"Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience and rebellion that progress has been made." - Oscar Wilde

***

Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum 2007 (KRMF)

I attended this event today with Cunning Linguist. Unfortunately, I had a midterm so we were late enough to be shuffled into the subsidiary auditorium (for some reason it was held at Heng Mui Keng Auditorium instead of UCC - maybe they tried to book it late and the dancers got it first for their Dance Reflections). On our way in, one PA guy said we should ask the Dear Leader provocative questions, since this was what the KRMF was for. Evidently he had forgotten (or didn't know) what happened to Jamie Han (Jamie Han: Corpse at the bottom of the ocean?: among other things he was rejected when he applied to NIE - an event essentially unheard of).

I'd been strongly advised by someone not to do a Jamie Han, and anyway I had no time/energy to do my research and formulate suitable questions and responses (unlike him I don't have Civil Servants to do research for and brief me), so I won't get the chance to do this sort of thing again (at least not at a KRMF).

Before the event we were asked to keep our questions short, singular and relevant to what was talked about in his speech. No doubt this was to forestall a reoccurence of that fiasco (which doubtless capped off yet another "successful" year for the Political Association).

The VP of PA opened with a banal, jingoistic and white-washed speech which could've come from a PAP minister (complete with platitudes about speaking up, no less, just as Cambodians were encouraged to speak up by the Khmer Rouge, and look what happened to them). Indeed, it was worse than the Dear Leader's speech in that aspect. I wouldn't be surprised if he is one of the many PA members who is in the Young PAP.

Most of the Dear Leader's speech (and indeed many of the questions) was banal and neither new nor exciting, so I will only be typing up the more interesting/novel parts. The speech itself will doubtless be up on Sprinter in due course. Fortunately or otherwise, his shirt today was not hideous.

The Dear Leader said that NUS was very very diverse (a model for our fair island), and cited our staff coming from ~57 countries, and the students (including exchange students) from ~97. As with most people, he had mixed up range and standard deviation. I am pretty sure that 90% of our students come from Singapore, China and India, and that this expands to 97% if you include Vietnam and Malaysia.

The Dear Leader also made a snipe against Professors, saying that in countries in turmoil people wouldn't want to serve the nation and woulde become, say, Professors.

When I collected my temporary ticket, I noted that most of the names on the ticket collection sheet were of foreign students. Evidently foreign students were more interested in local politics than the locals. Some of them were so excited that they took pictures of the screens in the room projecting the Dear Leader's image (all foreign students, as far as I could tell). During the Q&A at least half the questions were from foreign students, but sadly all of them (IIRC) were uncontroversial.

Introducing the Question and Answer session, the moderator very intelligently and appropriately quoted Herbert Spencer: "The great aim of education is not knowledge but action". Presumably this was an endorsement of mere "grumbling" as an action, which was a relief to those of us not intending to form political parties to exercise our democratic rights.

The queue for question-asking seemed longer than 2 years ago. This was quite good, especially since no one asked irrelevant questions about Social Entrepreneurship like the last time. This felicity was, however, balanced both by how many people in the subsidiary auditorium ran off after Lee's talk, not seeming to realise that the fun part was in the Q&A and the preponderance of questions about foreign talent.

The first question was from a female Law student about setting up a Human Rights Ministry for the vulnerable. At first my hopes were gotten up, but then she began to talk about child sex in our backyard and CEDAW (the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women), whereas I'd thought she was going to talk about what was going on in our front yard and being done to our own people. Thankfully, the other females asking questions did not restrict themselves to "women's issues" (but they mostly, like the male students, restricted themselves to "safe" questions).

The Dear Leader's answer was that we cannot change the world (to which I remarked that if no one tried to change the world, it would never be changed) and that matters in Singapore were great already; our approach was not to be the last in Southeast Asia. I found this ironic, given that in his speech he had said that Singapore was very small and could be changed (read: socially engineered) easily. It was also ironic because we never want to rest on our economic laurels, yet are always content to languish socio-politically.

