The Blame Dialogues

UPDATE: Rory Miller posted something very similar about responsibility and blame on his blog. He wrote about the issue way more eloquently and concisely than I did.

To quote: “The criminals already know it’s wrong. The issue is that they don’t care. You can’t fix caring through reason. It’s a deeper part of the brain.

“I don’t want people to get hurt. So I place the responsibility to stay safe on the potential victim. NOT because it is just or because I want the world to be this way. I place it there because, faced with a violent bad guy, the victim is likely the only one there who gives a rat’s ass about her safety.”
And, more importantly:
“[N]o one in this argument is dismissing the crime. Nobody. No one in the discussion, not here or anywhere, is actually blaming the victim. That’s why it is so important to distinguish between responsibility and blame; to make a solid point that bad acts are morally and judicially wrong but doing what one can to prevent bad acts is common sense.”
That’s pretty much a summary of my stance. But I urge you to read his post to fully understand what we’re getting at.

Two days ago, Kirsten Han, Lynn Lee, Marc MacYoung and I tried to hold a discussion on ‘victim blaming’ on Facebook. After insults were thrown around, I started a new post to get everybody back on track. The note I wrote is reproduced below.

My Facebook page is a hate-free zone. Marc, Kirsten, Lynn – we’re not children in a playground screaming, “No YOU’RE wrong!” We’re adults having a discussion. I didn’t start this discussion to polarise people. I started this topic so we could exchange views rationally. If you want to insult each other, that’s what the private messaging function is for. Please keep it out of my page. I’m going to summarise your views and throw in mine. It’s start to start again…and this time, let’s do it like adults.

What has this fight boiled down to? Differing interpretations of blame and responsibility. Different perspectives and opinions of the world. Different cultures.

Kirsten and Lynn, your perspectives are fairly similar so I’m going to lump them together. Your essential argument is that people – society, advocates, victims, and everybody else – should pin the blame on crimes on perpetrators. Calling for victims to take responsibility for their actions is equivalent to victim-blaming. Such behaviour reinforces the trauma they’ve been through, making it more difficult for them to go to the police. This also reinforces social and cultural norms that shame the victim and allow rapists to walk free.

Kirsten, you’re going one step further. You said responsibility and blame are not mutually exclusive, that there is no inherent contradiction in blaming the bad guy for doing what he did, while taking responsibility for personal safety.

Marc, you argue that taking responsibility for your safety and refusing to blame the bad guy is the least traumatizing option in the long run. By taking responsibility, you mean not engaging in high-risk behaviours and not putting yourself in dangerous situations with the expectation that someone else is obliged to look after you, and everybody else is supposed to leave you alone.  You argue that walking around with this attitude makes the trauma from violence even worse than it already is.  You also said that your emphasis has always been on crime prevention, while the stance favoured by advocates is healing the trauma.

Folks, do you see now that you’re talking at and above each other? Kirsten and Lynn are focusing on the emotional aftermath. Marc talked about preventing the crime, and how existing attitudes towards personal safety influences the psychological trauma caused by violent crime. Kirsten, Lynn, you’ve been on this thread for a while, which implies that you’ve been reading and absorbing everything Marc and I’ve said. By talking about different things, instead of engaging us, we’ve landed at this point.

Kirsten, Lynn: Marc and I don’t use words like ‘blame’ and ‘responsibility’ very casually. To us, each word has a specific, discrete meaning that people may not immediately grasp. The word ‘shorts’, for example, can be used to describe a piece of clothing you wear to cover your pelvic region. To some writers, it’s an abbreviated form for ‘short stories’. Likewise, people use ‘argue’ to mean a noisy quarrel, but I use it to mean persuading someone through reason. This is why I linked to Marc’s sites, to draw upon his definitions. I sense you two have conflated the words, leading to our current disagreement.

Marc: Kirsten and Lynn are fairly high-profile figures in local civil society. They’re bloggers, activists, film-makers, volunteers and part of the growing group of people working towards a more democratic and equal society in Singapore. They face societal censure every time they do something that’s perceived as contrary to the government’s wishes, and are routinely stonewalled by government officials. Passion drives them. What you’re looking at is their passion coming to the forefront. In this country, passion is in very short supply. More often than not, the one thing that garners support for different campaigns, campaigns like fair treatment for foreign migrant workers and helping the homeless instead of pretending they don’t exist, is passion.

