When school and grassroots work do not mix - Siew Kum Hong

[SNAblog]

http://siewkumhong.blogspot.com/2011/01/when-school-and-grassroots-work-do-not.html

When school and grassroots work do not mix

by Siew Kum Hong
05:55 AM Jan 04, 2011

Those familiar with Singapore's political history will remember the role played by student activists in the '50s and early '60s. But that ended when schools were depoliticised after independence.

For better or worse, schools have been neutral and independent institutions of learning for the past few decades. So I was surprised to read a Dec 24 story in The Straits Times, about a co-curricular activity (CCA) in Raffles Institution (Junior College) called the Boon Lay Youth Club (BLYC).

BLYC was set up by five students, including the son of Madam Ho Geok Choo, who is the Member of Parliament in the Boon Lay ward of West Coast GRC.

The BLYC describes itself as the "first youth club in a grassroots setting", and its activities have included volunteering at meet-the-people-sessions, among other things..

I actually see student activism, in and of itself, as a good thing, and a necessary foundation for an active and concerned citizenry.

But partisan activities that favour a specific political party or politician should not be officially sanctioned and endorsed by the Ministry of Education (MOE) or schools.

And that is where I think MOE and RI(JC) got it wrong with BLYC.

I believe most Singaporeans would agree with me that it is inappropriate and undesirable, if not harmful, for schools to be used as vehicles for partisan political activities.

Campaigning for political parties and politicians is clearly improper in schools and workplaces. By extension, it is inappropriate for MOE and schools to officially sanction and endorse activities that directly or indirectly support any specific political party or politician.

After all, we expect our schools to be impartial and independent. Mixing politics and education like this is dangerous.

It risks compromising the professionalism of our schools and devaluing what is taught.

The crux here is that MOE and schools must remain impartial and clearly stand above the political fray.

Lawyers always say that the law not only has to be fair, it also has to be seen as being fair. Similarly, the educational system must stay scrupulously clear of politics and avoid favouring any political party. And it must be seen to be doing so.

The existence of BLYC and its official recognition as a CCA, may arguably be acceptable, if it is a purely student-driven initiative and if it does not even engage in political activities in the first place. But is this the case?

Firstly, BLYC was initially not officially recognised. As a result, the founders had difficulty recruiting volunteers.

According to The Straits Times' report, it was only after Madam Ho raised the matter with then-Senior Minister of State for Education Tharman Shanmugaratnam that the club was made an official CCA.

This might suggest that, BLYC may not have survived without MOE's and RI(JC)'s official support and sanction.

Secondly, some may have asserted that BLYC engages only in grassroots activities and not politics. But in Singapore, that is an illusory distinction.

The People's Association is widely seen as being aligned and intertwined with the People's Action Party (PAP).

Tellingly also, The Straits Times decided to run the story on BLYC as a sidebar to an article on the electoral situation in West Coast GRC.

A past president of BLYC was quoted as saying: "Our intentions are not to get involved in politics, our intentions are to serve". But the students' intentions are beside the point.

After all, if the students truly only want to serve, they are always free to volunteer directly, without needing an official CCA. The point is that MOE's and RI(JC)'s official sanctioning and support of this sort of activity undermines the impartiality of our education system.

The only way in which grassroots activism can legitimately be an official CCA, is if it is irreproachably non-partisan.

Otherwise, having an official CCA like BLYC will only raise doubts about the integrity and impartiality of our schools

 

[scroobal]

First her father was a PAP, then he roped in his daughter. Now that the daughter is an MP, her son is now sowing his seeds.

In her groundbreaking book - Dead Aid , Dambisa Moyo, a recongnised economist states categorically that Singapore is not a democracy. And she is right.

 

[kingrant]

The PAP govt has always kept double standards. Only few knows unless instances are publicised.

We trust that RI being a premier school for the intelligentsia, would throw up shrewd and smart people who know more than the hoi polloi on such things, and yet it did not find it fit to reject this descent into partisanship politics, even if it was wooed by the MP or PA or Boon Lay grassroot org.

What a tragedy in our educational system.

