i dun like Andrew Loh Hong Puey but any anti-PAP sinkies mus read this gem. tis is a 5 star post!!!!!! 
[h=2]Mollycoddled little emperors[/h]
Andrew Loh
On 30 June, Acting Minister for Manpower, Tan Chuan Jin, posted a status update on his Facebook page. In it, he pledged his support for SportsCares, an organisation which uses “sport as a force for social good by empowering people in need.”
However, in that same post he also passed what were disparaging and sarcastic remarks about some online users. He posted:
“I support SportsCares work. It is not keyboard warrior stuff arguing about midnight calls
but work by volunteers and staff to help inspire and fundamentally change lives.”
The “midnight calls” apparently referred to the late night call which the Law Minister, K Shanmugam, was purported to have made to a lawyer, Choo Zheng Xi, several days prior. Mr Shanmugam was alleged to have asked Choo to relay to his (Choo’s) group of friends to refrain from re-posting an article by Eric Ellis, in which Mr Ellis raised and questioned Shanmugam’s past involvement with several companies involved in the palm oil business in Indonesia.
Some of Mr Choo’s friends later took umbrage at a Facebook posting by the Law Minister, on 28 June, in which the minister accused one of them – Kirsten Han, who had written about that “midnight call” – of painting a picture which was “quite untrue” about the conversation the minister had with Mr Choo.
“My conversation with Remy was like all our usual conversations, where we shared views frankly with each other,” Mr Shanmugam said. “I am surprised to see that conversation appearing in print, twisted to give quite an untrue picture.”
Several in the group of friends then went to question Shanmugam on his Facebook page about his accusation of Ms Han, and confirming that what Ms Han had written in her blog post was correct and accurate.
The Law Minister did not and has not responded.
The “keyboard warriors” mentioned by Mr Tan in his posting apparently were those who were questioning the Law Minister.
What is interesting to note is that Mr Tan’s disparaging remarks were swiftly rejected by several commenters, and indeed Mr Tan was put in his place for his comments.
The first person to respond was Mr Timothy Tay, who said:
“It would be nice of the minister to kindly take note of the work done by others who take care of people on the fringes of society who are not mentioned or mentioned as much as needed, either by the media or by the government for reasons we do not know.”
He added:
“Even if the activists are engaging in issues in ways that you do not agree with, Mr. Minister, it would be respectful for you to recognise their efforts even if there's strong disagreement with the focus or the process. It's good to build people up, and not to break people down just because of such differences.”
Mr Joshua Chiang posted:
“Minister, and many of those 'keyboard warriors arguing about the midnight calls' are in fact doing the work.”
In fact, the several “keyboard warriors” who were questioning the Law Minister about the “midnight calls” had been “doing work” which indeed would “change lives”, as Mr Tan put it. These include work on various causes – from migrant workers’ rights and welfare, to the death penalty, from freedom of the press to human rights, and many others in-between.
Ms Han herself has been an advocate, particularly, for the abolition of the death penalty in Singapore, and has done much work over the years on this.
And in that week prior to Mr Tan posting his comments, that group of “keyboard warriors” had been out and about distributing water and masks to foreign construction workers at various sites in Singapore as well. They were doing their part during the haze.
Mr Tan’s remarks were thus wholly inaccurate, misguided and ill-informed. The “keyboard warriors” in question have, in fact, been “doing work” which affect lives even before Mr Tan came on the scene.
He seemed to have realised his error after being corrected by Mr Tay.
“There are many who do the work, and I don't disrespect their efforts,” he replied to Mr Tay. “And even if there are differences, it doesn't negate their efforts nor [sic] contribution.”
The point I am trying to make here is that even ministers get it wrong, and when they do it is right and responsible that these be pointed out and if need be, ministers should also be put in their place.
On Saturday, the Prime Minister spoke of “the nasty side of politics”, and he made specific reference to online ciriticism of his government, its MPs and ministers.