Kirsten and Lynn: Marc grew up in the most crime-infested places in one of the most crime-ridden cities in the United States. It’s a place where people don’t trade insults unless they’re willing to back them with knives and guns and blood. It’s rubbed off on him, and it still shows in the way he talks to people, especially those he has a thing against. During his professional life, he had had to deal with advocates and feminists and a whole lot of people who made millions of dollars off supporting the notions of anti-victim-blaming and slamming everybody else who says anything else about rape. I’ll bet he’s got a checklist in his head, and he’s comparing everything he knows about you to that checklist. I wouldn’t be surprised if the results turn up: closed-minded fanatical feminist. He’s had to deal with a lot of them, and you’re not acting any differently from them.

This, then, is my take.

I don’t play the blame game, and I do everything I can to take responsibility for everything I do. I don’t call for people to drop the blame game and take responsibility because it makes me feel good. This isn’t something abstract to me. I do this because it works. Because this mindset kept me sane.

Kirsten and Lynn, I sense you don’t know very much about violence. About the psychological aspects of violence. So I’m going to talk about it. Violence is inherently traumatic. The greater the violence, the greater the trauma for the survivors. It doesn’t matter who’s doing what to whom. If a threat beats down on you, you’ll be scarred. If you have to gauge an eyeball to fight off a rapist, you’ll always remember what it feels like. Now I’m probably over-simplifying things, but the point is: there is a psychic cost to violence.

Imagine you’ve been attacked by someone. You survived the encounter, but funny things start to happen. When you hear the word ‘honey’, you go way back into that dark alley when that dark man whispered ‘honey’ into your ear while pressing himself against you and undoing his pants. It’s so real, so vivid, the lover you’re talking to in the present doesn’t register in your brain. When you go to bed and close your eyes, the threat is right there in your face with a knife and you have to kill him and you fire a palm heel into his chin and scratch his eyes and you launch yourself out of bed and onto the floor. In your idlest hours, you may find yourself picking at a scar at your throat. When you catch yourself doing that, you go right back to that time when the guy you thought you knew grabbed a pair of scissors and he’s going to kill you and you have to fight your way out. And when you’re done, you’re standing in a fighting stance, your hands shaking, hot adrenaline-laced blood screaming in your veins, your heart pounding in your brain.

And if you’re lucky? You only have to live this for a few months.

This is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Notice that I used multiple examples? That’s because human behaviour occurs in clusters. You’re not looking at one or two events. You’re looking at ALL of the above, plus all the more minor signs of PTSD that I don’t have the time to type out. Expect to see this throughout this essay.

When exposed to trauma, your brain relives the event again and again and again. When you’re in danger, your body produces a flood of adrenaline and hormones that makes you stronger and faster. But these hormones lead to emotions like rage or joy, and this leaves an indelible mark on the brain. Your brain is now hard-wired to release this same chemical cocktail when you encounter stimuli. If you know what you’re doing, you’ll be able to desensitize yourself, and these things won’t occur so frequently and so intensely.

But what happens if you blame the bad guy? What if you assume that everybody should have the courtesy to leave you alone? You define yourself as a victim. You may think, He did this to ME! I hate him!

So every time you trip a trigger, you remember the bad guy and what he did to you. Then your brain cycles the event again and again and again, rewriting neural pathways to make it even easier for you to remember what he did, and make it even easier to signal the production of adrenaline. It’s the brain’s natural feedback loop, and you’re turning it into a vicious cycle. Plus, defining yourself in opposition to somebody – AKA blaming the bad guy – makes the emotional response even stronger, and therefore harder to break.

What happens next? You’re lying on your bed staring at the ceiling the whole night. And suddenly the bad guy is there IN YOUR FACE. You stab him again and again and again, you feel the steel sliding into soft, yielding flesh, feel the blood bursting onto your hands. But he just grins, and overpowers you. And you wake up and it’s four in the morning and you can’t sleep for the rest of the night. When someone places his hands on your throat from behind, you break his grip, and almost destroy his fingers, and drive him into a wall…and it turns out you’ve just beat on the local idiot who was just horsing around, and now everybody you work with looks at you strange. And when everybody talks to you, they just annoy you. Or make you angry. Can’t they see how you feel? Why are they so insensitive?

See, your brain is now hardwired to be angry, and to avoid stimuli. But since nearly everything triggers your anger, you’re in a perpetual state of low-grade rage. And nobody cares but you and everybody who borrows your pain as their own. Everybody else doesn’t know what it’s like, and can never hope to know what it’s like without going through what you’ve been through. And why should they care? It’s not relevant to their lives. All they see is a bitter, angry, selfish person who can’t see past his pain.

