2 days to go - A singaporean's plight

[scroobal]

Dedicated to Chiam See Tong and all Singaporeans
by Lin Shiyun on Sunday, 01 May 2011

In this General Election, I may appear to some people as a kind of political whore. My best friend, Zai Kuning, and I were running all over the island to attend the nominations and rallies. We have not stopped thinking about Singapore (some of you may dismiss it as "politics") since the nomination day, even in our sleeps, and I know that we are not alone. I have many friends who are doing the same, and those who don't run around like a getai star are always faithfully at the computer feeding us up-to-date information like the statellite (you know who you are ).

It is as if the elections have consumed our lives, but I would like to see it that we are all woken up, and realised that if we do not actively participate and claim our narratives, there is no doubt that the ruling party will literally consume all of us.

I have been planning to write a piece on the six reasons why I cannot allow PAP to hold absolute power in parliament, but after attending tonight's rally at Potong Pasir, I can't help myself but to write about how Mr. Chiam See Tong have touched and enlightened me.

I attended two rallies prior to this: SDP and WP rally at commonwealth and serangoon respectively. I was very impressed by the "Winning-11" team that the SDP has garnered as each of them respresented to me a distinct and genuine interest in the "software" (to quote Dr.Ang) of the society - teacher, social worker, ex-political detainee, psychiatrist... I am convinced that they will take care of the less priviledged in the society, and they have promised to give half their allowance to the needy in the community if they were to be elected. Over at WP rally, although I was not particularly impressed by what the candidates had said, the number of people who were there to listen was intoxicating and certainly, WP will be a great catalyst for change in the parliament.

However, after two rallies, I felt I had a bit enough of the PAP bashing. The attack of the lack of accountability and problems of PAP is of course, very relevant and necessary (I am still going around with "vote opposition" statements pasted on my back) but personally I think I am clear enough about the atrocities of the ruling party: What PAP propagates is basically a selfish, self-preserving culture. All the bad policies and tactics they have devised is a result of this warped immoral thinking, and definitely, it is poisoning the society inside out. I had enough of it, yes, I am fed up! And so I really wanted to know what are the dreams of the opposition parties. I wanted to know how they think about human life. I wanted to know how they can lead Singaporeans to feel beautiful again. Is there someone who can wake up the sleeping flowers in our hearts?

I found the answer in Mr. Chiam See Tong today at SPP rally.

Mr.Chiam began his speech with the question of why he decided to leave Potong Pasir and contest in Bishan-Toa Payoh. He answered, "for the promotion of democracy. There can never be democracy if there is no opposition in the parliament." There isn't a fancy slogan like first-world parliament, which at times really makes one wonder what it means. Mr.Chiam's fight is for democracy, and he will never retire with a peaceful mind if he does not see this happening in Singapore. This is the reason why he has to break a GRC, the dirtiest divide-and-rule tactic the ruling party has devised since JBJ won a seat in Anson.

Do I doubt Mr.Chiam's fight? There is very little room for doubt when you see him in person: frail in physique, strong as steel in the mind, and gentle as a whispering father in his speech. There is almost no room for doubt when you think about how he and Mrs.Chiam have suffered under the government's brutality (he still doesn't have his own office) trying to serve the residents in Potong Pasir the best that they can. And there is absolutely no room for doubt when you continue listening till the end of his speech, because he values every individual as a human being capable of living her or her life to the fullest, and is not just a pawn or a statistics.

I will describe to you my memory of the conclusion of his speech, which took place after quite a long pause. I imagined that his team was worried it would be too tiring for him to continue, but he insisted to carry on.

Like a grandfather telling a story to his grandchildren, Mr.Chiam told us how Lee Kuan Yew first assessed this man called Chiam See Tong. LKY looked at his O level certificate. (laughter from the crowd)

"He counted very carefully. 1. 2. 3...5. Only 5 O levels?" (another round of laughter)

"How many of you have 5 O level?"