The PM should also be aware that many a time these “nasty” comments or postings are made by those from his own side, or by what are obviously supporters of his party. While Minister Tan’s disparaging remarks are by no means vile as some others, still it showed that not everyone on the government’s side is faultless at all time.
"The uncertainty over how things can develop may deter people from entering politics and potential candidates may be concerned about the impact on their families,” PM Lee said on Saturday. "You can be criticised personally ... but what goes on on the Web, all sorts of nasty stuff ... it has a real impact on families."
It is absolutely true that such behaviour online can and do have “real impact on families” of those who would go into public service.
But let’s not be ignorant or kid ourselves that these “nasty stuff” only come from one side of the fence.
Presently, for example, there is a Facebook post on a Facebook page which is apparently pro-Government/pro-PAP, containing vile references to Mr Vincent Wijeysingha who disclosed last week that he was gay. The remarks by the page and the subsequent comments by seemingly pro-PAP supporters there are indeed “nasty stuff”.
It reminds one of another instance where Mr Wijeysingha was again the target, this time by a minister. [Read here: “Vivian slithers in the gutter, SDP on knife-edge, part 1”]
Do we forget how the pictures and personal details of some female friends of former Hougang MP Yaw Shin Leong were splashed across the pages of the mainstream newspapers after the affair Yaw was alleged to have had first surfaced? Do we forget the many insinuations made against these women? Do we forget how reporters hounded them even at their homes?
And then there are the numerous cases in the past of some truly appalling abuse by the same government – of incarcerating its opponents without trial for decades, for suing its political foes into bankruptcy and into forced exile, or installing legislations to further curtail criticisms of it, of using the mainstream media to distort and disparage and defame those who go against its dictates, and so on and so on.
It is a well-known litany of abuse. The PAP brand of politics indeed was thoroughly nasty.
Online criticisms of the government or the PAP pales in comparison. In fact, the two are universes apart.
Yet, the finger is squarely, as it always is, placed on the dissenters of the government.
It is always them at fault.
Our PAP politicians, present ones and potential ones, must be protected at all costs, and the carpet must be straightened and laid out before them, so that their feet do not touch the ground and be soiled, all impediments to their ascension to their thrones must be removed. And of course, they must be well renumerated, otherwise they will not find it worth their time to serve the public.
In short, while PAP/Government detractors are free to be mauled and destroyed, and destroyed mercilessly, your potential PAP candidate/MP/Minister however must:
- Not face too much political opposition, else the PM will have to spend time fixing the opposition.
PM Lee: "Suppose you had 10, 15, 20 opposition members in Parliament. Instead of spending my time thinking what is the right policy for Singapore, I'm going to spend all my time thinking what's the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters votes.." (May 2006)
- Not face too many obstacles and "as many impediments as possible" should be removed for them.
East Coast GRC MP Lee Yi Shyan, who left his job as chief executive officer of IE Singapore and is today Minister of State (Trade and Industry), concurred: “If the system can remove as many impediments as possible, then the political system will be able to get more people to join.” (June 2006)
- Be given assurance of winning 'at least' his first election.
Goh Chok Tong: "Without some assurance of a good chance of winning at least their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics." (June 2006)
- Not be paid too low or "suffer a drastic change in the standard of living."
Grace Fu: "I had some ground to believe that my family would not suffer a drastic change in the standard of living even though I experienced a drop in my income. So it is with this recent pay cut. If the balance is tilted further in the future, it will make it harder for any one considering political office." (January 2012)
- Not be "criticized personally", especially online.
PM Lee: "The uncertainty over how things can develop may deter people from entering politics and potential candidates may be concerned about the impact on their families."
