And the apparent increase in the breadth of coverage in the local press does not seem to come with any corresponding depth or balance. Here is a responsible rough run-down (although very, VERY long) of three issues that tickled me in the past fortnight or so. I have endeavoured not to contravene the Sedition Act.
1. Dr. Cherian George's ding-dong with the Prime Minister's press secretary in the forum pages
It all started with his article "Managing civil disobedience" (ST, Oct 10) where he analysed "calibrated coercion" as one under-appreciated governance skill of the People's Action Party, and speculated that the opposition's strategy of civil disobedience presents a new challenge that the PAP would have to manage carefully.
Almost immediately after, the Prime Minister's press secretary, Mr. Chen Hwai Liang, responded by presenting the Government's position on its own success factors ("Govt doesn't depend on 'calibrated coercion", ST, Oct 12).
Dr. George came back in another letter on Oct 13 (Govt shouldn't equate analysis with advocacy") to "refine (his) own analysis based on Mr. Chen's and other responses". Because he said that "the PAP's record of political stability is unique in the world and deserves nuanced and sustained study, which I, like others in the academic fraternity, are committed to".
He asserted that he "therefore welcome the Government's engagement with my ideas", while expressing that he is "saddened that the Government has chosen to cast my article in partisan terms".
"Worse, it claims that I 'commended' the strategy of civil disobedience. This is not just a misrepresentation of my views. It is also a serious accusation, as it suggests that I was inciting readers to break the law," he said.
He went on to raise an analogy that was not taken too well by the press secretary.
"By this token, a historian who studies the rise of communism must be a communist himself. The terrorism expert who explains the motivations of Al-Qaeda operatives must be siding with terrorists. And a sociologist analysing Stefanie Sun's international appeal must be a groupie. Such labelling would make much academic research untenable," said Dr. George.
In the Oct 14 forum pages of ST, Mr. Chen brings to light "statements, which show Dr. George's true intentions, (which) were omitted from his Straits Times article, which was a sanitised version of his original paper." He questions - "Is this being non-partisan?"
"His (original) article states that it was 'based on an academic paper on calibrated coercion'. This paper, titled 'Calibrated coercion and the maintanance of hegemony in Singapore', describes Singapore as an instance of 'authoritarian rule', declares that 'the normative thrust of this essay is directed at democratisation', and claims to offer a 'sophisticated understanding of what makes certain kinds of authoritarian rule endure - the better to resist and challange them'. - Chen Hwai Leng, ST, Oct 14
In rebutting Dr. George's analogy, Mr Chen said, "But if the expert goes further to suggest that there are good and legitimate reasons why a person has to resort to terrorism, that must be a different matter."
While conceeding that Dr. George's article "did not directly commend civil obedience", Mr Chen said that "his attitude can clearly be inferred from its conclusion."
He goes on to quote the conclusion to Dr. George's paper in detail.
Mixed Blessing
The contemporary scene of calibrated coercion is a mixed blessing for Singaporeans who want more freedom. This is bad news for pro-democracy activists, who consequently have a tough time reminding Singaporeans that they should care about political liberalisation. That is where Dr. Chee (Soon Juan)'s strategy of civil disobedience comes in. It is a predictable response to the PAP's success at calibrated coercion. - Chen Hwai Leng, Oct 14
What I found most chillingly paternalistic was how Mr. Chen proclaimed that he is "happy that Dr. George has not clarified that, in his view, Singaporeans who want to press for change need to do so within the law."
In a veiled swipe at academia, he remarked, "It is no surprise that critics of the Government, especially those who are academics, will want to portray themselves as being dispassionate observers who are above the fray. However, the Government's response will depend on the substance of what they say, rather than the pose they strike."
If my close analysis of the papers has not let me down, I believe Dr. George has not issued a reply yet. While it is refreshing to finally see such vigourous intellectual debate in the forum pages, I am making an educated guess that Dr. George is merely heeding the advice of his ex-colleagues at the ST newsroom to let things rest.
2. The outgoing American ambassador to Singapore's comments about Singapore
Just before Frank Levin ended his 4-year tenure as the American ambassador to Singapore, he delivered a lengthy speech at his farewell dinner on Oct 11. The original transcript of his speech is available off the American embassy website, but the reporting of this event by ST and other papers could not have been any more different - for this, we have mrbrown.com to thank for summarising the whole situation in an empirical nutshell.
What piqued my interest in the whole issue is an editorial in Saturday's papers written by a deputy political editor at ST.
His lead paragraph screamed "So thank you, Ambassador Frank Levin, for leaving with a parting shot." (Remaking politics here? Process already underway, ST, Oct 15)
(Just a random aside here. This article appeared in a column called "Thinking Aloud" too. Bleh.)
