TR EMERITUS

Author: Dr Wong Wee Nam 13 September 2010 “It is important to guarantee the people’s democratic rights and legitimate rights and interests. We must resolve the problem of excessive concentration of power, create conditions that allow people to criticise and supervise the government….” – Wen Jiabao Prime Minister of China in 2010 Singapore’s Builders In 1819 Singapore had the good fortune of one man’s foresight. A man by the name of Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles decided to acquire this swampy malaria-infested fishing village for the British Crown and began to lay plans to turn the insignificant island into a thriving trading centre. The plans called for the creation of a town, a system of preserving law and order, the development of free trade and the provision of education. With this vision, Raffles laid down the embryo for the transformation of Singapore from a hiding place for pirates, a stopover for seafarers and a market place for traders into a more permanent society. This was how Singapore was born and Raffles rightly took his place in history as the founding father of Singapore. Raffles may have planted the seed but it was our forefathers who had cultivated this seed to grow Singapore into what we are today. In other words, Singapore has become a nation because our forefathers had decided to plant their roots and raise their families here. Singapore has always been a small place with few natural resources. In the past, it had to depend purely on the drive, determination, enterprise and resourcefulness of its people to turn a fishing village into a trading centre. It was these qualities of our forefathers that soon made Singapore a trading capital of the East. It is we, their descendents, who have carried on the good work and made Singapore what it is today. The New World We are now living in a globalised world and Singapore will continue to adapt and evolve. As we change we need to remember that the global economy is a double-edged sword especially for a city-state. It can make us richer and more prosperous but the income gap will be widened and make a lot of us poor. It can create jobs and depress wages at the same time. It can attract people as well as fragment society, destroy our identity as a nation and tear us apart. To survive as a nation, therefore, not only do we need to be as resourceful and innovative as our forefathers, we need also to be able to live and work together as one people as they did. The Conditions for Creativity Like everyone else in the world, there is no doubt that Singapore will need more and more creative people in order to survive. However have we the right environment to nurture more creative people? A classroom with a hectoring teacher cannot produce creative students. Similarly a country of cowed citizens fed by official state opinions and ruled by lecturers who have this habit of talking down to the people cannot be expected to produce a lot of creative people. When I was a teenager, the song Puff, The Magic Dragon was banned. This song was based on a poem written by Leonard Lipton who was inspired by a poem Custard the Dragon written by Ogden Nash. Yet the authorities at that time deemed that the words “puff” and “dragon” connotes the taking of drugs. Nevertheless, after listening to the song for nearly forty years, I have not even puffed cigarettes, let alone smoked pot. In those days, the authorities saw metaphors in the ordinary meaning of words. Nowadays, it is the opposite. The authorities see literal meaning in metaphors. Recently a young man was hauled up by the police for using a metaphor. The authorities then and now may choose to interpret words literally or figuratively, but the intention to control is the same. This means that a writer now has to be very careful in using figures of speech. By extension, there is nothing to say that a person may not be charged for criminal defamation for using hyperboles. Figures of speech are part of good creative writing. Metaphors are expressions that use words imaginatively to enliven an idea. How can we, therefore, encourage creativity if people have to over-censor what they write or do and non-conformists are not tolerated? Forty years on, things are still the same. Attracting Talents There is also no doubt we need to attract talented people from all over the world to supplement and complement our own pool of talents. However if we do not even have the conducive environment to nurture our own talents, this same stifling climate will ultimately stifle any foreign talent that we import. Foreign talents are not constrained by national borders. They are here precisely because of their nomadic nature. This means they can leave as easily as they come. Furthermore, the migrants of today are different from our forefathers. Our forefathers came with nothing and had to start life from scratch. They had to stay because there was no hope of them going back to their homeland. The modern migrants are different. They are here purely for economic interests. Having no deep roots here, and with a globally marketable skill, they will leave as readily as they had come if they can find that a better place for the cultivation of their talent. Many also still have a greater motherland to go back to. Money attracts talents. However, money will not be able to buy commitment. Neither will it entice foreigners to rush in to apply for citizenship. Nor will money be able to stem the tide of emigration by our own citizens, if they are not happy to live here. Ultimately whether these people will give their hearts to the country depends on whether there is a conducive social and political climate for them to fulfil themselves as citizens of the country. Professor Udo Zander from the Stockholm School of Economics said, “Talented women and men will look for societies that to the best of their knowledge promise a way of life that they have been dreaming of.” In other words, they want a way of life that they dream of and not what politicians think they