Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
One can never please everyone
I was pretty much amused with the Kway Teow Man’s latest entry on Singapore Angle. According to him, “[a]s people get more educated, they start to think that they are smart. Smarter than the Government. And they clamour for the Government to listen to their views.”
He goes on to add, “What the people really want is for the Government to give in to their demands, many of which are poorly conceived — but of course these fellas don’t think so.”
I don’t know what to make of his statements. On one hand, some people are complaining that Singaporeans are apathetic. They rather go about minding their own business than to care about important matters about the country. On the other hand, we have people who observe that Singaporeans talk too fast and too much, thinking that they are too smart for their government.
Of course, both are not very desirable scenarios. However, if I have to choose, I rather choose to have the latter rather than the former. It’s a happy problem that people are willing to stand up and make themselves heard rather than keeping quiet. When people start to talk, they bring with them ideas and opinions shaped by their unique education, experience and prejudices. Granted that some talk would probably be not as intelligent as others to begin with, but if people don’t even talk, how would they know that their view is deficient in some way?
Unlike the KTM, I don’t think that Singaporeans are clamouring for the government to listen to their views when they express their opinions. I think that most Singaporeans can understand that it is an impossible task to accomodate to the wishes of each and every Singaporean. The point about making one’s opinion known is more about contributing to the discussion so that everyone else (including the government) can learn from it.
Even if an opinion is, in the words of the KTM, “poorly conceived”, that does not rob the person who expressed the opinion the right to talk. By voicing out his opinions, others can help point out the deficiencies in his argument, and the person in turn can point out defieciencies in counter arguments. At the end of the day, people end up being better off because better understanding has been gained out of the exercise.
Ultimately, I think it is important that people talk, be it making criticisms or rhetorical arguments. The caveat is that one should be open-minded and self-correcting. Recognise that no one is always correct, and no one is always wrong. There is always room for improvement and that’s what everyone should be striving towards.
I don’t really understand human nature sometimes. If you talk too much, people have something to complain about. If you keep quiet, people will similarly complain. I guess its just part and parcel of being human.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Aaron Ng on 02/12/2006 at 8:58 pm, and is filed under Ramblings. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 3 years ago
It’s a bit like the story of the cat that jumps on a hot stove. It will of course never jump on a hot stove ever again. But neither will it jump on a cold stove either and here:
You simply have to decide, is this such a good thing in the long run?
People can only learn through trial and error.
about 3 years ago
Everyone have all forms of opinions, good or bad. Everyone have different vews, that is why we are human beings. You have the choice to accept or not to accept whatever is placed before you. That is freedom, but of course, life is more complex. Wrong things said may cause lives. We can accept government policies if they work for you. If a policy is necessary for our long-term economical well-being, please enlighten us with details and figures. Do not shaft it down without giving us what we are in for. Now, what happens when the policy does not work, we need to know where did it went wrongly and we need people responsible for the failures to accept the failures. It is like a two-way communication, something SM Goh wanted to have when he was the PM, but that of course, became a dream.
No, these smart people do not want your views and opinions because they believe that the people know nuts about the working of the government.
Yes, the country needs to survive on our own as we lack the resources. But why can’t the people have a say in our future.
Is the vision of The Leader right for us now?
Eveybody will have differences, but do not take us for granted. As always, remember that they are human beings like the rest of us. When we bleed, we will feel the pain. They must remember that when the pain gets too much, we will not be the only ones bleeding. They cannot control our minds all the times. It is not the opposition parties that they should fear.
My favourite case study is in the cartoon where the small ants have come to realise that their numbers are far, far greater than the bigger size grasshoppers.
about 3 years ago
thats a bugs life…the problem is singaporeans are like the ants, they fear to go against the grasshoppers… in the show the protaganist managed to make them see the truth by sacrificing himself….however, to make the majority of singaporeans see/acknowledge the truth is by far the most difficult task.