It was a sarcastic jibe that started the article which basically went on an offensive, defending the Singapore system while reminding everyone of American's double standards in advocating democracy et al -- it could basically be read as an article that extends the whole Asian values school of thought, that only Singapore is privy to.
I am so sure that this issue would be discussed in greater depth in mass media class and I am half dreading it already.
3. A Case of Excessive Proselytising in Public Institutions?
Reading "Say aaah...men"(ST, Oct 15) on the Saturday Insight section of yesterday's Straits Times, I was appalled that while the authors were objective in presenting pretty much a coherent argument, they neglected to be mindful of their use of metaphorical language in presenting a case.
It occurred to me that facts alone are not enough in objective reporting, a neutral tone, although something very difficult to achieve, is very important as well.
But back to the article.
While I was initially full of indignation that my faith has been painted in a negative light by the press, something inside me urged me to quell this indignation - it was this thing inside me that also forced me to quell the same indignation after the lecture on religion when I took the introductory sociology class a year ago.
The article talked about examples of Christians being unethical in their evangelism. Doctors, alongside teachers, it seems, are the main culprits. Teachers inviting students to Christmas parties that ended with prayers, and doctors sharing their faith with patients.
My mind was going into overdrive. I thought that the patients' fears that the doctor would discontinue to treat them if they decided to tell their well-meaning doctors to stop sharing about their faith, quite honestly a tad over-board.
And people getting offended because Christian nurses listen to Christian songs when they are working. Whatever happened to the tolerance that this whole article was obviously meant to remind everybody of?
I also found the students' offence at the prayers at the party quite difficult to comprehend - maybe it is due to how Christmas has been commercialised over the years, but Christmas as an occasion that celebrates the birth of Christ should be common knowledge by now, so how could students go to a party that a teacher who is already previously known to be openly Christian, expect anything otherwise?
However, while that is true, I am also led to consider that I should not be oblivious to the fact that there are Christians who have also breached the line of decency and against what the Bible espoused in 1 Peter for Christians to be "gentle" and considerate in advocating Christ.
In fact, this phenomenon is even larger than I even know it to be.
Because in my own evangelism efforts, I have come across so many people who have been immensely scarred by such zealousness. More often than not, I find myself apologizing for some of these fellow brothers and sisters of mine for clearly flouted the line of decency and imposing their standards on others.
People should be treated as they should - human beings, and not as commodities.
But I am intrigued with the recent apparent surge in such letters to the press complaining of such occurrences, surely these have been rampant in recent times, but why is it that it has become such an issue only now?
Besides, I reckon that despite what they seem to profess, the other religions are also guilty in some way or another, simply because nobody and nothing is perfect. Otherwise there would not be what is common known in sociology as the religious market place, where different religions compete for people's attention.
In this sense, the full page article that also took up much space on the front page of yesterday's papers may be perceived as a victimisation of Christianity.
Besides, the jury is also out on whether Christianity is being used as a sacrificial cow in this case, to subtly remind Singaporeans that we should abstain from such protelytising?
How then, do you explain the excessive coverage of Zen Buddhism on the television news last night? Granted it may be perceived that the Zen Masters who were interviewed were just introducing their faiths, I thought the extended run time was going against what the ST article was talking about - public advocacy of any religion. It was as if Zen Buddhism was okay to blare on television, but not say, Christianity, for example.
Whatever it is, while Christians should not remain passive, they should engage appropriately, still mindful of the authority placed over us - no matter how aggrieved we may feel from the whole situation.
I regard this as a lesson, as a reminder for those radical evangelists among us, of the importance of sensitivity that the Bible repeatedly reminds us of, when we share God's word with others. While the Great Commission is something that Christians should be mindful of, our methodology is arguably one of greater concern.
ALL right. There you have it. And people dare say Singapore is boring, sedate and not happening? If you ask me, for a country that is unaccustomed to the flurry of activity, I think there is just simply one too many thing happening right now. Or at least appear to, at least.
In a veiled swipe at academia, he remarked, "It is no surprise that critics of the Government, especially those who are academics, will want to portray themselves as being dispassionate observers who are above the fray. However, the Government's response will depend on the substance of what they say, rather than the pose they strike."
If my close analysis of the papers has not let me down, I believe Dr. George has not issued a reply yet. While it is refreshing to finally see such vigourous intellectual debate in the forum pages, I am making an educated guess that Dr. George is merely heeding the advice of his ex-colleagues at the ST newsroom to let things rest.
