Dear RandomNexus,
Wah, long time no see you around!
You have hit a strong cord in my heart which I have refrained from commenting before this YOG event ends.
....
The social-cultural mindset has been poisoned by greed of materialism in the guise of elitism and meritocracy. The poison is prescribed by this PAP government.
Goh Meng Seng
GMS, greetings! I don't post as I am too busy. Also the quality of this forum has dropped quite a lot since its early days. I was one of the early group of folks way back more than 12-13 years ago I think, more than a decade ago. Time has flown indeed and this forum has given me very good memories but many of the pioneering forumers are no longer around. Some of the news we got through the forum back then was far superior than 154th, and the quality of the posts back then is something you cannot see again I think. I think the novelty of the internet has now rubbed off. Nevertheless I do drop here on and off just to check if I can catch some interesting posts.
I thought I just shared some views here, and it will be just ramblings. The so-called socio-cultural mindset which we mentioned, is something which has taken root as a result of economic rationality in this country, and the power play in the political spheres. It is not something so simple that is reversible, and it has becoming a pillar within the system, whether political, social, economic and cultural.
You are a rare breed. It is the opposition politicians here that I have the greatest respect. Folks like JBJ though naive and many more of the past, are fellows who fought for a cause yet unappreciated by the majority of the people here. So I always think that opposition politicans are either fools or men of tremendous honour. Fools - not knowing what they are going after and understanding the price they have to possibly pay, and for a generation who may not appreciate you. Tang Liang Hong had this to say that he didn't realise the consequences that would follow his entry into politics. He didn't expect it all. If he did, I do wonder whether he would step into it. Men of honour - knowing the possible consequences and yet entering into politics to serve for a noble cause for fighting on behalf of many who will applaud you but will not go through your struggles.
Not all opposition politicians will be subjected to targeting by the regime for this current age. The reason is that the regime knows its precarious vulnerable state if it doesn't allow opposition at all. With no opposition, all the more, the people will feel a need for one. Hence this is why certain opposition are "allowed" to remain and they are not subjected to the harsher and possibly unjust means to kick them off.
As long as the opposition do not rise to be a significant challenge to the regime, they will be allowed to remain. Change can take place, and to me, it has to be split in PAP itself and one will never know what happens when the Old Man is gone. To date, there is unity in the political ruling party.
What about the people with their so-called socio-cultural mindset? The key mistake that Vivian did was to take for granted, about the volunteers' feelings. He forgot that this is the actual major constituency and not about how the world views Singapore or building a particular brand about Singapore. Secondly He is too concentrated on the latter goal as he didn't realise the practices and means to achieve the second goal will follow "past" habits of action once he set the directives. How would you expect the civil servants to follow your directives? You do what you have generally done that has garnered results. Fines, threats of fines, quiet coercion are common practices and so they are employed once again.
The peasants are conditioned to it, and as long as the regime delivers the economic goods, they have little to complain except to follow. Once in a way, they will rise, but when you offer them the economic incentives, they will back off ... it has happened again and again in this country of ours. Cos they have bought into appreciating the economic benefits that they could do less with less freedom and perhaps witnessing the sufferings of the minority few as long as it is not themselves - such as the fear and apathy here.
The management of economics is the primarily the biggest legitimacy that gives to this regime, and something which they do well, and hence they could afford to ply this argument of the legitimacy of the elitist structure they have created. This elitist structure is necessary as first of all, there is a need to pay when there is an absence of loyalty to humanitarian values that are 'supposed" to drive politics (BTW, I think the real-breed politician knows that there is no such thing as such values. One needs to appear to have them and that will do).
The first generation of PAP leaders and those immediately after the post WW2 generation are mostly people driven by appearing to possess these values. Up to the seventies, PAP still had this generation of people until the early eighties. LKY needed to tranfer "power" and yet wanted to maintain his sphere of influence. The group of people he targeted to transfer some of this power to, is a bunch of technocrats led by Goh Chok Tong, and LKY primarily needed to remove all his comrades of his generation such as Toh Chin Chye, Ong Pang Boon, Devan Nair etc. What tilt it? It is a decision to pay by what a person is "worth", and to increase the incentives for a generation of technocrats to enter government service and replace this generation. 1984 was the biggest entry of this group of folks. In one swipe, I think that is a pivotal event, and it is done with the argument that PAP find it hard to get Singaporeans into the politics as given its lack of economic rewards and every minister-aspiring PAP politician is subjected to tough rigours that many don't think it is worth paying for.
It is the same today and it is just today's pay is so high that many wouldn't mind going these struggles to prove their worth. Something to note, is that the civil service and political service is now so intertwined such that if you are a civil servant especially with a scholar record in the military or admin service sectors, you are expected to serve possibly at the highest levels of the government or GLCs. It is no different from the mandarin service of the China dynasties. As many GLCs now control the economy of Singapore around half of GDP, you cannot run from this point that to climb up these corporate ladders, you have to align yourself with the government, in short, PAP. There is few other choices for those who enter government service as elites.
Given the above, it emerges a system which pay for the talent, and due to it countering conventional norms in the political realm, it becomes necessary to keep using the economic legitimacy to push forward this argument that the elites needed to be paid their "worth". The dictum, repeated some many times, becomes the mantra of today's breed of peasants. This forms the basis of what you hear about the common gripes of the volunteers. If they are volunteering, knowing it is a matter of pride, why grumble the lack of good treatment for food like what the athletes are having or the long hours? Shouldn't it be about national pride and honour? The pappies use the original meaning of volunteering and they forgot what they have preached but some significant number of volunteers remember what they have been "taught". Simply that.
These values and principles are so ingrained in the political-government system that it is impossible to dislodge and every subsequent government and even if the opposition form one, will have to follow. The whole elites who run this country play by these rules. It is similar to what China is experiencing for eg, the communist elites over there have their own system for their food and even leisure space. They are even aware of the value of organic food, and they make sure their families get their supply from special farms targeted for this purpose.
I don't think it is so simple of what is right or wrong, black or white here. I steer away from moralising the wrongs of this system. I think that there are certain practices that PAP has to avoid and change, but I have no direct definite answer what is the substitute for current system. The reason is simple, and people are in general governed by impulses which could make self-interested about their own security at the expense of others. The root lies in the heart of people and it is not possible for a political system to change it. There is no point saying that politics should be about a greater call and will people heed them? The communists in China tried it, and in trying to always think for the common good instead of oneself. It resulted in hypocrisies as well. Cultural Revolution and all the mess in China of the past are created from these hypocrisies. Time was spent in looking for so-called "rightists", folks with capitalism impulses, and putting them in prison or killing them. They were forced to renounce their impulses in front of many. Such was the madness of the system. It took a pragmatic Deng Xiao Ping, following the logic of economic rationality, allowing the room for self-interest, that brings some end this the excesses of communism.
Economic rationality is what Singapore has gone through, and in itself, it has led to its problems which I raise above. But some will argue the benefits outweigh the price, yes, there is perspective in this as well.
There are more that can be said actually but I have rambled enough. I have no desires to step into the political realm as a politician, and these are key ponderings. More than that, a politician needs to fight to gain power, and these involve tactics and means which can be underhanded and cruel. What makes a good politician? One who delivers despite his methods or one with values and can't deliver .. ? Is it possible to have both? That is enough to make one think.
I have no doubt what Singaporeans have voted for.
Good luck on your political quest, and my vote is for you. Do make a better Singapore, GMS.
