The festival of Ghosts is once again upon us, and there are tons of “Wayang” (Chinese Street Operas) and “Getai” performances sprouting around everywhere in accordance to the Chinese traditional practice to offer tribute to the departed during this period of time.
Walking pass a street Wayang performance beneath my apartment recently, I took a glance upon the audience of the performance and realised that the only people present are old Chinese folk. There was not a teenage Chinese Singaporean to be seen. Logical in a sense, that youngsters nowadays in Singapore do not care about such traditional things that the previous generation admires… but this is really sad knowing that these street Wayang performances will not be with us unto the next generation, as Singaporean Chinese Youths of today gradually drift away from their roots and once the elderly Chinese pass on, there would be no demand at all for such cultural performances.
But the real funny thing is that the other racial communities in Singapore - Malays and Indians – do to seem to have such a problem within their communities? Malay and Indian youths are very much more attached and still identify easily with their traditional art performances such as the “Kuda Kepang” and so on.
Why is this?
I realised the glaring difference between these communities is the simple fact that the local Chinese community has totally lost touch with its language roots of old – Teochew, Cantonese and Hokkien etc. - as 3rd generation local Chinese speak Mandarin as the common norm, and thus an extreme generation gap between the older Chinese and modern Chinese today (and as such losing the ability to appreciate older cultural arts and heritage which mostly continue to exist in Chinese dialect).
As compared to the local Indian and Malays communities who continue to speak the language from the lands of their origin. (and as a result never once losing touch with their elders and they are more susceptible to appreciate and accept their older traditions)
It seems a tad sinister, but there has been somewhat of a “cultural genocide” that has been inflicted upon local Chinese populace for 30 years ago when the local government decided that local Chinese children were much better-off being educated with only Mandarin. And thus proposed campaigns to wipe out and discourage the propagation and utilisation of Chinese dialects in school classrooms; In addition to a total eradication of Chinese-dialect television programs from being screened on television.
While the ‘speak chinese’ campaign had a great deal of political and economic sense, it essentially had the effect of the Cultural Revolution of China.
Being cut off from any form of Chinese dialect media and influence, and raised by 2nd generation local Chinese - who are now parents – who realise that Mandarin is the only mother-tongue which is going to matter in their children’s school grades; leads to an entire era realising that it is not necessary to pass down dialect languages as they seem to no longer hold any relevance in this new order.
If the Singapore Government’s main intention 30 years ago was to prepare an entire population to be ready to take advantage of China’s markets once it opens by being able to easily penetrate it with the mastery of the Mandarin language as our trump card, then it seems that it has made a terrible mistake.
And a rather dreadful mistake it is.
With China opening its markets, local Chinese Singaporeans who have constantly been told that their conditioning with Mandarin would be able to utilise it with great advantage to do business with China have received a tremendous shock: The fact that local Chinese simply find it difficult to understand and to even simply talk to mainland Chinese.
In addition to the fact that many big businessmen and entrepreneurs in Hong Kong and Shanghai (historically Guangzhou area) continue to speak Cantonese and other dialects as their preferred language in a business/non-business context.
And other subtle problems that Singaporean Chinese, who’ve totally lost touch with their roots and older cultural practices and languages find it hard to identify and find any common ground with mainland Chinese. Thus sealing in the deadly fact to them that we are simply foreign Chinese colonists who are not worthy of any measure of respect; and on the side of us Singaporean Chinese, our local-conditioning combined with our inability to understand them has made us hold mainland Chinese people in contempt - as miscommunications and lack of understanding amongst people always do.
With some objective speculation, one can realise that the Singaporean Government actually does realise its mistake and is taking steps to make amendments.
After 30 years, we finally have “mIo TV”, a channel which provides tv programs in Chinese dialect. (FINALLY old Chinese Singaporeans who are at their 70-80s who bent their backs for this country, and who can only understand dialect languages can now have a chance to enjoy mainstream television for the first time in their lives.)
As well as the first time in many years seeing Chinese Dialect Songs being sung at our 2008 National Day parade.
The damage is already done. And perhaps this realisation has come too late and that this has become irreversible?
-Tainted Faith
Friday, August 15, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Public Awareness 101
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/cna/20080715/tap-407-head-ren-ci-hospital-venerable-s-231650b.html
Perhaps it’s all due to our ability to place blind trust in others; but it’s jolly well time that we took a close look at the two craziest scandals to ever scar our corruption-intolerant little island.
NKF and Ren Ci - once beacons of light for all that is good and true, has become household brands denoting scam-mery, blasphemy and dishonesty. But who is to blame exactly?
While the final blame (as usual) comes down to the heads of both of the organisations who will most probably be tried and held accountable for misuse of charitable funds, most Singaporeans would have considered otherwise:
Shouldn’t the parties that did not have the foresight to act in order to prevent such a disaster from occurring take the fall as well?’