 

[jw5]

Firstly on the article.
Agree that schools and grassroots work should not mix. Would it not be better if the boys volunteered their time and services for charitable organizations, which helped the poor and needy? They could really learn so much more from such activities and help really needy people. Grassroots work, well, the adults who want something can handle that, can't they?

Secondly, on Scroobal's democracy point.
Singapore IS a democracy, on the basis that those elected representatives have gone through what most of us would perceive as fair elections.
A person in power can have 20 of his relatives as candidates, and if they go through the same election process, they would have been elected democratically.

The real problem is how the voters have arrived at their decisions over the years and how candidates have decided to step forward (or not as the case may be).
This has been achieved with a lot of smarts and cunning.
Boundaries have been drawn and re-drawn. Voter numbers have been counted and re-counted. (When unsure, make sure to update the election rolls.)
Enough people have been kept happy and comfortable, to make sure that they have the numbers. Enough high paying civil service jobs, enough corporate positions, enough business opportunities for the able. Enough food and grocery vouchers for those not so. Keep the soldiers happy. Bring in grateful people.
Spread the goodies around, so that there's a core of loyalists.
Be harsh on potential opponents or strong detractors, but not that strong that world organizations with clout come calling or first world countries start questioning.

The issue is not that Singapore is not a democracy. It is.
The issue is whether there are enough courageous and clever people who can find a way around the smarts and cunning, put aside their material goals and "raise their hands" or "step forward".
The answer so far is a resounding "NO".

 

[scroobal]

Double standards is indeed their trait. When they do not allow an elected opposition MP to work with PA and the grassroots organisations that are paid for by tax payers in their own constituency.

If Chiam and Low had applied for certain schools to help out in meet the people sessions you can be assured that MOE will not allow it.

The PAP govt has always kept double standards. Only few knows unless instances are publicised.

We trust that RI being a premier school for the intelligentsia, would throw up shrewd and smart people who know more than the hoi polloi on such things, and yet it did not find it fit to reject this descent into partisanship politics, even if it was wooed by the MP or PA or Boon Lay grassroot org.

What a tragedy in our educational system.

 

[scroobal]

Not sure if your argument has a foundation. What makes Singaporeans less courageous or less clever than other people in any other country. I do however agree that PAP materialistic approach has a following.

There are 3 factors why Singapore may not be considered a functioning democracy.

1) Monopolising talents and having early access and giving rewards and career caveats
2) Discouraging participation in opposition politics by excessive barriers. Not a level playing field
3) Continuing to emphasising that any other party in power will lead to financial ruin for Singaporeans.

The issue is not that Singapore is not a democracy. It is.
The issue is whether there are enough courageous and clever people who can find a way around the smarts and cunning, put aside their material goals and "raise their hands" or "step forward".
The answer so far is a resounding "NO".

 

[KuanTi01]

No doubt jw5 had raised valid points but for me, I'd rather call a spade a spade.Although in terms of keeping up appearances, Sinkapore may be described as a form of democracy, it is an intellectually-challenged; physically-challenged and morally-bankrupt democracy. In other words, it is and always has been a pseudo democracy! The many instances of political gerrymandering and persecution of opposition figures and even well-meaning intellectuals who sang a different tune have already been well documented. Eyes can see but even if we are blind, we can still hear and feel!

 

[Rimururu]

Singapore is just a democracy on paper. However, there are no level playing field for the opposition before elections, during elections and after elections.

Before elections, NEA will find ways to summon you for illegal hawking.

During elections, MSM will start digging up the dirt on every opposition member's childhood misdeeds.

After elections, even if you won the turf, your opponent's banner is hung freely without your consent and whatever you do, you have to consult HDB.

 

[cheekenpie]

First her father was a PAP, then he roped in his daughter. Now that the daughter is an MP, her son is now sowing his seeds.

In her groundbreaking book - Dead Aid , Dambisa Moyo, a recongnised economist states categorically that Singapore is not a democracy. And she is right.

Why sh has exact same name was the late Mrs Lee Kuan Yew?

 

[A Shankar]

Lawyer Siew highlighted PAP's scouting network for young potential members.

 

[jw5]

Not sure if your argument has a foundation. What makes Singaporeans less courageous or less clever than other people in any other country. I do however agree that PAP materialistic approach has a following.

