Taking someone’s ass to be your face

“Singapore generally goes out and pick out those who have already shown potential to give them Singaporean citizenship.”

Do we believe that there may be a talented table tennis player who may have fallen through the cracks in our system down the years?

If Li Jiawei was born and bred in Singapore twenty years ago (when the Olympic medal dream was not played up as much as it is now), what would her pragmatic parents in a pragmatic society choose for her – education or sports?

Have we considered the Government’s perspective, with us being a relatively young nation? How about the debates on our national identity (or the lack of one)? What will this medal win do, in the eyes of the Government, for our national pride and identity? What is the source of this pragmatism in our society? To what lengths have the Government gone – down the years – to make sacrifices and to do away with the sentimental for the greater “good” of the nation?

A not-so-stellar result of this approach can be seen on our national football team. Was there so much debate about nationality and citizenship when they won regional tournaments? Or was it because our foreign imports were not Chinese but mainly Africans and Europeans?

Familyman:

While I agree with your views, I believe the Government’s perspective on these issues is very different. What the citizenry sees as priority for spending is different from the Government’s priority in the wider, broader and bigger scheme of things. If the country was ready to compete for a medal in the Olympics twenty years ago (and that it can bring about huge economic benefits to the country), I can bet with my bottom dollar that the Government would spare no effort in making that happen.

As you have correctly mentioned, the Government has consistently insisted that Singapore is not a welfare state. They have stated very clearly what the citizenry should expect of the Government and themselves. If they fail to make that mark, they can get some form of help but they cannot expect the kind of support given by Governments in other countries.

If this issue has made people unhappy, they should do something constructive about it via proper channels. (Putting up that YouTube video will evoke some emotional response, but given the general nature of most Singaporeans, it may become a distant memory in a few months’ time.)

stoop to gain:

So in your view, the Government is “shameless” and “silly”, while our Prime Minister is “lame”.

It is clear that you are unhappy about this. So what’s your plan then? What initiative are you taking?

Stoop to gain:

Expose the Government? For what? To who? On what basis? And what is there to expose?

Support Opposition Parties? How? Who? Which?

Aaron:

Missed the point absolutely and completely.

stoop to gain:

Can’t cite even an example of your support or how you are going to expose the “Government”? Your rant is nothing but hot air then.

Aaron:

I don’t spoonfeed. Read between the lines of the questions I’ve asked.

stoop to gain:

I seriously hope your contributions to the Opposition’s cause is not restricted to the odd comment about how “lame” our Prime Minister is.

patriot:

Agree with you on the Stop-At-Two campaign being too effective, but I’ll stop short of labelling it a “blunder”. The Wiseman and his advisers were no fortune tellers.

Disagree with you on nationalising the English language. We had to be pragmatic to give our young nation then to put us ahead of the competition economically in the region.

Agree with you on the diluting of vernaculars of the orientals. It was pragmatism to the extreme which removed any semblance of the orientals’ culture.

Disagree with you on the import of foreign “talents”. The world has become smaller and any country being too protective of its citizenry stands to lose out in the long term. As long as there is money to be made, there is no stopping people from moving to another place or coming in. Loyalty has been shafted down in terms of priorities in this day and age.

The people in Hong Kong would have loads to complain. There is now a huge influx of PRCs into the country and there is now a greater emphasis on mastering Mandarin when it was almost unheard of before the handover in 1997. The entire situation has changed considerably for the Hong Kong people. While they still complain (of that I’m sure), they have largely stuck in and got on with life, trying the best they could to survive. They do not expect too much from the Government. They have the spirit of tenacity there, what about us in Singapore?

Hi patriot,

Maybe it was extreme, but nationalising English was necessary for our country to gain a competitive edge over others. I dare say that despite Singaporeans not being masters of the language, the proficiency level was enough for us to communicate. Many Singaporeans in their 40s and 50s can speak English, as compared to people from that generation in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand, Indonesia and even Malaysia. The PAP government during the earlier years of Independence has always been pragmatic.

Was the annihilation of vernaculars really political or was it more of pragmatism? It might have been obvious to Mr Wiseman — given Taiwan’s and the PRC’s adoption of Mandarin as the official Chinese language — that Singapore should follow. He might have made an informed decision in the late 1970s when the reformist Deng Xiaoping rose to the ranks and that China could well awaken as a sleeping economic giant in the future. That might have triggered the tough stance against dialects.

France may be proud of its culture, but do consider the country’s long history. Singapore is a young nation made up mostly of immigrants. It is extremely difficult to carve out a national identity within 43 years. The recent debate over the women table tennis’ medal win was all because we do not have a national identity (let alone a strong one). Take also into consideration, the Government’s adoption of Malay as our national language and the language of our national anthem back in the 1960s. It’s pragmatism again.

The biggest differences between Singaporeans and Hong Kong people are tenacity and resilience. Being a British Colony longer than Singapore, the Hong Kong people had long conditioned themselves to expect very little from the British Government and vice versa. The colony’s success can be largely attributed to the resilience and (like you have mentioned) the hardworking attributes of its people. They carved out a living for themselves and this resilience can still be experienced today among its people. They have that survival instinct that carried them through the turbulent post war years and put themselves in a position (without much of the British Government’s interference) where they took over the role of East Asia financial centre from Shanghai. Today, they will need every bit of their survival instinct because of Shanghai’s resurgence.