What happens if you take responsibility for personal safety AND blame the bad guy? Fortunately, you won’t spontaneously combust. But the way your brain is wired now, you’re setting yourself up for paranoia. Standing against someone generates a stronger emotional response than standing for someone, and it influences the way you think. This means you’ll learn techniques because a bad guy did something to you and you want to stop it from happening again – not learning techniques to keep yourself safe.

Once you define yourself as a victim, you’re on the lookout for threats. By ‘taking responsibility for personal safety’, you arm yourself with the tools to reinforce your belief that you were a victim. So you look around corners and clear your blind spots, because you just KNOW there’s a mad knife-wielding maniac behind the next turn. You keep looking over your shoulder, because the man who attacked you is still out there, and he promised to come back for you if you report him to the police. Which, as a responsible citizen, you did. When you see someone behind you, you spend the next half-hour going into crowded buildings, making sharp turns around multiple corners, and crossing several streets – just in case he’s following you and setting you up for an attack. And if you’re attacked again –  your self-defence techniques have failed and you’re a victim all over again and it’s all your fault.

This is no way to stay sane.

Understand that defining yourself as a victim is seductive. You get to have power over everybody. You get to influence how they act towards you by lashing out at them whenever they trip a trigger. You can get people to praise your courage and soothe your pain by talking to advocates and victim support groups. You can avoid the pain of talking about what happened by saying it’s too painful.

But the fires of your anger will burn your bridges to your friends and loved ones, and the glue you craft out of sorrow and pain will bring you to people who are equally angry and bitter. Is it worth it?

The thing about trauma is that it NEVER goes away. Ever. Once you’ve been seared by combat, you are forever changed. Your brain won’t let you forget. The moment you think you’ve buried your demons, something  – a place, a person, a conversation – occurs and they come bursting out of the ground like unrepentant zombies whispering, I’m still here.

The best you can do is make peace with yourself. The first step involves putting down the mantle of victimhood. That means choosing to be somebody, not to stand against somebody. It means choosing to recognize you’re terribly wounded, and healing your wounds instead of letting them fester. It means choosing to develop strength and resilience, not anger and bitterness. It means choosing to understand the world and the people in it, instead of choosing to see a delusion born of self-centredness.

This is the true meaning of responsibility: holding yourself to higher external standards of behaviour, and refusing to be moved by fleeting whims and destructive emotions.

So what I stand for? The bad guy is responsible for what he did. The average citizen is responsible for looking after himself…and the average victim is responsible to the exact degree in which she entered the circumstances that led to her attack. If at all.

I’ve been accused of victim blaming. What I’m doing is showing people how to take care of themselves, and the probable consequences of not looking after themselves. I tell people not to play the blame game – for both criminal and victim – because such behaviour is unhealthy.

Criminals do not care about you. They do not care that you don’t want to be raped, robbed or killed. They don’t care that you want to walk around in high heels and a miniskirt without being accosted. They don’t care about all that. All they care about is the risk/reward ratio in their head. Feel free to walk around in high heels and miniskirts. It’s your choice, and I have NEVER said you could not do this or you’ll get raped.

All I’ve said, really, is that if you dress and act in ways that paint you as a target – specifically, by dressing like a target, not paying attention to your surroundings, AND entering high-crime areas alone – criminals will pay attention to you. Do the opposite, and they will not.

In my essay above, I mentioned clusters of behaviour. The same applies here. Preventing rape isn’t as simple as wearing clothes festooned with buckles. My critics think I’m saying that, but I do not and have never done so. I’m talking about clearing blind spots, scanning rooms, drinking no more than your limit, being peaceable and friendly to everybody you meet, travelling in groups, avoiding dark places, and so much more. And most of all: recognising that we live in a world where people use violence to take what they want, and nobody cares about your safety but you. The people who make money or get emotional satisfaction from it are a distant second.

(Now go read books by the self-defence experts who define the field. This blog is too small to teach you how to take care of yourself.)

The more of such actions you take, the lower the risk of being attacked, and vice versa. It doesn’t completely eliminate risk – but it does reduce risk to acceptable levels. And hey – this does free you to wear the clothes you like too. On the personal safety scale, choice of clothing is less important than tactics and mindsets.

This is why I keep saying, ‘personal responsibility’. You’re living up to standards of behaviour that discourage criminal behaviour and empowers you to look after yourself.

