-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Serious Lim Siong Guan : Lessons for Singapore on the rise and fall of empires
- Thread starter Porfirio Rubirosa
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 35,579
- Points
- 113
It's high noon now, question is how we extend the high tea all the way into the night. Nothing lasts forever, not even the PAP
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 3,017
- Points
- 48
To understand what he is writing, you have to see this from a Christian perspective.
Christians believe that kings, prime ministers and presidents are anointed or chosen by God. After being chosen, they are to lead the people in a just manner. The people in return learn from these leaders and live just lives. Society as a whole then becomes strong and the country prospers.
When leaders lead hypocritical, selfish and nepotistic lives, they will cause those that they lead to live similar hypocritical, selfish and nepotistic lives. This is because such leaders tend to view people who live moral and upright lives as weak, obstacles or threats. The recent TCJ episode is a case in point. Because of his values and beliefs, TCJ will never be comfortable in Cabinet. TCH, Sham, Jos and the rest of the gang on the other hand would feel right at home. This filters down to the PS's, DS's, directors, grassroot leaders and the rest of society.
LSG is sounding a warning call because the Bible states clearly what will happen. When a nation's leaders become corrupt and the rich oppress the poor, God will eventually come and pass judgement. God's reset button is that he will scatter the nation. In the old days, this would be an invasion by the Assyrians or the Babylonians. In this day and age, we have Malaysia taking over our ports/retail and China hollowing out all our industries.
LSG warning is likely to be a un-wlecome call in the wilderness. It will not be heard by most because of hearts of stone. Despite the hard times and warning signs, there has been no Nineveh style repentance. For those who hear, perhaps it is time to follow in the footsteps of Noah and Lot.
Christians believe that kings, prime ministers and presidents are anointed or chosen by God. After being chosen, they are to lead the people in a just manner. The people in return learn from these leaders and live just lives. Society as a whole then becomes strong and the country prospers.
When leaders lead hypocritical, selfish and nepotistic lives, they will cause those that they lead to live similar hypocritical, selfish and nepotistic lives. This is because such leaders tend to view people who live moral and upright lives as weak, obstacles or threats. The recent TCJ episode is a case in point. Because of his values and beliefs, TCJ will never be comfortable in Cabinet. TCH, Sham, Jos and the rest of the gang on the other hand would feel right at home. This filters down to the PS's, DS's, directors, grassroot leaders and the rest of society.
LSG is sounding a warning call because the Bible states clearly what will happen. When a nation's leaders become corrupt and the rich oppress the poor, God will eventually come and pass judgement. God's reset button is that he will scatter the nation. In the old days, this would be an invasion by the Assyrians or the Babylonians. In this day and age, we have Malaysia taking over our ports/retail and China hollowing out all our industries.
LSG warning is likely to be a un-wlecome call in the wilderness. It will not be heard by most because of hearts of stone. Despite the hard times and warning signs, there has been no Nineveh style repentance. For those who hear, perhaps it is time to follow in the footsteps of Noah and Lot.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2014
- Messages
- 757
- Points
- 28
Nah....... nothing will happen to Singapore, except that we citizens will be a nation of serfs. There will be a new caste system with the elites at the top. Followed by Foreign Talents and then the rest of us.
Some of the rich will live lonely lives in their condos with their kids all happily migrated overseas. The majority will survive trying to make ends meet. Some will die undiscovered in their HDB flats.
Only those who live for others will find meaning in their lives - and this includes all of us (and even that kork sucker John Tan). That's because we bitch everyday for the sake of the nation.
Some of the rich will live lonely lives in their condos with their kids all happily migrated overseas. The majority will survive trying to make ends meet. Some will die undiscovered in their HDB flats.
Only those who live for others will find meaning in their lives - and this includes all of us (and even that kork sucker John Tan). That's because we bitch everyday for the sake of the nation.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 6,684
- Points
- 113
Think it has always been about the Survival, Security and Success for Singapore.
Unfortunately LHL/HC and their coterie/sycophants/time-servers are leading Singapore down a potentially dangerous path.
Unfortunately LHL/HC and their coterie/sycophants/time-servers are leading Singapore down a potentially dangerous path.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 6,684
- Points
- 113
Singapore, the accidental nation
Lim Siong Guan
Straits Times 14 September 2017
This is an edited excerpt from a speech by former head of civil service Lim Siong Guan at the IPS-Nathan Lecture on Tuesday. He will deliver three lectures on the theme "Can Singapore Fall". In this excerpt from his first lecture, he highlights lessons for Singapore from Greek history that can be distilled into the maxim: Don't be weak.
THE MELIAN DIALOGUE
The Peloponnesian War was a war fought between Athens, leading the Peloponnesian League, and Sparta, leading the Delian League. It stretched from 431BC to 404BC, and included what has come to be known as the famous Siege of Melos.
Melos is an island in the Aegean Sea more than 100km to the east of mainland Greece. It was a prosperous island. The Melians were of the same ethnic group as the Spartans, but they chose to remain neutral in the war. Athens invaded Melos and asked Melos to pay tribute to Athens. The Melians had never paid tribute to Athens before, and refused to do so now.