With countless media-covered fundraisers, countless well-shot montages of disadvantaged patients, countless career-threatening stunts by local celebrities and anti-gravity monks; your average donor will unconsciously presume that with the presence of such enormous support behind their events, these two charitable giants must possess high degrees of credibility indeed.
And it is with such presumptions the public has unconsciously been misled to safely assume that our donations are in the hands of honest and truly well-meaning people, and as a result a regression of public alertness towards the financial cleanliness of our two innocent organisations.
So it seems that part of the blame has to be shouldered by the donors for donating blindly and not taking sufficient interest to keep track on where their money was going.
But the much of the blame truly falls to the higher-ups (government).
Accounting policies state that private companies and charitable organisations have a special privilege to avoid harsh and regular auditing – the first rationale being that since no public funds are being utilised to further the interest of the company, no investigation on the integrity of the company is necessary; and the latter being that charitable organisations are non-profit, and thus severe audit is seemingly unnecessary for hippie-like organisations.
The main Principle behind this law being that, if 'public interets' are not compromised with the existence/practices of an entity, then no inspections or interventions are necessary.
But what was not taken note of, was that the money in NKF and Ren Ci ARE public funds, and donated with the best interests of the public to be channelled to their intended targets, which therefore IS a 'public interest'. So why wasn't there any initiative taken to protect it in the first place?
Surely someone higher-up (and in the position of taking action) would have pointed out the folly of trusting a private organisation to be single-handedly in charge of facilitate this giant movement of public funds without any regular, unilateral governmental intervention/inspection or government-established platform for public inspection as recipe for disaster? Wasn’t there anyone within the government (ruling or opposition) with the foresight to prevent this from happening? Shouldn’t they too, be held a little accountable for allowing a loophole-filled system which so obviously allows for a single person to pilfer public funds freely to exist unchallenged?
In addition to the fact that our government openly endorses these donation drives and the existence of these organisations?! - Since government endorsements have the powerful ability in terms of garnering and blessing a great deal of credibility on a certain event/entity, isn’t it irresponsible that a government so easily issues endorsements (and thus makes an indirect annoucement to society that these entities are very very trustworthy so it's safe to put your money here!) to a private entity without doing sufficient homework and/or conducting proper investigations and possessing prior intimate understanding of their financial practices beforehand(which would have revealed their corrupt practices from the beginning)?
And it is with such blindness did all the people who were capable of taking action sidestepped their duty and so thus gave freely, power upon those who were in the best position of all to abuse it – but then again, why bother since someone can take the rap and be pointed out for all of the public’s hatred/anger to be directed towards if something really goes bad?
It’s just childish for anyone to make it seem like Durai and Building-Scaling Reverend are the only ones guilty in a case such as this.
- Tainted Faith
Perhaps it’s all due to our ability to place blind trust in others; but it’s jolly well time that we took a close look at the two craziest scandals to ever scar our corruption-intolerant little island.
NKF and Ren Ci - once beacons of light for all that is good and true, has become household brands denoting scam-mery, blasphemy and dishonesty. But who is to blame exactly?
While the final blame (as usual) comes down to the heads of both of the organisations who will most probably be tried and held accountable for misuse of charitable funds, most Singaporeans would have considered otherwise:
Shouldn’t the parties that did not have the foresight to act in order to prevent such a disaster from occurring take the fall as well?’
With countless media-covered fundraisers, countless well-shot montages of disadvantaged patients, countless career-threatening stunts by local celebrities and anti-gravity monks; your average donor will unconsciously presume that with the presence of such enormous support behind their events, these two charitable giants must possess high degrees of credibility indeed.
And it is with such presumptions the public has unconsciously been misled to safely assume that our donations are in the hands of honest and truly well-meaning people, and as a result a regression of public alertness towards the financial cleanliness of our two innocent organisations.
So it seems that part of the blame has to be shouldered by the donors for donating blindly and not taking sufficient interest to keep track on where their money was going.
But the much of the blame truly falls to the higher-ups (government).
Accounting policies state that private companies and charitable organisations have a special privilege to avoid harsh and regular auditing – the first rationale being that since no public funds are being utilised to further the interest of the company, no investigation on the integrity of the company is necessary; and the latter being that charitable organisations are non-profit, and thus severe audit is seemingly unnecessary for hippie-like organisations.
The main Principle behind this law being that, if 'public interets' are not compromised with the existence/practices of an entity, then no inspections or interventions are necessary.
But what was not taken note of, was that the money in NKF and Ren Ci ARE public funds, and donated with the best interests of the public to be channelled to their intended targets, which therefore IS a 'public interest'. So why wasn't there any initiative taken to protect it in the first place?
Surely someone higher-up (and in the position of taking action) would have pointed out the folly of trusting a private organisation to be single-handedly in charge of facilitate this giant movement of public funds without any regular, unilateral governmental intervention/inspection or government-established platform for public inspection as recipe for disaster? Wasn’t there anyone within the government (ruling or opposition) with the foresight to prevent this from happening? Shouldn’t they too, be held a little accountable for allowing a loophole-filled system which so obviously allows for a single person to pilfer public funds freely to exist unchallenged?
