Everyone knows about ‘money not enough’ in Singapore. How
about intellectual criticism? So do the intellectual critics not enough in
Singapore. Considering the controversial
withdrawal statement of Ngiam Tong Tow about his comments on the PAP government,
it just shows the level of ‘not enough’ in Singapore.
Let consider the following questions:
Are the critics of former senior civil servants same
as the critics in social media? If there
are the same, why are they treated differently? Why do people and mainstream
media only believe in critics of the ex-senior civil servants and down play (or
discredit) the critics of social media?
Let draw a matric to see the evolution of critics and ask
why critics from both ex-senior civil servants and social media come into convergence.
Critics Good Bad Good Both are good One good one bad Bad One bad one good Both are bad
In the past, the PAP would clearly declare any
criticisms from the oppositions; independent individuals and the social media were
bad. However, moderate criticisms from ex-senior civil servants were good. Mainstream
media would give positive remarks on these criticisms as feedbacks to the
government.
So, the public will receive a message of ‘one good one
bad’ image of different criticisms - good for positive and constructive
suggestions from ex-civil servants and bad for oppositions and social media.
As more and more ex-senior civil servants (due to
civil consciousness?) give different opinions and criticisms on the government,
the government is in the dilemma: how to continue playing the ‘one good one bad’
game.
The option is either ‘both are good’ or ‘both are bad’?
The answer is quite obvious. If both are good, then the government is wrong or
bad. So, the only action is to classify both are bad or withdrawing the bad
statements/criticisms made by ex-senior civil servants.
Only by doing so, with the help of mainstream media, the
PAP can stop the evolution and maintain the position of ‘one good one bad’. But
with more and more people are educated and aware of the political, social and
economic developments in Singapore, it will be very hard to retain the old
position.
So the future strategy of the PAP will likely to
define them as ‘both are bad’. Or in a
certain way, the PAP will down play the importance of ex-civil servants and the
mainstream media will report less of such criticisms from them. In fact, Ngaim’s
interview is published in a medical journal.
The outcome will go back to the old Singapore – any criticisms
about the PAP are bad. Depending on who
you support, you will see ‘one good social media one bad mainstream media or
alternatively ‘one bad social media and one good mainstream media’.
It is back to status quo and one distrusts the other. And
there is no progress for Singapore.
One will have to ask why do criticisms of ex-senior
civil servants so close or similar to social media. Why do opinions from ex-senior
civil servants always have a better credit rating than those in social media or
the oppositions? Even there are of the same quality, why are opinions and
criticisms of the oppositions and social media considered as second class?
How well will the evolution of public opinions and
social media change the political criticisms in future Singapore?
It is an interesting development that the PAP will
find ‘time not enough’ to react.
Comments
Post a Comment