Thucydides, the Athenian historian, wrote about what has come to be known as the Melian Dialogue. It describes the negotiations between Athens and Melos. The Athenians' approach was to appeal to the Melians' sense of pragmatism, pointing to the Athenian army's overwhelming strength and their "reasonable" terms for surrender. The Melians, on the other hand, appealed to the Athenians' "sense of decency". Whether or not Melos was truly neutral, ships could freely resupply there; this made Melos strategically important for Athens. On the other hand, subduing Melos would reduce the reach of Sparta's navy.
In substance, the Melian Dialogue went as follows: Athens: Surrender and pay tribute to Athens, or be destroyed.
Refusing to argue with the Melians on questions of morality, the Athenians simply assert: "The strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept." Melos: We are a neutral city, not an enemy, so there is no need to conquer us in your war with Sparta. Athens: If we accept your neutrality and independence, we would look weak. Our people would think that we have left you alone because we are not strong enough to conquer you. Melos: If you invade us, it will alarm the other neutral Greek states, who will then turn against you lest the same fate befalls them. Athens: The Greek states on the mainland are unlikely to act this way. Melos: It would be shameful and cowardly for us to submit without a fight. Athens: It is only shameful if there is a reasonable chance of defeating the attacker. There is no shame to submit to a superior opponent. Melos: Although you are much stronger, we would regret not trying to fight as there could still be a chance to win. Athens: This is a foolish hope. It does not come from rational analysis and is just an emotional response. Melos: The gods will help us because our position is morally just. Athens: The gods will not intervene. It is natural that the strong dominate the weak. Melos: Sparta will help defend us. Athens: Sparta are a practical people. They will not put themselves at risk when their interests are not at stake. Besides, we have the stronger navy. There is no shame in submitting to a stronger enemy offering reasonable terms. What makes sense is to submit to superiors, stand firm against equals and be moderate to inferiors.
The Melians stuck to their position. Athens mounted a siege and finally captured the city in 416BC, executing the men, and enslaving the women and children. Some modern historians look at it as an act of genocide, a wiping off the face of the earth of an entire nation, culture and civilisation.
The Melian Dialogue is often quoted as a classic case study in "political realism", where power is assumed to be the primary goal of political acts.
DON'T BE WEAK
I asked a foreign friend whether the Melian Dialogue carried a lesson for Singapore. His response was immediate and direct. "The lesson for Singapore is straightforward. Don't be weak. Don't be weak in how you are perceived externally by others. Don't be weak internally."
I start my series of IPS-Nathan Lectures with this reference to the Melian Dialogue because "don't be weak" explains so much of Singapore. The continuous existential question for Singapore is how to respond to the argument that "what makes sense is to submit to superiors, stand firm against equals, and be moderate to inferiors", and especially on how Singapore can live under the observation that "the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept".
Singapore's struggle for survival and self-determination has been with us from at least 1959, when Singapore attained internal self-government. Our quest for independence and sovereignty will continue for all our coming years.
Singapore, to my mind, is "the accidental nation", a nation unplanned in its creation and unexpected in its survival.
How can "don't be weak" explain our past, and how must "don't be weak" make our future?
My next lecture will be on "The Fourth Generation" of Singaporeans since independence. It is the generation whose days will include SG100. And my third and final lecture will be on "The Way of Hope", discussing my beliefs on how we can best secure a future for our generations to come.
THE "ACCIDENT" OF INDEPENDENCE
The founding political leadership of Singapore led by Mr Lee Kuan Yew had not believed that Singapore could be on its own or should be on its own. This was the real world the rational pragmatist could not escape from.
Singapore was a British colony, part of the Straits Settlements comprising Penang, Melaka and Singapore. Geographically part of the Malay peninsula, keeping Singapore separate from the Federation of Malaya was to go against the facts of geography and history even from the days before Sir Stamford Raffles founded modern Singapore in 1819.
Yet, the British had carved Singapore out of Malaya while integrating Penang and Melaka into the Federation of Malaya because Singapore hosted the largest British military establishment east of Suez. Singapore was critical for the sustenance of the British Empire.
Thus, the British granted the Federation of Malaya independence on Aug 31, 1957, while only granting Singapore full internal self-government in 1959, where the colonial administration controlled external relations and security, including internal security.
The People's Action Party led by Mr Lee Kuan Yew had, as a prime feature of its election manifesto for the general election which brought it to power in 1959, the aim of seeking to be reunited with Malaya.
The principle of "don't be weak" drove Singapore to find strength in the bigger political entity. Malaya did not welcome the idea of merger with Singapore. Singapore's predominantly Chinese population would have tilted the overall racial balance in an unwelcome way.
That Malayan politics was very much built upon ethnic lines did not make merger with Singapore an attractive proposition. On the other hand, the possibility of Singapore turning communist at that time under the tutelage of Mao's China was a most unpleasant prospect. A communist Singapore at the southern tip of the Malay peninsula would have perhaps been a worse nightmare to the Malayans than a communist Cuba would have been to the Americans.
In 1963, the Prime Minister of Malaya, Tunku Abdul Rahman, was persuaded that he had to consider the idea of merger as something that would be good for Malaya. The prospect of Kuala Lumpur being the Washington, DC, of the merged entity, the political centre, with Singapore as the New York, the commercial centre, had its attractiveness.
The challenge of ethnic distribution was ameliorated by including Sabah and Sarawak in the merger while offering the British a way out for granting independence not just to Singapore but also its Borneo colonies.