In addition to the fact that our government openly endorses these donation drives and the existence of these organisations?! - Since government endorsements have the powerful ability in terms of garnering and blessing a great deal of credibility on a certain event/entity, isn’t it irresponsible that a government so easily issues endorsements (and thus makes an indirect annoucement to society that these entities are very very trustworthy so it's safe to put your money here!) to a private entity without doing sufficient homework and/or conducting proper investigations and possessing prior intimate understanding of their financial practices beforehand(which would have revealed their corrupt practices from the beginning)?
And it is with such blindness did all the people who were capable of taking action sidestepped their duty and so thus gave freely, power upon those who were in the best position of all to abuse it – but then again, why bother since someone can take the rap and be pointed out for all of the public’s hatred/anger to be directed towards if something really goes bad?
It’s just childish for anyone to make it seem like Durai and Building-Scaling Reverend are the only ones guilty in a case such as this.
- Tainted Faith
Albion’s Sheep-Humpers
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080718/tuk-uk-britain-sheep-fa6b408.html
While devoid of any political issue, I felt the humour value of this article is just too great to be ignored.
Though Britons and their New Zealand mates constantly complain about being unfairly classified as poultry fornicators of the highest order; such events spring up now and then to kick them in the gonads.
God knows if the mad cow disease started the same way?
Say no to molested food products!
-Tainted Faith
While devoid of any political issue, I felt the humour value of this article is just too great to be ignored.
Though Britons and their New Zealand mates constantly complain about being unfairly classified as poultry fornicators of the highest order; such events spring up now and then to kick them in the gonads.
God knows if the mad cow disease started the same way?
Say no to molested food products!
-Tainted Faith
Sunday, July 13, 2008
A lack of respect
July 12 ST ( MM Lee ): “We are not trying to block the opposition. We are trying to force them to collect a group of people equal in competence… When we fail, they have a team that can take over.”
From MM Lee’s words, it seems to be a nudge in a benevolent and wise political direction. But what does he truly mean with those words?
Positively inferred, it seems to refer that Singapore Opposition parties are at least in his eyes, respected, and are currently regarded as small children who still require development and nurturing in order to inevitably take up their roles in parliament and work in tandem with the current ruling party as a balanced, and equally capable coalition.
But from a negative viewpoint, this statement seems to be yet another political cheap-shot at current standing opposition representatives as being simply incompetent, and simply unable to ‘take over’ or govern in the status quo.
But it seems despite the bright tone in which MM Lee’s tone was set, it seems that the latter viewpoint seems more appropriate due to PAP’s latest actions in the local political scene.
In a recent launch of J B Jeyaretnam’s new political part – the Reform Party – as laughable to the average Singaporean as it seems (that this guy just won’t quit), it is a symbolic and encouraging gesture to supporters of opposition aligned parties in Singapore that a previous champion of theirs has found his second wind in taking up a fight to the ruling party of the nation; and that the large congregation of opposition members socialising at the event seems to show that local opposition parties are finally attempting to get out of the funk that they are in, and actually try to form a middle-ground coalition to work towards a common target with a focused and united spirit.
And yet, the most disheartening issue in this inspirational event has come from the somewhat unchivalrous behaviour of MM Lee’s party in reaction to the event – by absenting themselves at the event despite a formal invitation issued to PAP party leaders.
Small as this snub might be, it can be seen as a clear message sent to opposition members by the ruling party: that we do not care even if a person who was the first opposition MP in Singaporean history is mustering strength to challenge us again, in our assumption that his actions are probably useless anyway, so why even bother dispensing a gesture of respect/sportsmanship by acknowledging his return with our presence at his inauguration?
If MM Lee’s words -which encourages the development and growth of opposition parties- do indeed reflect the mood of the rest of his party, then one would expect PAP leaders to show at least some gesture of respect to the return of a worthy opponent i.e. showing up at his inauguration – to show genuine respect and acknowledgement that the opposition parties are indeed TRYING to grow up, and attempting to gear up to offer themselves viable and equally capable alternatives to the current ruling party. Acknowledgement and recognition by the ruling party is essential to the growth and development of opposition parties; in a way where the ruling party will be symbolically sending out a message that the opposition parties are indeed worthy opponents, and that we positively desire you to get ready for local politics as comrade in arms for the betterment of Singapore together in the spirit of fair competition– an extremely positive nudge which would greatly encourage the growth and procurement of strength for the development of opposition parties; which is ultimately positive for Singapore to have more views and ideas debated in parliament for the overall development of the nation.
But by being childishly absent, seems to prove that the latter viewpoint of MM Lee’s comments are more truly held by the ruling party – the opposition is incompetent and just not worth our time or respect.
