i was thinking about a conversation with the best friend while he was here, a conversation about how the most successful individuals are those who manage to set up systems of workflow, labour, management, finance etc such that they can operate independently, no matter who is in place.
if the system that has been created is so brilliant, and so geared towards bringing continues economic success and (apparently) benefits for singaporeans, why are they so afraid of letting other people into the system.
individuals don’t break systems unless the system is unsustainable in the first place. positions are permanent. the people in those positions are replaceable.
Just look at any factory, does it matter, really, who is the line manager, who is on the conveyor belt, who is doing the supervising, who is in the accounts office, who is the general manager? As long as everyone knows what their position is within the system, everything runs smoothly.
And, how will anyone know that anything is wrong unless someone with no vested interests is watching and challenging and questioning their motives? It’s like, going along with the factory analogy, who is going to tell you that your machinery needs replacing except the repairman or the engineer who is an outsider coming in to make routine checks?
And, if the system is so perfect, then what’s a little controlled chaos?
Another analogy: shareholders in a publicly listed company. the shareholders give up much of their rights of control because there are directors, and they only make decisions when those decisions are legally required to be taken. the directors, on the other hand, are limited by law and by corporate governance codes.
But directors still face sanctions if they act out of their role, or if they are neglectful, or if they do not act in the best interests of the shareholders. Also, non-executive directors are expected, EXPECTED, to reign in the directors by questioning them, and rocking the boat when they sense something amiss. (in some cases, non-exec directors who have played safe and not questioned the directors have actually been disqualified.)
In this analogy, singaporeans are the shareholders (we are singapore, stand together hear the lion roar, blah blah blah), the majority party are the directors and the opposition party are the non-executive directors.
It is the duty of the opposition members to make trouble for the majority party, but not in a negative sense. By making trouble, the opposition is in fact creating opportunities for the majority party to justify their decisions, to explain to the public their motives, to give us an insight into their thought processes. They are trying their best to represent Singaporean interests, our interests, as well, you know.
It’s constructive criticism, take it and work with it.
I find it hypocritical that we are told that we are constantly told to think outside the box when there are so many minds in the majority party that are so very narrow and/or closed. And those who do think outside of the box, who think in circles, triangles, tetrahedrons, cartons, envelopes, string and bubble-wrap, get disregarded as being ‘too avant-garde’ or ‘too forward for asian values’ or ‘not fitting in with the rest of society’ or get told that ‘the society is not ready for it yet’. Ideas are only radical when there is fear of its implementation, and the best way of getting used to dealing with something new is to jump in the deep end - sink or swim.
And, just to get this off my chest, there is no such thing as a public morality, and there is no such thing as ‘asian values’ - if morality is based on religion or some inner sense of right and wrong, then everyone will have different ideas on morality because it is such an intensely personal and individual matter; and values are merely symbols for action, to seem to be protecting the masses by promoting a comforting (and self-serving) myth in this time of enormous technological and social change.
If every asian country has had a different history and a different path to development, if each asian country has a very different culture, if they were ruled by various overlords and emperors and colonists, and influenced by very different religions, if Asia consists of all the countries that it does, how is it possible for a co-ordinated set of values to represent all of them? The only Asian value that is true for all Asian countries, at this moment, is the value of a capitalist economy.
Just because not everybody went to Cambridge doesn’t mean we’re all stupid and/or ignorant. Don’t look down on us, and don’t treat us like little children. You may be old and wise, but remember you are old and you will die.
The post-65ers (to use the common parlance) may not make up the majority of the voters now, but what about in 5 years, or 10, or 15?
If they think that the heart and stomach issues are going to serve them in good stead for a long while yet, they’ve got it wrong. Listen to General Templer:
Templer coined the phrase of “winning the hearts and minds” of the people. With respect to the people of Malaya, this was to be achieved by governing effectively and justly, and to be seen to be doing so (emphasis mine).
He won Malaya back from the communists, so he must know what he’s talking about. And his biography is on the MINDEF site, so they must know what they’re writing about.
H E A R T S A N D M I N D S, yo.
Engage the intellect. I know you have it in you somehow.
The post-65ers have had post-secondary education (some of us have even studied at Cambridge, for real!), we’ve watched television, we’ve travelled, we’ve got the internet, we know how other countries and economies work, and we can sniff out bullshit from a 100miles.
We’re literate and we’re not about to go down silently.
To garble Dylan Thomas,
[I refuse to] go gentle into that good night.
[What I will do, is ]
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