"You can be criticised personally ... but what goes on on the Web, all sorts of nasty stuff ... it has a real impact on families." (July 2013)
----------------
In 2009, PAP MP Sam Tan accused Singaporeans of being too dependent on the government, and that Singaporeans were “mollycoddled”. He related how Singaporeans are helped by so many government assistance schemes during the recession, and how Singaporeans “have become somewhat accustomed to the largesse of an efficient MCYS whose many helping hands are indeed everywhere doing everything for us.”
“Mr Sam Tan, MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC, is worried that Singaporeans might have been so mollycoddled by the Government that they have become 'practised at the craft of recession cushioning', and so accustomed to the government largesse.” (Straits Times)
One can’t help but feel that Mr Sam Tan’s words, spoken in Parliament, would also apply to potential PAP MPs and ministers. From the words of ministers themselves in the past, as quoted above, it would seem that potential PAP candidates for elections want the path cleared entirely of every conceivable obstacle for them as well, before they would even consider public service.
Perhaps they – and the Prime Minister – should keep in mind Mr Sam Tan’s words of advice from 2009, issued in Parliament:
“Suppose you are the father of an eight-old-year boy who wants to learn how to cycle. Do you line the streets with cushions so that he will not hurt himself if he loses his balance? Do you brace his knees, and every conceivable part of his exposed body with padding? You might, if you were an extremely protective father. But the commonsensical approach would be to let the boy have a go at it himself, and take the knocks and spills as they come. A boy who is mollycoddled is a very different person from one who is physically tough and to take spills without fear and whining. The latter, I think, could be the approach that we take towards helping Singaporeans during tough times.”
The PAP should quit whining about every little criticism they receive, especially online, and get on with the job before them.
And Singaporeans should also seriously consider if they want leaders who will not enter the fray until and unless the obstacles before them are cleared – and cleared for them too.
In other words, do we want whiny, mollycoddled little emperors to be our public servants who expect red carpet treatment?
"I suspect we have started to believe our own propaganda. There is also a particular brand of Singapore elite arrogance creeping in. Some civil servants behave like they have a mandate from the emperor. We think we are little Lee Kuan Yews." – Ngiam Tong Dow, former head of Civil Service, 2010.
[h=2]Mollycoddled little emperors[/h]
Andrew Loh
On 30 June, Acting Minister for Manpower, Tan Chuan Jin, posted a status update on his Facebook page. In it, he pledged his support for SportsCares, an organisation which uses “sport as a force for social good by empowering people in need.”
However, in that same post he also passed what were disparaging and sarcastic remarks about some online users. He posted:
“I support SportsCares work. It is not keyboard warrior stuff arguing about midnight calls
but work by volunteers and staff to help inspire and fundamentally change lives.”The “midnight calls” apparently referred to the late night call which the Law Minister, K Shanmugam, was purported to have made to a lawyer, Choo Zheng Xi, several days prior. Mr Shanmugam was alleged to have asked Choo to relay to his (Choo’s) group of friends to refrain from re-posting an article by Eric Ellis, in which Mr Ellis raised and questioned Shanmugam’s past involvement with several companies involved in the palm oil business in Indonesia.
Some of Mr Choo’s friends later took umbrage at a Facebook posting by the Law Minister, on 28 June, in which the minister accused one of them – Kirsten Han, who had written about that “midnight call” – of painting a picture which was “quite untrue” about the conversation the minister had with Mr Choo.
“My conversation with Remy was like all our usual conversations, where we shared views frankly with each other,” Mr Shanmugam said. “I am surprised to see that conversation appearing in print, twisted to give quite an untrue picture.”
Several in the group of friends then went to question Shanmugam on his Facebook page about his accusation of Ms Han, and confirming that what Ms Han had written in her blog post was correct and accurate.
The Law Minister did not and has not responded.
The “keyboard warriors” mentioned by Mr Tan in his posting apparently were those who were questioning the Law Minister.
What is interesting to note is that Mr Tan’s disparaging remarks were swiftly rejected by several commenters, and indeed Mr Tan was put in his place for his comments.