So when will the ruling party give respect to local opposition parties? When all their members are degree holders? When their leaders are millionaire CEOs? When their leaders are past presidents of countries and that they have proven their ability to lead? Or when their leaders are prophets from the gods?
When?
-Tainted Faith
From MM Lee’s words, it seems to be a nudge in a benevolent and wise political direction. But what does he truly mean with those words?
Positively inferred, it seems to refer that Singapore Opposition parties are at least in his eyes, respected, and are currently regarded as small children who still require development and nurturing in order to inevitably take up their roles in parliament and work in tandem with the current ruling party as a balanced, and equally capable coalition.
But from a negative viewpoint, this statement seems to be yet another political cheap-shot at current standing opposition representatives as being simply incompetent, and simply unable to ‘take over’ or govern in the status quo.
But it seems despite the bright tone in which MM Lee’s tone was set, it seems that the latter viewpoint seems more appropriate due to PAP’s latest actions in the local political scene.
In a recent launch of J B Jeyaretnam’s new political part – the Reform Party – as laughable to the average Singaporean as it seems (that this guy just won’t quit), it is a symbolic and encouraging gesture to supporters of opposition aligned parties in Singapore that a previous champion of theirs has found his second wind in taking up a fight to the ruling party of the nation; and that the large congregation of opposition members socialising at the event seems to show that local opposition parties are finally attempting to get out of the funk that they are in, and actually try to form a middle-ground coalition to work towards a common target with a focused and united spirit.
And yet, the most disheartening issue in this inspirational event has come from the somewhat unchivalrous behaviour of MM Lee’s party in reaction to the event – by absenting themselves at the event despite a formal invitation issued to PAP party leaders.
Small as this snub might be, it can be seen as a clear message sent to opposition members by the ruling party: that we do not care even if a person who was the first opposition MP in Singaporean history is mustering strength to challenge us again, in our assumption that his actions are probably useless anyway, so why even bother dispensing a gesture of respect/sportsmanship by acknowledging his return with our presence at his inauguration?
If MM Lee’s words -which encourages the development and growth of opposition parties- do indeed reflect the mood of the rest of his party, then one would expect PAP leaders to show at least some gesture of respect to the return of a worthy opponent i.e. showing up at his inauguration – to show genuine respect and acknowledgement that the opposition parties are indeed TRYING to grow up, and attempting to gear up to offer themselves viable and equally capable alternatives to the current ruling party. Acknowledgement and recognition by the ruling party is essential to the growth and development of opposition parties; in a way where the ruling party will be symbolically sending out a message that the opposition parties are indeed worthy opponents, and that we positively desire you to get ready for local politics as comrade in arms for the betterment of Singapore together in the spirit of fair competition– an extremely positive nudge which would greatly encourage the growth and procurement of strength for the development of opposition parties; which is ultimately positive for Singapore to have more views and ideas debated in parliament for the overall development of the nation.
But by being childishly absent, seems to prove that the latter viewpoint of MM Lee’s comments are more truly held by the ruling party – the opposition is incompetent and just not worth our time or respect.
So when will the ruling party give respect to local opposition parties? When all their members are degree holders? When their leaders are millionaire CEOs? When their leaders are past presidents of countries and that they have proven their ability to lead? Or when their leaders are prophets from the gods?
When?
-Tainted Faith
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Principles and Contexts
Sometimes I wonder if the people who fight so fervently for a cause, have any thought of the end results of their battles.
Dr. Chee Soon Juan, top Political agitator in Singapore once again strikes a chord with the ruling authority of Singapore. As the news reports, he seems to have landed up in another debacle despite recently being released from jail from a recent tough scuffle with the Singaporean legal system.
I personally respect Dr. Chee’s crusade for civil liberties in Singapore, and being one of the only few Singaporeans daring to risk their neck to express what they truly believe even if it comes to clashes with ruling school of thoughts.
But ultimately, should the Singapore he envisions come into being, it would prove disastrous – if not fatal – for our little island state.
Dr. Chee’s vision is to adopt western Liberal Democratic ideals here, to promote an increased protection of civil rights in Singapore. But we have to realise that an ideaological left-wing liberal democratic state (in the fashion of the west) is simply not feasible in the context of Singapore.
Let’s firstly examine the nature of Singapore.
We are a small island, with 1/3 our GDP depending on trade, and much of our middle class are working in business related enterprises.
As time goes by our relevance as a port is rapidly diminishing, – with our neighbouring countries taking the initiative to modernise their port facilities i.e. IDR in Malaysia and/or the fact that Thailand’s Kra Canal can be constructed at anytime should Singapore-Thai diplomacy should fail – which means that further emphasis has to be placed upon the success of our overseas financial investments and businesses, retaining a strong work taxable professional working middle class, and finally maintaining Singapore as an attractive spot to attract more foreign investments to strengthen our economy.