The logic of Malaysia was so intuitive that few questioned it. And even fewer in Singapore believed that Singapore could go it alone as an independent and sovereign nation.
Thus Malaysia Day, Sept 16, 1963, came with much hope and happiness, like long-lost siblings brought back together to make the family complete again.
But the family reunion was not to last. Two racial riots, in July and September 1964, brought to the fore racial distrust between the Malays and the Chinese.
In the economic sphere, Singapore sensed that the economic benefits to be expected from the merger of equal partners might not be forthcoming. Signals from Kuala Lumpur portended a weakening of Singapore, both economically and politically. As the political differences grew more acrimonious over the months, both Kuala Lumpur and Singapore came to the conclusion that the best way forward would be for Singapore to leave Malaysia.
Singapore became an independent, sovereign state on Aug 9, 1965. What had been deemed by Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his economic czar, Dr Goh Keng Swee, to be an impractical way forward for Singapore became the only practical way forward. Thus was born the accidental nation: not planned for, not hoped for, but the best of bad options. "Don't be weak" drove us to merger in 1963. And "don't be weak" turned us towards independence in 1965.
SINGAPORE, THE LITTLE RED DOT
If you look at an atlas of the world, Singapore, the country, fits quite nicely in the letter "o" in its name. I do not know whether you've ever thought about it that way. If you look at this map, there's a big red circle. That's not Singapore. Singapore is the dot in the centre of the circle, and, even then, the dot is bigger than what Singapore is, geographically, for that map. Singapore fits in the letter "o" in the name of the country. Maybe that's something most of us don't quite realise until it's mentioned. The question, of course, is how do you make the country sovereign and independent despite its smallness. Indeed, in most atlases, they have to make a point of skewing the scale by enlarging the dot which represents Singapore so that it may be pointed out. That is how small Singapore is.
What are the implications for survival, security and success for a little state like Singapore? Singapore had to find its own way while facing racial tensions internally and unfriendly forces externally, with little by way of an army to defend herself. Singapore was extremely vulnerable. Malay ultra-nationalists were denouncing Singapore, and Indonesia was still conducting Konfrontasi (military confrontation) against Singapore because Indonesia had deemed the formation of Malaysia in the merger of the Federation of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore in 1963 a neo-colonialist plot.
When President B. J. Habibie of Indonesia referred to Singapore as a "little red dot" in 1998, he might have meant it as a disparaging remark. Little would he have expected that Singaporeans would take it up as a badge of honour - a symbol of succeeding despite the odds. Singapore had reached out beyond its immediate surroundings and "leapfrogged" the region to adopt the whole world as its hinterland, its source of capital, investment, research and technology, management capability, and, most of all, markets. There is no point working on industrialisation and having all the factories if you produce stuff which cannot be sold anywhere. Singapore is the result of human imagination and endeavour.
In less than two generations, Singapore had attained First World status economically, and had become a guide and a hope for other developing countries. From 1965 to 2015, Singapore's per capita gross domestic product at current market prices increased over a hundredfold, from US$516 to US$53,630.
Lim Siong Guan
Straits Times 14 September 2017
This is an edited excerpt from a speech by former head of civil service Lim Siong Guan at the IPS-Nathan Lecture on Tuesday. He will deliver three lectures on the theme "Can Singapore Fall". In this excerpt from his first lecture, he highlights lessons for Singapore from Greek history that can be distilled into the maxim: Don't be weak.
THE MELIAN DIALOGUE
The Peloponnesian War was a war fought between Athens, leading the Peloponnesian League, and Sparta, leading the Delian League. It stretched from 431BC to 404BC, and included what has come to be known as the famous Siege of Melos.
Melos is an island in the Aegean Sea more than 100km to the east of mainland Greece. It was a prosperous island. The Melians were of the same ethnic group as the Spartans, but they chose to remain neutral in the war. Athens invaded Melos and asked Melos to pay tribute to Athens. The Melians had never paid tribute to Athens before, and refused to do so now.
Thucydides, the Athenian historian, wrote about what has come to be known as the Melian Dialogue. It describes the negotiations between Athens and Melos. The Athenians' approach was to appeal to the Melians' sense of pragmatism, pointing to the Athenian army's overwhelming strength and their "reasonable" terms for surrender. The Melians, on the other hand, appealed to the Athenians' "sense of decency". Whether or not Melos was truly neutral, ships could freely resupply there; this made Melos strategically important for Athens. On the other hand, subduing Melos would reduce the reach of Sparta's navy.
In substance, the Melian Dialogue went as follows: Athens: Surrender and pay tribute to Athens, or be destroyed.
Refusing to argue with the Melians on questions of morality, the Athenians simply assert: "The strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept." Melos: We are a neutral city, not an enemy, so there is no need to conquer us in your war with Sparta. Athens: If we accept your neutrality and independence, we would look weak. Our people would think that we have left you alone because we are not strong enough to conquer you. Melos: If you invade us, it will alarm the other neutral Greek states, who will then turn against you lest the same fate befalls them. Athens: The Greek states on the mainland are unlikely to act this way. Melos: It would be shameful and cowardly for us to submit without a fight. Athens: It is only shameful if there is a reasonable chance of defeating the attacker. There is no shame to submit to a superior opponent. Melos: Although you are much stronger, we would regret not trying to fight as there could still be a chance to win. Athens: This is a foolish hope. It does not come from rational analysis and is just an emotional response. Melos: The gods will help us because our position is morally just. Athens: The gods will not intervene. It is natural that the strong dominate the weak. Melos: Sparta will help defend us. Athens: Sparta are a practical people. They will not put themselves at risk when their interests are not at stake. Besides, we have the stronger navy. There is no shame in submitting to a stronger enemy offering reasonable terms. What makes sense is to submit to superiors, stand firm against equals and be moderate to inferiors.
