<!--end: postmeta-->
Political filmmaker Martyn
See reviews that historical 2006 televised
debate between MM Lee Kuan Yew and the post
65′ers.
During the run-up to the 2006 General Elections, Mediacorp’s
Channel News Asia aired a 50 minute-long programme entitled “Why My
Vote Matters.” It featured a dialogue session between Minister
Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and a selected panel of post 65-ers.
Televised debates with PAP leaders are extremely rare.
Older Singaporeans would have to cast their minds back to
the mid-1980s when Select Commitee hearings such as the amendments
to the Legal Professions Act were beamed into their living rooms.
It had reportedly featured the then Law Society
President Francis Seow jousting with then Prime
Minister Lee Kuan Yew, with cameo appearances by young lawyers Teo
Soh Sung and Tang Fong Har. Two years after the programme was
aired, Teo and Tang were detained under the ISA for an alleged
“Marxist conspiracy” to subvert the Government. Seow was also
arrested a year later.
Throughout the latter half of the 1980s to the mid 1990s,
televised political debates did make recurring appearances, most
notably with the live Parliamentary proceedings and other Select
Commitee enquiries, including a rare face-off on the cost of
living, which featured SDP’s Chee Soon Juan versus PAP’s
George Yeo. And there was a particular memorable hearing on the
Elected Presidency Bill, when a law lecturer named Walter Woon held
his own against a panel of ministerial heavyweights including the
then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong. By the mid-1990s, ‘Live
in Parliament’ and other Select Commitee hearings were eased
off the air, sporadically appearing only as heavily-edited spots
during the nightly news broadcasts.
It is in this context that the airing of this 2006 debate makes
for such a rare milestone event in Singapore’s television
history.
On hindsight, there are questions one would ask of the station’s
executive producers and the Prime Minister’s Office. Why did they
see the need to conduct such a televised dialogue? Were they hoping
to win the young voters over by allowing the octogenarian to remind
them of PAP’s accomplishments? Were they hoping that the young
65ers’ would be so in awe of the MM that they would capitulate? And
why entitle the show “Why My Vote Matters” when half the population
of this country have not and will probably not be able to vote,
given the number of uncontested seats since the 1980s? Add to that,
it was Lee Hsien Loong’s first General Elections as the Prime
Minister, so why didn’t he take the hot seat instead of his
father?
Presumptions and motives aside, this televised debate makes for
compelling viewing, and some startling revelations, chief of which
was how the post 65-ers went straight for the jugular and tabled
questions on the uneven playing field, particularly of the GRC
system, and on occasions even interrupted the MM. Older
Singaporeans conditioned to deference towards Lee would have been
appalled at such disrespect shown to the ‘founding father’.
One young 65er who stood out was journalist Ken Kwek of the
Straits Times’ political desk. Kwek had pinned Lee to the ropes on
a survey he had done about political fear. But in a reversal of
role, Lee shot back, probing Kwek to disclose the names of his
sources.
Having watched this again on Google video, I found several
illuminating moments. I leave marked timecodes of them but I’ll
leave it to you to make your own conclusions.
(Ken Kwek has since left the Straits Times. He is currently
a playwright and had written the screeplay to the local film The
Blue Mansion.)
————-
1:47 : On why there are many PAP MP’s who have never
contested.
2:06 : On why “there isn’t much of a fight.”
3:55 : On why the need for GRCs. It’s for racial minority
representation.
4:33 : When pointed out by Ken Kwek that PAP’s minority
candidates had indeed won in single seats prior to implementation
of GRC system, Lee replied , “That was with the PAP in complete
control. That generation voted for the PAP.” There was a pause. Lee
seemed unsure of how to continue. But was interrupted by another
question. This is probably the biggest Freudian slip by Lee that
the GRC system was implemented for a different reason other than
for minority represenatation.
4.55 : Voting are “basic, visceral, emotional biases.”
8:47 : Potong Pasir and Hougang “have to wait at
the end of the queue.”
8:57 : Lee asks, “Does any government help the opposition
to displace itself?”
10:05 : On eliminating the opposition.
11.10 : On fear of voting against the PAP.
12:04 : No level playing field anywhere.
12:42 : We can “guess” but we don’t know who voted against
us.
13:07 : The grilling of Ken Kwek begins here. You name the
voters who are afraid.
13:26 : I started as a cross-examiner. You name
them.
13:45 : Kwek : Why should I name them?
13:55 : More cross-examination by Lee on Kwek.
15:10 : We have said categorically, “The vote is
secret.”
16:11 : “I allowed my grandchildren to speak back to me but
from time to time..I put them down.”
17:45 : I built up my base from one single seat in
1959.
18:56 : We want a fair media.
19:10 : Where is the opposition’s “substance?”
22:14: GRCs does the opposition good.
23:22 : I’ve never said that the opposition is
unnecessary.
24:52 : Is the PAP insecure about losing?
25:22 : On why the government disallows political podcasts and
blogging.
27:18 : Emotional attachment to nation via right to vote is an
“unfounded thesis.”
27:15 : “The fact that we are not challenged is a strong
mandate.”
32:44 : There is no political apathy.
33:35 : The definition of politics equals jobs, home, medicine,
education, future.
34:40 : In the 50s and 60s, Singapore was “in a state of
agitation everyday.”
36:50 : Once the PAP goes soft, it will be displaced.
36:39 : Our candidates have competence, integrity.
38:10 : There is a databank here (points to his head).
38:40 : Would you like me to retire from politics?
39:56 : Do you not think my son has a mind of his own?
41:00 : I’ll be sad if your generation wants me to retire.
44:04 : “If I’m arrogant, would I be talking to you?”