Furthermore, once labour-intensive (and soon, talent intensive) economies like China and India get their act together and overcome their initial handicap of their lack of expertise, it means that they will be able to provide similar Singaporean services (i.e. financial middlemen services) with lower costs, and better overall efficiency due to their added manpower, natural resources and tax revenues which they can rely upon to craft their systems – thus being able to attract the bulk of Singapore’s regular customers.
All in all, it also means that the Singaporean economy is extremely fragile.
The above can only be acheived if the few premises are met:
1. Leadership in the Singaporean government has to be swift, focused, decisive and single minded in its goals to achieve growth. Which means that constant divides and too much debate which slows down decision making processes may not be the best idea here after all.
2. The strong middle class must be enticed to remain here, where their taxable income plays a significant role in Singapore’s overall prosperity
3. A strong educational standard (and yes it should keep striving forward) – as to constantly churn out new generations of top-qualified professionals to fuel our economy
4. In reference to 1., the Singaporean leadership has to constantly think at least 10 years ahead of the nations around us. Find new innovations, and new ways of generating income which will take our rivals ages to catch up with (and provide that similar service i.e. our financial sector, where even if China does provide a similar service like we do, it will take years for foreign investors to put their trust in the integrity of their banking systems and thus use them), and to predict the moves of our larger opponents and always forcing a level playing field of competition, which will elude the advantages of their bigger resource base (i.e. investments and acquisitions trading, which relies more on smart and calculated decisions, and how much money or resources you have won’t really make a difference if you invest in the wrong areas.) To maintain a similar pace as our rivals would only allow them to overwhelm us with their larger resource base which we do not possess.
The growth towards prosperity in Singapore can be characterised on a tiring uphill climb on foot to keep staying ahead of our rivals who have the luxury to race us to the summit in a mountain buggy. And it is essential that we stay ahead in this tiresome race, or we will never ever catch up again.
Venice in the past was a similar tragedy, a small nation state against larger countries and economies, and not being able to stay ahead with changes and not being able to secure their sources of revenue which have been dominated by other bigger powers in the region. Will we go the way of the Venetians?
What happens then if a western-styled liberal democratic system is put into place of the current system?
With the western model of a liberal democracy, comes along a whole new myriad of problems that status quo Singapore does not currently have. With the western model implemented, it would mean less centralised government, and Singapore would in principle become more of a democracy and less of a republic – in other words, there would be a larger amount of “people rule” than before.
Given just a little too much of rights i.e. by liberally allowing street protests – and most probably the area that will be filled with protest is in centralised business areas - and productivity levels of the entire nation is affected immediately. A lack of landmass means that any traffic disruption anywhere in Singapore would lead to a breakdown in logistical services throughout the island. While this may sound like a petty point, a simple street protest would prove disastrous for Singapore (remember the 1965 riots)
Asides from the traffic problem that protests will cause, politics would become more ‘populist’ than ever before.
With the added amount of civil liberties the people possess, the more citizens will incessantly clamour for their views to be heard and considered. And policy making as a whole in Singapore would require much more sourcing and debate than ever before – everyone wants to be heard! – leading to longer deliberation time for every singular opinion, as well as giving ministers/officials who desire power to easily utilise the mob and formulate populist leaning policies(which most of the time are detrimental to the economy).
Too much rights and expression would lead to the citizen populace more concerned about their personal liberties and would push forth policies which are not favourable to the economy as a whole. I.e. More tax relief, more Union rights, more health and social welfare etc.
Which leads to the question where: who is going to bear all these extra costs? The answer which would inevitably be laid upon the shoulders of the middle class workers in a form of extra income tax burdens, as well as upon foreign workers and talents who are essential to our economy(who with the added tax burdens would then feel that they are really better off not working here after all).
While I do agree that Singapore does have an expression problem, and most Singaporeans are apolitical which is extremely pissing off, we have to realise that Singapore has a very delicate balance between governing and expression in the country due how it impacts our fragile economic lifeline.
If there is ever a fight for total expression and freedom of the mind in Singaporeans, we have to review ourselves before we take up such a fight to begin with. This is not saying that I fully worship and agree with the current standing policies of the ruling party.
I agree with many of their current standing principles which have made us the richest and most hated nation in the South-East Asian region, and I believe that these principles should remain as they are.
If changes are to be made, they must keep in mind that any social changes CANNOT come at the expense of the economy which is the key to our survival.
More expression in a form of public dialogues (as compared to our current systems where public speaking is outlawed without a permit) to bring to the attention certain issues such as rising costs of living, and that there are actually a sub-urban class that is immensely impoverished and require aid immediately, as well as a freer internet discussion of topics and political issues – all which allows our views to be heard and taken into consideration in further policy planning!
But we have to take note that debates and discussions have to be constructive and not destructive to society as a whole, and that these ideas can actually be utilised and heard by the government to improve the nation as a whole so as not to leave anyone alienated in the process of growth (which is happening now with our widening income gaps), as well as making people less disgruntled about life and the constant irritation of not being able to be heard.
