" Honours students hard talk with Kuan Yew
Down South by SEAH CHIANG NEE
ALMOST yearly, Lee Kuan Yew would pay a visit to the premier campus
to talk and listen to thousands of undergraduates about the
country.
Started when he was a young, combative prime minister, these events
rarely produce fireworks or test Lees debating skill.
Generally meek or polite, these students would at times ask a few
critical questions, most of which touched on jobs and careers. They
were predictable occasions.
This year was different.
The latest meeting that took place last week produced some sparks
and showed how far away some of todays youths have moved from
Lees political world.
Instead of the usual mild questions, the 82-year-old Minister
Mentor got an unexpected earful.
One of the challengers was history honours student Jamie Han, who
stressed he wasnt saying the Peoples Action Party was
corrupt.
But the truth of the matter is this: No matter how enlightened a
despot is, ultimately hell turn into a tyrant if there are no
checks and balances in place.
Applause broke out among the 1,500 students representing
all universities here.
Jamie said there must have been times in the past when there was a
need for consensus and stability.
But we have come to the stage where in order to progress, the
minority viewpoints have to be heard, he stressed.
Earlier, another student asked Lee why so many Singaporeans were
not regarding their country as home.
We lack the sense of ownership, he said.
At best, he added, they tended to see it as a comfortable hotel
and, at worst, as a prison that people didnt have money and
resources and the talent to make it.
Lee: What makes you feel you dont own this place?
Student: I do. Its just the impression I have from talking to
people.
Asked who owned the Housing Board flat he was living in, he
replied: I believe its a 99-year lease, so the Government owns
the house.
But it was Jamies use of the word despot that hung in the air.
In the past, criticisms were about policies; this time it was a
strong personal label the first to be pinned on Lee.
There had, of course, been stronger attacks on him and his familys
power but they came anonymously from the Internet, hence with a lot
less impact.
It reflects a changing generation. At any rate, todays generation
has little knowledge or impression of Lees role in history and
does not feel beholden to him like their elders.
Many are liberals who are dissatisfied with the speed of decontrol
of the past decade. Lee, on the other hand, is a conservative who
believes in a highly regulated top-down society as prerequisite for
stability.
Jamie had also asked for the Internal Security Act and newspaper
laws to be reviewed. The channels that offered different views were
either directly or indirectly controlled by the Government.
And this exchange followed.
Lee asked him if he had written to the newspapers. Yes, he replied,
but only one letter was published.
Why not start a publication, asked Lee. Reply: The laws made it
very difficult.
Lee: Well, you have the Internet put up a website. You know how
to put up a website? If you dont, I know a friend who can help
you.
Lee said he was never a despot. You dont put your life at risk in
calling me a despot.
He challenged, as he had often done, anyone who had a passion to
join a party and contest via elections. I say stake your life,
come out and put your programme.
The exchange has propelled Jamie to some sort of instant
popularity. To its credit, the media reported the story in detail
although it didnt reflect well on Lee.
Almost overnight, Jamie Han has burst from being an unknown to an
admired youth different from the majority of meek bo chap
(uncaring) youths concerned only in themselves.
The admiration shown is, however, tempered by concern about what
if anything will happen to him.
Some were nothing short of speculative fantasy. One thought Jamie
had a death wish. Another said his career was half over even
before it began.
Many public commentators saluted his daring speak-up, called it a
catalyst for change, that deserved some form of award. One said
if he were to form a political party, I will vote for him.
(Jamie later said he was not interested in going into politics, but
believed there was value in speaking up on social issues that move
him.)
One commentator said many youths would wait and see and if Jamie
was not punished the mindset of others will change.
Describing him as a sacrificial lamb, he said that if Jamie was
not punished, it would encourage others who shared his views to
move into politics where they could make a change.
.................................................................................
One Web letter said that at 82, Lee has not changed very much.
Otherwise, he asked, why should anyone in this stable environment
need to put his life on the line to join opposition politics?
......."