My best friend shouted "I don't have any!" as several in the crowd raised their hands.

Mr.Chiam smiled in his heart (I could feel) and replied,

"Then you and I are the same. And I have become a lawyer now."

At this point, the crowd cheered so loudly that a friend who was sleeping on the other side of the estate was woken up by the uproar. After a round of hearty laughter, the crowd fell silent as Mr.Chiam continued speaking (he apologised in the beginning that we have to be very quiet because he couldn't speak loudly). He told us that it is o.k if we are not as smart as the others, and it is o.k if we do not seem as successful as the others. Some of us maybe late bloomers, but all of us have the potential to be better people, as long as we stay true to ourselves and keep trying.

"When there is life there is hope, when there is hope, there will be change."

I will always remember how effortlessly he had delivered that line and how many people were moved to tears while listening to him speak. Besides the immediate reference that despite two strokes, Mr.Chiam continue his fight for change in Singapore, I believe that these tears are also the most heartfelt human emotions that can only be brought out by the encouragement of a most loving father.

It is okay. It is okay.
You have not failed.
I have not failed.
We have not failed.

Just keep trying, my child,
together, let's keep trying.

With each living breath,
We can be better.
We will be better.

Thank you Mr. Chiam See Tong. I was in such a despair after reading and witnessing so much atrocities and brutality that the ruling party and Lee Kuan Yew have done to gentle people like you, Dr. Vincent Cheng, Ms Teo Suh Lung, Dr. Lim Hock Siew and many more people who have been forever silenced in the PAP version of history. I was in such a despair thinking how Singaporeans will disappear with the influx of yet another 1 million foreigners. I was in such a despair thinking how our children will have to grow up in this self-perserving culture that propagates bottomless fear and arrogance thinking about nothing but Money. But tonight, you have shown me, shown all Singaporeans, the light. And I am not angry and upset anymore.

Singaporeans. This election has nothing to do with GRCs. It is time to stop all these ongoing, useless debates and arguments that the ruling party wants to confuse you with. It is time to stop all the hype about Tin Pei Ling Vs Nicole Seah, Worker's Party conspiracy, Mas Selamat, upgrading lifts, grow and share etc.

This election is, with no doubt, about the past, the present, and the future of Singapore.
It is about how PAP has completely crippled our rights to claim the power of our narratives as a living community and worthy individuals. It is about how they do whatever they want without a single question asked or answered. It is about how we, the citizens of Singapore, want the stories of our forefathers and mothers to be remembered and told; It is about how we, the citizens of Singapore, want to write our story from now; It is about how our children, the future citizens of Singapore, can be the writers of their stories without fear.

Ultimately, it is about trying to achieve democracy and equality in Singapore, as long as we have one more living breath.

Singaporeans.

Singapore is not PAP.

I love Singapore very much, but not the PAP.

Please, please don't let them bully and silent us anymore.

 

[scroobal]

