So why blog?
Two words spring to mind - citizenship reporting. You see, after participating in the much publicised pre-election gimmick known as '
Why My Vote Matters: A Dialogue with Minister Mentor', I am all the more convinced that Singaporeans (and probably others too) are not exactly media savvy. In short, messages are truncated and people do not get to see the full picture.
Such is not peculiar to the case of Singapore, but widespread elsewhere. In academic terms, this is known as 'heteroglossia', which basically means multiple voices in the production of a media text. So if Singaporeans have fully internalised these media processes and understood heteroglossia at work, then I reckon they would not have simply written off the participants as 'rude' and/or 'radical'.
So affected was I by that session and its aftermath that I have actually composed an op-ed piece. Most of the others were mostly journalists, and so it is no surprise that we have read their musings in their respective media. Yet I thrive in the 'grey area'; not quite a full-pledged journalist but yet still a creature of the media. Indeed, postmodenism has created the likes of me by the throngs. Hybrids who defy strict classification.
And after reading 'Identity and Violence', I am at least reassured that author Amartya Sen, who was once conferred the Nobel Prize for Economics, can understand my position. He would agree that when it comes to matters of identity, nothing is ever monolithic nor fixed.
So my attempt at blogging is a personal experiment on citizenship reporting, on top of my regular contributions to Today and Bangkok Post. Here, I am the commander of my own words, steering across the storm of ideas and thoughts, against the currents of explicit and latent ideologies (though I am myself trapped by own context) in an expansive ocean of blogs.
To start with, I shall furnish herewith my views on media literacy and the LKY forum in a formally crafted article to lend myself voice. If there is one thing that I would like for readers to walk away with, it is that our voices are non-monolithic. And given that, my view here is non-binding so I am open to hearing yours. Enjoy the read...
=================================
Post-65 Singaporeans: Young, Restless and…Victimised?
A recently televised forum between Minister Mentor (MM) Lee Kuan Yew and 10 young Singaporeans who are not more than the age of 30 was aimed at bridging the gap between two generations on local politics. One of the forum’s participants explores this complex, multifaceted issue further.
Text by Nazry Bahrawi
By now, the hype to the Channel Newsasia production entitled ‘
Why My Vote Matters – A Dialogue with Minister Mentor’ aired several times in April before the General Election 2006 would have largely died down. Given that the participants comprises mostly journalists, I cannot help but feel that the forum was too much like a fiery press conference more than an intellectual discussion to pick the brains of a prominent statesman who has indeed much intriguing insights to offer. Judging from some reactions published in the papers and those whom I conversed with afterwards, I am not alone in thinking this.
Critiques against the forum in the wake of its aftermath are aplenty. Why were the participants mostly journalists? How come only SMU students were present? Why were there no Indians? Are the members of the forum representative of the views and concerns of other young Singaporeans on the ground?
As one of three non-journalist participants, I hence register my disappointment as an afterthought, though this does not mean that I am in any way ungrateful to have been accorded this rare opportunity. Kudos must be extended to the producers since the way the programme has been edited makes for good television especially in an age of reality TV entertainment. Yet I remain cynical to the question of whether it was indeed a good dialogue as its title claims.
Taking credence from the under-siege mentality that have besieged some Muslims in an Islamophobic post-9/11 world, one can argue with merit that it is always a misrepresentation to depict the multifarious views of any group as a standardised whole. Thus, I purport here that the ensuing media coverage merely perpetuates a mindset that only serves to marginalise the young participants by lumping them together as a homogeneous lot with uniform concerns.
My own personal experience will lend credence to this. For instance, I do not think fielding several Eurasian candidates and only one Indian candidate is an issue because I believe post-65ers can see past the race quotient as naive as that may sound. In fact, a straw poll conducted by Today newspaper right after the forum was first televised suggests that most people share my sentiments on this particular issue.
While I fully respect his views, I do not concur with MM Lee in that minority and women candidates will likely not win by virtue of their minority status if either were to contest in a single-member ward – an optimistic and hopeful view that I have put across to the Minister Mentor during the first Istana meeting when he asked me if I believe that Singaporeans can see past race and religion.
But I also do not agree with a fellow participant that the PAP is arrogant or high-handed in its ways when dealing with certain opposition members although I concur that supposed ‘harsh’ measures taken against certain opposition members in Singapore may have been perceived by some young Singaporeans to be quite daunting, and hence could have led to the permeation of a general indifference towards local politics. This perception I gather from loose conversations with friends and acquiantances. Followers of local literature would agree that writer Philip Jeyaretnam in his novel
Abraham’s Promise aptly captured this malaise of a world-weary generation whose members have replaced the pursuit of political idealism characteristic of young citizens elsewhere with an almost obsessive need to hoard material gains.
As a regular socio-political contributor to some regional English dailies, I see myself unwittingly inflicted by this very sense of apathy towards development in local politics. As a case in point, I made an uninformed decision when I first exercised my voting rights in the recent 2001 elections. Yet given that my articles oftentimes broach about political scenes beyond local shores, MM Lee is right in that my views, as one of many voices from the post-65 generation, suggest that I am not totally apolitical since firstly, my analyses acknowledge the pervasive nature of politics and secondly, I relished though cautiously at the opportunity to speak earnestly with Singapore’s foremost politician about local politics. I begin to wonder as one participant puts forth if I am a victim of ‘self-censorship’, or is this merely a perceived dilemma as MM Lee purports?