The Melians stuck to their position. Athens mounted a siege and finally captured the city in 416BC, executing the men, and enslaving the women and children. Some modern historians look at it as an act of genocide, a wiping off the face of the earth of an entire nation, culture and civilisation.
The Melian Dialogue is often quoted as a classic case study in "political realism", where power is assumed to be the primary goal of political acts.
DON'T BE WEAK
I asked a foreign friend whether the Melian Dialogue carried a lesson for Singapore. His response was immediate and direct. "The lesson for Singapore is straightforward. Don't be weak. Don't be weak in how you are perceived externally by others. Don't be weak internally."
I start my series of IPS-Nathan Lectures with this reference to the Melian Dialogue because "don't be weak" explains so much of Singapore. The continuous existential question for Singapore is how to respond to the argument that "what makes sense is to submit to superiors, stand firm against equals, and be moderate to inferiors", and especially on how Singapore can live under the observation that "the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept".
Singapore's struggle for survival and self-determination has been with us from at least 1959, when Singapore attained internal self-government. Our quest for independence and sovereignty will continue for all our coming years.
Singapore, to my mind, is "the accidental nation", a nation unplanned in its creation and unexpected in its survival.
How can "don't be weak" explain our past, and how must "don't be weak" make our future?
My next lecture will be on "The Fourth Generation" of Singaporeans since independence. It is the generation whose days will include SG100. And my third and final lecture will be on "The Way of Hope", discussing my beliefs on how we can best secure a future for our generations to come.
THE "ACCIDENT" OF INDEPENDENCE
The founding political leadership of Singapore led by Mr Lee Kuan Yew had not believed that Singapore could be on its own or should be on its own. This was the real world the rational pragmatist could not escape from.
Singapore was a British colony, part of the Straits Settlements comprising Penang, Melaka and Singapore. Geographically part of the Malay peninsula, keeping Singapore separate from the Federation of Malaya was to go against the facts of geography and history even from the days before Sir Stamford Raffles founded modern Singapore in 1819.
Yet, the British had carved Singapore out of Malaya while integrating Penang and Melaka into the Federation of Malaya because Singapore hosted the largest British military establishment east of Suez. Singapore was critical for the sustenance of the British Empire.
Thus, the British granted the Federation of Malaya independence on Aug 31, 1957, while only granting Singapore full internal self-government in 1959, where the colonial administration controlled external relations and security, including internal security.
The People's Action Party led by Mr Lee Kuan Yew had, as a prime feature of its election manifesto for the general election which brought it to power in 1959, the aim of seeking to be reunited with Malaya.
The principle of "don't be weak" drove Singapore to find strength in the bigger political entity. Malaya did not welcome the idea of merger with Singapore. Singapore's predominantly Chinese population would have tilted the overall racial balance in an unwelcome way.
That Malayan politics was very much built upon ethnic lines did not make merger with Singapore an attractive proposition. On the other hand, the possibility of Singapore turning communist at that time under the tutelage of Mao's China was a most unpleasant prospect. A communist Singapore at the southern tip of the Malay peninsula would have perhaps been a worse nightmare to the Malayans than a communist Cuba would have been to the Americans.
In 1963, the Prime Minister of Malaya, Tunku Abdul Rahman, was persuaded that he had to consider the idea of merger as something that would be good for Malaya. The prospect of Kuala Lumpur being the Washington, DC, of the merged entity, the political centre, with Singapore as the New York, the commercial centre, had its attractiveness.
The challenge of ethnic distribution was ameliorated by including Sabah and Sarawak in the merger while offering the British a way out for granting independence not just to Singapore but also its Borneo colonies.
The logic of Malaysia was so intuitive that few questioned it. And even fewer in Singapore believed that Singapore could go it alone as an independent and sovereign nation.
Thus Malaysia Day, Sept 16, 1963, came with much hope and happiness, like long-lost siblings brought back together to make the family complete again.
But the family reunion was not to last. Two racial riots, in July and September 1964, brought to the fore racial distrust between the Malays and the Chinese.
In the economic sphere, Singapore sensed that the economic benefits to be expected from the merger of equal partners might not be forthcoming. Signals from Kuala Lumpur portended a weakening of Singapore, both economically and politically. As the political differences grew more acrimonious over the months, both Kuala Lumpur and Singapore came to the conclusion that the best way forward would be for Singapore to leave Malaysia.
Singapore became an independent, sovereign state on Aug 9, 1965. What had been deemed by Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his economic czar, Dr Goh Keng Swee, to be an impractical way forward for Singapore became the only practical way forward. Thus was born the accidental nation: not planned for, not hoped for, but the best of bad options. "Don't be weak" drove us to merger in 1963. And "don't be weak" turned us towards independence in 1965.