Psychology - excerpt from Alex Au ( Yawning bread )
Almost every problem (other than the personal) that Singaporeans face today can be traced to the PAP’s immunity. They have come to believe that their overwhelming control of parliament and government is secure. This control is the result of many defences, including keeping a grip on mainstream media, a history of defamation suits that silences criticism, its capture of labour unions, its tentacles in the economy via government-linked companies, and not least, gerrymandering and group representation constituencies.
Having confidence in their immunity from ouster, more and more policies are crafted to benefit themselves and the privileged class they identify with. Less and less is attention paid to issues that affect the broader mass of citizenry, such as income gap, inadequacy of public transport and healthcare infrastructure, and safety nets for the poor, the aged and the disabled.
We see the trends in ministers rewarding themselves handsomely while refusing to attend to even their own backbenchers’ pleas for an increase in support for the poorest of the poor; in the total lack of accountability whether for ego projects like the Youth Olympics or for common, but massive-outlay projects like public housing — where after 50 years Singaporeans are still in the dark as to the breakdown of costs and pricing.
We see an obsession in shovelling more and more funds into reserves, even if it means pricing goods and services higher than they can be (to make profits that are then poured into the reserves).
Example: SMRT Corp has just released its financial results for FY 2011. Its train (excluding LRT) operations earned revenue of S$527.1 million, of which S$113.5 million (21.4 percent) percolated down to Operating Profit. Should public transport make profits like this? Could fares not be 10 – 15 percent lower?
Perhaps you remain sceptical. Will any of these things change just because we vote in more opposition members of parliament? After all, the PAP will still form the next government. Won’t they carry on as before?
No they won’t. Because if suddenly they realise that they have no more immunity, the psychology changes. They realise they have been put on notice by voters that the old ways of carrying on will not be tolerated, and going forward, they will have to pay more attention to the people, rather than to their own skewed priorities and self-interest.
That is the big, big thing we will all gain if the opposition gets a breakthrough at this election.
This is in addition to the fact that more opposition members of parliament means more brain power to question ministers and debate issues in the legislature. One or two opposition members can only do so much, especially as the number of questions a member can ask is limited by parliamentary rules.
However, if once again, the PAP ends up with 86:1 or even 87:0, their belief in their own immunity will only be reinforced. They will have every reason to tell themselves that even with widespread grouses, even with an opposition slate of high calibre, they will never be ousted from power.

 

[scroobal]

My take on the Singapore General Elections.
by Daphne on April 29, 2011
in stuff best described as not safe for parents





I’ve been mulling a long time over whether or not to do a post on the General Elections seeing how politics is such a contentious issue and this is after all a happy family blog.
The truth is, I’ve never been this interested in local politics in all my 28 years and this political awakening (if you can call it that) is a big deal for me. Not that I don’t like politics as a whole because I spent days camped out in front of the TV watching CNN during the last few American Presidential elections and my entire Final Year Thesis was on the topic of American politics. I’ve just never been interested in local politics because it seemed like such a lost cause to me. It was always just a bunch of disgruntled old men yelling at other less disgruntled old men – something I had very little interest or time for.
This time though, I’m excited because not only do we finally have a chance to vote (instead of being told we have no options), we’re also seeing young voters being interested in the voting process. I’ve been reading so many political opinions of late that it didn’t seem right to just sit this one out.
For starters, here’s what I’d really like to see in government.


1. I want a government that knows how to man up and say “I’m sorry” when they’ve made a mistake. For example, a mistake on the scale of busting the YOG budget by 3 times needs to be addressed with a decent amount of compunction rather than dismissiveness. With this current crop of PAP leaders, sorry really does seem to be the hardest word. Hey here’s a thought, people are more forgiving when you take responsibility and say “I’m sorry, I messed up big time.” You see, only after I hear the apology, I’ll be ready to hear about all the wonderful things you’ve done in your 5 years in office, not the other way around.


2. I want a government that really listens. The only defense that the PAP constantly falls back on these days is “I know better so just sit down and shut up.” Even if you genuinely believe that your Cambridge degrees and life of entitlement makes you better and smarter than everyone else, it would still do you a lot of good to listen to the struggles of your people. And by listening, I don’t mean walking around a week before election wearing flowers and doing your presidential wave.


3. I want a government that’s accountable. Ok, that’s my beef with a one-party system right there, a complete lack of checks and balances. It may have worked 57 years ago when you were ruling a country who didn’t know any better but we do know better now and one of the pitfalls of such a system is beginning to manifest itself in the form of disconnected, arrogant leaders who assume they have a right to lead just because they have kissed enough bottoms and made the right political connections. Connections like um say, marrying the private secretary of the Prime Minister.