about 3 years ago
Yes, the task of getting most Singaporeans to see the truth is definitely the most difficult of all. That is why the Government creates the necessary mechanisms and barriers to ensure that this will not happen. That is why we have different classes of people. The upper (elite) class knows the truth but chooses to look the other way because of money. Sustain the middle class with enough carrots. As for the poor, kept it low profile and spread them out all over the place. We have seen what happens when the number of poor grows and they are assembled in one spot. Always present the good news. News of the poor, disadvantaged, oppressed make people realised that the Government is not great after all, That is why on our small part, let people know of the alternative views of their policies and guadually make them understand there are better things beyond the ruling party.
about 3 years ago
Hi Aaron,
Perhaps, it is my perception (and it may be wrong) that you see the issue to be in two extremes. It might be important for those who are passionate and make quick statements ending with bad conclusions to acknowledge that and come back better with better arguments. It is not an easy task. Of course, we cannot please everyone but we can try not to take them right on and see where the flaws in their arguments are.
After all, it takes all sorts to make a world.
about 3 years ago
Aaron,
the strange part of Singapore is that gov promise a lot money pump into social need. Like few millions for these and that recently , but never have any qualified and accountability on their to show how the money is been used and if it is really been used wisely, or if the money is just bogus. Bogus in the sense that there is actually less than promised, but it is good show on gov’s part to provide “show” for ppl to believe gov’s caring for public.
It is unbelievable, very frankly speaking, when they say they dedicated large amount of money to help the poor, to help subsidize this and that, but almost no accountability or real figure to show that. Pacify the ppl is one thing, but to continue to launch many programmes with no concrete evidence and “real figure” is another.
Money talk is enough.
about 3 years ago
A perennial problem with leadership is keeping everything in the correct perspective. When people start viewing politics as a calling, they unwittingly elevate both politicians and politics to a higher level into something perhaps resembling evangelism. The same goes for leadership in virtually every sphere, it doesn’t really matter whether you are the PM, CEO, blogger, warehouse manager, food court supervisor or even a hawker.
This in my view is a very dangerous precedent because it opens all sorts of opportunities for abuse of power. That is why in any healthy institution be it family, firm and country, it pays dividends to cultivate a credible opposition or counter force to balance the power and keep everything in the correct perspective.
Even if the opposition doesn’t usually talk a whole lot of sense, at least it reminds the rest, they (the leaders) are merely humans and not Gods. As for the leaders themselves having to deal with a healthy opposition simply means they have to cultivate an appreciation for the sardonic. If nothing at all perhaps this is a very effective way to impress upon leaders the need cultivate an appreciation of the sardonic. All wise leaders know power ultimately corrupts (trust me on this, it can go right up to your head faster than alcohol and soon you will simply lose yourself in the adulation of the masses) and it is never too healthy to take one self too seriously.
Having said that I do believe, it is very important to act responsibly and exercise self censorship in the internet. You cannot for example get personal with others without expecting them to do the same to you. One has every right to be wrong factually, but when things get personal, there is no really excuse for it and one really just have to face the music, because the serious people of this world will come knocking on your door.
This I think is simple common sense – this I think is maturity.
about 3 years ago
darkness,
PAP has been suppressing opposition party since beginning of time. To them, opp party hinder their plan and implementation. This remind me of history of China past, where man of power in the court kill those who against their policy. Is this repeat of the history. I think it is. A case of premier minister of state controlling a puppet emperor in china Dynasty.
about 3 years ago
Hi darkness,
Yes, I think it’s important to have people talk and learn through trial and error. Nobody has perfect knowledge of the world and therefore, we need to leverage on each other’s expertise, which can only come about if people talk.
about 3 years ago
Nedstark and Layman,
I totally agree that Singaporeans do not realise that they have the power to change things. Ultimately, if an overwhelming majority decides not to vote for the PAP, no matter which way you look at it, they are going out of the government short of a Thai style coup. This is unlikely to happen though, because the PAP has very smart leaders who knows how to manipulate human weakness to ensure their longevity in Singapore politics. They’ve been brillant in this aspect thus far, but as I predicted in an earlier entry of mine, this is not likely to last long. They will eventually pay the political price for educating Singaporeans if they continue on the trajectory of the past.
about 3 years ago
Hi BL,
I think I am guilty of being cynical (and allowing some misinformation aggravate the cynicism). Of course, I’m not completely wrong, its just that I’ve failed to consider certain sides which might have led to another conclusion. To that end, I’m grateful for two things I did. The first is that I wrote. The second is that others (like the KTM) pointed out the deficiencies. I will make no apologies for being passionate and making passionate arguments that are sometimes flawed, but I would say that at least I’m self-correcting, which is perhaps the most important thing.
