At his National Day Rally speech last Sunday, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong spoke at length on how changes in the Muslim world can affect us. But he devoted an even greater portion of his speech to encourage Singaporeans to work closely with the government to forge ahead in the face of adversity.
The speech this year is more emotionally-charged. Honestly, I never thought I could be inspired by the speeches of political leaders. However, after listening to the Prime Minister, I could not help but ask myself this question： How should “stayers” react to government decisions which go against our wishes？
The PM said in his speech that it was not that the government did not listen to the people‘s views, but “we cannot run a country based just on feedback……The government must consider all views, the impact on every Singaporean, the balance between short and long-term interests, and then decide on one course of action that benefits the majority of Singaporeans”。
I have no problem understanding why we need to cater to the majority. The questions then that needed to be asked are： What yardsticks do we use to determine this is indeed the case and who decides on the yardsticks to use？
Even if a policy is truly in the interest of the majority and the government wants the people to embrace it, it should spell out clearly the rationale for the decision and why it has to go ahead with it.
For example, since the government has decided to allow movies with controversial or sexual content to be screened in cinemas, why is it that these films which are already classified as restricted still need to be censored？ After more than 30 years of development, I believe most adults are able to decide for themselves the difference betweeen art and pornography.
For adult Singaporeans who have attained the right to vote, should the government not give them the freedom to decide the sort of entertainment or films they prefer？
If trivialities in our daily lives still have to come under scrutiny by the authorities, it will be hard for us to point an accusing finger at those who are thinking of leaving. They may just want to exercise fully their freedom of choice.
If offering feedback does not seem to serve a purpose, how many Singaporeans will persist in providing feedback and opinions in the long run？
If the government wants Singaporeans to be “stayers”, then please give us the space to stay on. Singaporeans, on the other hand, should also be proactive in playing the role of active citizens. Even as we complain about things that we are not happy about, we should remember to participate actively in nation-building.
There have been much talk on the worrying trend of young people who are unable to take hardship and not willing to lower their expectations. But the PM is optimistic about our future. He said： “Remember, we now have more human resources. We have a better educated people, all working in the English language, with higher professional, management and organisational expertise, and technological skills.”
What people in my generation should try and understand is that life is still a struggle. Times have changed and so does the way challenges present themselves to us.
The first two generations of Singaporeans have to work hard for survival. As the standards of living were much lower in the early years, what the government could afford to provide for the people seemed greater. When we had little to begin with, any slight improvement would seem significant.
From run-down wooden houses to home ownership, the HDB has greatly improved the quality of life of many Singaporeans. As most of my peers were born into comfortable HDB flats, it is easy for us to take things for granted. To many of us, improvement means regularly upgrading to a bigger house despite soaring prices.
In the event that we are unable to get what we want, we will take it out on the government and question its efficiency. Are we being fair to the government？ I think not.
（The writer is an SPH scholar. She is now attached to Zaobao‘s Commentary Desk.）
總理的國慶群眾大會(huì)演說,在討論嚴(yán)肅的回教世界對(duì)我國的影響時(shí),更多的言辭是激勵(lì)國人勇敢地與政府走出一條“新加坡的路”。
今年的演講,比往年更為熱情。說真的,我從沒想到自己會(huì)受到政要人物的演說而得到啟迪；但是,我問自己：我們?cè)撊绾稳テ胶獠蝗缱约核傅恼吆蜕頌橐幻笆貙ⅰ钡呢?zé)任。
總理說,不是政府不要聽取人民的意見,只是“我們（政府）不可以單憑民意來治國……政府必須考慮所有的觀點(diǎn)、政策對(duì)每個(gè)國人所會(huì)造成的影響、衡量短期和長期利益,然后才決定其中一種有利于大多數(shù)國人的做法?！?BR> 話雖如此,要了解什么是“群體的利益”并不難；然而,衡量的準(zhǔn)繩究竟由誰、用什么辦法來制定,這是一些新加坡人的疑問。