4. I want a government that rises above the need to resort to threats in order to get votes. It’s insulting that you think our votes can be bought by shiny new lifts and a fresh coat of paint. If the price to pay for upgrading is my integrity and sense of justice, I’d much rather walk up that extra flight of steps and carry both my kids to run in the rain, thankyouverymuch. Also, what about your supporters living in these opposition constituencies? It’s a tad mercenary that you would sacrifice them as collateral damage just to prove a point, isn’t it?


5. I want a government that understands the value of humility and servitude. Often, it’s not just what you do but the manner in which you do it that counts. It bugs me that our Ministers talk down to the very people they are supposed to serve just because they don’t share the same opinions. You don’t get to be all high and mighty and demand that Singaporeans kiss the very ground you tread on. After all, we were the ones who put you in office and we will take you out if you alienate enough voters.


To all the people who think that voting the PAP means voting for stability, my only question is this, stability for who? If I were an incompetent Minster drawing $1.4 million of taxpayer’s money annually, I’d be yelling about stability too. I mean, it’d be mighty unstable for me if I had to one day *gasp*, take a ride on a crowded train like all my minions. And then I’d actually have to walk from point to point because where will I ever find the money to have people carry me around on their shoulders while I wear this ridiculous garland around my neck. I can’t be certain but even if Desmond Choo did momentarily lose the use of both his legs, there’s a whole range of fancy motorized wheelchairs that can serve as perfectly good modes of transportation. There’s really no need to rely on a human sedan these days. Last time I checked, you guys were supposed to BE public servants, not HAVE a lot of public servants.





Now lest you think that I’m dissing all the good work our government has done in years gone by, I’m not. I have a lot of respect for MM Lee, SM Goh, PM Lee (Jr) and a select handful of Ministers. I’ll be the first to say that I’m terribly proud of how far Singapore has come with all that was going against us so props to y’all. On my recent flight back from Florida, I was seated next to an elderly American gentleman who was thrilled to be sitting next to a “tiny Asian girl who didn’t take up too much arm room” (exact words, I promise) and decided to reward my lack of size with a spirited discourse about our Minister Mentor’s awesomeness the moment he heard that I was from Singapore. He went on and on about MM Lee’s political acumen, sharp thinking and fabulous policy-making skills. I have to admit that it was nice to know how much respect people all over the world have for one of us. Finally, he asked me “so what do you think of him?” To which I replied, “I agree with everything that you’ve said and even though we sometimes don’t like him very much, he is the single most respected man in all of Singapore.”


That said, I just have a teensy weensy problem with the argument that just because they’ve had a proven track record, we should blindly cast our vote for all the subsequent leaders that they pick out for the sake of stability. First of all, we all know that past successes don’t necessarily guarantee future success. Second, for all their success in ruling the nation with a tight fist, the leaders in PAP don’t seem to be particularly adept at picking the next generation of leaders. If you’re saying that after scouring the entire list of under-30 Singaporeans and the best you can come up with is a Tin Pei Ling, that tells me all I need to know about your selection skills. I have nothing against Pei Ling as a person and I’m sure she’s every bit as saccharine sweet as her photos suggest but I have a lot against her ability to serve the needs of the people. Underneath the hollow-sounding rhetoric she dishes out, I see no substance or even real desire to better the needs of Singaporeans. It seems to me that the only criteria to be selected as a future leader in the PAP is to be able to memorize and regurgitate the party’s rhetoric (that is starting to sound as empty as a big fat black hole of emptiness)


I’m also not surprised by the popularity of her direct opposition candidate, Nicole Seah. After hearing her various speeches and interviews, I am suitably impressed. Yes, I get that she’s even younger, has no track record or experience, gets a little nervy during some of her speeches and is probably this popular only because of the seeming incompetence of Tin Pei Ling. All fair criticisms, but if if I could vote in that constituency, she would still definitely have my vote for the very fundamental reason that she’s got heart – something that’s sorely missing in our incumbent party. I respect the fact that with all her inexperience and practically zero chance of drawing a $13,000 monthly salary, she was willing to offer her candidacy simply because she wanted to make a change for the benefit of the people. Her agenda is not a fat paycheck but to put right the things that have gone so very wrong in our government. I’d go as far as to say that even if she made it into parliament and doesn’t accomplish all the things she set out to, that’s ok because damnit, she tried.
I’m growing tired of hearing the PAP say that change can only come from within. After 57 years as the ruling party, the most notable change I see is in relation to how their paychecks are getting larger. The only way to show that Ministers don’t have to draw an obscene salary from taxpayer’s money is to have brilliant Ministers who are not in it for the money and yet no less committed or capable than those who demand to have their coffers padded.