The core to the victim blaming phenomenon is the victim. I’m showing people how not to be victims, and if they’ve been attacked, how to move and live a healthier life, without the albatross of ‘victim’ hanging over their heads, and without being attacked again.

SlutWalk: Noble but misguided

SlutWalk is coming to Singapore. And I’m not pleased.

My problem with SlutWalk is NOT about its goal to redefine the word ‘slut’, encouraging women to express their sexuality, or even its stance that rape is a crime. Had SlutWalk defined its goals as such, I wouldn’t have slammed it. I might have encouraged it. But SlutWalk perpetuates myths and fallacies about rape and victim-blaming, and I can’t tolerate that.

Things that matter

SlutWalk Singapore x Kuala Lumpur’s Facebook page says that one of its goals is ‘to stop victim-blaming in sexual assault, which is a crime that has nothing to do with what we wear or even sex.’ This reveals a dangerous misunderstanding of sexual assault.

Clothing matters. Rapists prefer women who wear clothes that are easy to remove. Rapists want to do the deed as quickly as possible, to minimise risk to themselves. The more time they spend removing clothes, the more time the victim has to defend herself and call attention to the rape-in-progress. Rapists aren’t necessarily turned on by scantily clad targets – but they will prefer targets who are easier to attack.

Sex matters. Most rapists are men who target women. Therefore, women are more at risk than men.

Such a statement betrays a shallow understanding of rape, and it shows again and again in SlutWalk’s statements and activities.

Rapists don’t care

SlutWalk says ‘We need to teach “DO NOT RAPE” instead of “do not get raped”.’ This is admirable. But SlutWalk is going the wrong way. SlutWalk’s main vehicle is a protest march, largely by young women. Members also conduct workshops, fora and meetings. This approach will not work.

A protest march is a public expression of group opinion – but rapists don’t care. They don’t see themselves as part of society. (More on that below.) Protests can’t pressure someone who won’t feel it.

Workshops, fora and meetings attract people who have a stake in the topic. Rapists do not. They won’t show up. They may know someone who attended such a workshop – so they’ll just take her and her friends off their target list, if they care. Or put them on the list, if they care that much. (Again, more below.)

Profile of Rape

SlutWalk’s fundamental problem is its ignorance of rape and rapists.

A complete dissertation on sexual assault is beyond the scope of this blog. I recommend reading this page, all the links on the main article, AND all the links on each sub-page for an overview on rape. Especially this. At the risk of oversimplification, though, there are two kinds of rapists: predatory and social.

A predatory rapist is the stereotype of a rapist. He’s portrayed jumping out of a dark corner and ambushing helpless young women. Such a person is probably antisocial – he doesn’t care about, and violates, the rights of others. There are differing estimates on the rapes caused by predatory rapists. Marc MacYoung suggests multiple figures, none of them exceeding 15%. Statistically speaking, a woman is less likely to be attacked by a predatory rapist.

Which means she is more likely to be attacked by a social rapist. A social rapist is someone known to the victim. He’s an abusive, self-centred, angry, and violent bully known to the victim. He’s an acquaintance, a friend, a lover, a husband, or a relative. The degree of probability decreases with each level of intimacy. But the amount of effort needed to recognise the threat increases. So is the effort needed to deal with them. It’s easy to close an eye or justify the same behaviour we would condemn in a complete stranger in order to keep the peace and maintain the relationship. Modern women are socially trained to smooth things over in times of interpersonal conflict. It’s not wrong, but social rapists abuse that mechanism to get away with their behaviour.

A predatory rapist isn’t moved by popular outrage. He doesn’t even see himself as part of society. A social rapist doesn’t care…and may turn on ‘his’ woman if he learns she took part in something like SlutWalk. It’s not rape to him; he’s just putting her in his place.

Victim blaming?

The heart of SlutWalk’s stance on rape is its attack on ‘victim-blaming’. SlutWalk believes that society pins all the ‘blame’ of a rape on the victim instead of the rapist. On the surface, this is only logical. A rapist committed a rape, therefore the rapist is to blame. But this is a shallow way of looking at rape – the rape probably occurred because the victim didn’t look after herself.

Predatory rapists like to ambush their targets. The key word is ambush. They wait in dark, secluded areas, and assess everybody who walk by. As soon as they see a target, they strike. Predators can be avoided by going where they can’t hide and not provoking an attack. Personal safety is beyond the scope of this blog, but for more information, there are plenty of books and websites available. I favour Marc MacYoung, Gavin De Becker, and Rory Miller. While geared towards an American audience, much of what they say applies across cultures and borders. More importantly, they make sense, and their tactics work.

