Allow me to extrapolate a little; say 3 million Singaporeans moved into Beijing City or Shanghai, these Singaporeans will disapper in the crowds. Conversely, 1/2 a million Chinese (from China), a 1/4 million Indians (from India) and another 1/4 million others from elsewhere are welcomed to reside in SIN, this tiny red dot would be filled to the brim. There will be congestions in living space/roads, saturations of markets/facilities and worse frictions and conflicts due to competitions in everything. The Locals will also become minority in no time, does it make sense?

Olympic and any other medals of any colours do not concern me, my tummy and the livelihoods of fellow Singaporeans do. Faced with difficulties in survival, glory has no meaning and purpose. It is like beauty to a dying person,only slightly better than beautification to a dead one.

May I end my discussions here by saying I respect the Wiseman for being prescient to the Need for him to rise from his grave. I see the Need too, but will tell him not to because the causes for the Need itself is he himself. Do not rise again because the people do not want to be haunted!

patriot

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

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

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

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.

indeed it was pragmatism all the way, pragmatism that leads to lots of negativities. Heritage goes the way of the Dodo, citizens ended up with crutches because their feet are overworked and their souls are overwhelmed.
It appears, not a single Asian or South East Asian Nation has allowed English to be the Main Language, not to mention it being a national one. Maybe the Philippinoes are proficient with it, but English Language does not make Philippines a rich nation. In any case, I have said it many times at various sites that no country propers by adopting English Language as national language. And indeed, if English Language results in economic progress, England shall perpetually be the richest country in the World. It was almost, but centuries ago when few subjects in its’ colonies understood the English Language!
Sinaporeans had and are contributing ideas, opinions and suggestions all these years, however our ‘talented’, egoistic and selfish leaders have always and never fail to claim they know best. They are talented, elite, genius and couple of them may even think they are gods for they meddle with Nature such as STOP AT TWO CAMPAIGN.
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.