(First posted on Facebook on Monday, 16 May 2011 at 11:16)
One of the things that Singapore GE 2011 got me to do was move out of my comfort zone, politically that is.
I was never interested in politics in Singapore. I believed that it is all engineered anyway and as long as the PAP-led government got it right most of the time, I can tolerate mistakes here and there as long as they get the big picture right. Afterall I consider myself part of the fortunate strata to have the means to live a comfortable albeit far from luxurious life. I don’t have any complains about my life as a whole, even if I do have grouses about the increasing cost of living. By and large I am contented.
Thanks to the GE, I realised I was like an ostrich that has buried my head in the sand for too long. The more I probed, the sadder I got. Quite early on in the GE, I already knew who I would vote for (if I could vote). I am pro-Singapore. I am one of those who celebrated whole heartedly the win of the Workers’ Party in Aljunied.
Now that the dust has settled and the nation watches the ruling government go through a soul searching process, I am stung by the continuous flood of negative rhetoric one can so easily find online. As much as I agree that the Internet has provided an important forum for a much-needed diversity in views (especially in the derth of unbiased, objective journalism in Singapore), I am disturbed by the overwhelmingly objectionable tone of much of the rhetoric.
To borrow and paraphrase the words of Paul Gilfeather, a principal correspondent at Today newspaper in an article today: I do not object to the existence of these views as such. However, it is the default setting which sees some Singaporeans attack the ruling party at every opportunity that unsettles me.
Some of these are voices that many have come to rely on for alternative views, highly regarded in the internet stratosphere. Indeed, the very fact that they are decidedly alternative is what attracts people.
I am drawn to these voices too and value the efforts of these individuals and groups that serve to create a more open and communicative political and social landscape. My concerns are:
1. How can you take someone seriously when they automatically take the opposite view, no matter what the circumstances? (again to quote and paraphrase Paul Gilfeather in the same article)
2. Do people seek a balance of views by reaching out to all the views available?
3. For people who rely on a single source of opinions that is doggedly one-sided, their choices are guilty of being misinformed and biased, no matter which side they take.
I have a low regard for the professionalism of local newspapers. However, I appreciate that they have a job to do, a social function (even if some think this to be distorted) to fulfill. As much as I disagree with the way things are done, I choose to still read the local dailies to get a picture of the other side of the hedges. Then given all the information my little brain can process, I choose where I stand.
A stand for something is different from taking a position. A position is fixed – either you are in position A or B or C, you get the drift. A position is a function of agreement – either you agree with one position or you do not. This is necessarily adversarial.
A stand however is a space to come from. I can stand for love and compassion and inside of this space, still accept the very existence of hatred and selfishness, all in the same space. It is not about proving someone wrong so I can be right. It is not about making someone look bad so I can look good, or me looking good at the expense of others.
I am pro-Singapore. My stand is for Singapore is best captured by our national pledge. As much as I am unsettled by the seemingly polarised views on the internet, my stand is unmoved.
For the cynics who think the pledge is mere words and is an impossible dream, consider that you are the ones who undermine the value of the pledge and what it stands for.
It starts with the individual. This GE showed us the power of individuals united by one vision (a grander word for stand.) But it all starts with the individual.
For individuals who have the listening of many, I ask you, who have the gift to sway thousands with words, use this gift responsibly, with humility and compassion. You too serve a critical role in this nation’s future creation.