Five weeks have passed since the opening of the Speakers' Corner at Hong Lim Park, but the reaction from Singaporeans seems to be less than enthusiastic. Speakers are few and audiences meagre.
Much of the enthusiasm is found instead in media and Online discussions, where a myriad of opinions have been articulated.
There are those who praise it and those who denigrate it； those who embrace it and those who criticise.
There is no real hurry for us to pass our judgment on the Speakers' Corner. It has just come into being and we should give it some time to find its bearings.
However, talk in the coffeeshops is of the view that the culture of silence in our society is a side effect from years of having a stern political system.
For 30 years, Singapore has been widely seen by both foreigners and locals to be a country where the climate for opinion is sterile, and a society peopled by a pliant population.
Therefore, the emergence of the Speakers' Corner is like snow in a desert and naturally, it is politicised by overseas and local opinion.
It is not an easy task to clear the dark clouds from people's minds. When the government announced details of the Speakers' Corner, it emphasised time and again that the authorities would not send anyone to monitor, tape, or make records of the speeches.
But the media kept on asking and the people kept on doubting.
This should be viewed with some concern. To a certain extent, it reveals a lack of sufficient trust between the government and the people. It also hints at the very real shadows that cast a pall over the people.
We will need some time to adjust our mentality to its normal state. At this juncture, we can only watch how it develops and hope for healthy results.
Undoubtedly, there are psychological barriers that make us reluctant to speak up.
On Teachers' Day in 1980, a junior college teacher from the United Kingdom walked into class that morning only to find it empty. But there was a stalk of vegetables on every desk.
This teacher had often criticised the class for not speaking up, that the students were just like vegetables that had life but no intellect. The students, prompted by a whim, had decided on such a Teachers' Day gift.
This funny story can make us smile with some sadness, but it also bears witness to the culture of silence which is so pervasive in our society. This has not come about overnight.
A couple of months ago, a Lianhe Zaobao survey revealed that 93% of those interviewed preferred to remain silent when their views differed from that of the government's.
This figure is disappointing. It is miles away from the image of a modern and ideal city-state that we are trying to build.
We should do some soul-searching to see how this culture of silence came about, and resolve to turn the situation around.
We lack an environment where we can learn how to express our thoughts and emotions. When our shackles are removed, we are unused to walking. Most Singaporeans have no doubt that the government has the interests of the nation and its people at heart, but we choose not to tell the government what we feel.
Singaporeans feel that talking is too bothersome. Even when their words are sincere, they are worried to be seen as anti-government. People do not want to be misunderstood, so they rather remain silent.
Recently, the media queried the government if it would react to the speeches made in the Speakers' Corner. A minister's reply inadvertently gave people the impression that discussion of serious issues could only be made in Parliament, the rest of us citizens needed only to listen with respectful attention. He had unwittingly downgraded public opinion.
The Internet is transforming human life as we know it. In this global milieu, Singapore is gradually loosening its grip in many areas in order to maintain its competitive edge.
The government is opening up avenues for people to air their views. The main significance of this lies in the fact that it provides a turning point for breaking down psychological barriers and building up mutual trust between the government and the people over this matter.
We believe that with the general improvement in educational standards, Singaporeans will have different demands about open debate.
If speakers at the Speakers' Corner use it merely as a platform for emotional outbursts, they will not have much of an audience.
The Speakers' Corner is a totem of political democracy in Singapore, and we are optimistic about its success.
Singaporeans who care about their country hope that it can be a corner for rational debate about various issues, not an emotional platform for clowns.
