From a Singapore Angle

Well, it has finally happened--from CNA (Mar 11):

[Dr Balakrishnan]: "[I]t's worthwhile thinking why Speakers' Corner is so underutilised. Is it because of something that we've done or that we've fixed it or that we've prevented you from speaking? The reason it's not in use is because there's no need for it!...

In the case of our young today, they have more than adequate avenues to do so.....the Internet, forum pages, blogs, pre-U seminars, ITE seminars, discussions in schools, Ministerial walkabouts.

The fact of the matter is that there are more than enough avenues. To create yet another physical avenue for so-called political expression is misdirected. I put it to you that it's unnecessary and it's not that we're afraid of the idealism of the youths being expressed."

(Hat tip: Lzydata of Singapore Ink) Relish the moment, for all it's worth.

Interestingly, some youths seem to disagree; from ST (Mar 12):

[W]hen The Straits Times interviewed seven youths yesterday about what they would like to see at the new space [a 1.2ha plot beside Orchard Cineleisure that will be set aside just for youths by the government], at least two came up with the idea of a Speakers' Corner.

Singapore Management University undergraduate Vivian Cheong, 21, said she would like to see such a corner, along with other spots for performances, dances or video shows.

Said Anderson Junior College student Diana Rahmat, 18: 'As the Government wants involvement from the youths, it'd be great if this becomes a public speaking corner for us, where we can voice our opinions on national issues like the casino or the Budget.

'Speakers' Corner is too intimidating, too serious. If we do it at the youth park, where the youths hang out, that will lessen the seriousness of it.'

UPDATE: Wannabe Lawyer adds:

The fact that a minister mentioned "blogs" is more or less a signal to the Singaporean blogosphere that they know of our existence, or at least, a signal to bloggers who blog about politics that they are watching us.

But then again, we already knew that they know, isn’t it? So is it not more a case of them letting us know that they know that we know that they know?