The first person to respond was Mr Timothy Tay, who said:
“It would be nice of the minister to kindly take note of the work done by others who take care of people on the fringes of society who are not mentioned or mentioned as much as needed, either by the media or by the government for reasons we do not know.”
He added:
“Even if the activists are engaging in issues in ways that you do not agree with, Mr. Minister, it would be respectful for you to recognise their efforts even if there's strong disagreement with the focus or the process. It's good to build people up, and not to break people down just because of such differences.”
Mr Joshua Chiang posted:
“Minister, and many of those 'keyboard warriors arguing about the midnight calls' are in fact doing the work.”
In fact, the several “keyboard warriors” who were questioning the Law Minister about the “midnight calls” had been “doing work” which indeed would “change lives”, as Mr Tan put it. These include work on various causes – from migrant workers’ rights and welfare, to the death penalty, from freedom of the press to human rights, and many others in-between.
Ms Han herself has been an advocate, particularly, for the abolition of the death penalty in Singapore, and has done much work over the years on this.
And in that week prior to Mr Tan posting his comments, that group of “keyboard warriors” had been out and about distributing water and masks to foreign construction workers at various sites in Singapore as well. They were doing their part during the haze.
Mr Tan’s remarks were thus wholly inaccurate, misguided and ill-informed. The “keyboard warriors” in question have, in fact, been “doing work” which affect lives even before Mr Tan came on the scene.
He seemed to have realised his error after being corrected by Mr Tay.
“There are many who do the work, and I don't disrespect their efforts,” he replied to Mr Tay. “And even if there are differences, it doesn't negate their efforts nor [sic] contribution.”
The point I am trying to make here is that even ministers get it wrong, and when they do it is right and responsible that these be pointed out and if need be, ministers should also be put in their place.
On Saturday, the Prime Minister spoke of “the nasty side of politics”, and he made specific reference to online ciriticism of his government, its MPs and ministers.
The PM should also be aware that many a time these “nasty” comments or postings are made by those from his own side, or by what are obviously supporters of his party. While Minister Tan’s disparaging remarks are by no means vile as some others, still it showed that not everyone on the government’s side is faultless at all time.
"The uncertainty over how things can develop may deter people from entering politics and potential candidates may be concerned about the impact on their families,” PM Lee said on Saturday. "You can be criticised personally ... but what goes on on the Web, all sorts of nasty stuff ... it has a real impact on families."
It is absolutely true that such behaviour online can and do have “real impact on families” of those who would go into public service.
But let’s not be ignorant or kid ourselves that these “nasty stuff” only come from one side of the fence.
Presently, for example, there is a Facebook post on a Facebook page which is apparently pro-Government/pro-PAP, containing vile references to Mr Vincent Wijeysingha who disclosed last week that he was gay. The remarks by the page and the subsequent comments by seemingly pro-PAP supporters there are indeed “nasty stuff”.
It reminds one of another instance where Mr Wijeysingha was again the target, this time by a minister. [Read here: “Vivian slithers in the gutter, SDP on knife-edge, part 1”]
Do we forget how the pictures and personal details of some female friends of former Hougang MP Yaw Shin Leong were splashed across the pages of the mainstream newspapers after the affair Yaw was alleged to have had first surfaced? Do we forget the many insinuations made against these women? Do we forget how reporters hounded them even at their homes?
And then there are the numerous cases in the past of some truly appalling abuse by the same government – of incarcerating its opponents without trial for decades, for suing its political foes into bankruptcy and into forced exile, or installing legislations to further curtail criticisms of it, of using the mainstream media to distort and disparage and defame those who go against its dictates, and so on and so on.
It is a well-known litany of abuse. The PAP brand of politics indeed was thoroughly nasty.
Online criticisms of the government or the PAP pales in comparison. In fact, the two are universes apart.
Yet, the finger is squarely, as it always is, placed on the dissenters of the government.