There are 3 factors why Singapore may not be considered a functioning democracy.

1) Monopolising talents and having early access and giving rewards and career caveats
2) Discouraging participation in opposition politics by excessive barriers. Not a level playing field
3) Continuing to emphasising that any other party in power will lead to financial ruin for Singaporeans.

My argument is not that Singaporeans are less courageous and clever than people from other countries. It's that LKY is cleverer and more cunning than most leaders from other countries and most Singaporeans.

If they had gone through with his suggestion of "some people 3 votes, others 1 vote", I would have been one of the first to declare that SG is not a democracy.
The 3 points you listed do not make SG a non-democracy.
In fact, most political leaders from other countries would wish that they had done item 1 and been more successful in implementing items 2 and 3.
The system has been used and "adjusted" to their advantage for many years.
That does not mean that candidacy has been hampered, voters have been hampered or physically threatened, or election results have been manipulated.

In the political game of survivor, LKY has "outplayed, outwitted, and outlasted" everyone. You can dislike him or condemn his methods, but it's not correct to say that SG is not a democracy. Leave that kind of talk to the foreign human rights activists.

It doesn't matter if we are suffering bad times because of, are unaffected by, or are doing well despite of, the system, but in the latter case, cannot stand to see fellow Singaporeans in trouble.
The fact is that not enough people stepped forward to challenge, and they were clever enough to form a base large enough to ward off "errant" opponents or voters. Let's admit this fact and not claim that SG is not a democracy.

 

[jw5]

No doubt jw5 had raised valid points but for me, I'd rather call a spade a spade.Although in terms of keeping up appearances, Sinkapore may be described as a form of democracy, it is an intellectually-challenged; physically-challenged and morally-bankrupt democracy. In other words, it is and always has been a pseudo democracy! The many instances of political gerrymandering and persecution of opposition figures and even well-meaning intellectuals who sang a different tune have already been well documented. Eyes can see but even if we are blind, we can still hear and feel!

Political gerrymeandering and persecution of opponents were not invented by or started in SG. These have been happening in many countries which are widely held to be true democracies.

As long as your candidacy is unhampered, your voting decision is unhampered by physical violence, and the election results are not manipulated, it is a democracy.
Don't mistake that I'm praising our system or the leaders.
Politicians all over the world will say things like "Life will be worse if you vote the other guy". This happens everywhere. But not eveywhere do so many people believe it for so many years.

That's due to years and years of clever "management", including all the things mentioned (gerrymeandering etc) and sharing the benefits. Very few politicians have been able to do all that, and still get the admiration of the world community.

 

[scroobal]

It quite a stretch to suggest that old man outwitted Singaporeans over 50 years without imposing conditions that are not usually associated with a functioning democracy.

I have no doubt that election mechanism exist and that it is not tainted. We have world highest deposit rate for standing for elections. We have a GRC system that has not been broken by any opposition party, we have compliant media that is run by ex-govt officials, we have tax payer funded grassroots organisation that supports PAP elected and more importantly PAP advisors that were rejected at the polls. They do not work with elected opposition MP.

I would agree with you if there was a level playing field and if there are minor variations. But the extent of gerrymandering is quite obvious and the other conditions are also quite obvious.

I do however agree that old man outwitted some Singaporeans into thinking that a democracy does exist. For that we have to credit to him for his ability to read people.

We have to realise that 1st world countries without exception have at a minimum a 2 party system. I find it hard to believe that in all these countries only we ended up with an individual who has outwitted the country and its people and the there was none in the first world as smart as old man. Does not make sense? It also bizarre to suggest that we are one country whose people are not clever or courageous.

My argument is not that Singaporeans are less courageous and clever than people from other countries. It's that LKY is cleverer and more cunning than most leaders from other countries and most Singaporeans.

If they had gone through with his suggestion of "some people 3 votes, others 1 vote", I would have been one of the first to declare that SG is not a democracy.
The 3 points you listed do not make SG a non-democracy.
In fact, most political leaders from other countries would wish that they had done item 1 and been more successful in implementing items 2 and 3.
The system has been used and "adjusted" to their advantage for many years.
That does not mean that candidacy has been hampered, voters have been hampered or physically threatened, or election results have been manipulated.

