President George W. Bush has come and left.
During his recent visit to Singapore, he agreed with Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong on the joint establishment of a new communicable disease intervention centre and the strengthening of national defence and security cooperation under a new framework agreement. To Singaporeans, however, things have remained very much the same - life goes on as before.
It was the same when the United States initiated military action against Iraq in March this year. In our seemingly disinfected living environment, dissent and opposition appear redundant. Against the backdrop of synchronised voices, we continued to live as if nothing had happened as we regarded the war as none of our business.
It is thus no wonder that after a candlelight peace concert was held in April, a newspaper columnist mused that the money spent on candles could have been donated to charities. To her, that would be more practical. After all, we should accept that we are powerless to bring about any changes.
Until now, no one has found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Bush administration once said that the failure to discover these illegal weapons does not mean that they do not exist. This has been articulated before as well as after the war. Ultimately, the entire rationale could possibly be just an exaggerated claim.
Our memories of the visit to Singapore by this world leader with unparalleled power would probably consist of only television images of friendly handshakes and the traffic congestion in which some people were unfortunate to be caught in. For some foreign media, Mr Bush's trip to Singapore was all about“preaching to the converted.”
Perhaps, this is for the better. In our self-defined diverse society, we are inclined to equate freedom of speech with a long list of channels comprising the forum pages in newspapers, the Speakers' Corner in an obscure park and dialogue sessions organised by the Feedback Unit.
As for anti-war activities, didn't we have the candlelight peace concert？ How could one say then that Singapore does not have freedom of speech and association？ The many problems and difficulties involved in the process are immaterial. We are, in the end, a country obsessed with results.
Democracy is about the perennial struggle between rights and responsibilities. However, despite many explanations that the government is non-authoritarian and advice on the need for responsibility, society has not been accorded the corresponding trust and rights to find its own boundaries.
Can we infer that since it is only the government that can explicitly grant the space for opposition, any civil rights demands would definitely be deemed as breaking the rules？
Understandably, our foreign relations policies are the result of complex geo-political considerations. Nevertheless, the desire for peace by a small community within the country may not necessarily compromise national interests. The debate is no longer just about whether protesting on the streets is equivalent to social maturity.
Good intentions may be misconstrued and, of course, dissent can also be hijacked. To use the pretext of potential social unrest to restrict individual and community expression will only crush social initiatives. When members of society have exhausted their willingness for self-mobilisation, such a society which is devoid of idealism can rely only on state apparatus to kick off efforts to continue to better itself and to remake the nation.
We do not know how many voices have been interrupted, given the mundane lives we lead. And we are all too familiar with the dispiriting silence in Singapore. The public space here has gone all quiet. Have we finally internalised the view that we do not need to protest, and for that reason, we shall have no demonstrations？
布什來(lái)了又走了。
除了與吳作棟總理達(dá)致聯(lián)合設(shè)立防治新傳染病中心,及加強(qiáng)國(guó)防與安全合作的框架協(xié)定以外,我們的生活其實(shí)一如往常,波瀾不驚。
和今年3月當(dāng)美國(guó)向伊拉克開(kāi)戰(zhàn)時(shí)一樣,在我們這個(gè)猶如經(jīng)過(guò)消毒的生活環(huán)境里,異議和反對(duì)的姿態(tài)仿佛多余,因此大家認(rèn)定事不關(guān)己,然后在聲調(diào)和諧的背景下,繼續(xù)若無(wú)其事。
難怪當(dāng)時(shí)舉行的燭光和平晚會(huì)后,這里會(huì)有論者自忖應(yīng)省下買(mǎi)蠟燭的錢(qián),將之捐給慈善機(jī)構(gòu)較為實(shí)際。我們到底還是應(yīng)該接受自己無(wú)能為力。
