On Monday we had another Tembusu Forum, the first for the semester. The theme was, "Is Singapore a Model City?". It was... okay. Much like the previous few forums. It seems that forum speakers are tending to shy away from contention and debate. For Monday's forum, only one speaker, Prof Heng Chye Kiang, attempted to problematise the issues, though only superfically. The other two panelists choose to give broad overviews instead. Prof Ian Smith didn't really say anything.
I think this growing "trend" would have a lot to do with the publicity and publicness of the forum. And that it’s recorded. Or maybe the speakers were briefed to speak that way? Not to say this renders them useless. I learnt an important lesson that night: one doesn't have to take away interesting "points" per se from these fourms. Good questions also count as learning. A few of them came up during the panel discussion.
Even though none of them were properly addressed (also becoming a tendency), they were questions to ponder on them. And, they spark new questions and discussion: How are the citizens involved in deciding what makes a model city? Does pride for their city matter? What about the ephemeral 'spirit' of a city? Is the question of "model city" even worth asking?
These were thoughts not only relevant to those taking the module, but also questions for us as citizen to chew on.
Anyway, on a lighter note, our lifts have been fitted with new light fixtures... what’s up with that? Now the lifts are pretty dim. Not really good or bad, just that it seemed like a pointless change. Not sure who decides these things in the college. Ho hum.
No comments:
Post a Comment