（The writer was a former Lianhe Zaobaojournalist. Translated by Wee Kek Koon）
演說角落與沉默心態(tài)
周維介
芳林公園演說角落已經(jīng)開講5個(gè)星期,看來(lái)市民反應(yīng)并不熱烈,言者少,聽者寡,倒是媒體網(wǎng)絡(luò)積極談?wù)撍?或褒或貶,或愛護(hù)或批判,不一而足。
我們不必急于為演說角落下判詞。它剛誕生,請(qǐng)?jiān)试S若干時(shí)間,看看它能走出什么道路。
咖啡店的笑談以為,社會(huì)沉默,是長(zhǎng)期強(qiáng)勢(shì)政治風(fēng)格所并發(fā)的副作用。30年來(lái),國(guó)外或民間,新加坡被普遍定位為言論空氣沉悶、服從意識(shí)強(qiáng)烈的社會(huì)。
因此,演說角落出現(xiàn),仿佛旱天下雪,自然被海內(nèi)外輿論貼上政治標(biāo)簽。
要驅(qū)散人們心中的烏云,絕非易事。官方宣布演說角落的細(xì)節(jié)時(shí),再三強(qiáng)調(diào),衙門不會(huì)派人監(jiān)聽錄音做記錄。媒體卻依然反復(fù)詢問,民眾仍舊心生疑慮。
這是個(gè)值得關(guān)注的現(xiàn)象,某個(gè)程度上,它透露了官方與民間互信不足,也暗示了陰影的確纏繞人們心頭。我們還得經(jīng)過一段時(shí)期的心理建設(shè),才可能恢復(fù)常態(tài)?，F(xiàn)階段,只能靜觀其變,期許一個(gè)健康的結(jié)局。
我們確實(shí)有發(fā)言心障。1980年的教師節(jié),來(lái)自英國(guó)的老師大早走進(jìn)某初院教室,發(fā)現(xiàn)里頭空無(wú)一人,但每張桌面上,都擺著一束青菜。
原來(lái)老師平日經(jīng)常批評(píng)同學(xué)不發(fā)言,就像一棵植物,有生命,卻沒有思想。同學(xué)心血來(lái)潮,送出這樣的教師節(jié)禮物。
這件趣事,可以笑出淚花,也帶出我們社會(huì)極為普遍的沉默心態(tài)。冰凍三尺,非一日之寒。
個(gè)把月前,《聯(lián)合早報(bào)》的調(diào)查顯示,當(dāng)自己的意見與政府政策相左時(shí),93%受訪者表示選擇沉默。這個(gè)數(shù)字叫人失望,它與我們建設(shè)現(xiàn)代化神話城邦的形象,有太大的落差。我們應(yīng)該反思這種沉默心態(tài)的形成背景,并決心扭轉(zhuǎn)局面。
我們?nèi)狈σ粋€(gè)學(xué)習(xí)表達(dá)思想感情的成長(zhǎng)環(huán)境,一時(shí)解開腳鐐,我們不習(xí)慣步行。新加坡人大多數(shù)肯定政府為國(guó)為民,但選擇不對(duì)它說心里話。人們覺得,講話太費(fèi)事,即使言是由衷,也擔(dān)心被視為反對(duì)政府。人們不希望被誤解,寧可三緘其口。
媒體近詢問政府,會(huì)否針對(duì)演說角落的言論做出反應(yīng)？部長(zhǎng)說：“國(guó)會(huì)才是辯論嚴(yán)肅課題的地方,任何人如果想針對(duì)如非法移民條例或其他重要的課題進(jìn)行辯論,就應(yīng)該把它帶到國(guó)會(huì)來(lái)?！?BR> 這說詞無(wú)意間讓人直覺,談嚴(yán)肅課題得進(jìn)入國(guó)會(huì)殿堂,百萬(wàn)市民只有洗耳恭聽的份了。這段談話,無(wú)意間矮化了民間的意見身段。
網(wǎng)絡(luò)正*著人類原有的生活方式,在全球大氣候下,新加坡為了保持競(jìng)爭(zhēng)能力,在多方面已有放寬管制的跡象。天空開放之后,政府開辟空間讓人們發(fā)言的大意義,在于它提供了一個(gè)消除心障的契機(jī),讓政府與民間在這件事上建立互信。
我們相信,隨著教育程度普遍提高,新加坡人對(duì)公開言論也有了不同的要求,假如公園演說者只來(lái)宣泄情緒,不會(huì)贏得太大市場(chǎng)。
演說角落必然是新加坡政治民主的圖騰,我們樂觀其成。心系獅城的國(guó)民,盼望它成為一個(gè)理性、輕松談?wù)摳鞣N話題的角落,而不是言論小丑宣泄情緒之地。
Much of the enthusiasm is found instead in media and Online discussions, where a myriad of opinions have been articulated.
