My aunt once made the point that Singapore is an unusual place. She observed that in other parts of the world, the youth are generally very idealistic and become less so once the reality of making living sets in. By contrast, the youth in Singapore are very materialistic and become less as they get older and realise that there’s more to life than chasing the almighty dollar.
This fact was personalized by recent events from a close family association. I’m talking about Professor Tommy Koh, our former Permanent Representative to the United Nations, who has been positioning himself as a champion of various social issues. It started out when he called Section 377A a “bad” law and urged the “LGBT” Community to keep trying to get the law removed. Professor Koh has recently gone as far as to publish letters in our national newspaper to suggests that we need a “rule book” on how to treat our domestic workers.
By contrast, Professor Koh’s son, Aun Koh, who describes himself as a “journalism-trained entrepreneur,” seems to have gone the other way. Mr. Koh decided that it was time to tell us that while Singapore could do better in some of its social instincts, he can “no longer blindly defend free speech.” Mr. Koh argued that Singapore’s educated population that had gained prosperity and peace in a multicultural society had done it, partially because the government had the good sense to control things. Mr. Koh’s comments can be read at:
https://www.todayonline.com/commentary/why-my-attitude-towards-free-speech-has-changed
This is just one example of a father-son duo where the son appears to be more “pro-status-quo” than the son. The Singapore system has one amazing success – it has turned children of dissidents into its greatest champions. Janadas Devan, the government’s spokesperson was the son of a former President (Devan Nair) and then there’s our Senior Minister of State for Ministry of Communications and Information, Dr. Janil Puthucheary, who is the son of a dissident (Dominic Puthucheary).
What accounts for this difference? You could argue that you got to look at the stages of life. Professor Koh, for example, is a highly established figure. He’s reached the stage where he’s got nothing left to prove and there’s nothing else for him to gain. He can afford to speak his mind and you could say his priorities are now focused on trying to right the kinks in the system.
By contrast, Mr. Koh is at that stage where there are things for him to aspire to – hence, he focuses on the “nice” bits that the system offers and defends it. You could call it the stage of knowing what’s good for you.
To be fair, there is much to commend in the Singapore system. As long as you conform to certain expectations, you will not starve. While I’m not exactly a grand winner in the system, I’m grateful for certain things about Singapore like basic safety. I don’t sit up at night worried that my 20-year old might not make it back home if she’s going out with her mates late at night for a few beers.
However, while Singapore may stack-up pretty well against most places, we got to remember that it is not “perfect.” The nation has social issues to address. Take the example of homeless people. OK, I don’t face the line of homeless people outside my door the way I did in London – but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Furthermore, unlike London, where the louts were inevitably young, ours are inevitably the elderly and frail. Unless you have a criminal amount of money in the bank, Singapore is a dreadful place to be old, sick and frail.
I can understand people wanting to defend what they have but there should also be a need to want to make society better and this often requires energy, which should come from the young. You should not expect the old to drive social change just as you should not expect them to be carrying heavy loads.
Isn’t it time we look to our aspiring young and remind them that speaking out for social change is good an investment for everyone? When you do your part to make the world a better place it rewards you in return.
This fact was personalized by recent events from a close family association. I’m talking about Professor Tommy Koh, our former Permanent Representative to the United Nations, who has been positioning himself as a champion of various social issues. It started out when he called Section 377A a “bad” law and urged the “LGBT” Community to keep trying to get the law removed. Professor Koh has recently gone as far as to publish letters in our national newspaper to suggests that we need a “rule book” on how to treat our domestic workers.
By contrast, Professor Koh’s son, Aun Koh, who describes himself as a “journalism-trained entrepreneur,” seems to have gone the other way. Mr. Koh decided that it was time to tell us that while Singapore could do better in some of its social instincts, he can “no longer blindly defend free speech.” Mr. Koh argued that Singapore’s educated population that had gained prosperity and peace in a multicultural society had done it, partially because the government had the good sense to control things. Mr. Koh’s comments can be read at:
https://www.todayonline.com/commentary/why-my-attitude-towards-free-speech-has-changed
This is just one example of a father-son duo where the son appears to be more “pro-status-quo” than the son. The Singapore system has one amazing success – it has turned children of dissidents into its greatest champions. Janadas Devan, the government’s spokesperson was the son of a former President (Devan Nair) and then there’s our Senior Minister of State for Ministry of Communications and Information, Dr. Janil Puthucheary, who is the son of a dissident (Dominic Puthucheary).
What accounts for this difference? You could argue that you got to look at the stages of life. Professor Koh, for example, is a highly established figure. He’s reached the stage where he’s got nothing left to prove and there’s nothing else for him to gain. He can afford to speak his mind and you could say his priorities are now focused on trying to right the kinks in the system.
By contrast, Mr. Koh is at that stage where there are things for him to aspire to – hence, he focuses on the “nice” bits that the system offers and defends it. You could call it the stage of knowing what’s good for you.
To be fair, there is much to commend in the Singapore system. As long as you conform to certain expectations, you will not starve. While I’m not exactly a grand winner in the system, I’m grateful for certain things about Singapore like basic safety. I don’t sit up at night worried that my 20-year old might not make it back home if she’s going out with her mates late at night for a few beers.
However, while Singapore may stack-up pretty well against most places, we got to remember that it is not “perfect.” The nation has social issues to address. Take the example of homeless people. OK, I don’t face the line of homeless people outside my door the way I did in London – but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Furthermore, unlike London, where the louts were inevitably young, ours are inevitably the elderly and frail. Unless you have a criminal amount of money in the bank, Singapore is a dreadful place to be old, sick and frail.
I can understand people wanting to defend what they have but there should also be a need to want to make society better and this often requires energy, which should come from the young. You should not expect the old to drive social change just as you should not expect them to be carrying heavy loads.
Isn’t it time we look to our aspiring young and remind them that speaking out for social change is good an investment for everyone? When you do your part to make the world a better place it rewards you in return.
No comments
Post a Comment