I'm a P65+10, give or take a few months. To me, the difference between hip-hop and break-dance is minimal, chiefly in the harm each will do to different parts of my body. I feel this is an activity best left to those who are at least P65+20.
Like most is them, I own an mp3 player - loaded, not with the latest hip-hop and pop tunes downloaded from the Internet, but classic rock ripped from my trusty CD collection.
I don't pretend to be like or even understand the P65+20s, but I do get to mix with them in the course of my work and leisure. Interestingly, not all of them dance hip-hop or keep a blog.
So, for the life of me, I simply cannot understand how our young P65+5 MPs, give or take a few years, could hope to connect with our youth simply by apeing them.
An "A" for the effort, of course, but would it be a dismal ''D'' for barking up the wrong tree?
Loh Chee Kong, in his article "A hip-hop MP who blogs? Why not?" (12 Oct) seems to think they have it spot on – a little ragged-breath, but receiving nothing worse than giggles from the kids. In fact, Loh believes that the MPs deserve some brownie points just for being gung-ho and sporting.
Not that being gung-ho and sporting are not praise-worthy traits. My concern is that our young MPs are not doing what we voted them in to do, despite what Loh claims to be the nation's expectation.
I mean, really. If I were to agree to part with $11,000 worth of taxes every month just to see a bloke in his mid-30s sweat and jive with the kids, our economy must be doing a lot better than reported.
No. When I cast my vote, I wanted an MP who listens more than prattle the party punch lines, who understands the aspirations of the next generation and have the courage to stand up for their interests in parliament, instead of having the courage to try some fancy footwork.
Instead, what I heard from both the young PAP and Opposition nominees back then stuck closely to what their parties championed for the majority, with hardly a peep for the youth. Or maybe I'm getting old and hard of hearing. Economy and jobs, check. Elderly matters, check. Racial harmony, check. Stuff for youths, rain check.
But that aside, our young MPs seem to truly believe that representing youths is something that should be done only by telling the country that they were born after 1965. And to prove that, what better way than to hip-hop into their hearts.
Is this what Loh believes the young MPs are doing to "redraw the political landscape and help establish a connection with young Singaporeans who do not see the relevance of politics in their everyday life"?
I never believed that our young were ever apathetic or cynical. I would challenge that their disassociation with politics is not because they don't see its relevance, but because they don't believe politics see them as relevant.
Perhaps it has to do with the way governments of most post-modern societies perceive youth - hard to define in that grey zone between children and adults, impressionable, with an excess of pent-up energy that must be expended on a good cause, least it leads to social unrest. From yesterday's CentrePoint Kids to today's keyboard critics, Singapore has had our fair share of trying to keep our youth within (mostly politically defined) positive engagement, not realising that the definition of active citizenry can mean something else to a very diverse population.
In essence, our hip-hopping MPs are doing little more than the parent trying to connect with and "be a friend" to his child by talking openly about premarital sex, when all his teenager really wants is someone to listen to his difficulties in landing that first date.
Our young MPs are not making the right moves, dancing or otherwise, and it is shocking when the writing is on nearly every blog that pokes fun at our politicians.
Sure, shake that white-trousered booty, if you, too, have some pent-up energy left over from your early youth to expend. But bear in mind that what the nation and youths expect of you, at the end of the day, is not for you to be like them, but to do you job being exactly who you are. A cursory glance at the online comments about this stunt points roughly to one thing – the MPs would be better off without their “connecting-with-youth stunts” and simply open up more to what youths truly value.
And in the spirit of active citizenry, I'll stop shooting from the hip and offer some suggestions to our P65 MPs:
- Drop the P65 tag. For most youths I have met, labels have more meaning on apparel items than on people. We like to chisel out neat little holes for every social demographic we have, just so that the group can be identified and “tackled”. But our youths are neither rugby balls nor problems. If you truly want to engage them as active citizens, start talking to them like they already are, because they already are.
- Get down to it, and I don’t mean try break-dancing. Chingay’s nice, but ask the youths why they participate, honestly, and most won’t give the fuddy-duddy “feels good to be part of Singapore” drivel. Get a taste of the hip-hop that’s happening in the Citylink-Esplanade underpass; but more importantly, get a feel of what their aspirations and dreams are.
- Listen, with ears wide open, before you act. Forget about writing your blogs until you get a feel of what youths out there are dreaming about. And try to remember that public forums are better off if you take them as places where people push you their agenda, not the other way around.
- When you had an earful, this is where you can start to connect. But don’t fall into the trap of starting every reply with “That’s a good point, but this is what the government’s standpoint is…" What happened to that good first point? Did you check if the youth in question is asking for the government’s official white paper to his simple opinion? As an MP, you are of greater importance feeling and voicing their concerns than you are at assuming you share the same concerns.
- As forever, accept a wider scope for active citizenship, instead of branding youths apathetic when they scoff at your programmes. If you believe in the diversity of our people, then you should realise by now that sanctioned programmes don’t always appeal to all and sundry. It takes a fair bit more searching to discover youths who are engaging their immediate communities in ways that might not always seem politically correct, yet would still have equal legitimacy as their unique contribution to society. N