SINGAPORE, THE LITTLE RED DOT
If you look at an atlas of the world, Singapore, the country, fits quite nicely in the letter "o" in its name. I do not know whether you've ever thought about it that way. If you look at this map, there's a big red circle. That's not Singapore. Singapore is the dot in the centre of the circle, and, even then, the dot is bigger than what Singapore is, geographically, for that map. Singapore fits in the letter "o" in the name of the country. Maybe that's something most of us don't quite realise until it's mentioned. The question, of course, is how do you make the country sovereign and independent despite its smallness. Indeed, in most atlases, they have to make a point of skewing the scale by enlarging the dot which represents Singapore so that it may be pointed out. That is how small Singapore is.
What are the implications for survival, security and success for a little state like Singapore? Singapore had to find its own way while facing racial tensions internally and unfriendly forces externally, with little by way of an army to defend herself. Singapore was extremely vulnerable. Malay ultra-nationalists were denouncing Singapore, and Indonesia was still conducting Konfrontasi (military confrontation) against Singapore because Indonesia had deemed the formation of Malaysia in the merger of the Federation of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore in 1963 a neo-colonialist plot.
When President B. J. Habibie of Indonesia referred to Singapore as a "little red dot" in 1998, he might have meant it as a disparaging remark. Little would he have expected that Singaporeans would take it up as a badge of honour - a symbol of succeeding despite the odds. Singapore had reached out beyond its immediate surroundings and "leapfrogged" the region to adopt the whole world as its hinterland, its source of capital, investment, research and technology, management capability, and, most of all, markets. There is no point working on industrialisation and having all the factories if you produce stuff which cannot be sold anywhere. Singapore is the result of human imagination and endeavour.
In less than two generations, Singapore had attained First World status economically, and had become a guide and a hope for other developing countries. From 1965 to 2015, Singapore's per capita gross domestic product at current market prices increased over a hundredfold, from US$516 to US$53,630.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 35,579
- Points
- 113
That's why I say: Fuck the PAP dead.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2014
- Messages
- 36,768
- Points
- 113
If the PAP was fucked dead, singapore would be fucking dead by now.
The oppies have neither the guts, brains or integrity to steer Singapore through the geopolitics of the ASEAN region, let alone the world. We needed a man like Ah Gong, pragmatic and smart, as well as the likes of the Old Guard, to build Singapore up. The oppies have no men of such calibre.
Most oppies are liberal leftists who lap up anything the liberal media tells them. They have no brains, only know how to spend money and believe that building up a credible military defence is a retarded idea.
Fuck the oppies dead!
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2014
- Messages
- 757
- Points
- 28
Singapore need not be destroyed in a war. All the enemy need to do is to scare the shit out of those who do business with us.......
Singapore was stolen by Pommies from the m&ds.
Singapore was Pommies Empire before and will never be a 2nd time Empire. Unless Chink sinkie go extinct m&ds at least got some hope to rise again.
Move on Chink Sinkies go back to China.
Singapore was Pommies Empire before and will never be a 2nd time Empire. Unless Chink sinkie go extinct m&ds at least got some hope to rise again.
Move on Chink Sinkies go back to China.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 35,579
- Points
- 113
I rather have these bunch of liberals than to have the white bastards running Sinkiestan down. Fuck the PAP dead!
This is exactly what I feared about his article. Mothership thinks that he is talking about the youth. He is so gun shy to the extent that his article and message is worthless. Only a small minority would grasp it. It close to talking in riddles.
As I said no one in Govt would bat an eyelid because they know it would not mean anything to most people.
When Alex Au or Catherine Lim write an article - it is not only well written, balanced, fair but the message is very clear.
Such a waste.
https://mothership.sg/2017/09/lim-s...s-sounds-like-a-complaint-about-todays-youth/
Lim Siong Guan’s lecture on the Rise and Fall of Empires sounds like a complaint about today’s youth
What can a British general teach us about Singapore's future?
By Sulaiman Daud | September 14, 2017 74
Born in 1897, Lt. General Sir John Bagot Glubb is most famous for serving as the commanding officer of the Arab Legion – another name for the army of the Kingdom of Jordan in the 1940s. Having fought in World War 1, he also saw action in World War 2 and the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.
Aside from commanding armies, Glubb also dabbled in writing. One of his essays, The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival, caught the eye of former top civil servant Lim Siong Guan.
Lim is best known for serving as the former head of the Civil Service, and Group President of the GIC.
Lim chose to speak about the lessons one could learn from that essay for a Singaporean context, during a lecture he gave at the Institute of Policy Studies’ Nathan Lecture, quoting Glubb’s analysis on the seven stages of the rise and fall of great nations, which we summarised below:
1. Age of Pioneers
Where it all begins, a small nation, treated as insignificant by others, suddenly emerges and conquers the world. This is possible because the pioneers have no past traditions to defer to.
“If one method fails, they try something else. Uninhibited by textbooks or book learning, action is their solution to every problem.”
2. Age of Conquest
Then the country moves on to a stage of great expansion. According to Glubb (and Lim):
“The principal objects of ambition are glory and honour for the nation.”
Story continues below
Some Articles That Could Use Traffic
Naked man with shoes on & holding handphone took bus, walked along Tampines Ave 9
Maybe he was going to Yishun.
S’porean man moons butt while petting cat, uncle who witnessed it too shocked to move
Full moon.
