- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 38,563
- Points
- 113
http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/dr-balakrishnan-‘everything-temporary-family-forever’
Towing the same old PAP line
Towing the same old PAP line
Bala hates Lim Chin Siong and Lee Siew-Choh
- Thread starter steffychun
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2011
- Messages
- 28,813
- Points
- 113
Dr Balakrishnan: ‘Everything is temporary, family is forever’
Singapolitics
Saturday, Aug 03, 2013
What would you say to a young person today who, like you in the past, may be sceptical of the PAP?
I'll say the same thing that (then) PM Goh said to me. Hold fast to your values and express your views, sincerely, honestly. And think deeply, don't just posture, don't just play to the gallery, don't just think short-term. If you can go beyond all that, I hope you make yourself available and be part of a party or a movement that has focused entirely on the long-term interests of the nation.
Why the PAP and not the opposition?
Because I would say that this is an honest party. This is a party which is also a broad church, meaning we will never tell you what to say, but we will ask you to be honest. Secondly, this is a party that has made things happen, can make things happen. So be a part of it. Change is inevitable, but we want change that is principled, change that will make this fragile, beautiful flower called Singapore continue to thrive in a very dangerous uncertain world.
Many people have said the PAP is just concerned about money. But I've often told people who say that that, let's take a step back in time. Let's look back. The PAP fought for Merdeka - independence - because it was about our right to determine our future. That led us to Malaysia. Then in Malaysia, we championed a Malaysian Malaysia. This is actually a code word for equality regardless of race, language or religion. And we got kicked out of Malaysia because of our insistence on that ideal. We didn't get kicked out of Malaysia because we thought it was good for the economy. In fact it was bad for the economy. But having got kicked out of Malaysia because of this obstinate adherence to an ideal, we then had our backs against the wall. And we had to survive and thrive in order to feed ourselves.
So yes, we were then focused on economic growth but it was done because we had no choice. It was done because of our obstinate belief in this ideal that we could create a fair and just society, where we would all be equal regardless of race, language or religion.
Over four, five decades, this has actually been an idealistic quest by the PAP. So if I can come back to why I would want someone to join: this is a party rooted in ideals, rooted in history, and with a proven track record and consisting of honest people, not bound by ties of cronyism, but purely by a passionate desire to make this country continue to grow and thrive in an uncertain, sometimes unfriendly world. So be a part of it.
That doesn't mean the opposition has no role. Mr Lee (Kuan Yew) used to tell us that the years that the PAP had a monopoly, which is I think from 1968 to 1981, were not pre-ordained. It was basically due to a strategic mistake of the Barisan Sosialis to walk out of Parliament. There has and there will always be a significant body of opinion that is different from the PAP. We are a democracy and there should be a legitimate expression of that divergence.
Although, some people would say, yes, it was a strategic mistake by the Barisan Sosialis, but many from the opposition were also put behind bars.
(Former Barisan Sosialis leader) Lee Siew-Choh never went behind bars. The guy whom I knew who went behind bars, whom I knew personally, was Dr Lim Hock Siew. He's passed away now. But I've known him for a very long time, spoken to him in depth. He was, I believe, a patriot. And I have said that he was a good and honourable man. I still stand by those comments. In fact before I came into politics, I called him to ask him what he thought about me joining the PAP. He told me: "Do what you believe is right." The sense he gave me was not to fight yesterday's battles. Singapore has changed, Singapore has moved on. He bore no bitterness to the second and third generation leaders. At the same time it was also a salutary lesson of the price of politics. Politics is not just a game. It's not just cricket. There are real lives at stake. He paid a very heavy price.
You knew him very well. You knew his story. Do you believe he was unjustly put behind bars?
He could have got out earlier if he renounced communism. Till this day, I do not know whether he was a member of the communist party. He's never told me categorically. But I've interacted and discussed and argued with him enough to know that he's on the hard left. When I was interviewed (as a candidate) by Mr Lee (Kuan Yew), and in the interview I told him I'd known Dr Lim for a long time, he just had one sentence to say: "Singapore would be very different if his group had been in charge." And honestly, I think we all have to admit that it would have been very different if the extreme left wing of the PAP had been in charge instead of Mr Lee's group.
You recently posted a picture of you sending your son to school. Is that what you do every day?
Yes. So last night I had a Meet-The-People session. By the time I got home it was past 1am. So I slept at about 2.30am. At 6am, he woke up demanding his drink, I had to give him. And at 7am I sent him to school. For 25 years, I've done all the night feeds, I've done all the nappy changes, and I've sent all four children to school. I did it partly because I don't need so much sleep. As a doctor, I can cope with interrupted sleep, I can cope with short sleep. So I told my wife, all the night duties are mine. And sending them to school.
Why do I do that? Because it meant, the last thing and the first thing my children saw each day was me. So no matter how busy I have been, all my four children know how much they mean to me. So when I talk about family, it's not an idle boast. I will tell you quite honestly, I'm a very happy person. I'm very happy not because I'm easily entertained or easily satisfied. I'm very happy because of my family. And we should realise that everything else will pass: your job, politics, position - everything is temporary. The only thing that you are forever, is a son, a brother, a husband, a father, a grandfather.