Indeed, your latest post clearly sums up what I think has been lacking in Singapore, which is the plurality of views. Of course, this has been changed with blogosphere, and I much prefer the blogosphere to MSM. It takes some bruising of ego to make a better person, and I’m humbled by the number of talented Singaporeans in blogosphere. Truly, if we can harness our own talents, I think we do not need the foreign talents on such a large scale.
Keep up the good writing. There’s nothing better than collective wisdom.
about 3 years ago
Hi Daniel,
Indeed there’s a lack of transparency in some areas, or perhaps the information is there, just that no one is broadcasting the availability of information due to the potential negativity for the ruling party. I’ve not tried my adeptness at using search engines to drag out the relevant information. I think I should try that soon.
about 3 years ago
Well said darkness. Maturity is not easy to achieve, and even the most mature of persons can be susceptible to emotions sometimes. Nonetheless, as I mentioned to BL, as long as one is self-correcting and reflective in the face of a stronger argument, that’s fine. We have to recognise our inherent flaws and work ways around it. It’s just that I don’t think that the flaws should disqualify anyone from making comments, which I think the KTM has unintentionally implied (perhaps due to his own human failings!)
about 3 years ago
Wah sei, some more say you are not offended. What’s this about the KTM implying dunno what because of his human failings?
The following is an excerpt of one of the KTM’s comments on the said blog:
It turns out that there is some semblance of democracy on the blogosphere and even if people have NO CLUE what they are talking about, it is THEIR RIGHT to say what they want in WHATEVER manner they wish to say it, including “whining and advocating nonsense” (and the KTM will gladly defend their right to do so).
about 3 years ago
Wah KTM you fry kway teow until so late one ah? I slept early so wake up at this ungodly hour to post and I find your reply to me!
Thanks for pointing that line out. It would have been good that it appeared in the original article leh. At least when I read the initial piece, it didn’t read like you were, in the words of BL, compassionate. :p
Of course lar, as a new media student, I know that electronic communication is problematic lar. For all I know, if you talked your entire piece to me instead of me reading your writings, I would have gotten a very different idea because I can probably get other clues about your true intention from verbal and non-verbal cues. Maybe hor next time you should make a kway teow man podcast to accompany your writings so that I can get a better idea of whether you are out to tekan or not. :p
about 3 years ago
There is a false dichotomy being presented here, the choices being:
1. status quo, when the Gahmen tells the people what to do, and
2. the complete opposite, when the people tell the Gahmen what to do. (it’s also true that it’s impossible to make everybody happy by giving in to every single demand. the scenario in option 2 is for the Gahmen to do nothing and have policy ideas percolate up from the people.)
Clearly the days of socialist-style top-down central planning are waning, but there are clearly aspects of governance (national security, and planning for public goods such as transport and utilities infrastructure) where a laissez-faire policy is just asking for trouble.
The real issue is where we as a society want to place ourselves along the continuum of completely top-down and completely bottom-up governance.
about 3 years ago
Diodati,
gov top down approach is good until you start realizing it is flaw in this modern age. In the past, where Singapore is still developing in early 1980′s , it is good for have top down approach to get thing done. Perhaps that why Singapore has grown so fast compare to other countries. Unfortunately, top down management is seem as liability especially due to globalisation, the pace of living and standard has accelerated so fast that gov don’t see to have any idea what going on. Fancy that gov invest so much and outsource so much IT infrastructure and yet they don’t see to understand what internet as media could bring ??? I don’t think it is not because they don’t understand, it just that they lose touch with what going on around them, just like they lose touch with ppl.
The policy they do such as increasing minister’s pay, civil servant’s pay, setting up law to clamp bloggers, intention to open up many casino, using FT instead of local in knowledged-based economy
implies that this is the last resort they take. It seem to me they have run out of ideas. Any policy that make money, make thing easy for them, they will implement even at expense of the laymen but then you realize whether they deserve those pay which they bestow to themselves.