There are those who praise it and those who denigrate it； those who embrace it and those who criticise.
There is no real hurry for us to pass our judgment on the Speakers' Corner. It has just come into being and we should give it some time to find its bearings.
However, talk in the coffeeshops is of the view that the culture of silence in our society is a side effect from years of having a stern political system.
For 30 years, Singapore has been widely seen by both foreigners and locals to be a country where the climate for opinion is sterile, and a society peopled by a pliant population.
Therefore, the emergence of the Speakers' Corner is like snow in a desert and naturally, it is politicised by overseas and local opinion.
It is not an easy task to clear the dark clouds from people's minds. When the government announced details of the Speakers' Corner, it emphasised time and again that the authorities would not send anyone to monitor, tape, or make records of the speeches.
But the media kept on asking and the people kept on doubting.
This should be viewed with some concern. To a certain extent, it reveals a lack of sufficient trust between the government and the people. It also hints at the very real shadows that cast a pall over the people.
We will need some time to adjust our mentality to its normal state. At this juncture, we can only watch how it develops and hope for healthy results.
Undoubtedly, there are psychological barriers that make us reluctant to speak up.
On Teachers' Day in 1980, a junior college teacher from the United Kingdom walked into class that morning only to find it empty. But there was a stalk of vegetables on every desk.
This teacher had often criticised the class for not speaking up, that the students were just like vegetables that had life but no intellect. The students, prompted by a whim, had decided on such a Teachers' Day gift.
This funny story can make us smile with some sadness, but it also bears witness to the culture of silence which is so pervasive in our society. This has not come about overnight.
A couple of months ago, a Lianhe Zaobao survey revealed that 93% of those interviewed preferred to remain silent when their views differed from that of the government's.
This figure is disappointing. It is miles away from the image of a modern and ideal city-state that we are trying to build.
We should do some soul-searching to see how this culture of silence came about, and resolve to turn the situation around.
We lack an environment where we can learn how to express our thoughts and emotions. When our shackles are removed, we are unused to walking. Most Singaporeans have no doubt that the government has the interests of the nation and its people at heart, but we choose not to tell the government what we feel.
Singaporeans feel that talking is too bothersome. Even when their words are sincere, they are worried to be seen as anti-government. People do not want to be misunderstood, so they rather remain silent.
Recently, the media queried the government if it would react to the speeches made in the Speakers' Corner. A minister's reply inadvertently gave people the impression that discussion of serious issues could only be made in Parliament, the rest of us citizens needed only to listen with respectful attention. He had unwittingly downgraded public opinion.
The Internet is transforming human life as we know it. In this global milieu, Singapore is gradually loosening its grip in many areas in order to maintain its competitive edge.
The government is opening up avenues for people to air their views. The main significance of this lies in the fact that it provides a turning point for breaking down psychological barriers and building up mutual trust between the government and the people over this matter.
We believe that with the general improvement in educational standards, Singaporeans will have different demands about open debate.
If speakers at the Speakers' Corner use it merely as a platform for emotional outbursts, they will not have much of an audience.
The Speakers' Corner is a totem of political democracy in Singapore, and we are optimistic about its success.
Singaporeans who care about their country hope that it can be a corner for rational debate about various issues, not an emotional platform for clowns.
