Today Online 10 Jan 08;
All Singaporeans have the right to speak up
It's the 'what' that matters
Policymakers alone may not have all the answers
Letter from JONATHAN LIM WEN ZHI
Letter from TAN MENG LEE
Letter from JASON CHIAM
I REFER to the article, "Why Ngiam the critic is tolerated" (Jan 8) by Mr Loh Chee Kong.
While political consciousness and greater liberty to express criticism has grown rapidly in recent years, the odds are still tilted against those who wish to make political statements, which might be interpreted as being critical of the Government.
Hence, the flow of such criticism is often top-down as opposed to bottom-up.
Political space should involve all levels of society, but on hearing the word "politics" here, one assumes that it only encompasses the Government, politicians, policymakers, etc, while the common man is supposed to be non-partisan.
Prominent figures like Mr Ngiam Tong Dow, Professor Tommy Koh and Dr Lee Wei Ling have made critical statements against the Government, but their views have been tolerated for reasons that they are people with prominent standing in their respective fields.
This should not translate into the thinking that those who aren't at the pinnacles of their fields shouldn't speak up.
Under the Constitution, "every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression".
But this should be done without "rocking the boat" or endangering the social fabric.
As to how much the boat is being rocked and where the "OB" markers are, it is the Government that interprets and determines the rules.
As Mr Loh mentioned in his article, the mainstream media should give all sides a fair airing.
However, it is often perceived as a mouthpiece of the Government, as opposed to a tool for checks and balances, which is the practice in the West.
This top-down approach has also turned off the "elites" who aren't members of the Government from speaking up because they feel it would be an exercise in futility.
Singaporeans may also be deterred having seen some opposition politicians taken to task for irresponsible actions and speeches.
The result is that citizens continue to express their political opinions in the kopitiams and marketplace instead of political forums.
The article, "Why Ngiam the critic is tolerated", reflects the general sentiment that our Government only listens depending on "who" is making the point, "how" it is being said and "when" it is being said, rather than "what" is being said.
Is it any wonder then why Singaporeans clam up?
For anyone taking up political office, it is important to listen carefully to "what" is being said regardless of the "who", "how" and "when" to sieve out any precious gems that might enable office holders to fine-tune, revamp or reverse laws and policies to serve the majority as well as the minority without the risk of discrimination or disadvantage.
As Shakespeare said: "Virtue is bold, and goodness never fearful." Even where the issues raised are political or get politicised, there is no need to smear or be smeared.
I refer to your article, "Why Ngiam the critic is tolerated".
I agree that if you are a player in the establishment, your views would tend to be more readily accepted, as seen in the cases of Mr Ngiam Tong Dow and Mr Philip Yeo.
However, policymakers should realise that they do not have all the answers, and that sometimes the ability to reconcile different views may be the best option.
It is understandably difficult to find solutions to every problem, but sometimes consultation with people from all walks of life works wonders.