This is definitely going to be a watershed election and I’m proud to have candidates like Sylvia Lim (in my opinion, the best public speaker in the local politics scene), Low Thia Khiang and Chen Show Mao offering their services to the nation. For the first time, I feel like there’s a chance we as the people have the power to effect change. Instead of sitting around and complaining that things aren’t right and we can’t do anything about it, we see candidates who are willing to step up to the plate to make a difference. And more importantly, we see voters (especially younger ones) who aren’t ignorant or apathetic.
On this note, I’d like to point out that identifying certain glaring faults in the incumbent party does not make one anti-PAP or pro-opposition. Voters are a lot more discerning these days and just because they question some facets of your leadership does not make them the enemy. The bottom line is that I vote for progress and if that comes in the form of non-PAP politicians, that gets my vote. And I can honestly say that if the PAP can indeed bring change from within and address all the issues that have been raised, I’d be happy to be called pro-PAP

.
For now though, there are several PAP candidates that don’t deserve a seat in parliament. A lot has been said about the GRC system and for all its merits, it doesn’t seem right that mediocrity is rewarded just because the right alliances are made. To be more precise, it would be a great disservice to Singaporeans if Tin Pei Ling gets a parliamentary seat and Sylvia Lim doesn’t.
In any case, this election is going to be more exciting than an episode of 24.

 

[scroobal]

Interview with Mr Ngiam Tong Dow, former head of the civil service, in 2003.

Q. With all this pessimism surrounding Singapore's prospects today, what's your personal prognosis? Will Singapore survive Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew?

A. Unequivocally yes, Singapore will survive SM Lee but provided he leaves the right legacy. What sort of legacy he wants to leave is for him to say, but I, a blooming upstart, dare to suggest to him that we should open up politically and allow talent to be spread throughout our society so that an alternative leadership can emerge.So far, the People's Action Party's tactic is to put all the scholars into the civil service because it believes the way to retain political power forever is to have a monopoly on talent. But in my view, that's a very short term view. It is the law of nature that all things must atrophy. Unless SM allows serious political challenges to emerge from the alternative elite out there, the incumbent elite will just coast along. At the first sign of a grassroots revolt, they will probably collapse just like the incumbent Progressive Party to the left-wing PAP onslaught in the late 1950s. I think our leaders have to accept that Singapore is larger than the PAP.

Q. What would be a useful first step in opening up?

A. For Singapore to survive, we should release half our talent - our President and Overseas Merit scholars - to the private sector. When ten scholars come home, five should turn to the right and join the public sector or the civil service; the other five should turn to the left and join the private sector. These scholars should serve their bond to Singapore - not to the Government - by working in or for Singapore overseas. As matters stand, those who wish to strike out have to break their bonds, pay a financial penalty and worse, be condemned as quitters. But it takes a certain temperament and mindset to be a civil servant. The former head of the civil service,Sim Kee Boon, once said that joining the administrative service is like entering a royal priesthood. Not all of us have the temperament to be priests. However upright a person is, the mandarin will in time begin to live a gilded life in a gilded cage. As a Permanent Secretary, I never had to worry whether I could pay my staff their wages. It was all provided for in the Budget. As chairman of DBS Bank, I worried about wages only 20 per cent of the time. I now face my greatest business challenge as chairman of HDB Corp, a new start-up spun off from HDB. I spend 90 per cent of my time worrying whether I have enough to pay my staff at the end of the month. It's a mental switch.