（The writer was a former Lianhe Zaobaojournalist. Translated by Wee Kek Koon）
演說角落與沉默心態(tài)
周維介
芳林公園演說角落已經(jīng)開講5個(gè)星期,看來(lái)市民反應(yīng)并不熱烈,言者少,聽者寡,倒是媒體網(wǎng)絡(luò)積極談?wù)撍?或褒或貶,或愛護(hù)或批判,不一而足。
我們不必急于為演說角落下判詞。它剛誕生,請(qǐng)?jiān)试S若干時(shí)間,看看它能走出什么道路。
咖啡店的笑談以為,社會(huì)沉默,是長(zhǎng)期強(qiáng)勢(shì)政治風(fēng)格所并發(fā)的副作用。30年來(lái),國(guó)外或民間,新加坡被普遍定位為言論空氣沉悶、服從意識(shí)強(qiáng)烈的社會(huì)。
因此,演說角落出現(xiàn),仿佛旱天下雪,自然被海內(nèi)外輿論貼上政治標(biāo)簽。
要驅(qū)散人們心中的烏云,絕非易事。官方宣布演說角落的細(xì)節(jié)時(shí),再三強(qiáng)調(diào),衙門不會(huì)派人監(jiān)聽錄音做記錄。媒體卻依然反復(fù)詢問,民眾仍舊心生疑慮。
這是個(gè)值得關(guān)注的現(xiàn)象,某個(gè)程度上,它透露了官方與民間互信不足,也暗示了陰影的確纏繞人們心頭。我們還得經(jīng)過一段時(shí)期的心理建設(shè),才可能恢復(fù)常態(tài)?，F(xiàn)階段,只能靜觀其變,期許一個(gè)健康的結(jié)局。
我們確實(shí)有發(fā)言心障。1980年的教師節(jié),來(lái)自英國(guó)的老師大早走進(jìn)某初院教室,發(fā)現(xiàn)里頭空無(wú)一人,但每張桌面上,都擺著一束青菜。
原來(lái)老師平日經(jīng)常批評(píng)同學(xué)不發(fā)言,就像一棵植物,有生命,卻沒有思想。同學(xué)心血來(lái)潮,送出這樣的教師節(jié)禮物。
這件趣事,可以笑出淚花,也帶出我們社會(huì)極為普遍的沉默心態(tài)。冰凍三尺,非一日之寒。
個(gè)把月前,《聯(lián)合早報(bào)》的調(diào)查顯示,當(dāng)自己的意見與政府政策相左時(shí),93%受訪者表示選擇沉默。這個(gè)數(shù)字叫人失望,它與我們建設(shè)現(xiàn)代化神話城邦的形象,有太大的落差。我們應(yīng)該反思這種沉默心態(tài)的形成背景,并決心扭轉(zhuǎn)局面。
我們?nèi)狈σ粋€(gè)學(xué)習(xí)表達(dá)思想感情的成長(zhǎng)環(huán)境,一時(shí)解開腳鐐,我們不習(xí)慣步行。新加坡人大多數(shù)肯定政府為國(guó)為民,但選擇不對(duì)它說心里話。人們覺得,講話太費(fèi)事,即使言是由衷,也擔(dān)心被視為反對(duì)政府。人們不希望被誤解,寧可三緘其口。
媒體近詢問政府,會(huì)否針對(duì)演說角落的言論做出反應(yīng)？部長(zhǎng)說：“國(guó)會(huì)才是辯論嚴(yán)肅課題的地方,任何人如果想針對(duì)如非法移民條例或其他重要的課題進(jìn)行辯論,就應(yīng)該把它帶到國(guó)會(huì)來(lái)?！?BR> 這說詞無(wú)意間讓人直覺,談嚴(yán)肅課題得進(jìn)入國(guó)會(huì)殿堂,百萬(wàn)市民只有洗耳恭聽的份了。這段談話,無(wú)意間矮化了民間的意見身段。
網(wǎng)絡(luò)正*著人類原有的生活方式,在全球大氣候下,新加坡為了保持競(jìng)爭(zhēng)能力,在多方面已有放寬管制的跡象。天空開放之后,政府開辟空間讓人們發(fā)言的大意義,在于它提供了一個(gè)消除心障的契機(jī),讓政府與民間在這件事上建立互信。
我們相信,隨著教育程度普遍提高,新加坡人對(duì)公開言論也有了不同的要求,假如公園演說者只來(lái)宣泄情緒,不會(huì)贏得太大市場(chǎng)。
演說角落必然是新加坡政治民主的圖騰,我們樂觀其成。心系獅城的國(guó)民,盼望它成為一個(gè)理性、輕松談?wù)摳鞣N話題的角落,而不是言論小丑宣泄情緒之地。