Social rapists are people you interact with. To avoid being raped by them, cut them out of your life, and spread the word about them. The closer they are to you, the more difficult it is to do it. It is more difficult to ditch an acquaintance than a boss, coworker, or spouse. But cutting off potential threats in your innermost social circles is always preferable to the trauma of sexual violence, or having to inflict violence to prevent it. Preserving your health, mental, emotional and physical, outweighs the costs of removing threats. Further, potential rapists tend to fit a profile: if you know what to look for, you can take appropriate measures. They’re not that difficult to spot; they tend to be misogynistic bullies or slick charmers.

Most rapes occur because a woman took a risk, and got burned. She took a risk by walking down a dark alley, by ignoring the three young men lined up against a wall, by leaving a charming handsome stranger alone with her drink, by continuing to live with her abusive husband, and she paid the price. But these are avoidable risks. Most crimes occur this way. It’s controllable, even eliminated in some cases.

I advocate personal responsibility. It is NOT mutually exclusive with putting an end to victim blaming. But SlutWalk’s strident call to end victim blaming is fundamentally flawed: victim-blaming, or lack of it, occurs AFTER the rape has occurred. It’s a Band-aid on an open wound. I’d rather prevent the rape from happening, and that means looking after yourself.

By learning how to stay safe, and putting these theories into practice, anybody can avoid most, if not all, kinds of crime. Including and especially rape. SlutWalk doesn’t recognise that personal safety is a personal responsibility. The victim didn’t encourage someone to attack her, but she brought herself into the circumstances that allowed someone to attack her.

Sense, not just passion

SlutWalk’s focus on rape has more passion than reason. It repeats the tired slogans of ending victim-blaming without understanding criminal behaviour and personal safety. Instead of teaching women to take care of themselves, SlutWalk chose to send a message that rapists will not acknowledge. Instead of understanding rape, SlutWalk perpetuated anti-victim-blaming. Instead of standing for personal safety, it stands against rape.

SlutWalk is clearly founded on passion. But passion is not enough. Its mission statement is a collection of feel-good statements, not an attempt to address reality. Its activities call for solidarity among fellow believers instead of addressing potential and actual rapists.  As an anti-rape platform, SlutWalk is doomed.

Changing Times

Professor Philip Zimbardo outlined in this video how a person is influenced by his perspective of time. Applied to Singapore, his theory neatly summarises the fundamental divide between the nation and the state.

Singapore’s government is fundamentally backwards-looking. Singapore’s key policies ensure stability and security, in response to social unrest and uncertainty stretching from the Japanese Occupation to the early 1970s. Singapore’s military policy is, of course, based on the fall of Singapore in 1942. The government’s emphasis on education and economic growth had its roots in the 10-12% unemployment and widespread non-education of post-secession Singapore. Singapore’s tough stance on crime grew from the days when gangster kings and secret societies ruled the streets. Multiculturalism and multiracialism evolved from the race riots of the 60s.

This focus on stability has informed the government’s most controversial policies. The government has justified the retention of the death penalty by claiming that capital punishment keeps society safe. Censorship along sexual, political, racial and religious lines is maintained to preserve society’s moral sensibilities and some unarticulated balance in our apparently delicate multi-racial society. Male homosexual activity remains criminalised for the same reason. Public demonstrations and speeches are stringently regulated to preserve peace and order. The government is now looking into means to ‘regulate’ new media through the Media Development Authority and the Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts. Beyond these policies is a desire to keep Singapore just the way it is now, leaving the country in a perpetual present tense.

The current generation of Singaporeans do not see things that way. The most vocal of them think in terms of making a better world. The campaign against the mandatory death penalty is based on the belief that the justice system can be improved. The Section 377A abolitionists believe in a future which all citizens, regardless of preferences, may live as equals. Programs to help migrant workers are founded on the notion that every worker, regardless of nationality, has certain unalienable rights – that of fair wages, safe working environments, protection from unscrupulous employers, and discrimination.

The government has been accused of being disconnected from the people, of being so far removed that the government’s policies are no longer relevant to Singapore. Looking through this paradigm, it is easy to see why. The government is obsessed with security, and having secured Singapore’s political and economic survival, wishes for Singapore to continue surviving. In its view, the only way of doing this is through exercising and maintaining political dominance. The government sees itself as Singapore’s sole saviour, casts itself in this light, and insists on being so even in this day and age. Its previous strategy of creating and maintaining political dominance has worked for it in the past – so it doesn’t see a need to change. The government, after all, is a bureaucracy, and bureaucracies are the most perfect of human self-perpetuating machines. It will not change without a very strong reason, if at all.