should have. Looking After Our Own Citizens Our parents, grandparents, or even great-grandparents had evolved a shared culture and lived through a common history to give a meaning to this country as a nation. For Singapore to continue being a cohesive nation we need to ensure that our talented citizens who have been born and bred here, or newly acquired, continue to make this their home. Yet many of these people or their children are migrating and migrants from other countries are replacing them. If this persists, the majority of Singapore’s population will soon be fresh migrants with very little roots to sustain us as a tightly cohesive nation. Singapore will then just become a multi-national office for talented people to work and not a home for our people and our children to stay forever. Let us not for one moment think that it is possible, by patriotic asseveration, to get Singaporeans who have migrated to a foreign land and brought up their children there to have a heart in Singapore. They may miss their friends and the local food, but in the age of travel and e-mails, these deprivations would not make them feel homesick at all. Singapore has a very short history as a nation. Singing national day songs will not be enough to provide a strong cultural and historical glue to bind the younger Singaporeans. They need to feel that this is home. Unfortunately, the PAP’s style of government makes them feel like guests in hotel. Though better educated than their parents, many have felt that they do not have much say in the affairs of their country. They may be physically comfortable but there is little spiritual attachment. The government wants its citizens to participate but it decides how, what, when and where it should be done.  In order for participation to have a meaning, there must be real freedom to generate, test and implement ideas. It is no use having lots of feedback sessions if these are to be just grumbling sessions against unpopular policies. And the government should not see genuine complaints as grumblings but as pleas for solutions. When people complained against crowded MRTs and high costs of HDB flats, they are meant to highlight problems that the government needs to address. They moan not because they are victims of their own success but because they are sufferers of poor policies. It is really a bad joke to ask them to stop griping and think of the unfortunate in society. Conclusion National allegiance grows from a deeply ingrained sense of shared heritage and destiny. And this can only come about through generations of participation in shaping one’s own lives in one’s own country. If we want Singaporeans to have their hearts in Singapore, then we must give them the mental and psychological space to fulfil themselves as co-owners of this country. People do not just fulfil themselves by being mere owners of upgraded HDB flats. Thus as long as we do not have a place that we can strongly feel to be a home, we will continue to lose our talents and draw in second rate foreign talents. If our climate is not conducive for enough intellectual inquiry and critical thinking to the extent that many of our own people have chosen not to come back, how can we hope to attract the really top talents from the world to come here and grow roots? If we want our people to think of home, let us feel at home first. Source: http://www.sgpolitics.net  Read More →

Here is the brutal truth — close your eyes and read no further if you cannot handle the truth in its purest and barest form: The problem with Singapore is not PAP — rather, the problem with Singapore has something to do with the nature of Singaporeans themselves. More specifically, Singaporeans are too KS and overly-practical. Whereas most folks in the rest of the world (first world or third world alike) would rather die in starvation and hunger and fight to the death for their freedom, Singaporeans will readily sacrifice their freedom (and that of their children) for promise of economic gains and stability. That IS the essence of the problem with Singapore. There is an utter lack of idealism. Food over the table takes precedence over fundamental notions of individual liberty. Idealism and principles are sacrificed for practicality. While such myopic and practical approach may produce better gains in the short-run, in the long-run it is highly detrimental to the nation as a whole. Singapore is a case in point. The long-term costs of having a one-party, dictatorial state have finally started to appear through the cracks. It is unfortunate that such long-term costs have not been factored in by Singaporeans of the previous generations when they were voting for PAP, decade after decade. The moral of the story is this: If you are too practical and “afraid to lose” and if you are thus willing to sacrifice your ideals for practicality and stability. you end up losing everything. Nothing will change unless and until Singaporeans realize — and face up to — the nature of the problem. It is good to be idealistic, even at the risk of going hungry and dying — for, if you lose your ideals and if you sacrifice away your liberties and freedoms, no amount of food and money would fill the resultant void.   SAY NO TO PAP  Read More →