In the political game of survivor, LKY has "outplayed, outwitted, and outlasted" everyone. You can dislike him or condemn his methods, but it's not correct to say that SG is not a democracy. Leave that kind of talk to the foreign human rights activists.

It doesn't matter if we are suffering bad times because of, are unaffected by, or are doing well despite of, the system, but in the latter case, cannot stand to see fellow Singaporeans in trouble.
The fact is that not enough people stepped forward to challenge, and they were clever enough to form a base large enough to ward off "errant" opponents or voters. Let's admit this fact and not claim that SG is not a democracy.

 

[scroobal]

I recall a closed door forum that was held at an Institute at the time when GCT backtracked after the unprecedented results of 1991 and increased the GRCs and its size.

One chap suggested that old man genuinely thinks that he is actually running a democracy. It was a novel and an out of the box thinking. Interestingly it did not take long before old man stated that "Singapore's version of democracy is different from others and that it has to be different. "

The general take of the forum is that PAP is running a political platform that is economic based and carries a number of measures. No one wants to upset the apple cart as there will be pain. People do realise that key people resources are all within the control of ruling party and there is little to that others can do. Singaporeans generally accept that it is not a democracy but will continue to vote for the PAP to avoid the pain.

No doubt jw5 had raised valid points but for me, I'd rather call a spade a spade.Although in terms of keeping up appearances, Sinkapore may be described as a form of democracy, it is an intellectually-challenged; physically-challenged and morally-bankrupt democracy. In other words, it is and always has been a pseudo democracy! The many instances of political gerrymandering and persecution of opposition figures and even well-meaning intellectuals who sang a different tune have already been well documented. Eyes can see but even if we are blind, we can still hear and feel!

 

[SneeringTree]

The issue is not that Singapore is not a democracy. It is.

This is saying that a life is a life regardless what kind of life it is. There is democracy and there is democracy. Singapore's democracy only fulfills the barest minimum of what a democracy should be (i.e. one person one vote in regularly held elections).

 

[Narong Wongwan]

All this talk makes it sounds like we are living within the MATRIX

 

[jw5]

This is saying that a life is a life regardless what kind of life it is. There is democracy and there is democracy. Singapore's democracy only fulfills the barest minimum of what a democracy should be (i.e. one person one vote in regularly held elections).

Yes, I agree. A life is a life regardless of what kind of life it is.
It's my opinion that SG is a democracy, even if the pap have done their utmost to retain power.

One person one vote, every adult person has the opportunity to vote, every adult person has the opportunity to be a candidate, except those who have criminal records, are undischarged bankrupts and can't come up with the $15K deposit, which are not outrageous requirements. Voters are not hampered in their choice, no threats of physical harm, army and police not involved, votes are properly counted and re-counted with all candidates' representatives watching, results are correctly announced. An untainted election process.

They knew that SG had to go the democracy route because that was the best way to economic prosperity. Unlike some leaders in other countries, these lot are very concerned about what other first world countries and their leaders think about them.

If the question was "Do pap promote and enhance democracy in SG", my opinion would be no.
I don't object to the term "barest minimum of democracy", but I object to the term "not a democracy" because we all still have a choice.
Whatever we do, don't equate PAP and LKY with SG. They are only a part of SG.

 

[GoldenDragon]

Whatever we do, don't equate PAP and LKY with SG. They are only a part of SG.

jw5: My guess is more than 90% of our populace believes that PAP/LKY= S'pore and vice versa. This is an area in which our Ministry of Education, MINDEF and some other ministries greatly succeeded in 'brainwashing' its citizens. Similar to national security=PAP's security and vice versa.

Briefly, the schools play their role for at least 10 years to the majority of S'poreans. When young men turn 18, MINDEF takes over. In the army, you just follow orders, never question them. The whole cycle is a great formula in ensuring blind obedience and almost complete compliance. S'poreans are programmed to think S'pore= PAP/LKY and opposition=threats to the stability and security of S'pore.

The very moment S'poreans wake up and realise it is not so, it would be the day they are set free. We await that day.