National Day Rally 2006

From PM Lee's speech:

9. Government must adapt

a. Find leaders from the new generation
i. Hence fielded many new MPs born after 1965
ii. Set up P65 team led by Teo Ser Luck to reach out to young people and young adults (25 to 40 years old)
iii. By next election, P65 will be a little too old, and we will be looking for P70s!

b. Get our message across
i. We will use the new media too
(1) Multi-media, podcasts, vodcasts
(2) Ministries and agencies must experiment
(a) e.g. US Marine Corps are on MySpace
(b) e.g. Many MNCs use blogs for their corporate communications
ii. Must adapt our message and approach
(1) Cannot just issue stuffy statements and rebuttals
(2) Use art, humour, wit to get point across
(3) Laugh at ourselves from time to time
(4) e.g. last year’s NDR – showed video clips of Tau Gay Not Enough and Tau Gay Never Enough

c. But have to decide - What tone do we set? How far do we go?
i. You put out a funny podcast
ii. I reply with a funnier podcast
iii. If we compete on that basis, will ask Jack Neo to be my adviser
(1) NDR will be highly entertaining
(2) But is this the way to deal with serious issues?
iv. Will not stop there
(1) Distortions, half-truths and untruths will circulate
(2) Tone of debate will go down
(3) Race to the bottom
(a) e.g. in Taiwan – so much creative energy goes into political entertainment
(b) Some thoughtful Taiwanese are concerned
(c) 全民乱讲, but what about 全民好好讲 ?

d. Keep government serious and responsible
i. Can’t govern based on jokes, sound-bites, or distortions
ii. We need debates which add reason, light and come to a conclusion – not just angry words or name calling
(1) Good to be passionate, to care enough to say or better still do something
(2) But passion and emotions must be balanced with reason and a cool head
(3) No point just working people up or running down institutions and leading Singapore nowhere
(4) Debate to help work out solutions for the larger good and for the longer term
iii. Singapore is changing – must change
(1) Some things can change quickly, others take longer
(2) A few things should not be changed, like integrity, care for others, keeping Singa¬pore special
iv. By all means criticise the government and leaders
(1) But be prepared to stand by your criticisms
(2) If the government disagrees, then it has to rebut and defend itself, especially if the criticisms have been widely circulated
(3) Otherwise, untruths repeated often enough will be treated as fact
(4) And leaders will lose respect and moral authority

e. e.g. mr brown’s column in TODAY
i. Column hit out wildly at the government, in a mocking tone
ii. Hence MICA replied
iii. Some feel that reply was too harsh
iv. My view
(1) mr brown is very talented
(2) He is entitled to his views, and to express them
(3) But when he attacked the government, it had to respond
(a) To set record straight
(b) To signal that this is not the way to conduct responsible public debate, especially in the mainstream mass media

Was reading thru, and found section 9 of "The Digital Age" very interesting. Actually, I agree with most of what he said. Haha... so sue me, I'm pro-PAP... ;D

I've got three questions here that I wanna think about actually...

1. What can we do to make political-based media more relevant to the public while ensuring responsibility (i.e. reasonable and civilised) of speech?

Personally, I think digital media can (I say can, not will) be well-used to let the leaders establish a closer heart-connection with the people. I was thinking of Franklin Roosevelt's "fireside chats" - his radio broadcasts in the 1930s - that helped him connect with a huge continent-wide audience.

2. Actually, why should we even participate in politics in the first place?

I know this is a 'duh' question, but if I choose to do so, at least I want to do it with a sound understanding of why I choose to take part - not because it's the bandwagon thing to do.

3. "If the government disagrees, then it has to rebut and defend itself, especially if the criticisms have been widely circulated."

To what extent can the government disagree? Actually, I'm pretty sure that governments in almost all countries will be unhappy if criticised (I mean, they're human too, just like us)... but some choose to chop off heads, others throw into prison, yet others simply issue a statement or just ignore. Or they listen and act upon it. :)

But does the Singapore Constitution specify limits for government disagreement? That means, what resources are available to the government if it wishes to rebut and defend itself? I support the government's decision to defend itself, but I feel that it's got to be a fair debate.

Oh, it just struck me. Actually I don't even know what the Singapore Constitution says. ... er... do we have one? *blur* Well, neh mind! there's Google... haha...