How old are your children?
My eldest is 24, a daughter. I have a son who's 23, another son who's 20, doing National Service, and I've got this 7-year-old. They are an enormous source of happiness. Waking up at night, cleaning, changing and sending them to school are merely expressions of that profound part of my life that they represent.
What do your children think of your job as a minister?
The 7-year-old, I'm not sure if he fully understands. But for the other three, they're all grown up. They have paid a price. So I would say politics imposes a heavy burden not only on the individual but on the entire family.
What kind of price?
The loss of privacy, the loss of family time, the pressure to always behave correctly. That's why we all understand that when someone says yes to politics, actually it's his or her family that's going to carry the burden too.
How do your children deal with the nastiness on the Internet directed at you?
They've grown up. They understand that this is the way it is. It is an unfortunate coarsening of discourse on the Internet, to a large extent because it is either anonymous or it is faceless. If people met face to face, eyeball to eyeball, certain human courtesies apply. But for some reason, behind the keyboard, people lose the safety circuits of decent human interactions.
So you don't think this is a phase?
I think it can only get worse. In the old days, we were limited by the number of people we could physically meet within a geographical area. With the Internet, no matter how extreme your idea is, you can always find someone equally or more extreme than you to affirm you. You can be egged on, whichever way.
It's unfortunate because it will make governance and leadership far more challenging in the future. So I think the politicians of the future will just have to learn to cope with it. For the current Cabinet, we do not look for gratitude or affirmation. We want to do the right thing and do it for the right reasons and for the long term. That's the only thing worthwhile doing. We are confident we will carry the ground if we did right and served honourably. So that's the attitude that we have and how we operate.
Singapolitics
Saturday, Aug 03, 2013
What would you say to a young person today who, like you in the past, may be sceptical of the PAP?
I'll say the same thing that (then) PM Goh said to me. Hold fast to your values and express your views, sincerely, honestly. And think deeply, don't just posture, don't just play to the gallery, don't just think short-term. If you can go beyond all that, I hope you make yourself available and be part of a party or a movement that has focused entirely on the long-term interests of the nation.
Why the PAP and not the opposition?
Because I would say that this is an honest party. This is a party which is also a broad church, meaning we will never tell you what to say, but we will ask you to be honest. Secondly, this is a party that has made things happen, can make things happen. So be a part of it. Change is inevitable, but we want change that is principled, change that will make this fragile, beautiful flower called Singapore continue to thrive in a very dangerous uncertain world.
Many people have said the PAP is just concerned about money. But I've often told people who say that that, let's take a step back in time. Let's look back. The PAP fought for Merdeka - independence - because it was about our right to determine our future. That led us to Malaysia. Then in Malaysia, we championed a Malaysian Malaysia. This is actually a code word for equality regardless of race, language or religion. And we got kicked out of Malaysia because of our insistence on that ideal. We didn't get kicked out of Malaysia because we thought it was good for the economy. In fact it was bad for the economy. But having got kicked out of Malaysia because of this obstinate adherence to an ideal, we then had our backs against the wall. And we had to survive and thrive in order to feed ourselves.
So yes, we were then focused on economic growth but it was done because we had no choice. It was done because of our obstinate belief in this ideal that we could create a fair and just society, where we would all be equal regardless of race, language or religion.
Over four, five decades, this has actually been an idealistic quest by the PAP. So if I can come back to why I would want someone to join: this is a party rooted in ideals, rooted in history, and with a proven track record and consisting of honest people, not bound by ties of cronyism, but purely by a passionate desire to make this country continue to grow and thrive in an uncertain, sometimes unfriendly world. So be a part of it.
That doesn't mean the opposition has no role. Mr Lee (Kuan Yew) used to tell us that the years that the PAP had a monopoly, which is I think from 1968 to 1981, were not pre-ordained. It was basically due to a strategic mistake of the Barisan Sosialis to walk out of Parliament. There has and there will always be a significant body of opinion that is different from the PAP. We are a democracy and there should be a legitimate expression of that divergence.
Although, some people would say, yes, it was a strategic mistake by the Barisan Sosialis, but many from the opposition were also put behind bars.
(Former Barisan Sosialis leader) Lee Siew-Choh never went behind bars. The guy whom I knew who went behind bars, whom I knew personally, was Dr Lim Hock Siew. He's passed away now. But I've known him for a very long time, spoken to him in depth. He was, I believe, a patriot. And I have said that he was a good and honourable man. I still stand by those comments. In fact before I came into politics, I called him to ask him what he thought about me joining the PAP. He told me: "Do what you believe is right." The sense he gave me was not to fight yesterday's battles. Singapore has changed, Singapore has moved on. He bore no bitterness to the second and third generation leaders. At the same time it was also a salutary lesson of the price of politics. Politics is not just a game. It's not just cricket. There are real lives at stake. He paid a very heavy price.
You knew him very well. You knew his story. Do you believe he was unjustly put behind bars?