Q. What is your biggest worry about the civil service?

A. The greatest danger is we are flying on auto-pilot. What was once a great policy, we just carry on with more of the same, until reality intervenes. Take our industrial policy. At the beginning, it was the right thing for us to attract multinationals to Singapore. For some years now, I've been trying to tell everybody: 'Look, for God's sake, grow our own timber.' If we really want knowledge to be rooted in Singaporeans and based in Singapore, we have to support our SMEs. I'm not a supporter of SMEs just for the sake of more SMEs, but we must grow our own roots. Creative Technology's Sim Wong Hoo is one and Hyflux's Olivia Lum is another but that's too few. We have been flying on auto-pilot for too long. The MNCs have contributed a lot to Singapore but they are totally unsentimental people. The moment you're uncompetitive, they just relocate.

Q. Why has this come about?

A. I suspect we have started to believe our own propaganda. There is also a particular brand of Singapore elite arrogance creeping in. Some civil servants behave like they have a mandate from the emperor. We think we are little Lee Kuan Yews. SM Lee has earned his spurs, with his fine intellect and international standing. But even Lee Kuan Yew sometimes doesn't behave like Lee Kuan Yew. There is also a trend of intellectualisation for its own sake, which loses a sense of the pragmatic concerns of the larger world. The Chinese, for example, keep good archives of the Imperial examinations which used to be held at the Temple of Heaven. At the beginning, the scholars were tested on very practical subjects, such as how to control floods in their province. But over time, they were examined on the Confucian Analects and Chinese poetry composition. Hence, they became emasculated by the system, a worrying fate which could befall Singapore.

Q. But aren't you an exception to the norm of the gilded mandarin with zero bottomline consciousness?

A. That's because I started out with Economic Development Board in the 1959. Investment promotion then was all about hard foot slogging and personal persuasion, which teaches you to be very humble and patient. I learnt to be a supplicant and a professional beggar, instead of a dispenser of favours. These days, most civil servants start out administering the law. If I had my way, every administrative officer would start his or her career in the EDB. Hard foot slogging.

Q. YOUR idea of creating an alternate elite is not new. What do you think of the oft-mooted suggestion of achieving that splitting ranks within the People's Action Party?

A. Quite honestly, if you ask me, Team A-and-Team B is a synthetic and infantile idea. If you want to challenge the Government, it must be spontaneous. You have to allow some of your best and brightest to remain outside your reach and let them grow spontaneously. How do you know their leadership will not be as good as yours? But if you monopolise all the talent, there will never be an alternative leadership. And alternatives are good for Singapore.

Q. In your calculation, what are the odds of this alternative replacing the incumbent?

A. Of course there's a political risk. Some of these chaps may turn out to be your real opposition, but that is the risk the PAP has to take if it really wants Singapore to endure. A model we should work towards is the French model of the elite administration. The very brightest of France all go to university or college. Some emerge Socialists, others Conservative, some work in industries, some work in government. Yet, at the end of the day, when the chips are down, they are all Frenchmen. No member of the French elite will ever think of betraying his country, never. That is the sort of Singapore elite we want. It doesn't mean that all of us must belong to the PAP. That is very important.

Q. What do bad times mean for the PAP, which has based its legitimacy on providing the economic goods and asset enhancement? Is its social compact with the people in need of an update?A