即使在決策時(shí)的大方向確實(shí)是群體的利益,如果掌權(quán)者想要人民接受這樣的解釋,那么,請(qǐng)至少清楚地讓人們了解每一個(gè)決定的出發(fā)點(diǎn)和*堅(jiān)持的理由。
舉個(gè)例子,既然決定讓內(nèi)容帶爭議性或略帶色情的電影走進(jìn)戲院,為什么已經(jīng)是限制級(jí)的影片仍然逃不過審查和修剪的厄運(yùn)？經(jīng)過30多年的發(fā)展,大多數(shù)成年的國人已經(jīng)有足夠的能力去判斷藝術(shù)與色情之間的不同。
21歲是法定年齡,那么政府是不是應(yīng)該給予已有權(quán)力在大選中投票的國民同等的空間,讓他們也能夠在娛樂、影片欣賞方面作出自己的決定呢？
如果連生活中的瑣事也要受到嚴(yán)刑峻法的管制,那我們也不能苛刻地指責(zé)萌生離去念頭的國人,他們也只不過是想充分地享受到選擇的權(quán)力。
想要國人留下來,做一名勇敢的“守將”,那么請(qǐng)政府給我們一個(gè)我們可以捍衛(wèi)的空間。同樣的,國人也應(yīng)該走出被動(dòng),積極地去扮演好一名“將相”的角色,在埋怨中,也應(yīng)切記如何參與建設(shè)。
曾經(jīng)有言論對(duì)年輕人“不愿吃苦”、不肯降低要求的現(xiàn)象而感到擔(dān)憂。在懷疑聲中,總理有自己的一番說法。他說：“記住,我們現(xiàn)在擁有更多人力資源。我們的人民受過更良好的教育,他們?nèi)恳杂⒄Z工作,在管理、組織和科技技術(shù)方面達(dá)到更高的水平?！?BR> 或許,我們這一代人應(yīng)該嘗試接受的是,不是生活不再辛苦了,只是生活的掙扎隨著時(shí)代的變遷,以不同的形式展現(xiàn)在我們的生活中。
上兩代的人,都為了養(yǎng)家¤口而掙扎。由于當(dāng)時(shí)的生活水平較低,所以政府能夠?yàn)榇蠹易龅囊脖容^多；因?yàn)樵瓉碛械木捅容^少,所以只要是一點(diǎn)點(diǎn)的改進(jìn),也顯得無比顯著。
從簡陋的木屋到現(xiàn)在“居者有其屋”,建屋局大大提升了人民的生活水平。這樣的對(duì)比是年輕一代的國人很難感受得到的。因?yàn)?對(duì)許多同齡人來說,我們打從一出世,就舒舒服服地住進(jìn)政府組屋；如果要感覺到進(jìn)步,就表示我們得在物價(jià)飆升中繼續(xù)地小屋換大屋。
如果不得所愿,那么就埋怨政府的不足。我想,這樣的想法,有欠公平。
。作者是新加坡報(bào)業(yè)控股集團(tuán)獎(jiǎng)學(xué)金得主,目前在早報(bào)言論組實(shí)習(xí)
The speech this year is more emotionally-charged. Honestly, I never thought I could be inspired by the speeches of political leaders. However, after listening to the Prime Minister, I could not help but ask myself this question： How should “stayers” react to government decisions which go against our wishes？
The PM said in his speech that it was not that the government did not listen to the people‘s views, but “we cannot run a country based just on feedback……The government must consider all views, the impact on every Singaporean, the balance between short and long-term interests, and then decide on one course of action that benefits the majority of Singaporeans”。
I have no problem understanding why we need to cater to the majority. The questions then that needed to be asked are： What yardsticks do we use to determine this is indeed the case and who decides on the yardsticks to use？
Even if a policy is truly in the interest of the majority and the government wants the people to embrace it, it should spell out clearly the rationale for the decision and why it has to go ahead with it.
For example, since the government has decided to allow movies with controversial or sexual content to be screened in cinemas, why is it that these films which are already classified as restricted still need to be censored？ After more than 30 years of development, I believe most adults are able to decide for themselves the difference betweeen art and pornography.
For adult Singaporeans who have attained the right to vote, should the government not give them the freedom to decide the sort of entertainment or films they prefer？
If trivialities in our daily lives still have to come under scrutiny by the authorities, it will be hard for us to point an accusing finger at those who are thinking of leaving. They may just want to exercise fully their freedom of choice.
If offering feedback does not seem to serve a purpose, how many Singaporeans will persist in providing feedback and opinions in the long run？
If the government wants Singaporeans to be “stayers”, then please give us the space to stay on. Singaporeans, on the other hand, should also be proactive in playing the role of active citizens. Even as we complain about things that we are not happy about, we should remember to participate actively in nation-building.
There have been much talk on the worrying trend of young people who are unable to take hardship and not willing to lower their expectations. But the PM is optimistic about our future. He said： “Remember, we now have more human resources. We have a better educated people, all working in the English language, with higher professional, management and organisational expertise, and technological skills.”
What people in my generation should try and understand is that life is still a struggle. Times have changed and so does the way challenges present themselves to us.
The first two generations of Singaporeans have to work hard for survival. As the standards of living were much lower in the early years, what the government could afford to provide for the people seemed greater. When we had little to begin with, any slight improvement would seem significant.