Again, the early PAP Government’s pragmatism might have bred generations of Singaporeans into dependence. Despite the insistence that the country is not a welfare state, the extent of interference in citizens’ lives (all due to pragmatism) led to a crutch mentality. It has resulted in Singaporeans generally being submissive to Government’s policies, be it a popular or unpopular one.

The Government has taken on the responsibility of making decisions (most of them pragmatic) while Singaporeans have left it to the Government to decide on what is best as long as there is a roof over our heads and food on the table.

It may be pragmatism again if Singapore is to merge with Malaysia (which Mr Wiseman had suggested in the past).

As for your point about Singaporeans migrating, if you can remember, Mr Wiseman was upset a few years ago over the issue of Singapore’s brain drain.

My bottom line is this — Singaporeans should starting thinking for themselves and work towards playing a bigger role in making themselves heard and their voice appreciated by the Government — be it dominated by PAP or any other political party. If we want change, we have to make that happen (within civilised limits), no matter how hard it is because you know, I know and many know that change has always been from the top-down. It took us 43 years to be where we are today and it will take a lot longer than that for Singaporeans to develop a strong sense of political maturity.

In other words, it’ll have to start now.

Dear patriot,

English might have come from England but don’t forget that the extent of the British empire at the turn of the last century (where the sun never sets on the British Empire) and the US’ rise as a superpower following the end of World War II.

Also to clarify, English is not Singapore’s national language (also it pretends to be so). Officially, it is Malay. I beg to disagree with you that having placed the importance on English in our education system, Singapore has managed to get ahead of her neighbours in the region. Whether it has brought about our prosperity as a national, it is debatable but it has certainly made it easier to do business and for MNCs to set up their offices here.

England may not be the richest country in the world (it might have been probably during the early 20th century) but no one can deny the fact that their language is spoken widely on the international stage. One example is how the Chinese Government took great pains to get Beijingers to be up to scratch in English before the Olympics. Also, the PRCs are signing up for English classes in droves and this may just well spell the end of Singaporean’s advantage in being bilingual (albeit marginally).

You are right in saying that Singaporeans have largely contributed ideas down the years, but how many supported these people, at the least, in spirit? Why wasn’t there more opposing voices when the Government implemented those unpopular policies you have cited? How often have the sole voices of these people drowned out by the voices of the authorities (and not forgetting the media)?

We have all ourselves to blame for the situation that we are in. Even now, when someone makes a stand, rarely has there been people supporting it on more concrete terms or to expand on that idea. How many Singaporeans are willing to stand up and be counted? When JB Jeyaratnam peddles his books in the crowded areas, how many people actually support him in his work? I’ve only seen a strange phenomenon where there is a cute five-metre “no man’s land” forming between him and the crowds. You may not agree with his methods or his ideals, but he is making his voice heard on behalf of some Singaporeans. The same goes for the “unorthodox” methods adopted by a famous bespectacled opposition politician here. When Catherine Lim was given a rap on the knuckles for an article she contributed to the Straits Times a few years ago, where were those who thought she raised legitimate points?

If we talk about some people playing gods, maybe we should think about who built them the thrones and pedestals in the first place, let alone putting them there.

Edit:

“also it pretends to be so” should be “although it pretends to be so”.

patriot:

Thank you for your response.

There are many ways to skin a cat and therefore, there are also ways to make our voices heard without getting into trouble for ourselves and our families. We must start somewhere, somehow or else, nothing will change. (Yawning Bread has an interesting entry you may want to check out — http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2008/yax-927.htm).

Singaporeans can be most politically “active” only to a certain level. Beyond that, there is a paucity of activities. Armchair political punditry is easy nowadays. You start a blog and you are free to express your views on anything and everything (provided you don’t push the OB markers). Now many people are talking about the STTA controversy. Six months later, many people would have long forgotten about it and moved on to voice their opinions on the hottest issues. People may say, “We’re voicing our opinions and therefore, it may lead to discussions and then onto something.” Talk is cheap, but where’s the real, constructive discussion which can lead to something more substantial and something that people can engage in?

Let’s look at Hong Kong, especially a few years back when the SAR Government was about to pass an anti-subversion law. A substantial number of Hong Kong people came out to protest (peacefully, I may add). This is something Singaporeans could emulate and work towards. The problem is we are a very long way from that. The Singapore Government is restricting such activities for many reasons (and some of them are valid and legitimate). One of them is the lack of political maturity and civic-mindedness among Singaporeans in general. But we have to start somewhere and work towards that goal. The first step to it is to raise the level of political and civic maturity. Trivalising issues like what a certain popular “blogger” has been doing via podcasts and marginally acceptable political satire does more harm than good in getting Singaporeans to be more politically mature.

Of course, it is easy for anyone to give up, pack their bags and migrate, since it is almost an uphill task. You can say that people voting with their feet and there is nothing wrong with that. Yet, there are people who are still plugging away (JB Jeyaratnam is one of them, despite being in his 80s).

As for the future, has history not demonstrated how Mr Wiseman is a very astute and careful planner?

patriot:

Minor clarification – I am not based in Hong Kong. Thanks.