Having more freedom to express, and not being constantly intimidated from doing so would further tap into the ‘potential’ strength of Singaporeans. What we have harnessed now is our educational ability to learn and copy and perhaps regurgitate skills we have seen. But what is really lacking is the lack of critical thinking when it comes to problems. Singaporeans are the least creative and outspoken of all overseas Chinese despite having the highest educational standards. And often Singaporeans can’t even hold a decent conversation with foreigners who are apparently more well-versed in geo-political issues that we are (how then are you going to get their respect?).
Such a phenomenon can be attributed to the lack of critical thinking in subjects such as Moral Ethics (in Secondary School, which turns out to be just a worthless subject) and Social Studies (which compromises mostly of memory work).
Critical thinking is the gateway to a more dynamic, and creative society which is ultimately beneficial. If your average Singaporean can talk politics and discuss the finer points of the economy, he will be more able to take necessary action and precaution and/or exploit opportunities when things happen globally. As well as boosting the image of Singaporeans, who will not be constantly labelled as demented work-driven and lifeless zombies who aspire nothing in life but to excel at work and capable of little intellectual and stimulating dialogue.
If there is any better reason to allow more expression in society, the most important point would come to be as a NATIONAL IDENTITY being forged as a result of more expression.
Singaporeans leaving en mass to other nations… are due to tons of reasons. Perhaps it’s the rising cost of living and pressures of the education system etc.
But perhaps the reason lies in the fact where Singaporeans find it difficult to identify with the nation of their birth. And the lack of a Singaporean identity cheapens the value of a Singaporean Citizenship, and people find no pain on themselves to jump boat at a whim.
In this age and era, it is almost impossible to forge a common Singaporean identity out of thin air. We note that most national identities are forged on either victorious wars a country wages, or a strong history and culture of the nation, etc. stuff that a country’s people can take pride in, which binds them together with their land.
Perhaps the best way for Singapore to gain an identity is to wage a war with any neighbouring country and actually WIN it. (but then again this would be crazy in today’s context). And Singapore is an immigrant state, with no ethnic or cultural achievements in our history which we can take immense pride in (the only war we fought against was the Japanese invasion which we lost pathetically).
Which leaves us another option of free speech and expression.
Giving people larger political involvement (albeit a controlled one), and allowing us to realise that we play a part in the decision making process of the country, instead of perceiving it as only being in the hands of a few political elites (you can argue that ‘democracy’ makes Singaporeans feel as if we are the ones deciding the policies of the country. But we do not see a direct link between our votes and how policies are passed in parliament), would serve to create a larger sense of patriotism in all Singaporeans.
No matter how benevolent and brilliant the rule of the current government is, all Singaporeans are feeling is that we are GIVEN a beautiful/lavish house to live in for free of charge. We do not even feel the BURDEN of building that house ourselves! When a strom hits, we gladly abandon the house – why save it? We weren’t the one who build it and thus feel no identification to it and its survival and maintainence.
But if a man off the street builds his house from simple twigs and stones to be a normal house - Not a very lavish house – and a storm comes… he will most definitely fight to protect his house from crumbling. For he has emotionally forged a bond with the house and himself, as an object of achievement and pride that he has created for himself, and there’s no chance in hell he’s going to abandon it.
The same principle applies to Singaporeans today, where the lack of involvement makes us the person in the first scenario. Eager to abandon it in face of crisis, since we do not even feel any sense of ownership to it, as we did not even partake in the overall construction (policy making) of this nation.
Allow us to wade in, but not so much that the economy gets affected.
-Tainted Faith
Dr. Chee Soon Juan, top Political agitator in Singapore once again strikes a chord with the ruling authority of Singapore. As the news reports, he seems to have landed up in another debacle despite recently being released from jail from a recent tough scuffle with the Singaporean legal system.
I personally respect Dr. Chee’s crusade for civil liberties in Singapore, and being one of the only few Singaporeans daring to risk their neck to express what they truly believe even if it comes to clashes with ruling school of thoughts.
But ultimately, should the Singapore he envisions come into being, it would prove disastrous – if not fatal – for our little island state.
Dr. Chee’s vision is to adopt western Liberal Democratic ideals here, to promote an increased protection of civil rights in Singapore. But we have to realise that an ideaological left-wing liberal democratic state (in the fashion of the west) is simply not feasible in the context of Singapore.
Let’s firstly examine the nature of Singapore.
We are a small island, with 1/3 our GDP depending on trade, and much of our middle class are working in business related enterprises.
As time goes by our relevance as a port is rapidly diminishing, – with our neighbouring countries taking the initiative to modernise their port facilities i.e. IDR in Malaysia and/or the fact that Thailand’s Kra Canal can be constructed at anytime should Singapore-Thai diplomacy should fail – which means that further emphasis has to be placed upon the success of our overseas financial investments and businesses, retaining a strong work taxable professional working middle class, and finally maintaining Singapore as an attractive spot to attract more foreign investments to strengthen our economy.
