Davinder opens debate with posers Mr Davinder Singh's (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) opening speech in yesterday's debate on the President's Address was full of pointed questions for Singaporeans and the Government: What do the people really want? Can they take the heat when difficult issues are debated? Is the Government prepared to change its way to accommodate the expectations of young Singaporeans? Here are excerpts of his speech: Q: What is active citizenship? ACTIVE citizenship encapsulates a bargain. It is premised on the simple principle that there cannot be greater rights without greater responsibility. Put simply, Singaporeans cannot sit back and expect more "space" and the right to engage in "constructive disagreement" without contributing to the development of a system which can accommodate these rights... Singapore's success is due to certain basic strengths: teamwork, religious and racial harmony and a strong sense of family and community. These have come at a price. Singaporeans have had to sacrifice some of their individual rights for the larger interests of the community. For example, we do not make disparaging remarks about race, language, religion and culture. The result is stability. We do not defame without basis. As a consequence, reputations which are painstakingly built up are protected. The model that we seek to construct cannot ignore these core values. There is no point in demanding a larger voice if we are not prepared to maintain the fundamentals that have kept us together. The sooner we recognise this, the better. But as in all bargains, the Government too has an obligation. It has a duty to spell out its vision clearly as it can... That is not only fair, it is wise. Fair because people are entitled to know what they can legitimately expect if they take up the challenge of active citizenship. Wise because it is a dangerous business to hold out the promise of greater participation in public life without a clear explanation of what it involves. If people do not know what the Government has in mind, they will have all sorts of expectations. They will feel let down if those expectations are not met... This is very different from a programme to upgrade the infrastructure or grow the economy. Those tangibles can be measured. But an undertaking to give people a greater role in the affairs of the nation is an intangible one. People must believe that it is not an empty promise. Singaporeans must in due course be told in clear terms what active citizenship entails in terms of rights and responsibilities. Singaporeans must have a road map with clear points and markers. An ambiguous policy can be counter-productive. Perceived retreats from the pledges in the President's speech will be magnified many times over, as will the disillusionment with the Government. Q: What do Singaporeans want? THERE is a significant section of loyal Singaporeans which will welcome a relaxation of the norms. But there is a large and equally committed group of conservatives in this country which is very comfortable with the status quo. Their interests and aspirations cannot be ignored ... Too often, the debate between those who do not want change and those who do is reduced to whether the East or the West has the better model. But that is unhelpful. It distracts us from the issue of what is right for us. We should design our own formula. In doing that, we must take account of the views of all Singaporeans, not only those who are vocal. It is bad governance to cater only to those who want more, without regard for the anxieties and comfort levels of those who do not. Second, there has been very little debate about what we want, even among those who seek change. Perhaps this is due to the unfortunate turn which the argument sometimes takes. Attempts to push at the limits have met with vigorous and robust reactions. That has resulted in different signals being sent to different people. But at the end of the day, we are no wiser about what the Government and the people should aim to construct. Unless we identify what we want and are prepared for, we cannot sensibly advance these discussions. Third, we have to ask ourselves whether we are ready for an increased transfer of responsibility for our lives? Today, we rely on the Government for almost everything. For example, we let the Government decide what we can or cannot watch or read in Singapore. Many people find it convenient to abdicate these difficult decisions to the State ... Are Singaporeans ready to take more responsibility for theirs and their children's lives? The Internet is a good example. How many parents are prepared to tell the Government to stop censorship of the Internet because they want to decide what their children can and cannot access at home? I suspect you will find that many Singaporeans are happy with the status quo. It is not easy or popular to be a watchdog. Fourth, ... can we take the heat? If we want the right to criticise, we must accept the Government's corresponding right to rebut. We know this Government. It is not known for the subtlety of its replies. The moment we say that we want more participation but not the embarrassment of having our arguments torn apart, the debate about the debate ends. Q: Is the Government prepared for change? THE recent debate about whether we are ready to have the equivalent of a Hyde Park has resulted in mixed signals being sent by the Government. That is interesting because it tells us that even at the top, we are still grappling for some form of consensus about the desirable pace of change. That is an encouraging sign. It reflects an active discussion and therefore a deep interest in the issue. But other forces are at work which will soon test the Government's resolve to embrace change. The President's Speech reiterates the need to encourage individual creative work. That is an admirable objective. It will clearly have the support of every Singaporean. But it will take time. We need to change the mindset of a whole generation of parents, teachers and children. But in time, we will see a large group of highly creative people in this country. That will be positive for our economy. But it will also mean a new generation of Singaporeans with expectations and aspirations different from ours. One cannot encourage creativity and then compartmentalise it. Creativity will dramatically affect an individual's worldview. A person who is trained to think for himself and to think out of the box may well have very little tolerance for rigid structures, whether political or social. He may have no sympathy for a Government which tries to think for him. He is highly likely to reject the concept of OB markers. This new generation will want a say in everything which interests or concerns them. The Government must be prepared for their quirks and aspirations. Our institutions must be sufficiently tolerant and flexible to accommodate a wide range of different and sometimes, extraordinary, views. A knee-jerk rejection of these views would be disastrous. All the good work will come to nought. It may trigger the very flight of talent which our new policies are being designed to prevent. I will not be surprised if, over the next 10 to 15 years, young adults begin to insist on having their own OB markers; their own "space" where the Government cannot intrude. Is the Government prepared for that? These are some of the issues which we must confront squarely and honestly if we are to have a meaningful debate on the Government's focus on people.