singzeon.

9 September 2012:

I am surprised by two things regarding Our SG Conversation.

The government is gonna listen. That's what it says, and that's what Education Minister Heng Swee Keat is tasked to do with a committee of people that range from cabinet ministers and members of parliament to taxi drivers and 'ordinary people'.

Yesterday news broke regarding details of the committee. I had been very excited to see who the people would be.

Mr Heng, you have disappointed the people. Maybe not all, but some, like me.

I have seen the members of the Our SG Conversation (OSC) committee. They are:

1. Ms Cham Hui Fong: Assistant Secretary General, National Trade Union Congress (NTUC).
2. Mr Chan Chun Sing: Acting Minister, Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS).
3. Mr Stanley Chia: Managing Director, Envisage Education Pte Ltd.
4. Ms Chia Yong Yong: President, the Society for the Physically Disabled (SPD).
5. Dr Noorul Fatha As'art: Assistant Director, Non-Communicable Disease Branch, Ministry of Health (MOH).
6. Mdm Halimah Yacob: Minister of State, MCYS.
7. Mr Heng Swee Keat: Minister for Education.
8. Mr Ismail Hussein: Head of Islamic Banking Unit, Maybank Singapore.
9. Ms Indranee Rajah: Member of Parliament (MP), Tanjong Pagar GRC.
10. Mr S Shaikh Ismail: manager of a multi-national consulting firm.
11. Ms Kuo Jian Hong: Artistic Director, Theatre Practice.
12. Ms Lee Huay Leng: Deputy Editor, Lianhe Zaobao.
13. Mr George Lim: Senior Counsel and Partner, Messrs Wee Tay & Lim.
14. Ms Lim Ru Ping: part-time artiste, Mediacorp.
15. Asst Prof. Mahdev Mohan: Law, Singapore Management University.
16. Mr Jeffery Oon: Audience and Editorial Lead, Yahoo! Asia.
17. Mr Thomas Pek: Managing Director, Tai Hua Food Industries Pte Ltd.
18. Ms Denise Phua: MP, Moulmein-Kallang GRC.
19. Mrs Jessie Phua: Chief de Mission, Team Singapore.
20. Ms Sim Ann: Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Education (MOE) and Ministry of Law (MOL).
21. Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Acting Minister for Manpower; Senior Minister of State, Ministry of National Development.
22. Prof. Kenneth Tan: Vice Dean (Academic Affairs) and Associate Professor, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (SOPP).
23. Ms Teng Zi Ying: student.
24. Mr Patrick Teo: Secretary, TransCab Operators' Association.
25. Mr Benett Theseira: President, Singapore Eurasian Association.
26. Mr Lawrence Wong: Senior Minister of State, MOE and Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts (MICA).

(Positions listed above are as of 9 September. For those with too many positions, I picked the most 'big-shot' one.)

Amongst the 26 people, 8 are MPs or cabinet ministers. At least another four are in companies that have some obvious relation to the government. Anyone missing? Yes. What happened to Janice Koh, Low Thia Kiang, Chen Show Mao and the rest?

I'm not pushing for opposition committee members for the sake of it. In fact, Janice Koh isn't even considered opposition; she is an NMP. But I want these people in there because I believe they bring about alternative voices.

Yes, the establishment may regard these alternative voices as noise. But no, sometimes it is these alternative voices that clear the mist shrouding everyone. As someone said before: "How do you think out of the box when you are born into the box?"

Almost all ruling party members (which have became MPs and/or ministers) or civil service high-rankers are moulded into technocratic bureaucrats. I shall not debate on whether it is better or not, but I can say that the committee needs more than that. Besides Mr Tan and Mr Chan, I may say that the remaining of the 8 may be more conservative.

That is not needed in this review. We of course should not be ultimately liberal and allow all sorts of populist measures, but I feel that if on a scale, the needle should deflect slightly towards liberal. Slightly.

I have seen countless exchanges where a certain policy or move is questioned. The question gets shot down with a standard template of government responses by the relevant authorities. I seriously suspect that the government has a computer system which selects, at random, what phrase to throw out as a response. Or maybe they get the press to help them.

On Saturday when I heard there was a taxi driver involved, I was rather optimistic about it. It turns out that he is the secretary of TransCab. He is no more a 'nobody'. To make this conversation as open and wide-ranging as possible, the people chosen need to be diverse. Yes, you pick a taxi driver. But what if he is already pro-establishment to begin with?

Well, I am heartened that Ms Kuo is on the committee. (It's not only because I like Theatre Practice a lot.) I am heartened because I feel that the arts community is being heard. I hope that Ms Kuo can use this chance and push for a greater appreciation of the arts, which is what I want to see as Singapore's future.

As for the rest, I am unable to comment, since I don't know much about them. Of course, they have bulging portfolios, at least according to the Our SG Conversation website, from which I obtained the names and positions above.

Mr Heng was asked about the exclusion of bloggers and opposition members. He says that this not a partisan exercise, that's why they were not included. I reacted mildly to this, but I am quite sure another storm is brewing in online forums everywhere over this remark of his.

As with DPM Teo's slip in logic, here comes another by Mr Heng. Precisely since this is a bipartisan exercise, therefore you should include members of both parties to join in. After all, Workers' Party does have six MPs.

I really cannot fathom Mr Heng's logic. Of course, it is unlikely that any changes would be done to the committee members, unless somehow a miracle appears (i.e. people are way too angry) and someone from the Workers' Party gets included. Even NMPs deserve inclusion, I feel.

To detractors of the ruling party, this must have been perfect fodder to hurl vitriol at them. The government has been preaching inclusiveness, yet it excludes opposition members and NMPs. Unless they rejected the offer, otherwise this shows exactly how bipartisan the government is. (They are not, if you don't understand sarcasm.)

Y'know from Mr Heng's statement "this is not a partisan exercise", I can infer that Mr Heng implies alternative voices would only impede the progress of the conversation by being partisan. I rather disagree to that. Judging from the way ruling party members determine what is partisan, it is normally when you object their viewpoint.

I took a brief peek at some online forums. The word 'wayang' appears many times, including other negative and crude comments about this exercise.

~

Chua Mui Hoong's commentary surprised me. She is liberal by all standards, in today's article. I used to think that she toed the government's line very well, since her commentaries often reflected government viewpoints perfectly. Even last year after GE2011, her commentaries calling for change were very mild.

Today was different. The subheading already stood out. It implied that the government used to treat us as 'lower beings'. Now, they are beginning to see us as equals, albeit that have the task of leading us.

I really wonder if this is a one-time press liberalisation or an editorial slip? Anyhow, I was even more surprised that she 'scolded' the government about the lack of opposition members. She used the word 'disappointed', which is a strong word in diplomatic jargon.

On online forums, people exposed that she and her sister Chua Lee Hoong used to work at Internal Security Department of Ministry for Home Affairs. Yes, the one where 'Marxist conspirators' were detained under ISA. Hmm.

People have been berating her calling her all kinds of nasty things. I found an article 4 years ago by her sister. That really was very pro-government, judging by how it scolded (yes, scolded) netizens just because they called for a minister to resign then. Well, the minister was demoted in the end, after the elections last year. So you scold what scold?

I hope that Chua Mui Hoong's commentaries will continue to be thought-provoking and not so much of pro-establishment. Hopefully, mainstream press would be more liberal over the years, as DPM Shanmugaratnam has observed.

(There was a theory that online chatter in forums are so vicious because mainstream press is so diluted and controlled, that people 'retaliate' online. Maybe it's true?)

Anyway, let this conversation be a conversation, not a monologue.

TTFN.