This leads to the acquisition of “vast territories” under a single government which in turn creates opportunities to gain wealth.
3. Age of Commerce
The main purpose of this stage is to create more wealth. But Glubb warns:
“The acquisition of wealth soon takes precedence over everything else. The previous objectives of “glory” and “honour” are but “empty words, which add nothing to the bank balance” for the people.”
So people start becoming more materialistic, and don’t care about honour because they don’t have intrinsic monetary value. It should be mentioned at this point that Lim is the founding chairman of Honour SG, a non-profit organisation dedicated to promoting a “culture of honour and honouring.” So honour is important to him.
4. Age of Affluence
Here’s where things start to get bad (supposedly). The pursuit of money becomes the younger generation’s driving goal, and no one cares about honour anymore. The rich poor gap increases, and people begin consuming in excess.
“The object of the young and ambitious is no longer fame, honour or service, but cash.”
Glubb calls the shift from Stage 3 to Stage 4 “High Noon”, where people become more greedy and selfish. The country solves its problems by throwing money at them, and selfless men who serve without thought of reward can’t be found.
5. Age of Intellect
Intellect sounds good what, you might be saying to yourself. Not true, says Glubb. On one hand yes, the country has now become so rich that it can afford to fund advancements in the sciences, academics and the arts. But on the other, too much faith is placed in intellectual discussion and nothing actually gets done.
As Lim puts it:
“Intellectualism leads to discussion, debate and argument, which is often seen around the world today. But this “constant dedication to discussion seems to destroy the power of action”.”
6. Age of Decadence
We’re in hard times now. This is the stage where disaster is looming just ahead. Citizens don’t make the effort to save themselves or their country because they don’t think anything is worth saving.
“The Age of Decadence comes about because of the following factors: An extended period of wealth and power; selfishness; love of money and loss of a sense of duty.
It is marked by defensiveness, pessimism, materialism, frivolity, an influx of foreigners, the welfare state and a weakening of religion.”
7. Age of Decline
Same as the above.
Probably with more fires and mutant gangs roaming the streets.
Singapore is a decadent city?
Now the point Lim seems to be trying to make is that of the seven characteristics of the Age of Decadence, Singapore is already experiencing at least five of them. Here’s our attempt to explain what each of these characteristics mean:
Defensiveness. People care more about their own wealth and family than the nation.
Pessimism. Incessant complaining and a deep-rooted belief that Liverpool may never win the League. Sobs
Materialism. Self-explanatory. If you’ve ever followed an influencer on Instagram, you’re guilty.
Frivolity. The statesman/general/literary genius is not as respected as the athlete/singer/actor these days.
Influx of foreigners. Oh boy.
And if that wasn’t enough, Lim says that an argument could be made for the last two, as Singapore’s policies have shifted away from just “self-reliance”, and there’s been a rise in the number of atheists and agnostics in Singapore.
Lim concludes his lecture by saying that Singapore could be in the High Noon, Intellect, or Decadence stage, it’s hard to tell. What’s important is the kind of nation we want to be, and whether Singapore can avoid its horrible fate as outlined by Glubb.
All is not lost
While Glubb might have been an impressive military man, it’s important to remember that he was a product of his era and upbringing. He was literally born in the 19th century, grew up as an officer of the British Empire, and lived to see its decline and fall. No wonder he wrote a gloomy essay about the fall of empires.
It can be very attractive to try and draw comparisons between old-timey papers and the world today. “He said A and B would happen, and they did happen, therefore that means C must happen too!”
However, with each negative example, one can find an equally positive example to counter it.
Witness how anonymous donations pour in when a Singaporean is caught in a crisis, like the case of Eileen Cheong’s father who suffered a heart attack while in Tokyo. Her crowdfunding appeal to bring her father home more than met its target.
Or how about our athletes in Team Singapore, who give up lucrative opportunities just for the chance to win glory for the nation at international sporting events? They certainly don’t do it for the money. If Glubb was right, these people wouldn’t exist today.
The honour and civic-mindedness that Glubb fears as lost can still be found, if one chooses to find it. Yes, even among foreign immigrants. Like the hero who saved a toddler who was stuck on the second floor.
Online reactions mixed
Lim’s speech is proving to be quite popular (garnering over 1000 FB likes on the evening of Sep. 13). Some commenters were in favour of his speech:
As I said no one in Govt would bat an eyelid because they know it would not mean anything to most people.
When Alex Au or Catherine Lim write an article - it is not only well written, balanced, fair but the message is very clear.
Such a waste.
https://mothership.sg/2017/09/lim-s...s-sounds-like-a-complaint-about-todays-youth/
Lim Siong Guan’s lecture on the Rise and Fall of Empires sounds like a complaint about today’s youth
What can a British general teach us about Singapore's future?
By Sulaiman Daud | September 14, 2017 74
Born in 1897, Lt. General Sir John Bagot Glubb is most famous for serving as the commanding officer of the Arab Legion – another name for the army of the Kingdom of Jordan in the 1940s. Having fought in World War 1, he also saw action in World War 2 and the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.
Aside from commanding armies, Glubb also dabbled in writing. One of his essays, The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival, caught the eye of former top civil servant Lim Siong Guan.
Lim is best known for serving as the former head of the Civil Service, and Group President of the GIC.