Another question was that the older generation of Singapore's unity was forged through traumatic events such as independence and racial riots, so what would unite the new generation? The answer to this was as uninspiring as the question (which begged the question majorly - it is not clear our 'traumatic' events united the nation, not least since all 3 of them killed all of 58 people and they have been followed by truckloads of Social Engineering over the last 42 years).

The Dear Leader shared a bizarre anecdote with us. 15 years ago the President of China had visited a HDB flat in Bishan, and he remarked that that household lived in better accommodations than he, the President of China. This was before Upgrading to boot. Assuming that he wasn't taken to a Potemkin village, I am extremely skeptical.

The Dear Leader probably upset the President of NUS when he remarked that NUS's esteemed ranking was 'a little generous' to us.

Another question was about going beyond Economics in establishing Singapore's national identity and embracing socio-political rights. This was interpreted as claiming that we didn't have them, which was refuted. On clarification, the question was ignored - the usual line about how we live good lives here was trotted out, and it was said that things we take for granted astonish visitors to Singapore. It was not pointed out that things some foreigners take for granted similarly astonish Singaporeans.

A next question came from Zhengxi, who questioned how serious the quest for feedback and consultation was. The example of annuities which have been made compulsory without consultation was given - consultation in Singapore is ex-post facto about decisions that have already been made, rather than having a broad base. This lead to disempowerment.

The reply was that if the government just did what people said, it wouldn't be needed - you could just have a box there. He said that a government needs to have an idea of where to go, and persuade people to follow it. A government must move in the direction that their people want to go 'fundamentally' and fulfil their 'deepest aspirations'. This sounded awfully like Positive Liberty and monstrous impersonation (as well as Communist claims about false consciousness). He then said in Hong Kong the people were asked if they wanted GST, and they all said no. This ignored the blatant fact that GST in Singapore and indeed other taxes are low compared to other developed countries.

He continued, saying that a government must consult the people about details but set the direction. Democratic accountability to the people would come only during each election when the government was put to the ballot box; "Consultation is important but consultation is not the sum total of government". This view of democracy as something more closely resembling elected autocracy, with people having no political power in between elections, was extremely disturbing to me (even if one ignores the fact that electoral behavior can be influenced).

Another questioner quoted Theodore Roosevelt: "To educate a man in mind, and not in morals, is to educate a menace to society". The usual scapegoats of the media, the education system, social circles and maids were then rolled out as contributing to the corruption of our young. Of course, globalisation also made an appearance, and not just in a cameo, in this invective against "moral dilution". What then could the government do?

The Dear Leader wryly noted that the government was always expected to solve everything, before saying that in a time of rapid change one had to update certain morals (presumably our society's deep opposition to gambling) while keeping others (presumably an antipathy to homosexuals). The good ole West was trotted out as a counter-example - half the kids in England were said to be born out of wedlock, even if the parents were living together. A "wholesome environment in Singapore" was to be kept, and we were told to wait 2 generations before we could be sure if we could follow the English example.

Another female law student (the only other female to talk about "women's issues") said that there was a perception of Singapore not being open due to Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalizes homosexuality as well as the ban on activists and events. The fact that we're the only secular country which criminalizes gay sex, and one of 10 economically developed countries that does, was also brought up.

The usual chestnut of how many people in Singapore are against gay sex was brought up (funny how in this case it was not the role of the government to try to persuade people to follow its lead, but graciously defer to them as in more well-adjusted democracies). His own view was that gayness was mostly inborn, and that how you live was your own decision. Yet the tone of society was set by homosexuals (nothing was said of how the tone of society here is set by Chinese). The heteroseuxal line should set the tone, although gay people exist and we respect them. Trying to repeal anti-gay laws would be decisive (presumably unlike introducing the Integrated Resorts) and that the government always follows what society is comfortable with. Foreigners coming in to tell us what to do were not welcome (presumably because the worst that can be done to them is that they are declared persona non grata and thrown out, whereas locals and be sued and harassed).

After a few more banal questions, the session ended. Surprisingly, a reception was catered for students but I ran off with Cunning Linguist instead.