Based on the recent debacle on a certain article titled “S'poreans are fed, up with progress!” in the Voices section, TODAY newspaper and the reply by Ms. Bhavani in the same newspaper (3 July, 2006).
Mr. Brown’s satirical approach towards the criticism might not incidentally include solutions towards the various issues which he had mentioned within his column, but it does point out the issues which are nonetheless critical to the average Singaporean. While highlighting the very same issues, Mr. Brown had not used the most conventional of methods to convey his views. Yet, isn’t this exactly the feedback by the common citizenry to the government which they had been trying to obtain?
Ms. Bhavani happened to point out that Mr. Brown’s views on these issues distorts the truth. Although there had been no apparent attempt to do so by the writer on the disputed column, from his writings, was the satirical display of sarcasm towards governmental polices and his apparent disapproval of them. Speaking from a viewpoint of an everyday Singaporean experiencing the brunt of the policies implemented after the GE. Might I ask just about every Singaporean, who would not feel sarcasm?
I do agree with Ms. Bhavani’s observation that Mr. Brown’s column might induce controversy from his sarcastic criticism of the government’s less than fair weather policies. Yet, its one thing for a government official writing in to defend the implemented policies, but for a high ranking public servant to come out with her guns blazing chastising an average Singaporean with her bureaucratic stance for saying his piece with regards to his views of how the policies affected him, that is a tad unbecoming of one whom is supposed to be working to embetter the lives of Singaporeans.
While the government have the right to decide on the course of how Singapore should be administrated through the mandate of the General Elections, the opinions of its officials should be balanced with consideration for the common citizenry and not condemnation of their views in the bid to defend their own.
Open discussion of governmental policies in a public newspaper is one of the important channels which officials could garner well grounded feedback from the citizenry and could choose to act on it with any solutions rendered or defend their policies with good will. I do hope that this does not stop journalists or newspapers to stop highlighting the issues whom are important and are affecting Singaporeans to the government or any relevant institution.
Mr. Brown’s satirical approach towards the criticism might not incidentally include solutions towards the various issues which he had mentioned within his column, but it does point out the issues which are nonetheless critical to the average Singaporean. While highlighting the very same issues, Mr. Brown had not used the most conventional of methods to convey his views. Yet, isn’t this exactly the feedback by the common citizenry to the government which they had been trying to obtain?
Ms. Bhavani happened to point out that Mr. Brown’s views on these issues distorts the truth. Although there had been no apparent attempt to do so by the writer on the disputed column, from his writings, was the satirical display of sarcasm towards governmental polices and his apparent disapproval of them. Speaking from a viewpoint of an everyday Singaporean experiencing the brunt of the policies implemented after the GE. Might I ask just about every Singaporean, who would not feel sarcasm?
I do agree with Ms. Bhavani’s observation that Mr. Brown’s column might induce controversy from his sarcastic criticism of the government’s less than fair weather policies. Yet, its one thing for a government official writing in to defend the implemented policies, but for a high ranking public servant to come out with her guns blazing chastising an average Singaporean with her bureaucratic stance for saying his piece with regards to his views of how the policies affected him, that is a tad unbecoming of one whom is supposed to be working to embetter the lives of Singaporeans.
While the government have the right to decide on the course of how Singapore should be administrated through the mandate of the General Elections, the opinions of its officials should be balanced with consideration for the common citizenry and not condemnation of their views in the bid to defend their own.
Open discussion of governmental policies in a public newspaper is one of the important channels which officials could garner well grounded feedback from the citizenry and could choose to act on it with any solutions rendered or defend their policies with good will. I do hope that this does not stop journalists or newspapers to stop highlighting the issues whom are important and are affecting Singaporeans to the government or any relevant institution.
posted by Azmodeus at 11:00 PM
2 Comments:
The KTM thinks it's actually fine for "a high ranking public servant to come out with her guns blazing chastising an average Singaporean with her bureaucratic stance" as long as the Singaporean gets the right of reply. Alright, perhaps it's not fine, fine or particularly good form, but there is no reason why not.
If the day arrives where an average Singapore gets whacked with a robust reply and yet returns favour with an equally robust response, it is a sign that we have progressed.
It is unfortunately that all the Singaporeans who have been received robust responses from the Garmen thus far have all chosen to remain silent or not to engage the Garmen (or perhaps they did they not have the opportunity to do so?).
Cheers.
Indeed, the day when we had progressed to the point where robust replies could be reply in turn is a definite sign we have progressed..
But of course, as a civilised human, especially for a civil servant, I've stressed the word servant as the fact that they are serving the public, and as service providers, should the end receivers of their services had any quiries, naturally they should respond with certain decorum and courtesy in order to seek understanding, and not being confrontational and definitely not using references to your child to imply on your motives to question.
And yes of course, IF I were given the choice to reply. I would, not being confrontation, but to allow reason and logic to guide my questioning, along with moral and honor to guide my replies.
Yet, within the current context.
Could we?
Post a Comment
<< Home