Furthermore, once labour-intensive (and soon, talent intensive) economies like China and India get their act together and overcome their initial handicap of their lack of expertise, it means that they will be able to provide similar Singaporean services (i.e. financial middlemen services) with lower costs, and better overall efficiency due to their added manpower, natural resources and tax revenues which they can rely upon to craft their systems – thus being able to attract the bulk of Singapore’s regular customers.
All in all, it also means that the Singaporean economy is extremely fragile.
The above can only be acheived if the few premises are met:
1. Leadership in the Singaporean government has to be swift, focused, decisive and single minded in its goals to achieve growth. Which means that constant divides and too much debate which slows down decision making processes may not be the best idea here after all.
2. The strong middle class must be enticed to remain here, where their taxable income plays a significant role in Singapore’s overall prosperity
3. A strong educational standard (and yes it should keep striving forward) – as to constantly churn out new generations of top-qualified professionals to fuel our economy
4. In reference to 1., the Singaporean leadership has to constantly think at least 10 years ahead of the nations around us. Find new innovations, and new ways of generating income which will take our rivals ages to catch up with (and provide that similar service i.e. our financial sector, where even if China does provide a similar service like we do, it will take years for foreign investors to put their trust in the integrity of their banking systems and thus use them), and to predict the moves of our larger opponents and always forcing a level playing field of competition, which will elude the advantages of their bigger resource base (i.e. investments and acquisitions trading, which relies more on smart and calculated decisions, and how much money or resources you have won’t really make a difference if you invest in the wrong areas.) To maintain a similar pace as our rivals would only allow them to overwhelm us with their larger resource base which we do not possess.
The growth towards prosperity in Singapore can be characterised on a tiring uphill climb on foot to keep staying ahead of our rivals who have the luxury to race us to the summit in a mountain buggy. And it is essential that we stay ahead in this tiresome race, or we will never ever catch up again.
Venice in the past was a similar tragedy, a small nation state against larger countries and economies, and not being able to stay ahead with changes and not being able to secure their sources of revenue which have been dominated by other bigger powers in the region. Will we go the way of the Venetians?
What happens then if a western-styled liberal democratic system is put into place of the current system?
With the western model of a liberal democracy, comes along a whole new myriad of problems that status quo Singapore does not currently have. With the western model implemented, it would mean less centralised government, and Singapore would in principle become more of a democracy and less of a republic – in other words, there would be a larger amount of “people rule” than before.
Given just a little too much of rights i.e. by liberally allowing street protests – and most probably the area that will be filled with protest is in centralised business areas - and productivity levels of the entire nation is affected immediately. A lack of landmass means that any traffic disruption anywhere in Singapore would lead to a breakdown in logistical services throughout the island. While this may sound like a petty point, a simple street protest would prove disastrous for Singapore (remember the 1965 riots)
Asides from the traffic problem that protests will cause, politics would become more ‘populist’ than ever before.
With the added amount of civil liberties the people possess, the more citizens will incessantly clamour for their views to be heard and considered. And policy making as a whole in Singapore would require much more sourcing and debate than ever before – everyone wants to be heard! – leading to longer deliberation time for every singular opinion, as well as giving ministers/officials who desire power to easily utilise the mob and formulate populist leaning policies(which most of the time are detrimental to the economy).
Too much rights and expression would lead to the citizen populace more concerned about their personal liberties and would push forth policies which are not favourable to the economy as a whole. I.e. More tax relief, more Union rights, more health and social welfare etc.
Which leads to the question where: who is going to bear all these extra costs? The answer which would inevitably be laid upon the shoulders of the middle class workers in a form of extra income tax burdens, as well as upon foreign workers and talents who are essential to our economy(who with the added tax burdens would then feel that they are really better off not working here after all).
While I do agree that Singapore does have an expression problem, and most Singaporeans are apolitical which is extremely pissing off, we have to realise that Singapore has a very delicate balance between governing and expression in the country due how it impacts our fragile economic lifeline.
If there is ever a fight for total expression and freedom of the mind in Singaporeans, we have to review ourselves before we take up such a fight to begin with. This is not saying that I fully worship and agree with the current standing policies of the ruling party.
I agree with many of their current standing principles which have made us the richest and most hated nation in the South-East Asian region, and I believe that these principles should remain as they are.
If changes are to be made, they must keep in mind that any social changes CANNOT come at the expense of the economy which is the key to our survival.
More expression in a form of public dialogues (as compared to our current systems where public speaking is outlawed without a permit) to bring to the attention certain issues such as rising costs of living, and that there are actually a sub-urban class that is immensely impoverished and require aid immediately, as well as a freer internet discussion of topics and political issues – all which allows our views to be heard and taken into consideration in further policy planning!
