Aaron Ng

I am glad to read a letter by Dr Wong Wee Nam?to Straits Times Online that echoed what I felt about PM Lee’s speech. The orginal link to the Straits Times may be found here.

I am reproducing an excerpt of the letter here:

Zou Ji was a handsome official from the state of Qi. He wanted to know if he was as good-looking as the renowned Xu Gong and he asked people close to him for their opinion. His wife said he was beyond compare. His mistress and a friend both also declared he was far better-looking than Xu Gong.

One day, Xu Gong paid a visit and Zou Ji scrutinised him from head to toe. He realised he was nowhere near Xu Gong in looks. That night, he reflected and concluded that his wife was simply biased, his mistress held him in awe and his friend sought patronage. This led him to the view that a ruler should not be blinded by sweet words and good news and should be exposed to all kinds of criticism.

He advised King Wei of Qi accordingly. The king found his suggestion sound and ordered: ‘Those who can tell me to my face I have made a mistake shall be amply rewarded. People who can only point out my faults on paper shall be moderately rewarded. Those who discuss my errors and I get to know about it shall also receive something.’

Following the edict, the response was tremendous and this feedback helped the state of Qi to become one of the respected states during the Warring States Period.

Young people are often full of dreams and idealism and they should be allowed to express them. If our youth are no longer idealistic or no longer feel free to share their dreams, society cannot be very creative, innovative or progressive.

Without meaningful participation, we will only encourage the tendency of individuals to drop out of society, the talented to migrate to another place that gives them a better environment to develop and leave the majority to live a life of apathy with no love and passion for their country.

Our people need to be trained to fight for what they believe in and stand their ground. Without this attribute, it is doubtful if they will be able to fight for their country and stand the ground in a crisis. The state of Qi gained respect from the bigger states and achieved more stability without a strong army but with more ‘democracy’. Is there something we can learn from this?

Dear PM Lee,

After reading the Sunday Times article titled “PM to young: Help make S’pore better”, I applaud you for encouraging the young people of Singapore to step out to serve their country. As a young person who is full of ideals, passion and energy, this message certainly strikes a chord with me.

Unfortunately, as much as your message resonates with some of my innermost thoughts, I have to say that I remain hugely skeptical of whether I can make a difference if I choose to “step out”.

Before I decide to dedicate myself to serving my country, I have to weigh the extent to which I will be able to make a difference. My assessment is that I am unlikely to make a difference, unless I become a powerful minister. The reason is because I believe that our society is not receptive towards alternative ideas.

Let me cite a personal example. Two years ago, I applied for a PSC local scholarship tied to the Home Affairs ministry. To me, it was the right decision for me to apply for the scholarhsip because, as a idealist, I wanted to join the ministry to help make a part of Singapore society better and, coming from not a well-to-do family, a scholarship would free me from financial worries.

I was quite confident that I could at least land an interview. I was (and still am) on track for a first class honours degree, and I have been actively involved in the Students’ Union as a key appointment holder. I reasoned that even though my ‘A’ level grades were not fantastic, my current performance in university clearly shows that my grades then were not an accurate reflection of my true ability. I should be able to stand up to the competition from fresh ‘A’ level JC graduates.

To my dismay, I did not even get a letter of rejection. I had to email the Home Affairs Ministry, which then informed me that I was unsuccessful. I wasn’t even granted an interview, despite having proven myself in university. It led me to realise that ‘A’ level grades are all that matters to the civil servants deciding on the scholarships. My achievements after ‘A’ levels counted for nothing.

There are plenty of stories of scholars who break their bonds. Many of them break bonds because better offers came their way after they signed on the dotted line. At the tender age of 18, how many of them actually understand the implications of signing on the dotted line? When I make the decision to apply for the scholarship, I was 22. I had 4 more years of experience (and that includes 2.5 years of National Service), making me more mature than a fresh JC graduate. Logically speaking, I would be less likely to be a bond breaker, since I’m more mature when I made the decision. And, there’s no gurantee that a 4 As JC graduate will be a first class honours degree holder. At least I have my university grades to prove my worth.

Despite all the obvious problems with awarding scholarships to young JC graduates who might have no clue what they actually want to do in life, the PSC still decided to have it business as usual. I can only conclude that despite having full knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages, the civil service, by deciding to do things the way they have always been doing, is resistant to change.

Therefore, even though I am glad that you want the young to step out, I remain skeptical on whether what I have to offer will be accepted. There is no point for me to talk if at the end of the day, people are not receptive to new ideas.

The Straits Times quoted you as saying, “We’re looking for a young generation to come along and take the team forward. And if you go to another country…will you be heard? What will be your impact on public life on the community in a country with a few hundred million people?”

To that, my response is this: If there is no point in me talking in my own country, does it make a difference to me whether I choose to live here or to go to another country? You were also quoted as saying that young people should make a nuisance of themselves until things change. Sure, I can make a nuisance of myself, but will people see that I am genuinely interested in trying to create progress, or will they think that I am a troublemaker and simply ignore me, or worse, find ways and means to destroy this irritant?

While your effort to engage the young is commendable, I do not think that it is enough, unless there is a marked shift in the mentality of our society. Only when our society is mature enough to accept alternative ideas, and also to accept that having an alternative view does not mean having an opposing view. I still remember how the Worker’s Party manifesto unveiled earlier this year was rapidly gunned down by PAP politicians. I do not think that their ideas were wrong; it’s merely a different approach of looking at things. However, our PAP leaders took their manifesto with a view that it’s oppositional and must be crushed. This is what scares me.

John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural address, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”

To that I reply, “Sure, but is my country able to accept what I want to do for my country?”

Sincerely,

Aaron

P.S. Before this letter could go out, a friend of mine read it and worriedly asked if I had actually sent it out. He was relieved when I said no, saying that I was too young to have my name to this letter. It is just uncanny how it proves my point that people are 1) resistant to new ideas and 2) viewing that alternative ideas are always oppositional. He was just being concerned, but I think that if I have to be afraid of speaking my mind in my own country, I might as well pack up and go right now.