This is the book that TFBH mentioned 2 weeks ago to read as it was being released. Just completed and would recommend everyone to have a read. It covers all the key issues that have becomes contentious in the last decade or so.
Some comments;
1) Well written along the lines of an economist and very much academic in nature so it can be a bit dry. Reflects Donald's background and that of some his associates. However the solid examples of countries that have taken a different path and delivered better results are hard to dispute.
2) Could not help but notice that the locals are cautious while Linda and Thum were more direct. Where Sudhir was a bit brave was on subject that the PAP could not be bothered such as Nizam's case. Completely avoided VW, AA lawsuits, WP confrontation etc. Gave me the impression that he kept intentionally kept the bridge open and wants to play on both side similar to some members of the roundtable.
3) Linda 2 articles were excellent reads and second one was though provoking as it dealt with our own weakness - our skills, poor EQ etc
4) Thum's essay was the best. Well researched and lots of new materials. For instance, PAP in 1959 inherited the richest city in Asia and not the vulnerable and supposed fishing village that many sycophants have led some to belief. Including data to show that it was also affluent at that time having more cars per capita basis than anywhere else in Asia. Also handled the meritocracy issues very well. His comments about the use of bogeyman politics was also spot on.
5) Sudhir butchered both his essay's especially the one on the Singapore identity. Got the feeling he did not want to offend the FTs but also he did not have good grasp of the subject. NS never even made it into his essay despite it bringing the races together and the indelible mark it left in some of us in term of a singapore identity. Also he thinks that 50% of Singaporean have not idea what "Kancheong" means which is hard to believe. Even locals Indians and Malays know what it is.
6) Donald's article meritocracy was well written.
8) Linda's excellent understanding of what's happening in Singapore was amazing despite being based a million miles away. Either she has an excellent circle of close Singapore friends, relatives or associates or her observational skills are excellent or both.
Overall you realised that the book does not flow as most of it was previously published articles mainly by Donald. Secondly it is written more along academic lines so it not going to stir robust debate in political and social circles. Thirdly, Donald in particular not only identified the "missteps and mistakes" of the Government he also provided the excuses for it. He genuinely thinks that for the last 10 years it was done with the good intentions but the result of factors such as confirmation bias etc . He should listen to parliamentary sessions of 1st world countries and note the opposition comments about policies. He will realise that they expect the Govt to address all the issues raised and they do not provide the excuses for the mistakes. ]
Some comments;
1) Well written along the lines of an economist and very much academic in nature so it can be a bit dry. Reflects Donald's background and that of some his associates. However the solid examples of countries that have taken a different path and delivered better results are hard to dispute.
2) Could not help but notice that the locals are cautious while Linda and Thum were more direct. Where Sudhir was a bit brave was on subject that the PAP could not be bothered such as Nizam's case. Completely avoided VW, AA lawsuits, WP confrontation etc. Gave me the impression that he kept intentionally kept the bridge open and wants to play on both side similar to some members of the roundtable.
3) Linda 2 articles were excellent reads and second one was though provoking as it dealt with our own weakness - our skills, poor EQ etc
4) Thum's essay was the best. Well researched and lots of new materials. For instance, PAP in 1959 inherited the richest city in Asia and not the vulnerable and supposed fishing village that many sycophants have led some to belief. Including data to show that it was also affluent at that time having more cars per capita basis than anywhere else in Asia. Also handled the meritocracy issues very well. His comments about the use of bogeyman politics was also spot on.
5) Sudhir butchered both his essay's especially the one on the Singapore identity. Got the feeling he did not want to offend the FTs but also he did not have good grasp of the subject. NS never even made it into his essay despite it bringing the races together and the indelible mark it left in some of us in term of a singapore identity. Also he thinks that 50% of Singaporean have not idea what "Kancheong" means which is hard to believe. Even locals Indians and Malays know what it is.
6) Donald's article meritocracy was well written.
8) Linda's excellent understanding of what's happening in Singapore was amazing despite being based a million miles away. Either she has an excellent circle of close Singapore friends, relatives or associates or her observational skills are excellent or both.
Overall you realised that the book does not flow as most of it was previously published articles mainly by Donald. Secondly it is written more along academic lines so it not going to stir robust debate in political and social circles. Thirdly, Donald in particular not only identified the "missteps and mistakes" of the Government he also provided the excuses for it. He genuinely thinks that for the last 10 years it was done with the good intentions but the result of factors such as confirmation bias etc . He should listen to parliamentary sessions of 1st world countries and note the opposition comments about policies. He will realise that they expect the Govt to address all the issues raised and they do not provide the excuses for the mistakes. ]
Last edited:
