NMP Viswa Sadasivan Puts PAP MPs To Shame

[jw5]

There is a slight difference between ideology and aspiration. Ideology is a certain school of thought, whereas an aspiration is an aim that spells goals that may not conform to a school of thought.

For example, an ideology would be "We believe that a table made of wood with four legs stands the best". An aspiration is "We strive to make a table out of the best material possible and the strongest legs available".

Agree, but we will first need to have an idealogy, which then becomes an aspiration if it's not the current practical reality right?
Why does it appear that the same concept cannot be both an idealogy and an aspiration?
Or again, am I short of brain cells which do not allow me to join the ranks of the elite?

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Harry was playing his old tired game of character assassination distortion misinformation and smoke and mirrors...judge for yourselves based on what Viswa actually said...

22. The second tenet of the Pledge is that we strive to become a “united people, regardless of race, language or religion.”


23. We live in a pluralistic world – people with diverse backgrounds, interests, beliefs and goals. It is challenging to unite people, but we cannot and should not give up the belief that we can build a collective reflex. This reflex is not a function of economics or material goals but built on a deep belief system that all of us – regardless of our station in life – can relate to. It is more than a shared interest. It has to be a core belief that we share, that connects with our sense of self, our worth, identity, our aspirations. It must make us feel good about ourselves as a people, knowing that it is unique to us. It has to have the power to transcend the social, political and economic differences amongst us.


24. To find what this core belief system is, we need to go beyond the obvious; beyond the formulaic prescriptions that may have worked before. We need to move from the “what we do, and do well” paradigm towards addressing the question, “what do we stand for, as a people”.


25. In corporate parlance, we shift from “mission” to ‘credo”.


26. Organisations start off with a focus on the bottom-line and profits that translate to bonuses for staff. As success kicks in, bottom-line and profit increasingly become nothing more than a hygiene factor i.e. it is expected and therefore not enough to retain good talent as the competitors have the same capacity to entice. When you have to manage success, you think purely in terms of the bottom-line to your peril. Worthy people stay because of satisfaction, challenge and pride of association. This is why highly successful organisations focus more on doing the right thing and getting people to identify with what they stand for; these organisations strive to be admired.


27. For me, what we can claim is uniquely Singaporean that is admired by many would include our multi-racial, multi-religious make up; our honest, transparent, reliable set-up; and the principle of equal opportunity that we will not give up. These are values that we have built up over the years, and today have become an intrinsic part of our psyche, our culture as a people. Time and time again my friends and visitors from overseas remind me of how lucky we are to be in an environment with such a level of racial and religious harmony – that we should not take it for granted. Yes, we are guilty of taking this for granted. We need to take pains to illustrate these values experientially to our younger generation so that we don’t risk losing them.


27. In order to prevent healthy scepticism in our people, especially our young, from becoming entrenched cynicism, we, as a society, need to address apparent contradictions and mixed signals. Examples are the issue of Malay-Muslims in the SAF, SAP schools and cultural elitism, the need for ethnic based self help groups, the need for us to maintain the current racial distribution in society, and whether Singapore is ready for an ethnic minority Prime Minister.


28. We have come a long way since the late Mr S Rajaratman gave us the National Pledge. Much has changed along the way, sometimes for the better and other times posing a challenge to national unity. The terrorist threat is a case in point – it has set us back in our efforts to build trust and a social compact. We need to avoid becoming alarmist. But we cannot afford to be complacent and stick to the assumptions relevant in the years before.


29. I am heartened by the government’s proactive approach in ensuring that racial harmony and our social compact are not threatened. Initiatives such as the IRCCs and the Community Engagement Programme, and the creation of organisations such as OnePeople.com can go some way in building resilience in this area. Likewise, lucid and timely articulation of the government’s unwavering stance against any elements whose words or actions could undermine inter racial-religious trust has helped send the desired signal to the ground. Senior Minister Prof S Jayakumar’s considered thoughts on why it’s foolhardy to take racial harmony for granted captured in his interview published in The Straits Times last month is a good example of this. And of course, Prime Minister Lee’s clear, honest and inspiring articulation of the same point in his National Day Rally speech is timely. To me being complacent about our racial harmony based on what we see on the smooth surface is akin to skating on thin ice: we assume from the surface that the ground is solid, but all it takes is one crack to deepen and spread into a network of cracks. By the time we realise how thin the ice is, it may be too late.