I don’t understand how can gahmen use top-down approach if they don’t understand what going on below them ? The gahmen is capable of implementing policy efficiently but not effectively.
about 3 years ago
I believe we are the famous country in the world where highly educated, intelligent ppl get insult by the gahmen. Sometimes, the news, the media says is really annoying and contradicting.
I would have prefer to be dummy who doesn’t bother to know anything than to be educated “idiot” that know something but yet can’t do anything about it.
about 3 years ago
The gahmen pay so much for Michael Porter to give a talk here yet cannot practice what Michael preach about building home competencies and developing resource and capabilities. Singaporean is the most important resources not FT, to build future Singapore. Singaporean is what make Singapore a country, a identity, not FT.
Perhaps it all about get Porter here just to make Singapore famous.
Well, next time, gahmen might try to get Harry Potter to do some magic instead so that the ministers can get even higher pay.
about 3 years ago
darkness you brought up a very important point that never really occured to me. The importance of a “credible opposition” and how sometimes it is a good thing to have a counter force because it is never wise for power to be centralized.
But how can this be done? I know we have an opposition in Singapore, but they are really a running joke.
They have zero credibility and I really don’t trust them to run the country. Seriously. I rather go with PAP.
So my question is how do you go about creating this so called credible counter force? Or is it a sound good but cannot put into action plan?
about 3 years ago
Well dentistonthelook, the most viable option for a two party system where neither is completely dominant over the other is perhaps a split within the PAP itself. If not, the electorate must be willing to give other parties a chance. If we are not even willing to take some risk and allow other parties to have a chance to rule, how can a credible other ever emerge?
about 3 years ago
dentistonthelook,
think about it. Who the one’s that want to destroy opposition party’s credibility ?? The PAP which is needless to say is the government. Given little resource and support to opp party, gov’s desire to fix the opp party, and buy vote, it is not surprising that opp party did not have credibility as PAP want the republic to believe. But then ask yourself, why should these opp party risk their life, family and career to fight for the public ??? For money ??? Would dentistonthelook do the same ???? dentistonthelook, the member of opp party are just like us, with family, why should they want to do it even though we singaporean are just basically chicken to do anything to support them, and even when we know we oppress by gov and taken advantage of ???
A food for a thought. Simple, without opp party, the gov will raise anything since they are disconnected with ppl. With opp party to counter them, at least, they can delay and question the gov which in turn will be questioned by the ppl. Do u think gov really sincerely care ?? I don’t think so especially they want to increase minister’s high pay when 2% increase. This is definitely an insult to laymen Singaporean. When they say 2% increase is to help the poor suddenly become to help the ministers !!!
Scam ??? Well, you can decide??
about 3 years ago
If talent to go run the country is all about money, then I fear for all Singaporean and myself. With no transparency and accountability, when is money ever be enough for them ??? There is no minimum wages for laymen, so is no maximum limit of fat payment for Minister, PM, MM, MP as well !! What’s an extreme .
It doesn’t matter if there are some good ministers and MP in the parliament, for to them, an extra fat pay is an incentive and privilege. It doesn’t really matter if you are good ppl, if you mixed with “bad” egg, u still consider “bad”.
about 3 years ago
Elia Diodati,
I think you made an excellent point, but perhaps reality isn’t exactly quite so simple in deciding where in the continuum we want to operate at. It turns out that different policies have different constraints and the layman probably knows squat about some issues. More specifically, perhaps in the areas of foreign policy and defence, a top-down approach is right, while in areas of education, social policies, it should be more ground-driven. Just my random thoughts.
about 3 years ago
DOTL,
How true, but I differ from you in one specific observation. What emerges as the belief that unifies most intellectuals (and I am too dumb to be one) is NOT that a credible opposition can change anything but that it can preserve something.
The things being preserved is of course the rule of law and the spirit of the constitution i.e your rights and mine hopefully.
This I believe is the root cause why the current opposition in Singapore lacks credibility, their battle cry is premised on effecting change instead of preserving your rights and mine and this is something which naturally leads most people to ask, do they really have the skill sets.
