political apathy
A column I wrote for ST's Youthink on youth apathy. I'm posting it here because I'm convinced it will be yanked - not published. Stay tuned to every monday's ST to see if I'm right.
"I am possibly one of the only people my age who has ever been to an opposition party political rally.
It was a Singapore Democratic Party rally in 1997, and
I was a tender, wider-eyed 11 year old, stunned and thrilled
by the genuine fervour I felt from the assembled masses.
The (mostly) men there were excitable and loud,
prone to breaking into chants of ""SDP! SDP!"" and raucous
jeering at allusions made by candidates to the ruling party.
The one moment that stuck
in my mind from that experience was when the crowd
erupted into loud cheers for some unknown presence - a
ripple went through the crowd: ""It's JBJ!"", men around me told each other.
I couldn't see this elusive acronymed person - he wasn't
onstage, and despite the clamour from the crowd, was not
going to walk onstage.
He wasn't allowed to, because he was being sued, and was not an official candidate.
On the way home, my father told me the story of Mr
Jeyaretnam's political career, and why the crowd at the rally
seemed to cheer for him as if he was the second coming.
Mr Jeyaretnam's political career has one point, really,
and it is the same point that, in my opinion, has led to the
widespread political apathy of Singaporean youth.
Quite simply: it is the message from the powers, that offering a diverging opinion or a dissenting voice - considered
hallowed privileges in most democracies - will end only in
litigation and bankruptcy.
It is the message that the countless OB markers spell
out to anyone my age thinking of a career in politics: step past
them, and the price is yours to pay.
With such clear-cut directives, what other response
could we have, but to shrug and be indifferent?
In a Straits Times interview, Catherine Lim the author once defined political
openness as the acceptance of three things: ""civic assembly,
political cartoons and the ability to sue the government -
and win"".
The lack of use of a muscle leads to its atrophy. Similary,
the lack of political openness, as defined by Catherine Lim,
leads to political atrophy - apathy and indifference.
Mr Jeyaretnam tried to force open the door of politics,
and look what happened to him. He was a brave men - but lost against the system anyway.
That was the lesson I learnt from the rally in 1997, the same lesson that has been impressed upon people my age time and again every time another opposition figure is sued, or every time another
district is gerrymandered.
The lesson is this: no matter the ruling party's rhetoric
about galvanising Singaporean youth politically, any one who oversteps the limitations of ""free speech"" as defined by the government will ultimately be punished.
"Be political, but only according to our rules." : that is
the message.
Can you blame us for not answering such a compromised call?"
Apologies for the short paragraphs - not usually my style. But it's ST's style.
"I am possibly one of the only people my age who has ever been to an opposition party political rally.
It was a Singapore Democratic Party rally in 1997, and
I was a tender, wider-eyed 11 year old, stunned and thrilled
by the genuine fervour I felt from the assembled masses.
The (mostly) men there were excitable and loud,
prone to breaking into chants of ""SDP! SDP!"" and raucous
jeering at allusions made by candidates to the ruling party.
The one moment that stuck
in my mind from that experience was when the crowd
erupted into loud cheers for some unknown presence - a
ripple went through the crowd: ""It's JBJ!"", men around me told each other.
I couldn't see this elusive acronymed person - he wasn't
onstage, and despite the clamour from the crowd, was not
going to walk onstage.
He wasn't allowed to, because he was being sued, and was not an official candidate.
On the way home, my father told me the story of Mr
Jeyaretnam's political career, and why the crowd at the rally
seemed to cheer for him as if he was the second coming.
Mr Jeyaretnam's political career has one point, really,
and it is the same point that, in my opinion, has led to the
widespread political apathy of Singaporean youth.
Quite simply: it is the message from the powers, that offering a diverging opinion or a dissenting voice - considered
hallowed privileges in most democracies - will end only in
litigation and bankruptcy.
It is the message that the countless OB markers spell
out to anyone my age thinking of a career in politics: step past
them, and the price is yours to pay.
With such clear-cut directives, what other response
could we have, but to shrug and be indifferent?
In a Straits Times interview, Catherine Lim the author once defined political
openness as the acceptance of three things: ""civic assembly,
political cartoons and the ability to sue the government -
and win"".
The lack of use of a muscle leads to its atrophy. Similary,
the lack of political openness, as defined by Catherine Lim,
leads to political atrophy - apathy and indifference.
Mr Jeyaretnam tried to force open the door of politics,
and look what happened to him. He was a brave men - but lost against the system anyway.
That was the lesson I learnt from the rally in 1997, the same lesson that has been impressed upon people my age time and again every time another opposition figure is sued, or every time another
district is gerrymandered.
The lesson is this: no matter the ruling party's rhetoric
about galvanising Singaporean youth politically, any one who oversteps the limitations of ""free speech"" as defined by the government will ultimately be punished.
"Be political, but only according to our rules." : that is
the message.
Can you blame us for not answering such a compromised call?"
Apologies for the short paragraphs - not usually my style. But it's ST's style.
