Of hyperboles and reactions to them

So, I watched what I considered to be a ridiculously funny Jon Stewart clip about exaggerated blog/news headlines involving himself and other TV personalities in the US. Here is the clip (assuming the embed works):

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Blogs Must Be Crazy
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

It made me think about the Singapore government's belief that blogs must self-censor and news must not be "sensational".  Why? Are Singaporeans too lazy to examine content for themselves? Are they too "daft" to understand when something is blown out of proportion? Are they so bereft of reasoning that they are unable to separate arguments based on emotion from arguments based on evidence (I'm not even going as far as to say they have to be based on facts ... just evidence)? Maybe. Judging from some of the comments I've seen out there in the blogosphere, the Singapore government may just be right. However, must they intervene?

I think not. I think we need more Mr. Browns, Jon Stewarts and Stephen Colberts in Singapore. I think we need more Singaporeans to feel relaxed about their situation and to laugh at the silliness that is out there. I think we need to be exposed to more silly views so we understand what is sound and sensible. I think that if we as a people cannot handle the extremes of thought and ideas and must depend on what the government tells us, we do not deserve to exist as a nation.

Looking foward to the day this becomes non-news in Singapore.

Channel News Asia reported on an event where a woman in Singapore invited her PR Indian friends over to the reunion dinner: "PR from India celebrates Lunar New Year" (Patwant Singh, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 15 February 2010 2305 hr).

It is a good sign. However, it troubles me deeply how it was reported in the news (hell, that it was even reported in the first place). Here is the line that bugs me, please correct me if you think I am putting things out of context or that I am being unfair:

The host even catered to Madam Mehrotra and her mother-in-law's vegetarian dietary needs.

 Excuse me? "even"? I mean ... what is the point of inviting someone over to dinner if you are not going to make sure they have something to eat? Why would the reporter be so impressed that he wants to even make this point, much less use words that give it significance?

Here is some context from my personal experiences here in the US. I live in a campus town of a University with significant international presence. It is the norm, rather than the exception, to invite friends over for a bit of cultural exchange (usually involving food, from which the exchange then flow through questions, pertinent or otherwise). Invitations are often not confined to cultural events, though the latter adds flavor to the interaction. Potlucks are often the richest form of cultural exchange. The hosts of these events are sometimes not ethnically tied to the cultural event they are hosting. Traditions are almost always cast aside to accommodate the cultural restrictions of your guests. Guests often cast away their cultural restrictions to make things easier on the host, unless it is of deep significance to them. Cultures are as varied as it gets and the diversity is staggering. Forget about the CMIO typecast in Singapore.

Well, I am looking forward to the day these things become non-newsworthy-events in everyday Singapore life.

Frankly, as long as something like the Sedition Act remains, it becomes very hard to have a congenial and casual conversation about other cultures and religions. I have learned a lot about the richness of other cultures (including the many different Chinese cultures) through such conversation here in the US.

On the other hand, I have always found the same to be awkward, at best, while in Singapore. To be fair, I have found that people tend to get upset over the slightest thing in Singapore. I remember an episode in my teenage years when I was sucked into listening to a tense all-night argument between two of my friends just because I happened to mention the word "evolution" in our conversation. Here, even when having conversations about religion and culture in the presence of Indian and Pakistani nationals (I know I know, it's a stereotype), I have yet to offend anyone (though I may have generated some awkward moments). In Singapore, I wonder what happened to the commonsense understanding that when you are among friends, your friends do not mean to offend even if their questions may sound offensive to you? I wonder why the Singapore government believes that Singaporeans are unable/unwilling to say "Hmm, what you said is rather awkward and can be interpreted as offensive. Please, let us talk about something else.". It sure is commonsense here in my community in the US.

Making Pluralism work in Singapore

This is really my response to Kenneth Jeyaratnam's comments on a Facebook page "Pluralistic Democracy for Singaporeans -Make it Happen." I was somehow unable to post (probably too long):

Please refer to the above link for the context.

---

My basic concern is with the lack of a suitable environment in which we can build pluralism into our democracy. Hence the baby step.

Citizens need to at least have the basic realization that they form the main basis of a democracy, not the government nor any political party. Eisenhower's letter, imho, was partially intended to highlight the natural distance between government and citizenry and how they must both work toward bridging that gap.

From that principle, one can potentially then proceed to work in the logical direction for follow-up actions to be taken. At this point, I'll admit a profound level of ignorance on my part, at least with the "hows" in the Singapore context. I am sure the Reform Party has considered each of the following points at some depth and are taking appropriate action:

1. Guiding credos/identity - What governing principles does the Reform Party intend to live by? Will its policies be liberal or conservative? How much internal pluralism of different viewpoints (as with all large groups of individuals, differences will always be present and that is good) will the Reform Party tolerate within its ranks? How will the Reform Party let these principles be known to the general public? Through its manifesto? Through its constitution?

2. Politician contact with the citizenry. I'll break it down into several parts:

a. Walkabouts - bridges the gap between policy and citizenry. Are we informally surveying people's concerns and working these concerns into the party's principles? Are we trying to project the party's principles onto the people, convince them this is the right way to go? Are we encouraging them to take a stake in the democratic process, not just at election time, but to speak out whenever they observe potential problems for themselves or others? Are we encouraging them to be open minded about different viewpoints, even ones they strongly disagree with?

b. Meet-the-people - Are they just intended for people who need specific problems solved? Can we not encourage citizenry to come to MTP sessions with ideas or just to thank or criticize their MPs? Can we not wean them off the idea that government MUST be the solution to ALL their problems (eg. in some cases, teaching them to fish instead of fishing for them)?

c. Surveys - serves pretty much the same purpose as Walkabouts. Could be made scientific and more rigorous. Could serve as more concrete evidence to back up policy ideas and implementation.

3. Expert consultation for policy implementation. Is the Reform Party keeping in touch with the widest possible range of NGOs, think-tanks and academics out there willing (usually non-partisan) to talk to you? Are you able to draw on their expertise, hard data and views for drafting specific governing policy based on your own principles? Imho, Singapore is surprisingly rich with NGOs and I wonder if the PAP ever spoke with them on issues.

I apologize for not having any concrete proposals and for the muddled thoughts streaming out in this post. The only way forward that I see is to actively encourage and work with Singaporeans to be more aware of, and interested in, their role in a pluralistic democracy. That:

1. diversity is valuable.
2. civil disagreement is valuable.
3. their views as individuals are valued.

From what I can tell, this will be a long and hard road. However, I think once you have that, multi-party democracy will naturally follow. Frankly, the very first thing I'd get rid of is compulsory voting. The biggest turn-off for someone to democracy is forcing them to vote. A just-get-it-over-with vote is, imho, worse than not voting at all.

Other than that ... go win elections ... :P