印象中,至今還沒(méi)有任何人在伊拉克找到殺傷性強(qiáng)大的武器。布什政府曾表示,這些所謂的違禁武器沒(méi)有被發(fā)現(xiàn),不意味它們并不存在；戰(zhàn)前是這么說(shuō),戰(zhàn)后還是這么說(shuō),原來(lái)一切可能只是煞有介事。
于是,當(dāng)這位目前權(quán)力所向披靡的大國(guó)元首光臨自己所居住的城市,我們的記憶惟有電視畫(huà)面中的把手言歡,及個(gè)人當(dāng)天不巧經(jīng)過(guò)市區(qū)而受困其中的交通阻塞。而一些外國(guó)媒體的解讀是,布什這次到訪我國(guó),不過(guò)是向早已皈依的對(duì)象“傳教”。
也許這樣。在這個(gè)自詡多元的社會(huì)里,我們習(xí)慣將言論自由等同于報(bào)章的言論版、公園的演說(shuō)者角落及民意對(duì)話等具體渠道的羅列。關(guān)于反戰(zhàn),燭光和平晚會(huì)最終不是舉行了嗎？清單上平添了這么一個(gè)活動(dòng),新加坡怎么沒(méi)有言論和集會(huì)的自由？其中的過(guò)程有多曲折、多艱難都不重要了。我們的國(guó)家始終還是一個(gè)迷信結(jié)果的地方。
權(quán)利與責(zé)任是民主事業(yè)恒久的拉鋸。然而,我們?nèi)匀宦?tīng)到官方不算專制的解說(shuō),及敦促人民理應(yīng)負(fù)責(zé)的規(guī)勸,卻未曾相應(yīng)地被賦予社會(huì)自行制定言論規(guī)范的權(quán)利和信任。難道只因任何反對(duì)空間都必須由官方賜予,源自民間的權(quán)利訴求就絕對(duì)違規(guī)？
盡管復(fù)雜的地緣政治促成我國(guó)特定的外交立場(chǎng),國(guó)家內(nèi)部小眾的和平訴求并不必然意味國(guó)家利益受到妥協(xié)。這已經(jīng)不只是一場(chǎng)關(guān)于街頭*,是否等于社會(huì)成熟的辯論。
善意可以被曲解,異議當(dāng)然可以被騎劫。以社會(huì)潛在騷動(dòng)的可能性限制個(gè)人及群體主觀意識(shí)的表達(dá),只會(huì)扼殺社會(huì)主體的能動(dòng)性。當(dāng)成員掏空自我動(dòng)員的意愿之后,這個(gè)理想失落的社會(huì)或許就得永遠(yuǎn)依賴國(guó)家機(jī)器的啟動(dòng),才能完成不斷超越現(xiàn)狀,改造國(guó)家的工程。
在庸碌的日常生活中,我們不知道有多少把被打斷的聲音,而新加坡的安靜是如此理所當(dāng)然地令人沮喪。傾聽(tīng)這片土地,此處的公共空間顯得悄然無(wú)聲,莫非是因?yàn)閲?guó)人終于內(nèi)化？我們不需要*,所以也就沒(méi)有*？
During his recent visit to Singapore, he agreed with Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong on the joint establishment of a new communicable disease intervention centre and the strengthening of national defence and security cooperation under a new framework agreement. To Singaporeans, however, things have remained very much the same - life goes on as before.
It was the same when the United States initiated military action against Iraq in March this year. In our seemingly disinfected living environment, dissent and opposition appear redundant. Against the backdrop of synchronised voices, we continued to live as if nothing had happened as we regarded the war as none of our business.
It is thus no wonder that after a candlelight peace concert was held in April, a newspaper columnist mused that the money spent on candles could have been donated to charities. To her, that would be more practical. After all, we should accept that we are powerless to bring about any changes.
Until now, no one has found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Bush administration once said that the failure to discover these illegal weapons does not mean that they do not exist. This has been articulated before as well as after the war. Ultimately, the entire rationale could possibly be just an exaggerated claim.
Our memories of the visit to Singapore by this world leader with unparalleled power would probably consist of only television images of friendly handshakes and the traffic congestion in which some people were unfortunate to be caught in. For some foreign media, Mr Bush's trip to Singapore was all about“preaching to the converted.”
Perhaps, this is for the better. In our self-defined diverse society, we are inclined to equate freedom of speech with a long list of channels comprising the forum pages in newspapers, the Speakers' Corner in an obscure park and dialogue sessions organised by the Feedback Unit.
As for anti-war activities, didn't we have the candlelight peace concert？ How could one say then that Singapore does not have freedom of speech and association？ The many problems and difficulties involved in the process are immaterial. We are, in the end, a country obsessed with results.
Democracy is about the perennial struggle between rights and responsibilities. However, despite many explanations that the government is non-authoritarian and advice on the need for responsibility, society has not been accorded the corresponding trust and rights to find its own boundaries.
Can we infer that since it is only the government that can explicitly grant the space for opposition, any civil rights demands would definitely be deemed as breaking the rules？
Understandably, our foreign relations policies are the result of complex geo-political considerations. Nevertheless, the desire for peace by a small community within the country may not necessarily compromise national interests. The debate is no longer just about whether protesting on the streets is equivalent to social maturity.