From run-down wooden houses to home ownership, the HDB has greatly improved the quality of life of many Singaporeans. As most of my peers were born into comfortable HDB flats, it is easy for us to take things for granted. To many of us, improvement means regularly upgrading to a bigger house despite soaring prices.
In the event that we are unable to get what we want, we will take it out on the government and question its efficiency. Are we being fair to the government？ I think not.
（The writer is an SPH scholar. She is now attached to Zaobao‘s Commentary Desk.）
總理的國慶群眾大會(huì)演說,在討論嚴(yán)肅的回教世界對(duì)我國的影響時(shí),更多的言辭是激勵(lì)國人勇敢地與政府走出一條“新加坡的路”。
今年的演講,比往年更為熱情。說真的,我從沒想到自己會(huì)受到政要人物的演說而得到啟迪；但是,我問自己：我們?cè)撊绾稳テ胶獠蝗缱约核傅恼吆蜕頌橐幻笆貙ⅰ钡呢?zé)任。
總理說,不是政府不要聽取人民的意見,只是“我們（政府）不可以單憑民意來治國……政府必須考慮所有的觀點(diǎn)、政策對(duì)每個(gè)國人所會(huì)造成的影響、衡量短期和長期利益,然后才決定其中一種有利于大多數(shù)國人的做法?！?BR> 話雖如此,要了解什么是“群體的利益”并不難；然而,衡量的準(zhǔn)繩究竟由誰、用什么辦法來制定,這是一些新加坡人的疑問。
即使在決策時(shí)的大方向確實(shí)是群體的利益,如果掌權(quán)者想要人民接受這樣的解釋,那么,請(qǐng)至少清楚地讓人們了解每一個(gè)決定的出發(fā)點(diǎn)和*堅(jiān)持的理由。
舉個(gè)例子,既然決定讓內(nèi)容帶爭議性或略帶色情的電影走進(jìn)戲院,為什么已經(jīng)是限制級(jí)的影片仍然逃不過審查和修剪的厄運(yùn)？經(jīng)過30多年的發(fā)展,大多數(shù)成年的國人已經(jīng)有足夠的能力去判斷藝術(shù)與色情之間的不同。
21歲是法定年齡,那么政府是不是應(yīng)該給予已有權(quán)力在大選中投票的國民同等的空間,讓他們也能夠在娛樂、影片欣賞方面作出自己的決定呢？
如果連生活中的瑣事也要受到嚴(yán)刑峻法的管制,那我們也不能苛刻地指責(zé)萌生離去念頭的國人,他們也只不過是想充分地享受到選擇的權(quán)力。
想要國人留下來,做一名勇敢的“守將”,那么請(qǐng)政府給我們一個(gè)我們可以捍衛(wèi)的空間。同樣的,國人也應(yīng)該走出被動(dòng),積極地去扮演好一名“將相”的角色,在埋怨中,也應(yīng)切記如何參與建設(shè)。
曾經(jīng)有言論對(duì)年輕人“不愿吃苦”、不肯降低要求的現(xiàn)象而感到擔(dān)憂。在懷疑聲中,總理有自己的一番說法。他說：“記住,我們現(xiàn)在擁有更多人力資源。我們的人民受過更良好的教育,他們?nèi)恳杂⒄Z工作,在管理、組織和科技技術(shù)方面達(dá)到更高的水平?！?BR> 或許,我們這一代人應(yīng)該嘗試接受的是,不是生活不再辛苦了,只是生活的掙扎隨著時(shí)代的變遷,以不同的形式展現(xiàn)在我們的生活中。
上兩代的人,都為了養(yǎng)家¤口而掙扎。由于當(dāng)時(shí)的生活水平較低,所以政府能夠?yàn)榇蠹易龅囊脖容^多；因?yàn)樵瓉碛械木捅容^少,所以只要是一點(diǎn)點(diǎn)的改進(jìn),也顯得無比顯著。
從簡陋的木屋到現(xiàn)在“居者有其屋”,建屋局大大提升了人民的生活水平。這樣的對(duì)比是年輕一代的國人很難感受得到的。因?yàn)?對(duì)許多同齡人來說,我們打從一出世,就舒舒服服地住進(jìn)政府組屋；如果要感覺到進(jìn)步,就表示我們得在物價(jià)飆升中繼續(xù)地小屋換大屋。
如果不得所愿,那么就埋怨政府的不足。我想,這樣的想法,有欠公平。
。作者是新加坡報(bào)業(yè)控股集團(tuán)獎(jiǎng)學(xué)金得主,目前在早報(bào)言論組實(shí)習(xí)