A repost of the article that I wrote for the Enquirer, unedited. Not that I feel my points were murdered or bastardised, hardly so. But sometimes seeing the points in conjunction enables a better train of thought and transmission of ideas, rather than them being disjointed by breaks and spaces. Which, unfortunately, is what the nature of news is still unable to provide for. And that's when blogs step up.
Building the City of Buzz – Concrete Instructions Please
Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong threw down the gauntlet yesterday to NTU students - to build and imagine a future for Singapore as a “City of Buzz”. Singapore has grown from a third-world backyard to the first-world nation, and it is now up to the current generation to take Singapore further, he said.
Except the current crop are clueless architects in the wider scheme of things. Even when weaned off the mother’s milk, we still stand in the long shadow of a paternal government.
SM Goh spoke of the importance of a good, strong government that can be trusted to “look after your lives”. Only then can the “bottom-up buzz” that the government seeks to grow flourish.
Undoubtedly, the “hardware” is up. The Senior Minister spoke at length about the government’s efforts in creating an infrastructure and economy that can support buzz at a grassroots level. The “software”, then, would need to be implemented by the people.
So What’s the New Buzzword?
Which begs the question, how do we define the ‘bottom-up buzz’? Is it solely buzz generated by the people, or must it be supported by the government?
Unfortunately, SM Goh spent the better half of his speech totalling up Singapore’s recent successes. Students were left hanging on the exact kind of buzz that Singapore needed, which explained the recurring theme of the Q&A session. It centred on concocting the right kind of buzz in areas such as civil and political participation and the arts scene.
There are clearly approved buzz and those that aren’t, such as the droning of vuvuzelas. Certain brands of criticism are not as welcome. Where then to draw such a distinction is still unclear. Ng Wai Mun, a Year 4 student at the Wee Kim Wee School of Communications and Information, brought out a similar point when she asked whether the ‘buzz’ that the government was encouraging included a certain amount of chaos and creativity.
In response, SM Goh emphasised the need to maintain a sufficient amount of control through “step-by-step” deregulation instead. It seemed to imply that an invisible hand was at play in moulding what the government thinks is the appropriate type of buzz.
Organically Grown – But By Whom?
Indeed, much of the current ‘buzz’ can be considered artificially generated by the government. The Senior Minister mentioned Duxton Hill, which now oozed “financial buzz” after being cleaned of vice and sleaze. Yet, some might contend that such areas reflect the real Singapore beneath the shimmery surface.
Furthermore, the government took the lead in transforming “a cultural desert only for makan” into an oasis in Asia. But how much of that oasis is left for the touristic consumption and how much for genuine local nostalgia is anyone’s guess.
The Youth Olympic Games also showed how our sporting talents took second-place behind the much-vaunted need to showcase and promote Singapore. The development of the sporting culture seemed like more of an afterthought, a bonus to Singapore. One just needs to remember the sorry state of the National Stadium and the current FAS troubles to realise that. Buzz that has little economic potential just isn’t worth the government throwing its weight behind it.
Economic imperatives have ruled the day Singapore won its independence. The common wisdom doesn’t seem to have changed much. Buzz seems to be appropriate as long as it doesn’t meddle with the government’s magic formula of stability and progress.
It is essential to have citizenry buy-in into this vision of buzz. So long that the population deems the creation to be entirely artificial and only within accepted government parameters, the “bottom-up buzz” that it hopes for will never take flight. If not implemented with the human factor, buzz might just dissolve into pure hype and marketing, which fails to translate into tangibles.
Not Yet Ready to Leave the Nest
Some ground sentiment expressed dissatisfaction at “stupid” questions being tabled in the Forum. Macro issues of paramount importance were neglected in favour of micro concerns that should be more appropriate somewhere else. Yet, that is just a reflection of the conundrum at heart: has the authorities opened enough channels in engaging us, or do we lack the initiative to voice our concerns, since the government has always specified the correct route of action?
The Senior Minister also dropped a hefty election hint when he called upon NTU students to think hard and decide the kind of government they want to make it work, especially if they want to pass on all the problems they have to the government. But judging from the audience, we already know.
A complete schematic of a city on a silver platter, please. If the government has held our hand every step of the way, why stop now? The obedient child only gets spanked when he’s out of line. And this line is increasingly blurred as the government plays a game of hopscotch: one step forward in deregulating, and one step back when it deems certain buzz inappropriate.
Bottoms-Up to Bottom Up
Rome wasn’t built in one day, and Singapore isn’t likely to either. But for Singapore to truly succeed in being a “City of Buzz” for everyone, someone has to stop passing the buck, and build the bridges that really matter. Perhaps the ‘buzz’ needed, is to better market the channels between the government and the people.
When Alvin Pee, a Year 3 student from Aerospace Engineering, bemoaned the lack of avenues available for Singaporeans to be heard, SM Goh responded that the engagement process was always there. Whether citizens use it or not is up to their initiative.
The Feedback Unit has shed its image of being a government mouthpiece, but it is still essentially an avenue only for the elite, students, and the politically and socially concerned. Previous resources, obviously, should not be allocated mindlessly for widespread consultations on minor policy decisions. Such a process would no doubt curtail the efficiency of the government. But when it comes to policies such as HOTA, which affects everybody intimately, including the common man on the street, perhaps it would be better for the government to actively engage the citizenry on such issues, rather than relying on existing mechanisms.
