|
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.)
|
总理的国庆群众大会演说，在讨论严肃的回教世界对我国的影响时，更多的言辞是激励国人勇敢地与政府走出一条“新加坡的路”。 今年的演讲，比往年更为热情。说真的，我从没想到自己会受到政要人物的演说而得到启迪；但是，我问自己：我们该如何去平衡不如自己所愿的政策和身为一名“守将”的责任。 总理说，不是政府不要听取人民的意见，只是“我们（政府）不可以单凭民意来治国……政府必须考虑所有的观点、政策对每个国人所会造成的影响、衡量短期和长期利益，然后才决定其中一种有利于大多数国人的做法。” 话虽如此，要了解什么是“群体的利益”并不难；然而，衡量的准绳究竟由谁、用什么办法来制定，这是一些新加坡人的疑问。 即使在决策时的大方向确实是群体的利益，如果掌权者想要人民接受这样的解释，那么，请至少清楚地让人们了解每一个决定的出发点和当局坚持的理由。 举个例子，既然决定让内容带争议性或略带色情的电影走进戏院，为什么已经是限制级的影片仍然逃不过审查和修剪的厄运？经过30多年的发展，大多数成年的国人已经有足够的能力去判断艺术与色情之间的不同。 21岁是法定年龄，那么政府是不是应该给予已有权力在大选中投票的国民同等的空间，让他们也能够在娱乐、影片欣赏方面作出自己的决定呢？ 如果连生活中的琐事也要受到严刑峻法的管制，那我们也不能苛刻地指责萌生离去念头的国人，他们也只不过是想充分地享受到选择的权力。 想要国人留下来，做一名勇敢的“守将”，那么请政府给我们一个我们可以捍卫的空间。同样的，国人也应该走出被动，积极地去扮演好一名“将相”的角色，在埋怨中，也应切记如何参与建设。 曾经有言论对年轻人“不愿吃苦”、不肯降低要求的现象而感到担忧。在怀疑声中，总理有自己的一番说法。他说：“记住，我们现在拥有更多人力资源。我们的人民受过更良好的教育，他们全部以英语工作，在管理、组织和科技技术方面达到更高的水平。” 或许，我们这一代人应该尝试接受的是，不是生活不再辛苦了，只是生活的挣扎随着时代的变迁，以不同的形式展现在我们的生活中。 上两代的人，都为了养家¤口而挣扎。由于当时的生活水平较低，所以政府能够为大家做的也比较多；因为原来有的就比较少，所以只要是一点点的改进，也显得无比显著。 从简陋的木屋到现在“居者有其屋”，建屋局大大提升了人民的生活水平。这样的对比是年轻一代的国人很难感受得到的。因为，对许多同龄人来说，我们打从一出世，就舒舒服服地住进政府组屋；如果要感觉到进步，就表示我们得在物价飙升中继续地小屋换大屋。 如果不得所愿，那么就埋怨政府的不足。我想，这样的想法，有欠公平。 ·作者是新加坡报业控股集团奖学金得主，目前在早报言论组实习
|