Good intentions may be misconstrued and, of course, dissent can also be hijacked. To use the pretext of potential social unrest to restrict individual and community expression will only crush social initiatives. When members of society have exhausted their willingness for self-mobilisation, such a society which is devoid of idealism can rely only on state apparatus to kick off efforts to continue to better itself and to remake the nation.
We do not know how many voices have been interrupted, given the mundane lives we lead. And we are all too familiar with the dispiriting silence in Singapore. The public space here has gone all quiet. Have we finally internalised the view that we do not need to protest, and for that reason, we shall have no demonstrations？
布什來(lái)了又走了。
除了與吳作棟總理達(dá)致聯(lián)合設(shè)立防治新傳染病中心,及加強(qiáng)國(guó)防與安全合作的框架協(xié)定以外,我們的生活其實(shí)一如往常,波瀾不驚。
和今年3月當(dāng)美國(guó)向伊拉克開(kāi)戰(zhàn)時(shí)一樣,在我們這個(gè)猶如經(jīng)過(guò)消毒的生活環(huán)境里,異議和反對(duì)的姿態(tài)仿佛多余,因此大家認(rèn)定事不關(guān)己,然后在聲調(diào)和諧的背景下,繼續(xù)若無(wú)其事。
難怪當(dāng)時(shí)舉行的燭光和平晚會(huì)后,這里會(huì)有論者自忖應(yīng)省下買(mǎi)蠟燭的錢(qián),將之捐給慈善機(jī)構(gòu)較為實(shí)際。我們到底還是應(yīng)該接受自己無(wú)能為力。
印象中,至今還沒(méi)有任何人在伊拉克找到殺傷性強(qiáng)大的武器。布什政府曾表示,這些所謂的違禁武器沒(méi)有被發(fā)現(xiàn),不意味它們并不存在；戰(zhàn)前是這么說(shuō),戰(zhàn)后還是這么說(shuō),原來(lái)一切可能只是煞有介事。
于是,當(dāng)這位目前權(quán)力所向披靡的大國(guó)元首光臨自己所居住的城市,我們的記憶惟有電視畫(huà)面中的把手言歡,及個(gè)人當(dāng)天不巧經(jīng)過(guò)市區(qū)而受困其中的交通阻塞。而一些外國(guó)媒體的解讀是,布什這次到訪我國(guó),不過(guò)是向早已皈依的對(duì)象“傳教”。
也許這樣。在這個(gè)自詡多元的社會(huì)里,我們習(xí)慣將言論自由等同于報(bào)章的言論版、公園的演說(shuō)者角落及民意對(duì)話等具體渠道的羅列。關(guān)于反戰(zhàn),燭光和平晚會(huì)最終不是舉行了嗎？清單上平添了這么一個(gè)活動(dòng),新加坡怎么沒(méi)有言論和集會(huì)的自由？其中的過(guò)程有多曲折、多艱難都不重要了。我們的國(guó)家始終還是一個(gè)迷信結(jié)果的地方。
權(quán)利與責(zé)任是民主事業(yè)恒久的拉鋸。然而,我們?nèi)匀宦?tīng)到官方不算專制的解說(shuō),及敦促人民理應(yīng)負(fù)責(zé)的規(guī)勸,卻未曾相應(yīng)地被賦予社會(huì)自行制定言論規(guī)范的權(quán)利和信任。難道只因任何反對(duì)空間都必須由官方賜予,源自民間的權(quán)利訴求就絕對(duì)違規(guī)？
盡管復(fù)雜的地緣政治促成我國(guó)特定的外交立場(chǎng),國(guó)家內(nèi)部小眾的和平訴求并不必然意味國(guó)家利益受到妥協(xié)。這已經(jīng)不只是一場(chǎng)關(guān)于街頭*,是否等于社會(huì)成熟的辯論。
善意可以被曲解,異議當(dāng)然可以被騎劫。以社會(huì)潛在騷動(dòng)的可能性限制個(gè)人及群體主觀意識(shí)的表達(dá),只會(huì)扼殺社會(huì)主體的能動(dòng)性。當(dāng)成員掏空自我動(dòng)員的意愿之后,這個(gè)理想失落的社會(huì)或許就得永遠(yuǎn)依賴國(guó)家機(jī)器的啟動(dòng),才能完成不斷超越現(xiàn)狀,改造國(guó)家的工程。
在庸碌的日常生活中,我們不知道有多少把被打斷的聲音,而新加坡的安靜是如此理所當(dāng)然地令人沮喪。傾聽(tīng)這片土地,此處的公共空間顯得悄然無(wú)聲,莫非是因?yàn)閲?guó)人終于內(nèi)化？我們不需要*,所以也就沒(méi)有*？