario Matthew Cuomo, ex-Governor of New York

A fellow colleague of mine from Singapore Angle, Soon Sze Meng posed an interesting question yesterday during a private gathering. The question centered around the existence of an opposition in Singapore and asked whether there is a sufficient and necessary reason for their existence. Interestingly, together with Hui Chieh, we systematically eliminated most of the well-known arguments down, and discussed how the main tenet of checks and balances (cited as a key reason for the existence of an opposition) may be replaced by other mechanisms. Even with interesting arguments or hypothesis to ask "why not?", my personal opinion that the existence of opposition in politics is essential based on the checks and balances argument. Of course, it is more of an academic exercise to think about the question based on the political history of Singapore for the past four decades. Sometime in the future, I will write about that question in general in a way that I "neither beg nor fear, your (political parties in Singapore) favors  or your hate" [1]. However, that discussion prompted me to write about something else, which is the seperation of political party from government.

In this short note, I want to talk about the misconception of people of associating political party as the government and  discuss the importance of governing by necessity, rather than ideology with some examples from Europe and Asia.

Rebooting Heroes

Thinking about Redefinition of Heroes and Politics in Singapore

“Because we’re all broken — every single one of us — and yet we pretend that we’re not. We all live lives of imperfection and yet we cling to the fantasy that there’s a perfect life and that our leaders should embody it, but if we expect our leaders to live on some higher moral plane than the rest of us, well, we’re just asking to be deceived.”
- Jimmy Smits as Matt Santos, in “2162 votes”, The West Wing

In the recent years, Hollywood is producing many movies about Marvel and DC super heroes. While the movie producers are bringing more and more superheroes to the silver screen (for example, Fantastic Four, Spiderman, Hellboy, Ghost Rider, DareDevil and Elektra), they are also remaking the old superheroes who were made popular back in the 80s and 90s. In the last two years, we have seen "Batman Begins" and "Superman Returns". It did not only happen to superheroes with extraordinary powers, and recently, even our favourite and suave superspy James Bond has also been rebooted.

In the process of tracing back to the beginning to what made these people heroes, we also redefined their position that the common men can relate them to our postmodern world. After September 11, our world seems to be entering into an age of polarisation. Our world view has been shaped by media propaganda to appear more black and white, and not shades of grey instead. It may seem that all are dark and bleak, and people begin to question where our heroes are. Even if they exist, our heroes are given a dosage of reality bites in the movies. You don't see Spiderman just trying to help people out with his special powers but he is also coping with the problems of daily life from girlfriend to making ends meet.

Recently, a new popular TV series entitled Heroes are also exploring the theme of superheroes where they are just no different from the common man. These heroes also have their normal lives and they try to pretend that they are the common people and cope with the pressures of daily life.

Not just our heroes are placed in a more realistic setting in the movies and comic books, but there exist a dark side in their persona. We begin to see superheroes succumb to a tinge of their darker side where they undergo a crisis or a situation of emotion hijacking. It's strange that when I was younger, every time I go to a James Bond or a Batman movie, most people are talking about the successful villains. The reason is that the movies tend to portray the villains in a multi-dimensional manner, particularly their rites of passage to become one. The complaint is often that the heroes have no personality and they fall flat in being too one-dimensional. In the recent days, a lot more attention is placed on the hero. In the new version of James Bond and Batman, they are portrayed as men shaped by circumstances which transformed them into who they are in the future. They are no longer bound by perfect lives, but like every common Man, they have demons and fear that haunts them. At the end, no matter how difficult things made out for them, they still stay the course and continue to save the world with a personal price paid on their part.

That comes to my mind a recent article entitled "Storm in the Teacup" by Seah Chiang Nee. He used the recent resignations of two Workers Party CEC members as an example to illustrate that there is a lack of toughness and less political sophistication in the younger Singaporean politicians who are brimmed with idealism and passion. In fairness, party discipline is an essential component for a political party to succeed. Unless you are as lucky as the democrats in the United States, a fragmented party who won the recent midterm elections by watching the Republicans imploding with scandals and screwups, it is unlikely that the political party can succeed. Making difficult decisions are parts and parcels of politics.

While Singaporeans are culturally desensitized to the politicians in the ruling party that does not care about political sophistication but only people with top notched qualifications and achievements, it is unlikely that will change unless the political landscape is subjected to a shock therapy. Afterall, why should we change the status quo and exchange stability for political freedom? That is the cultural mindset of every typical Singaporean. Oftentimes, the older generation lamented the lack of passion in the younger generation of Singaporeans and wonder why we don't see Dr Goh Keng Swee or other founding fathers of Singapore. The way I see it is that like the superheroes who have gone through a redefinition, the politicians in Singapore have also undergone a reboot. Unless another reboot takes place, we have to contend ourselves with the kind of politics that exists in Singapore.

Politicizing Singaporean Youth: Is it necessary?

Oftentimes, in most political forums in Singapore, you often hear from the audience that there is a need to engage the youth and stop them from apathetic and inert towards issues concerning Singapore. Some people made suggestions come in the following prescription, "Perhaps, you should go to the schools and spread your political message to the youth so that we can overcome their fear perpetuated by the establishment." With youth-based initiatives promoted by both sides of the house in Singapore, we realize that the politicians are turning onto the youth (who will have the power to vote in a few years time) for votes.

