Liberal democracy

I once went for a job interview with the civil service (I won't say which ministry) that involved job applicants having a little 'discussion' on an assigned topic. One topic was the Prophet cartoons and the huge row they made elsewhere. The topic was initially left open-ended (ie. discuss the cartoons), so we could focus on any aspect of the issue. Halfway through the discussion, however, the facilitator suggested we talk about why there was no such ruckus in Singapore.

After a few suggestions were thrown out, the facilitator stepped in again, and 'suggested' that 'perhaps' the reason there was no unhappiness in Singapore was the success of the government's multi-racial, multi-religious policies.

The facilitator asked us whether we thought it was important for Singapore to maintain its multi-racial policies... and there was a whole chorus of vehement, ringing 'yes'. (and I mean this literally. I kid you not.) We're all Made in Singapore after all. No, I didn't act any differently.

And that section of the discussion ended there. (the other topic we had to discuss was how to get graduates to marry each other and reproduce... and no, we didn't discuss if this was something the government should do.)

Ok, maybe since it was a job interview, people felt compelled to go along with the facilitator. I certainly felt that way. Nevertheless, the way the agenda for the discussion was set by the facilitator, and the way we had our opinions spoon-fed to us was really disappointing.

I wonder if the facilitators or organizers thought about the fact that while they're evaluating us for the job, we're also evaluating them as potential employers. It could be that they thought the prestige (and salary) that went with the job was enough to buy anyone over. It also makes you wonder what kind of people eventually end up in the high levels of the civil service, if such people are picked through selections like this.

During a class discussion, a student who worked for some time in the civil service commented that it was not fair for the Western liberal democracies to tell countries like Singapore to 'liberalize' since they don't know what is best for us. Funny, isn't that usually the argument for liberal democracy? That the government does not, cannot know what is best for the people?

I'm not saying there're no liberal or dissenting voices within the civil service. I'm just wondering if these unorthodox voices are ignored. Perhaps those of you in the civil service will know the situation better. As for myself, I'm pretty discouraged by my 'encounters of the third kind'.

There will be some of you who'll tell me that each company has its own orthodoxies that employees have to follow. I agree entirely. However, politics is a different ballgame altogether. A government is not a company. You can leave a company if you want to, even risking a period of unemployment. You don't have an emotional attachment to the company the way you might have to your country. Your company doesn't permeate all areas of your life, from your marriage, to your entertainment on tv, to your utility bills. I hope. Politics is emotional, it is about the things we value the most - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I'm supposed to be studying now! But you see, ever since I stopped being apathetic, I've been so consumed by regular bouts of outrage that I've stopped being productive as well.