How do you define a messy? And what is a good messy and
what is a bad messy? No wonder there is a need to be selective about the messy
in Singapore, especially political messy.
Political messy can arise from a social media commentary, a petition, a
cartoon, a gathering, a book, a documentary and almost everything.
Can you find the answer in the following 2 news reports?
PM Lee talks about need to be "messy selectively"http://sg.news.yahoo.com/pm-lee-talks-about-need-to-be--messy-selectively-.html
How to give residents a bigger sayhttp://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC120714-0000026/How-to-give-residents-a-bigger-say
One talks about ‘selective messy’ and the other provides ‘a
bigger say’, how can we make a good judgement on ‘messy and big say’? Is it
possible to have ‘a bigger say selective messy’? Yes, perhaps in the speaker’s
corner or as suggested by PM Lee Hsien Loong in a controlled way:
<"We invite graffiti artists, by invitation, to perform on designated walls -- with permission. But if you decide to freelance, extra, I'd better do an investigation on how it came about," he said.
We want to do this in a controlled way. If the Pandora box is open, then we can't put the demons back." (Yahoo.com.sg 13 Jul 2012)>
What do you mean by ‘a controlled way’? Maybe the following
is the answer, i.e. ‘to regularise the rules of engagement’:
<“Members of Parliament (MPs), political analysts and sociologists told TODAY that they see an urgent need to regularise the rules of engagement, following a slew of petitions by groups in the past year against (or for) various developments in their estates. “ (Today, 14 Jul 2012)>
Estate development and graffiti are two different things. However, both can create messy in one way or
another. Both can also develop into a
political messy that will affect the voting and the election result. Is the result of Presidential Election 2011 a
political messy? When the elected
candidate only managed to get 36% of the total votes casted, is it a messy or
voters’ choice? This percentage is even less than that of the loser in the recent Hougang
by-election. Strange, 36% is a winner
and 38% is a loser. Is it messy or not?
Perhaps, this explained why the winner of PE2011 dares not
question the government about the US$ 4 billion loan to IMF. President Tony Tan
refers the matter to MAS which is under the government and has a higher mandate
(60%). President Tan’s 36% is really not a strong mandate but this selective
messy is decided by the citizens who decide this is the way to go rather than a
controlled way. So, it is not easy to
control and select the messy and even ‘to regularise the rules of engagement’ through
Residents’ Committees:
<Others feel that Singapore is not ready for local planning councils. Several, like Sembawang GRC MP Ellen Lee and grassroots leader David Sim, 47, are more for expanding the role of Residents' Committees - which promote neighbourliness, racial harmony and community bonding - to include a consultative role on estate developments.
They pointed out that RC members typically have experience and knowledge of the ground, and they know other residents well and seek out their views. Town councils, on the other hand, deal mainly with implementation and are not suited for a consultative role, the MPs felt. (Today, 14 Jul 2012)>
Maybe in future, we can see more RC created messy under a
controlled ‘bigger say’. Hopefully, this ‘bigger
say’ and ‘regulated engagements’ will not result to another political messy of
PE2011 for the PAP.
Comments
Post a Comment