It is always them at fault.
Our PAP politicians, present ones and potential ones, must be protected at all costs, and the carpet must be straightened and laid out before them, so that their feet do not touch the ground and be soiled, all impediments to their ascension to their thrones must be removed. And of course, they must be well renumerated, otherwise they will not find it worth their time to serve the public.
In short, while PAP/Government detractors are free to be mauled and destroyed, and destroyed mercilessly, your potential PAP candidate/MP/Minister however must:
- Not face too much political opposition, else the PM will have to spend time fixing the opposition.
PM Lee: "Suppose you had 10, 15, 20 opposition members in Parliament. Instead of spending my time thinking what is the right policy for Singapore, I'm going to spend all my time thinking what's the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters votes.." (May 2006)
- Not face too many obstacles and "as many impediments as possible" should be removed for them.
East Coast GRC MP Lee Yi Shyan, who left his job as chief executive officer of IE Singapore and is today Minister of State (Trade and Industry), concurred: “If the system can remove as many impediments as possible, then the political system will be able to get more people to join.” (June 2006)
- Be given assurance of winning 'at least' his first election.
Goh Chok Tong: "Without some assurance of a good chance of winning at least their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics." (June 2006)
- Not be paid too low or "suffer a drastic change in the standard of living."
Grace Fu: "I had some ground to believe that my family would not suffer a drastic change in the standard of living even though I experienced a drop in my income. So it is with this recent pay cut. If the balance is tilted further in the future, it will make it harder for any one considering political office." (January 2012)
- Not be "criticized personally", especially online.
PM Lee: "The uncertainty over how things can develop may deter people from entering politics and potential candidates may be concerned about the impact on their families."
"You can be criticised personally ... but what goes on on the Web, all sorts of nasty stuff ... it has a real impact on families." (July 2013)
----------------
In 2009, PAP MP Sam Tan accused Singaporeans of being too dependent on the government, and that Singaporeans were “mollycoddled”. He related how Singaporeans are helped by so many government assistance schemes during the recession, and how Singaporeans “have become somewhat accustomed to the largesse of an efficient MCYS whose many helping hands are indeed everywhere doing everything for us.”
“Mr Sam Tan, MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC, is worried that Singaporeans might have been so mollycoddled by the Government that they have become 'practised at the craft of recession cushioning', and so accustomed to the government largesse.” (Straits Times)
One can’t help but feel that Mr Sam Tan’s words, spoken in Parliament, would also apply to potential PAP MPs and ministers. From the words of ministers themselves in the past, as quoted above, it would seem that potential PAP candidates for elections want the path cleared entirely of every conceivable obstacle for them as well, before they would even consider public service.
Perhaps they – and the Prime Minister – should keep in mind Mr Sam Tan’s words of advice from 2009, issued in Parliament:
“Suppose you are the father of an eight-old-year boy who wants to learn how to cycle. Do you line the streets with cushions so that he will not hurt himself if he loses his balance? Do you brace his knees, and every conceivable part of his exposed body with padding? You might, if you were an extremely protective father. But the commonsensical approach would be to let the boy have a go at it himself, and take the knocks and spills as they come. A boy who is mollycoddled is a very different person from one who is physically tough and to take spills without fear and whining. The latter, I think, could be the approach that we take towards helping Singaporeans during tough times.”
The PAP should quit whining about every little criticism they receive, especially online, and get on with the job before them.
And Singaporeans should also seriously consider if they want leaders who will not enter the fray until and unless the obstacles before them are cleared – and cleared for them too.
In other words, do we want whiny, mollycoddled little emperors to be our public servants who expect red carpet treatment?
"I suspect we have started to believe our own propaganda. There is also a particular brand of Singapore elite arrogance creeping in. Some civil servants behave like they have a mandate from the emperor. We think we are little Lee Kuan Yews." – Ngiam Tong Dow, former head of Civil Service, 2010.