Oh yes. And my advice is: Go back to Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew's old credo, where nobody owes us a living. After I had just taken over as the Housing Board's chairman in 2000, an astute academic asked me: 'Tong Dow, what's your greatest problem at HDB?' Then he diagnosed it himself: 'Initially, you gave peanuts to monkeys so they would dance to your tune. Now you've given them so much by way of peanuts that the monkey has become a gorilla and you have to dance to its tune. That's your greatest problem.' Our people have become over-fed and today's economic realities mean we have to put them on a crash diet. We cannot starve them because there will be a political explosion. So the art of government today is to wean everyone off the dispensable items. We should just concentrate on helping the poorest 5 to 10 per cent of the population, instead of handing out a general largesse. Forget about asset enhancement, Singapore shares and utility rebates. You're dancing to the tune of the gorilla. I don't understand the urgency of raising the Goods and Services Tax. Why tax the lower-income, then return it to them in an aid package? It demeans human dignity and creates a growing supplicant class who habitually hold out their palms. Despite the fact that we say we are not a welfare state, we act like one of the most 'welfarish' states in the world. We should appeal instead to people's sense of pride and self-reliance. I think political courage is needed here. And my instinct is that the Singaporean will respect you for that.

Q. So what should this new compact consist of?

A. It should go back to what was originally promised: 'That you shall be given the best education, whether it be academic or vocational, according to your maximum potential.' And there will be no judgment whether an engineer is better than a doctor or a chef. My late mother was a great woman. Although illiterate, she single-handedly brought up four boys and a girl. She used to say in Hainanese: 'If you have one talent which you excel in, you will never starve.' I think the best legacy to leave is education and equal opportunity for all. When the Hainanese community came to Singapore, they were the latest arrivals and the smallest in number. So they had no choice but to become humble houseboys, waiters and cooks. But they always wanted their sons to have a better life than themselves. The great thing about Singapore was that we could get an education, which gave us mobility, despite coming from the poorest families. Today, the Hainanese, as a dialect group, form proportionately the highest number of professionals in Singapore.

Q. You say focus on education. What is top of your wishlist for re-making Singapore's education system?

A. Each year, the PSLE creams off all the top boys and girls and dispatches them to only two schools, Raffles Institution and Raffles Girls' School. However good these schools are, the problem is you are educating your elite in only two institutions, with only two sets of mentors, and casting them in more or less the same mould. It worries me that Singapore is only about 'one brand' because you never know what challenges lie ahead and where they will come from. I think we should spread out our best and brightest to at least a dozen schools.

Q. You advocate a more inclusive mindset all around?

A. Yes, intellectually, everyone has to accept that the country of Singapore is larger than the PAP. But even larger than the country of Singapore, which is limited by size and population, is the nation of Singapore, which includes a diaspora. My view is that we should have a more inclusive approach to nation-building. We have started the Majulah Connection, an international network where every Singaporean - whether he is a citizen or not, so long as he feels for Singapore - is included as part of our diaspora. Similarly, we should include foreigners who have worked and thrived here as friends of Singapore. That's the only way to survive. Otherwise, its just four million people on a little red dot of 600 sq km. If you exclude people, you become smaller and smaller, and in the end, you'll disappear.

Q. What is the kind of Singapore you hope your grandchildren will inherit?

A. Let's look at Sparta and Athens, two city states in Greek history. Singapore is like Sparta, where the top students are taken away from their parents as children and educated. Cohort by cohort, they each select their own leadership, ultimately electing their own Philosopher King. When I first read Plato's Republic, I was totally dazzled by the great logic of this organisational model where the best selects the best. But when I reached the end of the book, it dawned on me that though the starting point was meritocracy, the end result was dictatorship and elitism. In the end, that was how Sparta crumbled. Yet, Athens, a city of philosophers known for its different schools of thought, survived. What does this tell us about out-of-bounds markers? So SM Lee has to think very hard what legacy he wants to leave for Singapore and the type of society he wants to leave behind. Is it to be a Sparta, a well-organised martial society, but in the end, very brittle; or an untidy Athens which survived because of its diversity of thinking? Personally, I believe that Singaporeans are not so kuai (Hokkien for obedient) as to become a Sparta. This is our saving grace. As a young senior citizen, I very much hope that Singapore will survive for a long time, but as an Athens. It is more interesting and worth living and dying for.

 

[SpareTyre]

fantastic reads. thank you