Conversely, Generations Y and Z are preoccupied with the future. They know that the government has secured Singapore’s past and present, and now they wish to have a say in the future. Their minds are not coloured by the key historical events – the war, the riots, the crimes, the crackdowns – that informed the mindsets of their parents and grandparents. They were born too close to the millennium and too far away from the 60s to care. They feel no obligation to the government or the People’s Action Party as a result. Neither are they afraid. This group of citizens is fluent with the languages of digital technology and social media. The people are empowered through casual networks, blogs, Twitter, YouTube, and the other trappings of the Information Generation. Through them, the youths of today can communicate, organise and act faster, more cheaply, and more efficiently to and for a much wider audience than ever before. Man is a social animal, and the ability to influence other human animals is power. This power emboldens. The Online Citizen, for instance, has been steadily growing and expanding its influence and size since 2006. TOC’s coverage of the 2011 elections was received with widespread approval, confirming TOC in the top tier of Singaporean bloggers. TOC now aims to be Singapore’s alternative news site by 2016 – not merely a group blog, but an equivalent of a newspaper with activism on the side. The embodiment of alternative journalism.

What we see today is a clash of paradigms. The government seeks to maintain its paradigm of political dominance because it believes such a mindset is necessary for Singapore’s continued survival. The Information Generation seeks to assert its influence, as an extension of current abilities and political rights. The government is past-obsessed and present-oriented, while the Information Generation is present-oriented and future-obsessed.

Something has got to give.

The Chinese speak of wealth in three generations. The first generation creates wealth. The second holds it. The third spends it. I see things a little differently. Everything – politics, systems, animals, schools of thought, technologies, furniture – goes through three phases: generation, organisation, destruction. But this cycle does not end. The destruction phase flows smoothly into generation, and the cycle goes on.

The Information Generation is not the enemy. It is not out to destroy Singapore and Singapore’s culture. Conversely, the government is not the enemy. It is not out to oppress the people and implement a dictatorship. But times have changed. Policies, approaches and mindsets that ensured political stability and survival in 1971 will ensure stagnancy in 2021. The time of the dominance paradigm has come to an end. But the cycle of politics goes on. A new paradigm must come to replace it This new paradigm is one of synergy and syzygy. Cooperation and union.

The government prides itself on making hard decisions as opposed to following popular opinion. The underlying assumption here is that people are stupid and popular opinion is always skewed towards short-term interests. So the government takes it upon itself to do the right thing based on hard facts and data. Yet the government does not know everything. It cannot. It thinks of itself as a central clearing house of data. Data, ranging from government studies to white papers to ground feedback flows in, and policies come out. However, the government insists on ignoring the Information Generation, and is only now beginning to stumble towards an understanding of new media. Such an approach angers and alienates the people – they literally speak and think differently from the politicians. The government sees power flowing from the top to the bottom and information from the bottom to the top. These days, people view power flowing laterally and situationally, with information being exchanged all around for the greater good. The government creates policies that fit their view of how Singapore works, not policies that address how people see Singapore, and refuses to bridge the gap beyond press conferences and slamming new media. Policies that fit how the politicians see Singapore, not Singapore, must fail. The government thinks it sees Singapore clearly, but unless they talk to the people in the same language, they will not.

Conversely, the Information Generation cannot afford to alienate the government either. They believe they have what it takes to change the world and set things right. They have won the support of the people through rallies, blogs, notes, fora, and campaigns. But political power rests in the hands of the state. Parliament decides laws, and the arms of the state enforce them via the civil service and justice system. The people grant the state power to make and enforce decisions for the collective. If the government thinks its critics are rubbish, it will treat them accordingly – and nothing will change. Spewing bile at the government wins contempt. It will not make things any better, especially if the rest of the nation sees it as ignorance laced with anger. Working with the government – engaging the government – by taking part in the decision-making process means a chance to do reshape the country.

The government and the people see things differently. But ‘different’ is not automatically bad. Different is merely different. The spirit of democracy is to address every facet of society, and that means different opinions and perspectives have a say. It is time for the people and the state to grow beyond their stereotypes and the misconceptions. The government needs to engage the people, and the people the government. The alternative is an ivory tower for a government and undercurrents of rage waiting to explode. This is no alternative for Singapore.