Of course, in Singapore, the establishment prefer the polarizing approach in the form of "either you are with us, or you are against us". It is often hard to find the middle ground. Unfortunately, the reality is that the political spectrum is more than just black and white. It remains that the voters decide their votes based on different and diverse needs. Take a simpler example, you can be critical of ruling party's upgrading policy but support their management of the economy. Where does that place you? If you take this hypothetical situation a bit further, you will realize that you are being forced in one direction or the other. Actually, that dichotomy does not exist but we are persuaded by propaganda and the behaviour of the establishment that it is so. Many youth are subjected to this catch-22 situation. Since it is hard to really make a choice, they feel helpless and turn to apathy.

The crux of the matter is to examine whether it is necessary to politicize our youth. The centrist view that I hold is simple: let the markets decide, rather than pushing them to either side. Most people do not realize that there is a distinction between making our students politically aware and politicizing them. In the earlier case, a young person is made politically aware about a certain policy which requires them to assess with their own moral or social compass. For example, a student might want to be an activist towards environmental issues with the government. So, the student end up joining some non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to promote his or her course. 

The latter case is slightly tricky. The way to look at this situation is to use a thought experiment. Suppose if you are an opposition member, you can choose go to the schools and preach about your political position. However, if I am not wrong, they are not allowed to do so, because they are promoting a specific political ideology. Of course, the aim is to convince them to join your movement. However, in doing so, you polarize the youth by politicizing them rather than educating them to be politically aware.

The truth is that Singaporeans are easily polarized, because the establishment uses the principle of exclusion to sweep those who do not agree with them, to be against them. This political strategy has been very successful in the US with the republicans using faith-based initiatives to galvanize the christian right for their votes. However, it is also noted that the polarization strategy can backfire if these politicians are not hold to their promise.

Of course, when you are young and brash, you can either be easily influenced or be rebellious and suspicious of establishment. That comes to my next point. With successful social engineering by the ruling party, their modes of operation have also translated into the workings of the people in daily lives. Our government is extremely sensitive to criticism and often react in a robust and demolishing mode towards the critics. When being criticized in a work environment, most Singaporeans tend to fight back or keep quiet. It is that sensitivity towards criticism that also stop our young from voicing out their opinions, hence innovation and creativity are not very inherent in our culture. We compromise innovation and creativity with social compliance and lack of passion.

So, is it necessary that we should politicize Singaporean youth? The answer is no, but to make them politically aware, yes. If you are a Singaporean youth reading this, I will prefer that you make the decision yourself than to let me tell you where to go. Ultimately, the market (i.e. the voters) should decide.

P65s: Yet to Depart

Recently, our Members of Parliament (MPs) from the People Action's Party in Singapore have set up a P65 blog. Another blog that is worthy of note is Beyond SG, where one of the bloggers is our minister for foreign affairs, George Yeo. I thought that George Yeo did a far better job in talking about the geopolitical reality about different countries in international affairs. PAP's entrance will change the demographics of the Singaporean blogosphere. While their reason for blogging is motivated on political reasons, it is hoped that the space for debate will be more vibrant. However, that space will be constrained by how much they open up.

A few bloggers, notably, Yawning Bread, wrote about the lack of engagement from the P65 blog and provided a sarcastic jibe about "when hip hop is scary". In his own words,

"To go down this road is to encourage a politics of circuses. Voters are encouraged to look out for the biggest shows, and it's a very fine line between the gratification of entertainment and the gratification of gifts."

If you follow this line of reasoning, you are buying the argument that they are still not ready to engage in any issues. That's true, but that is only one interpretation of their strategy. If I am not mistaken, the fiery debate is not what they are coveting, but they have decided on the playing the charisma card. Simply to be frank, their target audience is not the Singapore blogosphere, which is dominated by various key players who may or may not be anti-establishment.

What do I mean by that? Most MPs in the PAP have brilliant CVs behind their backs but their achievements before their entrance create a double edged sword for themselves. As high-achievers, they are seen not to identify with the common man and follow their likes and hobbies. So, the real appeal is to the common men and women, who are not the internet savvy group in the Singapore blogosphere. The blogosphere is not what they are interested, but garnered those who are not internet savvy into believing that they are also into the blogging phenomena that will make them "hip" and "cool". The Singapore government can be described in the following words: boring, heavy-handed, robust and strict. The latest public relations move is the first of the initiatives to slowly shake off the "boring" and "strict" image from the audience. Performing in a public event will increase their popularity and redefine the image of the P65 MPs.

As a citizen of the country, I have higher standards for my MPs. I will prefer that they can spend more time with their constituents and help them with their daily problems. That is the other part which I hope to see but I don't think that it will come. It will be better if more MPs are vocal on current affairs rather than letting the cabinet ministers do the work. Ultimately, they are the people who are going to vote on policies which might impact our life. Without some views and opinions from them, this PR exercise might backfire and paint them as shallow and image-conscious.

Sometime back, I have said that the internet generation has not reached its tipping point. I still assert that fact to be true. If they have not departed from their current lack of engagement, my guess is that the market forces are still on their side. Till you see the P65 MPs start to take all the writers from the Void Deck, Singapore Angle, Mr Wang, Yawning Bread and many others seriously, that will be the day when you know that we have reached the tipping point for the internet generation to engage in political debate.