Lim chose to speak about the lessons one could learn from that essay for a Singaporean context, during a lecture he gave at the Institute of Policy Studies’ Nathan Lecture, quoting Glubb’s analysis on the seven stages of the rise and fall of great nations, which we summarised below:
1. Age of Pioneers
Where it all begins, a small nation, treated as insignificant by others, suddenly emerges and conquers the world. This is possible because the pioneers have no past traditions to defer to.
“If one method fails, they try something else. Uninhibited by textbooks or book learning, action is their solution to every problem.”
2. Age of Conquest
Then the country moves on to a stage of great expansion. According to Glubb (and Lim):
“The principal objects of ambition are glory and honour for the nation.”
Story continues below
Some Articles That Could Use Traffic
Naked man with shoes on & holding handphone took bus, walked along Tampines Ave 9
Maybe he was going to Yishun.
S’porean man moons butt while petting cat, uncle who witnessed it too shocked to move
Full moon.
This leads to the acquisition of “vast territories” under a single government which in turn creates opportunities to gain wealth.
3. Age of Commerce
The main purpose of this stage is to create more wealth. But Glubb warns:
“The acquisition of wealth soon takes precedence over everything else. The previous objectives of “glory” and “honour” are but “empty words, which add nothing to the bank balance” for the people.”
So people start becoming more materialistic, and don’t care about honour because they don’t have intrinsic monetary value. It should be mentioned at this point that Lim is the founding chairman of Honour SG, a non-profit organisation dedicated to promoting a “culture of honour and honouring.” So honour is important to him.
4. Age of Affluence
Here’s where things start to get bad (supposedly). The pursuit of money becomes the younger generation’s driving goal, and no one cares about honour anymore. The rich poor gap increases, and people begin consuming in excess.
“The object of the young and ambitious is no longer fame, honour or service, but cash.”
Glubb calls the shift from Stage 3 to Stage 4 “High Noon”, where people become more greedy and selfish. The country solves its problems by throwing money at them, and selfless men who serve without thought of reward can’t be found.
5. Age of Intellect
Intellect sounds good what, you might be saying to yourself. Not true, says Glubb. On one hand yes, the country has now become so rich that it can afford to fund advancements in the sciences, academics and the arts. But on the other, too much faith is placed in intellectual discussion and nothing actually gets done.
As Lim puts it:
“Intellectualism leads to discussion, debate and argument, which is often seen around the world today. But this “constant dedication to discussion seems to destroy the power of action”.”
6. Age of Decadence
We’re in hard times now. This is the stage where disaster is looming just ahead. Citizens don’t make the effort to save themselves or their country because they don’t think anything is worth saving.
“The Age of Decadence comes about because of the following factors: An extended period of wealth and power; selfishness; love of money and loss of a sense of duty.
It is marked by defensiveness, pessimism, materialism, frivolity, an influx of foreigners, the welfare state and a weakening of religion.”
7. Age of Decline
Same as the above.
Probably with more fires and mutant gangs roaming the streets.
Singapore is a decadent city?
Now the point Lim seems to be trying to make is that of the seven characteristics of the Age of Decadence, Singapore is already experiencing at least five of them. Here’s our attempt to explain what each of these characteristics mean:
Defensiveness. People care more about their own wealth and family than the nation.
Pessimism. Incessant complaining and a deep-rooted belief that Liverpool may never win the League. Sobs
Materialism. Self-explanatory. If you’ve ever followed an influencer on Instagram, you’re guilty.
Frivolity. The statesman/general/literary genius is not as respected as the athlete/singer/actor these days.
Influx of foreigners. Oh boy.
And if that wasn’t enough, Lim says that an argument could be made for the last two, as Singapore’s policies have shifted away from just “self-reliance”, and there’s been a rise in the number of atheists and agnostics in Singapore.
Lim concludes his lecture by saying that Singapore could be in the High Noon, Intellect, or Decadence stage, it’s hard to tell. What’s important is the kind of nation we want to be, and whether Singapore can avoid its horrible fate as outlined by Glubb.
All is not lost
While Glubb might have been an impressive military man, it’s important to remember that he was a product of his era and upbringing. He was literally born in the 19th century, grew up as an officer of the British Empire, and lived to see its decline and fall. No wonder he wrote a gloomy essay about the fall of empires.
It can be very attractive to try and draw comparisons between old-timey papers and the world today. “He said A and B would happen, and they did happen, therefore that means C must happen too!”
However, with each negative example, one can find an equally positive example to counter it.
Witness how anonymous donations pour in when a Singaporean is caught in a crisis, like the case of Eileen Cheong’s father who suffered a heart attack while in Tokyo. Her crowdfunding appeal to bring her father home more than met its target.
Or how about our athletes in Team Singapore, who give up lucrative opportunities just for the chance to win glory for the nation at international sporting events? They certainly don’t do it for the money. If Glubb was right, these people wouldn’t exist today.
The honour and civic-mindedness that Glubb fears as lost can still be found, if one chooses to find it. Yes, even among foreign immigrants. Like the hero who saved a toddler who was stuck on the second floor.
Online reactions mixed
Lim’s speech is proving to be quite popular (garnering over 1000 FB likes on the evening of Sep. 13). Some commenters were in favour of his speech:
LSG another talk cock fella. When times were good por lumpar PAP reap all the benefits help son reap millions.