Media Literacy as Empowerment
In my mind, the session would have fared better if it were executed differently. Above all, I reckon the presence of a capable moderator could have ensured a better spread of questioning amongst its participants in the spirit of greater democratisation. It would have certainly been much fairer if all voices were heard instead of letting only some dominate the debate. This is important especially if one acknowledges that even inexperienced youths do not hold monolithic views.
If at all audience retention is an issue and hence the need to keep the programme to an hour time slot, then I must counter-suggest that more insights could have been weaned from this iconic figure had the programme been extended to a two- to three-part series running for half an hour each with specific focus per show. Right now, it seems like the participants were the fortunate select few to have been conferred the full picture to the en tire session; the rest only got truncated messages seeping through their television sets.
Even more adverse are disappointments expressed from some personal friends and acquaintances who I spoke to later because I fielded only one question throughout the entire session. When I later clarified that I have in fact fielded more than one, some individuals reacted even more drastically and argued that this was the case because racism was at play. Such answers only reinforce MM Lee’s assertion that Singaporeans are indeed subservient to a mindset that is divided along racial and religious lines.
At this juncture, it is perhaps better if I can clarify certain misconceptions held by viewers related to the problem of truncated messages and the media; a problem that MM Lee himself acknowledged during the forum when he says that the media is promoting a misconception among Singaporeans that the PAP is intolerant of political discussions. He believes this is not true, even though he qualifies that accusations against any political figures must either be backed with infallible evidence or the accuser must face the consequences of a defamation suit. He points out that opposition MPs Low Thia Kiang and Chiam See Tong came into power without ever having to resort to scathing personal attacks. Judging from the reactions, many would agree that his argument holds merit. Whether the playing field is levelled is ultimately in the hands of the voters, as SMU student Christopher Choo opines in ST.
Unbeknown to most, the programme captured only the tip of the iceberg since the participants and MM Lee actually spoke a great deal longer about other concerns as well. Although the actual recording actually ran over an hour and a half on recording day, editors have had to slash away about a good half hour to make it fit the one-hour time-slot including time allocated to screen advertisements.
Taking this into account, perhaps the reasons why some of my other questions were not featured is not so much an issue of racial marginalisation but more so because those in charge thought the questions either did not make for good television or they were simply not what viewers would want to hear compared to other more sensational questions from the rest.
The media practitioners here are essentially exercising editorial integrity within their constraints. In fact, more intense discussions lasting several hours were held two days prior to the actual taped session at the Istana, the contents of which I believe would have benefited more people vying to understand the local political scene and MM Lee’s stance on certain issues.
For instance, I asked for his opinion on whether he believes that talent exists outside the elites in ‘grey areas’ in his quest for future PAP leaders. I asked him this because I read during the course of my research that the PAP was an elitist party (Mauzy, Diane and Milne, R.S., ‘Singapore Politics Under the People’s Action Party’, Routledge [2002], p.53-54.). His answer was that traits like character and achievements top the list more than academic performance. He also spoke about the need to avoid corruption if Singapore were to last the mile. Internalising his answers, I am now inclined to believe that what I read is not what I get.
Herein lies a crucial lesson for young Singaporeans, that is, there exist an urgent need to enhance media literacy. Being media literate is not about recognising the latest Hollywood movies, the coolest website or the most ‘in’ magazines. On the contrary, it means understanding that what you see, read or consume is not necessarily what you get.
So that young Singaporeans do not become pawns in a world where culture and public opinions are shaped by increasingly capitalistic media conglomerates the likes of MTV and CNN, they cannot afford to stay ignorant of media production processes lest they wish to become unthinking adults who are easily swayed by the propaganda set by higher powers.
To become media literate is to possess the critical faculty to read between the lines and to think independently before arriving at an informed and largely unbiased position. To become media literate is to contextualise a decontextualised text. In fact, a nation of critical young Singaporeans can as much shape public opinions as media producers when it comes to local political scene.
With the televised MM Lee Forum, it would be a good exercise on media literacy not to first jump to conclusions that the perceived lack of some voices is indeed racial marginalisation, or that the participants were an ungrateful lot as some have indicated. What viewers did not see is that several participants including myself went up to him after the show to thank him for providing us the opportunity to participate in this heated debate. It mirrors the kind of interactive and sometimes intense two-way pedagogy that many young Singaporeans are attuned to in institutes of higher learning more than an angry mob of disenfranchised voters.
Most importantly, one must realise that the views held by the participants may not necessarily represent the views of other post-65 Singaporeans on the ground. It is thus imperative not to victimise the young as an immature, rude and monolithic group. What I thought was common though was an air of idealism which the young must never be ashamed of. After all, Mr Lee was himself once a young man whose fiery political ideals have built Singapore up into the fine machinery it is today. As a matter of personal triumph, at least my interest in local politics has been yoked. Have yours been too?
Nazry Bahrawi, managing editor with a trade magazine, was one of 10 participants at the forum, ‘Why my vote matters - A dialogue with the Minister Mentor’, broadcast on Channel NewsAsia and MediaCorp Channel 5 in April 2006.