Most people I believe do not trust the current opposition because they seem to be machine gunning everything and anything simply to gain political mileage. This in my view is just soap box politics and no one in their right mind will ever take them seriously.
Yes you are also correct in pointing out it is not easy to go about the business of seeding a credible opposition. I never said it was easy. Neither was it easy for developed countries in the West. The modern idea of the oppositional writer is quite a recent phenomenon even by western standards, it only began sometime after WW1 when the Austrian satirist Karl Krauss described himself as a “hopeless contrarian.â€
But an oppositional counter force whether it is in the form of a satirist or credible oppositional also requires an equally credible pool oppositional readers and observers – this was the whole idea of the Guttenberg Elegies, the printing press will simply run out of ink when no one reads, it takes two hands to clap.
For example, you can write a story but if people do not even care to vote with their mouse clickers to read what you write because you come across as dead beat boring, then the sum total of your effort amounts to zero. But if they find your work appealing and interesting, then you get a core readership who will follow you wherever you go. This is basic economics.
So the question, DOTL is simply this: does Singapore have a mature oppositional readership or electorate that really understands the philosophy of creating a credible opposition and the role there are supposed to play in statecraft?
I can tell you being an credible opposition isn’t about shouting and ranting any idiot can stand on a soap box and complain about the price of transport, housing, food etc going up, but it takes a first class counter force to say, “have you considered this as an alternative Mr Gahmen?†– only when they begin to do this, will the serious men of this world will put down everything and begin to prick up their ears.
about 3 years ago
Hi darkness,
Nice to see you again. Hey I think one of your problems when you explain is you take it for granted people already know first hand what the assumptions are, so you typically race to the point and as a result miss out the ground work.
What you are saying to me at least because I have read it about 10 times! Is most Singaporeans may not even know what to expect from a so called credible opposition. What you are saying perhaps is we are still politically immature or lack the impetus to go beyond our current level of sophistication.
Correct?
So at the end of the day you are actually saying even if there is a Singaporean version of a Mr Krauss, we wouldn’t even bother to listen to him. In short you are saying we are politically bovine and dim.
Aren’t you my dear. Please don’t get cross with me, I don’t mean to come across as confrontational, only I believe you should just call a spade a spade.
about 3 years ago
Prima,
Finally the falcon hears the falconer! Yes how true you are my little muse for pointing out the obvious. “Bovine†and “dim†au contraire, “immature†hardly, “lack of impetus†– yes, that is the right word to use, but I am not ascribing any blame to the average Singaporean for his lack of political coherency as you may have suggested.
“Lack of impetus†– most definitely, but remember when personalities such as Krauss emerged, it was directly after the end of the carnage of WW1 when Europe had been turned inside out, shaken and stirred.
It is difficult in today’s terms to comprehend the magnitude of human loss unless one actually lived through the period. Just to give you a rough scale of human cost, it would be like 70% of every household in Singapore losing at least a single male!
The Great war had a profound impact on shaping the eventual complexion of politics, economics, society and even technology as we know it today. It is no accident directly after the war concepts such as welfare, monetarism, labor rights, socialism, collectivism, fascism, minimum wage, ethics sprung directly out of a collective psyche something was seriously wrong about the world and the political order, if so many young men could have perished so wantonly, so you are perhaps correct in highlighting the issue of impetus and it’s relevance in the context of seeding a credible opposition.
Perhaps next time, I shall simply have to call it a spade. Thanks and very well spotted.
about 3 years ago
the internet permits a “round table power” to evolve( decision by the educated masses) and destroy the powers of egocentric minority elites.
the potential is there unless hindered.
about 3 years ago
The government is fallible too. If people don’t complain, how would the government know if they have inadvertently miscalculated/overlooked the impact on a minority?
I think Singaporeans just want the government to at least pretend to care. I mean, it’s not like we really know whether the politicians care. And it doesn’t really matter anyway. It’s just like a cha-cha dance where the electorate and the politicians go back and forth and back and forth. Such is politics.
BTW, my dear friend, I’ve shifted my blog. Tsktsk. When was the last time you dropped by?
about 3 years ago
Well Joey, I think our government doesn’t like to admit that it is fallible.
And yes, I just realised you have moved house. Just paid a visit to the new home. Looking great!