30. We need to move forward in a leap of faith: that yes there are fault lines and some have deepened and widened, but the bonds that have come to bind us at a basic level since the 1960s can endure if we choose to focus on it. What we must avoid is overt propaganda, which can be counter-productive. Instead, we should seek to deepen the primordial ties between communities using sports, arts and culture and the mass media as agents. Talking about the media, let me suggest something the TV media should do in this regard. When TV came to Singapore in 1963, there was just one channel – so we watched all programmes regardless of language. Then it became two channels – channel 5 in English and Malay, and channel 8 in Mandarin and Tamil. What was interesting, as a result, and because it wasn’t that convenient to switch channels (no remote control), Tamil newsreaders were recognised in Chinatown. Likewise, Chinese newscasters had star status when they went to Little India! Today, with each ethnic community having our own channel – we have lost the opportunity to cross-fertilise through the media! It would be useful to have a policy for each vernacular channel to carry more stories or features about what is happening in the other communities.

Like I said it's probably personal between Viswa and the old man.

But I was surprised that Viswa said "equality" and old man took it to mean abolishment of Malay rights. Malays are already disadvantaged even with all the extra help. Viswa clearly knows and didn't mean that and it's rare the old man got it so out of point.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

From: KiwiBird7 12:28 am
To: MissClarity unread (29 of 43)

19483.29 in reply to 19483.1

To think that many S'poreans obediently recited the 'PLEDGE' (ASPIRATION) at 8.22pm on 9 Aug!
ASPIRATION vs IDEOLOGY
LKY's argument is seriously FLAWED because one must first have a ideology (IDEA) set in place before one can aspire (wish upon to achieve).
In the absence of an idea (IDEOLOGY) there is NOTHING to aspire to (wish upon to achieve).

So how can the PLEDGE be just an aspiration in the absence of a firm ideology?
PLEDGE vs WISHLIST(ASPIRATION)
A pledge is a solemn promise or a vow to uphold and achieve. It is ridiculous to make such a solemn promise/vow on a wishlist that is not even based on an ideology.
If the S'pore pledge is not based on solid ideology but merely wishful thinking or aspiration then the SG flag which has 5 stars that represents nothing more than a wish/dream
Then what the hell is NS for? To think that there are many NS diehard supporters out there willing to shed blood and die for something that is nothing more than wishful thinking/aspirations that is not even grounded in a firm recognised ideology.

Perhaps I am short of brain cells, but what I fail to understand is why an idealogy cannot also be an aspiration, which is not the present reality.
Why can't the pledge be an idealogy, and something which the nation aspires towards, since it is not the practical reality at the moment?
Does it not make sense that everyone should be treated equally, but that due to practical circumstances, this idealogy / aspiration cannot be attained currently? And that the "special" treatment should apply to all who need it, and not simply to a certain group or groups of people?

 

[jw5]

From: KiwiBird7 12:28 am
To: MissClarity unread (29 of 43)

19483.29 in reply to 19483.1

To think that many S'poreans obediently recited the 'PLEDGE' (ASPIRATION) at 8.22pm on 9 Aug!
ASPIRATION vs IDEOLOGY
LKY's argument is seriously FLAWED because one must first have a ideology (IDEA) set in place before one can aspire (wish upon to achieve).
In the absence of an idea (IDEOLOGY) there is NOTHING to aspire to (wish upon to achieve).

So how can the PLEDGE be just an aspiration in the absence of a firm ideology?
PLEDGE vs WISHLIST(ASPIRATION)
A pledge is a solemn promise or a vow to uphold and achieve. It is ridiculous to make such a solemn promise/vow on a wishlist that is not even based on an ideology.
If the S'pore pledge is not based on solid ideology but merely wishful thinking or aspiration then the SG flag which has 5 stars that represents nothing more than a wish/dream
Then what the hell is NS for? To think that there are many NS diehard supporters out there willing to shed blood and die for something that is nothing more than wishful thinking/aspirations that is not even grounded in a firm recognised ideology.

Looks like I have the brain cells of a kiwibird.

 

[Perspective]

Agree, but we will first need to have an idealogy, which then becomes an aspiration if it's not the current practical reality right?
Why does it appear that the same concept cannot be both an idealogy and an aspiration?
Or again, am I short of brain cells which do not allow me to join the ranks of the elite?

In a way, I see your point. An "aspiration" can be an aspiration to achieve an ideology. However, ideology is a "political teaching". I would prefer an aspiration to achieve an *ideal*, not ideology.

Imagine PAP wants to fit us all into an ideology. I think all of us have enough of that already.