He could have got out earlier if he renounced communism. Till this day, I do not know whether he was a member of the communist party. He's never told me categorically. But I've interacted and discussed and argued with him enough to know that he's on the hard left. When I was interviewed (as a candidate) by Mr Lee (Kuan Yew), and in the interview I told him I'd known Dr Lim for a long time, he just had one sentence to say: "Singapore would be very different if his group had been in charge." And honestly, I think we all have to admit that it would have been very different if the extreme left wing of the PAP had been in charge instead of Mr Lee's group.
You recently posted a picture of you sending your son to school. Is that what you do every day?
Yes. So last night I had a Meet-The-People session. By the time I got home it was past 1am. So I slept at about 2.30am. At 6am, he woke up demanding his drink, I had to give him. And at 7am I sent him to school. For 25 years, I've done all the night feeds, I've done all the nappy changes, and I've sent all four children to school. I did it partly because I don't need so much sleep. As a doctor, I can cope with interrupted sleep, I can cope with short sleep. So I told my wife, all the night duties are mine. And sending them to school.
Why do I do that? Because it meant, the last thing and the first thing my children saw each day was me. So no matter how busy I have been, all my four children know how much they mean to me. So when I talk about family, it's not an idle boast. I will tell you quite honestly, I'm a very happy person. I'm very happy not because I'm easily entertained or easily satisfied. I'm very happy because of my family. And we should realise that everything else will pass: your job, politics, position - everything is temporary. The only thing that you are forever, is a son, a brother, a husband, a father, a grandfather.
How old are your children?
My eldest is 24, a daughter. I have a son who's 23, another son who's 20, doing National Service, and I've got this 7-year-old. They are an enormous source of happiness. Waking up at night, cleaning, changing and sending them to school are merely expressions of that profound part of my life that they represent.
What do your children think of your job as a minister?
The 7-year-old, I'm not sure if he fully understands. But for the other three, they're all grown up. They have paid a price. So I would say politics imposes a heavy burden not only on the individual but on the entire family.
What kind of price?
The loss of privacy, the loss of family time, the pressure to always behave correctly. That's why we all understand that when someone says yes to politics, actually it's his or her family that's going to carry the burden too.
How do your children deal with the nastiness on the Internet directed at you?
They've grown up. They understand that this is the way it is. It is an unfortunate coarsening of discourse on the Internet, to a large extent because it is either anonymous or it is faceless. If people met face to face, eyeball to eyeball, certain human courtesies apply. But for some reason, behind the keyboard, people lose the safety circuits of decent human interactions.
So you don't think this is a phase?
I think it can only get worse. In the old days, we were limited by the number of people we could physically meet within a geographical area. With the Internet, no matter how extreme your idea is, you can always find someone equally or more extreme than you to affirm you. You can be egged on, whichever way.
It's unfortunate because it will make governance and leadership far more challenging in the future. So I think the politicians of the future will just have to learn to cope with it. For the current Cabinet, we do not look for gratitude or affirmation. We want to do the right thing and do it for the right reasons and for the long term. That's the only thing worthwhile doing. We are confident we will carry the ground if we did right and served honourably. So that's the attitude that we have and how we operate.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2011
- Messages
- 28,066
- Points
- 113
And what did he do in the NEA fiascos - the dengue and hawker centre cleaning issues? Posturing, played to the gallery and short-termism scoring points. Where were the national interests in that? Instead of getting NEA to focus on dealing with dengue and keeping PAP-run hawker centres free of rats, Ms Vivian was accusing WP of wanting to charge a petty $7200 for the cleaning of high ceilings. Yes, he sure got his national interest right.
Does PAP politicians even know what is honesty?
How is flooding sinkapore with 2.3 million and soon to increase to 3.9 million foreigns a good thing? This is an unnecessary and detrimental change created by the PAP to saved its own butt. The PAP had been bankrupt of ideas on economic growth - no more 5-year plan like that done in the past - so, they went for the short-term gains ....bring in millions of cheap labour, allow more foreigners to push up inflation, build casinos as their growth strategy. Now, they find themselves in a bigger mass and has no clue to get us out. The infrastructure can't support the increase in population, public housing is no longer affordable, local PMETs are being replaced by cheaper foreigners in the hundreds of thousands. Consequences that were not seen when the PAP went full-steam on their save-my-butt policies.
Give him credit for acknowledging it except that people are still saying that and the number keeps increasing. Thanks to forum like this, the PAP's policies are being critiqued and people now can have other perspectives besides the PAP-line.
This is major sucking up to LKY. That's why LHL back him up on the hawker centre issue.
The simple fact is that LKY could not become a PM of Malaysia and thus engineered the departure of sinkapore so that he can be a small prince. There wasn't any ideal, just a play on the ego of LKY who thinks that he is god's gift to mankind.
I am amazed that he can say this mouthful of lies with a straight face ...'proven track record of honest people'. I am glad Seah Chiang Nee wrote this weekend on the spate of corruption in sinkapore of highly paid public figures.
What does he know about cronynism when he is the beneficiary of that?
Similar threads