But we have to take note that debates and discussions have to be constructive and not destructive to society as a whole, and that these ideas can actually be utilised and heard by the government to improve the nation as a whole so as not to leave anyone alienated in the process of growth (which is happening now with our widening income gaps), as well as making people less disgruntled about life and the constant irritation of not being able to be heard.
Having more freedom to express, and not being constantly intimidated from doing so would further tap into the ‘potential’ strength of Singaporeans. What we have harnessed now is our educational ability to learn and copy and perhaps regurgitate skills we have seen. But what is really lacking is the lack of critical thinking when it comes to problems. Singaporeans are the least creative and outspoken of all overseas Chinese despite having the highest educational standards. And often Singaporeans can’t even hold a decent conversation with foreigners who are apparently more well-versed in geo-political issues that we are (how then are you going to get their respect?).
Such a phenomenon can be attributed to the lack of critical thinking in subjects such as Moral Ethics (in Secondary School, which turns out to be just a worthless subject) and Social Studies (which compromises mostly of memory work).
Critical thinking is the gateway to a more dynamic, and creative society which is ultimately beneficial. If your average Singaporean can talk politics and discuss the finer points of the economy, he will be more able to take necessary action and precaution and/or exploit opportunities when things happen globally. As well as boosting the image of Singaporeans, who will not be constantly labelled as demented work-driven and lifeless zombies who aspire nothing in life but to excel at work and capable of little intellectual and stimulating dialogue.
If there is any better reason to allow more expression in society, the most important point would come to be as a NATIONAL IDENTITY being forged as a result of more expression.
Singaporeans leaving en mass to other nations… are due to tons of reasons. Perhaps it’s the rising cost of living and pressures of the education system etc.
But perhaps the reason lies in the fact where Singaporeans find it difficult to identify with the nation of their birth. And the lack of a Singaporean identity cheapens the value of a Singaporean Citizenship, and people find no pain on themselves to jump boat at a whim.
In this age and era, it is almost impossible to forge a common Singaporean identity out of thin air. We note that most national identities are forged on either victorious wars a country wages, or a strong history and culture of the nation, etc. stuff that a country’s people can take pride in, which binds them together with their land.
Perhaps the best way for Singapore to gain an identity is to wage a war with any neighbouring country and actually WIN it. (but then again this would be crazy in today’s context). And Singapore is an immigrant state, with no ethnic or cultural achievements in our history which we can take immense pride in (the only war we fought against was the Japanese invasion which we lost pathetically).
Which leaves us another option of free speech and expression.
Giving people larger political involvement (albeit a controlled one), and allowing us to realise that we play a part in the decision making process of the country, instead of perceiving it as only being in the hands of a few political elites (you can argue that ‘democracy’ makes Singaporeans feel as if we are the ones deciding the policies of the country. But we do not see a direct link between our votes and how policies are passed in parliament), would serve to create a larger sense of patriotism in all Singaporeans.
No matter how benevolent and brilliant the rule of the current government is, all Singaporeans are feeling is that we are GIVEN a beautiful/lavish house to live in for free of charge. We do not even feel the BURDEN of building that house ourselves! When a strom hits, we gladly abandon the house – why save it? We weren’t the one who build it and thus feel no identification to it and its survival and maintainence.
But if a man off the street builds his house from simple twigs and stones to be a normal house - Not a very lavish house – and a storm comes… he will most definitely fight to protect his house from crumbling. For he has emotionally forged a bond with the house and himself, as an object of achievement and pride that he has created for himself, and there’s no chance in hell he’s going to abandon it.
The same principle applies to Singaporeans today, where the lack of involvement makes us the person in the first scenario. Eager to abandon it in face of crisis, since we do not even feel any sense of ownership to it, as we did not even partake in the overall construction (policy making) of this nation.
Allow us to wade in, but not so much that the economy gets affected.
-Tainted Faith
Prologue
Prologue
It’s been 6 years since my close friends asked (more like teased) me to start a blog for constantly being the little insufferable little intellectual I am.
But eager as I am to let all my thoughts be heard, Political blogging and discussion has never been the brightest idea to me – who knows what trouble you might get into with an utterance of a single word? (Especially here in Singapore)
Perhaps it is sheer boredom, or due to the light of recent events that I have reconsidered my past taboos. How can I miss out being involved in critiquing such juicy events of the era?
-Tainted Faith
It’s been 6 years since my close friends asked (more like teased) me to start a blog for constantly being the little insufferable little intellectual I am.
But eager as I am to let all my thoughts be heard, Political blogging and discussion has never been the brightest idea to me – who knows what trouble you might get into with an utterance of a single word? (Especially here in Singapore)
Perhaps it is sheer boredom, or due to the light of recent events that I have reconsidered my past taboos. How can I miss out being involved in critiquing such juicy events of the era?
-Tainted Faith
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
