By Dr Yuen Chung Kwong

One of the very unique terms of Singapore's political lexicon is "OB Markers" – OB being short for "Out of Bound". While the meaning of this is very clear in Singapore, what would a foreign reader make of it? Is this about golf or soccer? Is it related to Outward Bound (an organization to promote youth travel to gain experience and exposure)? A brand of whiteboard pen?

To explain using, again, uniquely Singaporean expressions, OB Markers draw the line where "sensitive" ends and "insensitive" begins; in other words, where you get into trouble. You are allowed to talk about "sensitive" issues, as long as you do not become so "insensitive" that you begin to say things you should not say. How do you know when you have strayed across the OB Markers by talking insensitively about sensitive issues? When someone in power gets upset at you of course. But if you mean before that… It is up to your own judgement not to become insensitive when talking about sensitive matters… If you are unable to judge that, you should not be talking about sensitive matters.

Now foreigners might say "someone gets upset; what's the big deal?" Well, Singapore is a company town, the headquarters of Singapore Inc, and more or less everyone is working for the same employer; so people are anxious about being "insensitive" and would like to see all the OB Markers surrounding "sensitive" issues; unfortunately, people who determine where the markers are, might prefer not to lay all their sensitivities out for others to see.

"Civic Society" was once another frequently heard expression; I even vaguely remember people organizing public seminars to discuss how to promote it. Obviously, a civic society exists in Singapore and consists of many aspects; by doing something to improve a particular aspect, say public facilities for disable people, art museums, or antique car restoration, you have in some way made a contribution to "civic society", but what exactly does "promoting the concept of civic society" mean?

It is first necessary to explain that "civic society" is generally speaking not "sensitive" and does not give rise to the need for "OB Markers". If people are involved in those aspects that interest them, they cease to be apathetic; if they are involved in organizational activities, they get experience in following decision making procedures, consensus building and public rules of conduct. Hence. promoting "civic society" gives people scope to learn to be good citizens without risking the crossing of OB Markers.

Unfortunately this is simplistic. I can cite two incidents to show how fragile "civic society" is. First is the case of National Kidney Foundation. Second is the Singapore Roundtable.

The first has by now fallen below the radar of public attention, but in its turbulent days, generated a series of lawsuits, including criminal cases involving its former CEO and Management Board members. The second has disappeared even more completely. The first involved large sums of money from the public; its proceeding shows that ultimately the government has to exercise authority to manage public money and apply final judgement. The second assumed that there are meaningful things besides power and money which groups of knowledgeable people can discuss and organize, but they soon found that nobody, themselves included, were interested.

Hegel said that ideas progress through thesis, antithesis and synthesis. You need antithesis to fully understand thesis and to progress through synthesis, whether you are talking about civic society or politics and money – recall that the NKF incident pitted NKF management thesis against a SPH reporter's antithesis, before Health Ministry intervention led to synthesis. Remember also Marx's "History repeats, first time as tragedy, second time as farce" and Santayana's "Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it".

Returning to OB Markers, Archimedes said "Give me pivot and I shall move the earth"; I say "give me OB marker and I shall show where 'sensitive' ends and 'insensitive' begins".

Yuen Chung Kwong completed his PhD in Computer Science from Sydney University in 1972 and worked in Australia and Hongkong before joining NUS Computer Science Department in 1983; he was department head from 1985 to 1993 and retired in 2007.

You May Also Like

Singapore is again named the world’s most expensive cities for expats, along with Hong Kong and Paris: EIU Survey

According to a survey by Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) released on Tuesday…

Local cat cafe investigated over death of cats and lack of training

Cuddles cat cafe, a local cat cafe is said to be investigated…

希盟“分崩离析”、流失马来人支持 前外交官比拉哈里:致新马关系升温

新加坡外交部前常任秘书比拉哈里认为,现今的马国执政联盟希望联盟正“分崩离析”,加上无法稳住马来族群的支持,也导致新马两国不睦关系加剧。 他也指出,当希盟在去年的马国第14届选举中获胜执政,马上新马两国的陈年旧账又被搬到台面上。 近期发生的新马双边课题包括新马水供、新柔港口界限以及领空议题。比拉哈里指出,这些都是长久无法解决的课题,并指出马国只是想拿这些课题来炒作,藉此继续争取民众的支持。 根据《透视大马》报导,在新加坡国立大学举行的一场题为《新加坡、印尼和马来西亚关系》讲座上,比拉哈里向在场约200名学生表示,马哈迪把新加坡当成“妖怪”(bogeyman)鞭挞,乃是屡试不爽的策略,以前当巫统领导人是这样,现在成为希盟土著团结党主席后也这样。 希盟出现内斗 “这已经不只是个人历史包袱的问题了”,他说,马哈迪的个人特色固然是导因之一,但最重要的是,希盟政府盟党行动不一致,内部已在分裂。 他引述默迪卡民调中心的研究,指出马来选票被希盟、巫统以及伊斯兰党瓜分,这三大政党正为马国最大族群的选票而竞争。 他认为,如果希盟要在来届选举继续执政,必将拼力保住马来人选票,这也将加剧希盟内部的不稳定。 基于希盟内斗以及伊斯兰教原教旨主义的壮大,他预见马国政局动荡仍会持续一段时日。 比拉哈里建议我国的新领导层,要和马国打交道,就要继续维持我国的军事能力,展现实力,这是因为马国领导人会“一直试图打压和驯服我国”,即便新加坡已是受认可的主权国家。 “今天,我们的邻邦把我们当作主权国家,这是因为我们发展出了他们无可忽视的能力。” 武力胁迫和谈判都是外交的一部分…