Now retire liao and LKY gone then talk big.
Give back all the money you made lah.
It is like if I am drug lord then after I leave the business then I talk like I very noble and great.
Ptui!
Now retire liao and LKY gone then talk big.
Give back all the money you made lah.
It is like if I am drug lord then after I leave the business then I talk like I very noble and great.
Ptui!
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,598
- Points
- 48
Seems like yet another platform for the Gatekeepers to enunciate their dicta indirectly - I wonder how the square their sources of generous income from various vice industries with their sworn convictions to “penetrate the marketplace” with knowledge of the Christian faith, and in so doing, “make a difference in the culture of the marketplace … … so that the gates of hell shall not prevail“ - perhaps some would expect absolutes from these.
If you walk and talk in the same guise and your direct reporting line in your org chart is to JC himself then you are accountable for all choices you make. Sure everyone needs to eat and live but you can do so modestly yet when it comes to wealth generation the Gatekeepers do not appear to be rushing to swap smooth cashmere for the coarse gunny sack.
I'm more cynical today then I was yesterday.
If you walk and talk in the same guise and your direct reporting line in your org chart is to JC himself then you are accountable for all choices you make. Sure everyone needs to eat and live but you can do so modestly yet when it comes to wealth generation the Gatekeepers do not appear to be rushing to swap smooth cashmere for the coarse gunny sack.
I'm more cynical today then I was yesterday.
Clearly it is a warning and clarion call to act by all quarters within the country to act. The medium is a religious slant and quite commonplace for those with deep faith. It comes out similar to the way the Bible and Koran are written. As such the calls have the same interpretation challenges as that of the bible and Koran.
He should write in the style of Ngiam his successor before Ngiam went quiet. No one could mistake what Ngiam, Kishore etc were saying.
He should write in the style of Ngiam his successor before Ngiam went quiet. No one could mistake what Ngiam, Kishore etc were saying.
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 5,754
- Points
- 113
Eventually we will merge with 马国 , we may not witness it in our lifetime but it will happen.
No country can survive for more than 150 years , especially a tiny one.
No country can survive for more than 150 years , especially a tiny one.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 2,104
- Points
- 83
agree 100%. Another motherfucker who should have just faded away quietly is fat cat ngiam tong dow. Milked so much, grown so fat from the system that he has zero business talking so much cock now. Fucking hypocrites these 2. :oIo::kma:
Nearly 25 years ago a young scholar and AO went to jail when she was involved in helping forge invoices for her new age church leader and she did not get a cent.
Richard Magnus as judge took it upon himself to amend the charge that led to Tharman's conviction. Tharman would have been acquitted on the original charge and the prosecution was surprised by Richard's act. Richard unlike Sam Sinnathurai never made the bench. The penny must have dropped when LHL mentored Tharman out of purgatory.
Then we have Alami Musa, a name pilfered from an iconic Palestinian who has no fucking idea who the gatekeepers are. And he headed MUIS at one time.
Religion and politics make for poor bed fellows.
Tang Liang Hong was the first to raise the concern and he paid for it dearly.
Richard Magnus as judge took it upon himself to amend the charge that led to Tharman's conviction. Tharman would have been acquitted on the original charge and the prosecution was surprised by Richard's act. Richard unlike Sam Sinnathurai never made the bench. The penny must have dropped when LHL mentored Tharman out of purgatory.
Then we have Alami Musa, a name pilfered from an iconic Palestinian who has no fucking idea who the gatekeepers are. And he headed MUIS at one time.
Religion and politics make for poor bed fellows.
Tang Liang Hong was the first to raise the concern and he paid for it dearly.
Seems like yet another platform for the Gatekeepers to enunciate their dicta indirectly - I wonder how the square their sources of generous income from various vice industries with their sworn convictions to “penetrate the marketplace” with knowledge of the Christian faith, and in so doing, “make a difference in the culture of the marketplace … … so that the gates of hell shall not prevail“ - perhaps some would expect absolutes from these.
If you walk and talk in the same guise and your direct reporting line in your org chart is to JC himself then you are accountable for all choices you make. Sure everyone needs to eat and live but you can do so modestly yet when it comes to wealth generation the Gatekeepers do not appear to be rushing to swap smooth cashmere for the coarse gunny sack.
I'm more cynical today then I was yesterday.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2009
- Messages
- 5,383
- Points
- 63
Two comments:
1. The strong Christian undertone is unsettling. The last thing Singapore needs is a theocracy (with a mandate from God) to replace a fascist oligarchy (with a mandate from Lee).
2. What's his thesis? Every great speech has one (at most two) clear, key message. Some valid points were lost to the casual listener in this long and rambling piece. He ended with two questions which aren't even remotely answered by his spiel.
It's obvious that LSG is too cravenly to cut to the chase. Once a PAP man, always a PAP man.
1. The strong Christian undertone is unsettling. The last thing Singapore needs is a theocracy (with a mandate from God) to replace a fascist oligarchy (with a mandate from Lee).
2. What's his thesis? Every great speech has one (at most two) clear, key message. Some valid points were lost to the casual listener in this long and rambling piece. He ended with two questions which aren't even remotely answered by his spiel.
It's obvious that LSG is too cravenly to cut to the chase. Once a PAP man, always a PAP man.
Similar threads