Author: Goh Meng Seng During the launch of NSP (National Solidarity Party) Malay Bureau last Saturday (11 September 2010), a Malay reporter asked me whether NSP is moving towards "race based politics" with the launch of this Malay Bureau. My instantaneous response is, "Aren't we living in a political system full of race based politics and policies already?" Coincidentally, MM Lee was reported talking to foreign correspondent about how Singapore will fall into "race based politics" if we to allow more political liberalization. Let me get this clear here, Singapore under PAP's rule, has already been engaging race based politics all this while! From the HDB racial quota rule, GRC system to setting up of Mandaki, Sinda, CDAC, all these are race-based politics. Although PAP's Rajaratnam has written the National Pledge on "regardless of race, language or religion", but that is all "Highfalutin ideals" in PAP's eyes! And the truth is, the ideal of cultivating a "Singapore Singaporean" has been subtly put off because of the recognition of the racial fundamentals of various ethnic groups in Singapore. That is why PAP starts putting up the HDB racial quota rule, set up racially based Mandaki, Sinda and CDAC... etc. GRC is set up precisely because in PAP's eyes, "minority candidates" (I do not like to use the word minority at all) could not win a single ward seat because of the assumption that the Chinese would be biased and vote according to racial lines. This is in spite of the fact that BOTH PAP's and Opposition's Malays, Indians and candidates of other races have won elections for decades! These changes are initiated basically because PAP realized that it has somewhat lost some support of the Malay and Indian communities back in the 1980s electoral contests. It wasn't a problem for the 1960s or the 1970s. But when Mr. JB Jeyaratnam started to break PAP's total monopoly of power in 1982 by-elections, PAP started to play the race cards. The high concentration of “minority votes” was considered as one of the prime reason why opposition parties in the 1980s were able to score well. Thus the HDB racial quota rule sets in. GRC was set up. Eventually, racially based organizations like Mandaki, Sinda and CDAC were set up as well. Thus, I cannot understand how opposition parties could be insinuated as the ones who will go into "race based politics" when PAP has already covered all these racial aspects! The truth is, any politicians or political parties will not survive politically if one is to concentrate on a single racial issue! This is basically because by being singular racially based, you will lose the support of other races. The ONLY WAY for a political party to win the elections is by winning the TRUST OF ALL RACES! This is why PAP has gone into multiple race-based system with the set up of Mandaki, Sinda and CDAC. Yes, these are race based, but they are multiple race-based. Should we be worried about anyone going into race-based politics? Singular race based politics? Apparently not. That would be the most stupid thing for a politician to do. He will not get support from the other races at all! How could he be taken seriously? I believe most Singaporeans nowadays, regardless of race, language and religion, would not buy that kind of racial rhetoric even from people of their own race. We are an open society with citizens who are exposed to the outside world. We may be concerned about issues that are particularly important to our own racial community but that does not mean that we will go all out to encroach into other races' space. There are still social or even political problems which are specific to different races. This is something we cannot avoid. This is why any political parties who are serious in the long term political development of Singapore, will have to address it in an open manner. We cannot just pretend differences in race don't exist. But we must always bear in mind that we need to apply fairness and critical considerations in a just and balanced manner to all problems face by different races. PAP has jealousy guarded itself as the only party that could deal with race based politics in Singapore. Anybody who dares to challenge this position would normally face "demolition" from its leaders. Jufrie and Tang Lian Hong are those special cases for us to examine closely. Incidentally, both of them represented the same opposition party, Workers Party at different point of time. One would wonder how could two "accused" racial (i.e. Malay and Chinese) chauvinists ever serve the same party at all. Strategically speaking, such deliberate racial divides enhanced by the present the race based political setting, would require any political parties to convince each and every Singaporeans of all different races that they could well represent their interests in parliament, in a balanced way. It is not a simple task to accomplish especially so when PAP has deliberately set the OB markers for all other opposition parties from touching "race based issues" while itself dominates the race based agenda. As the leader of NSP, I feel the need to address such challenges. Forming the Malay Bureau is my first step towards establishing a party which will be seen as a multi-racial party which will take all views from all races into considerations. NSP must be seen to be the other party which is able to take care of all races in helping them to mitigate or voice out their concerns in parliament in a balanced and responsible way. If I could, I would like to form the Indian Bureau for NSP if I could get critical mass of Indian Singaporeans to join us as well. The point I want to make here is that, don't be frighten by PAP's scare tactic on "race based politics". As long as a political party is responsible in dealing with all race based issues in a balanced, fair and just manner, there is nothing wrong to be all inclusive in our approach of forming Malay and Indian Bureaus, just like PAP forming Mandaki, Sinda and CDAC. There might be competing ideas among different races. But I think we should have the wisdom to resolve such differences while working towards our common interests as a Nation. NSP is definitely not going into a narrow path of singular race based platform. In fact, I asked the reporter one simple question, NSP has always been seen as a "Chinese party" in the past. Won't the formation of the Malay Bureau actually diffuse such racially based perception once and for all? Won't it be seen as more racially balanced if we have Malay Bureau as well as Indian Bureau in NSP? How could we be perceived as "race based" political party when we are in fact moving towards in building a multi-racial political party platform? If anyone wants to accuse NSP of being race-based party, they should reconsider us as "multi-race based" party.  Read More →