2. The outgoing American ambassador to Singapore's comments about Singapore
Just before Frank Levin ended his 4-year tenure as the American ambassador to Singapore, he delivered a lengthy speech at his farewell dinner on Oct 11. The original transcript of his speech is available off the American embassy website, but the reporting of this event by ST and other papers could not have been any more different - for this, we have mrbrown.com to thank for summarising the whole situation in an empirical nutshell.
What piqued my interest in the whole issue is an editorial in Saturday's papers written by a deputy political editor at ST.
His lead paragraph screamed "So thank you, Ambassador Frank Levin, for leaving with a parting shot." (Remaking politics here? Process already underway, ST, Oct 15)
(Just a random aside here. This article appeared in a column called "Thinking Aloud" too. Bleh.)
It was a sarcastic jibe that started the article which basically went on an offensive, defending the Singapore system while reminding everyone of American's double standards in advocating democracy et al -- it could basically be read as an article that extends the whole Asian values school of thought, that only Singapore is privy to.
I am so sure that this issue would be discussed in greater depth in mass media class and I am half dreading it already.
3. A Case of Excessive Proselytising in Public Institutions?
Reading "Say aaah...men"(ST, Oct 15) on the Saturday Insight section of yesterday's Straits Times, I was appalled that while the authors were objective in presenting pretty much a coherent argument, they neglected to be mindful of their use of metaphorical language in presenting a case.
It occurred to me that facts alone are not enough in objective reporting, a neutral tone, although something very difficult to achieve, is very important as well.
But back to the article.
While I was initially full of indignation that my faith has been painted in a negative light by the press, something inside me urged me to quell this indignation - it was this thing inside me that also forced me to quell the same indignation after the lecture on religion when I took the introductory sociology class a year ago.
The article talked about examples of Christians being unethical in their evangelism. Doctors, alongside teachers, it seems, are the main culprits. Teachers inviting students to Christmas parties that ended with prayers, and doctors sharing their faith with patients.
My mind was going into overdrive. I thought that the patients' fears that the doctor would discontinue to treat them if they decided to tell their well-meaning doctors to stop sharing about their faith, quite honestly a tad over-board.
And people getting offended because Christian nurses listen to Christian songs when they are working. Whatever happened to the tolerance that this whole article was obviously meant to remind everybody of?
I also found the students' offence at the prayers at the party quite difficult to comprehend - maybe it is due to how Christmas has been commercialised over the years, but Christmas as an occasion that celebrates the birth of Christ should be common knowledge by now, so how could students go to a party that a teacher who is already previously known to be openly Christian, expect anything otherwise?
However, while that is true, I am also led to consider that I should not be oblivious to the fact that there are Christians who have also breached the line of decency and against what the Bible espoused in 1 Peter for Christians to be "gentle" and considerate in advocating Christ.
In fact, this phenomenon is even larger than I even know it to be.
Because in my own evangelism efforts, I have come across so many people who have been immensely scarred by such zealousness. More often than not, I find myself apologizing for some of these fellow brothers and sisters of mine for clearly flouted the line of decency and imposing their standards on others.
People should be treated as they should - human beings, and not as commodities.
But I am intrigued with the recent apparent surge in such letters to the press complaining of such occurrences, surely these have been rampant in recent times, but why is it that it has become such an issue only now?
Besides, I reckon that despite what they seem to profess, the other religions are also guilty in some way or another, simply because nobody and nothing is perfect. Otherwise there would not be what is common known in sociology as the religious market place, where different religions compete for people's attention.
In this sense, the full page article that also took up much space on the front page of yesterday's papers may be perceived as a victimisation of Christianity.
Besides, the jury is also out on whether Christianity is being used as a sacrificial cow in this case, to subtly remind Singaporeans that we should abstain from such protelytising?
How then, do you explain the excessive coverage of Zen Buddhism on the television news last night? Granted it may be perceived that the Zen Masters who were interviewed were just introducing their faiths, I thought the extended run time was going against what the ST article was talking about - public advocacy of any religion. It was as if Zen Buddhism was okay to blare on television, but not say, Christianity, for example.
Whatever it is, while Christians should not remain passive, they should engage appropriately, still mindful of the authority placed over us - no matter how aggrieved we may feel from the whole situation.
I regard this as a lesson, as a reminder for those radical evangelists among us, of the importance of sensitivity that the Bible repeatedly reminds us of, when we share God's word with others. While the Great Commission is something that Christians should be mindful of, our methodology is arguably one of greater concern.
ALL right. There you have it. And people dare say Singapore is boring, sedate and not happening? If you ask me, for a country that is unaccustomed to the flurry of activity, I think there is just simply one too many thing happening right now. Or at least appear to, at least.
No comments:
Post a Comment