Started when he was a young, combative prime minister, these events rarely produce fireworks or test Lee’s debating skill.

Generally meek or polite, these students would at times ask a few critical questions, most of which touched on jobs and careers. They were predictable occasions.

This year was different.

The latest meeting that took place last week produced some sparks and showed how far away some of today’s youths have moved from Lee’s political world.

Instead of the usual mild questions, the 82-year-old Minister Mentor got an unexpected earful.

One of the challengers was history honours student Jamie Han, who stressed he wasn’t saying the People’s Action Party was corrupt.

“But the truth of the matter is this: No matter how enlightened a despot is, ultimately he’ll turn into a tyrant if there are no checks and balances in place.”

Applause broke out among the 1500 students representing all universities here.

Jamie said there must have been times in the past when there was a need for consensus and stability.

“But we have come to the stage where in order to progress, the minority viewpoints have to be heard,” he stressed.

Earlier, another student asked Lee why so many Singaporeans were not regarding their country as home.

“We lack the sense of ownership,” he said.

At best, he added, they tended to see it as a comfortable hotel and, at worst, as a prison that people didn’t have money and resources and the talent to make it.

Lee: What makes you feel you don’t own this place?

Student: I do. It’s just the impression I have from talking to people.

Asked who owned the Housing Board flat he was living in, he replied: “I believe it’s a 99-year lease, so the Government owns the house.”

But it was Jamie’s use of the word “despot” that hung in the air. In the past, criticisms were about policies; this time it was a strong personal label – the first – to be pinned on Lee.

There had, of course, been stronger attacks on him and his family’s power but they came anonymously from the Internet, hence with a lot less impact.

It reflects a changing generation. At any rate, today’s generation has little knowledge or impression of Lee’s role in history and does not feel beholden to him like their elders.

Many are liberals who are dissatisfied with the speed of decontrol of the past decade. Lee, on the other hand, is a conservative who believes in a highly regulated top-down society as prerequisite for stability.

Jamie had also asked for the Internal Security Act and newspaper laws to be reviewed. The channels that offered different views were “either directly or indirectly controlled by the Government”.

And this exchange followed.

Lee asked him if he had written to the newspapers. Yes, he replied, but only one letter was published.

Why not start a publication, asked Lee. Reply: The laws made it very difficult.

Lee: “Well, you have the Internet – put up a website. You know how to put up a website? If you don’t, I know a friend who can help you.”

Lee said he was never a despot. “You don’t put your life at risk in calling me a despot.”

He challenged, as he had often done, anyone who had a passion to join a party and contest via elections. “I say stake your life, come out and put your programme.”

The exchange has propelled Jamie to some sort of instant popularity. To its credit, the media reported the story in detail although it didn’t reflect well on Lee.

Almost overnight, Jamie Han has burst from being an unknown to an admired youth different from the majority of meek bo chap (uncaring) youths concerned only in themselves.

The admiration shown is, however, tempered by concern about what – if anything – will happen to him.

Some were nothing short of speculative fantasy. One thought Jamie had a “death wish”. Another said his career was “half over” even before it began.

Many public commentators saluted his daring speak-up, called it a “catalyst for change”, that deserved some form of award. One said if he were to form a political party, “I will vote for him.”

(Jamie later said he was not interested in going into politics, but believed there was value in speaking up on social issues that move him.)

One commentator said many youths would wait and see – and if Jamie was not punished “the mindset of others will change”.

Describing him as “a sacrificial lamb”, he said that if Jamie was not punished, it would encourage others who shared his views to move into politics where they could make a change.

However, some describe his action as “disrespectful”.

Hephaetus said if Singapore were to fall from its golden age, it could be replaced by another and would never recover.

“On the whole, I have to agree with Lee’s warning. You damage Singapore, that’s it – end of story.”

In recent months, the PAP leadership from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong down has called on youths to speak up without fear.

Not many has or will likely take up the invitation for fear of Kuan Yew.

One Web letter said that at 82, Lee has not changed very much. Otherwise, he asked, why should anyone in this stable environment need to “put his life on the line” to join opposition politics?

Informed observers, however, dismiss the notion that Jamie “will be punished” or that what he said will unleash a new political force.

It is just a passing cloud, said one seasoned analyst who believes Singapore will unlikely see another Jamie Han emerging any time soon.

“Most Singaporeans are concerned with their studies and jobs. Few are ready to risk them by attacking the leaders.”

But there is a danger to their remaining silent.

By not airing the depth of their unhappiness, the government will remain in the dark. After all, to be informed first hand is why Kuan Yew had wanted these annual series with students in the first place.

o Seah Chiang Nee is a veteran journalist and editor of the information website littlespeck.com

                                                      Home