A degree course for politician wannabes – Lesson 5

This course will deal with a fundamental assumption of what makes a good politician. The first assumption is of course by blood. It is in the DNA. If the papa or mama is politician, then the sons or daughters must be good politicians. Like kingdom rules and kingdom comes. The princes and princesses would become kings or queens, never mind if they are duds due to inbreeding. It is no surprising that many sons and daughters are now in politics and carefully handpicked because of their pedigrees. The fallacy of this assumption is best seen in history books. All the history books recorded that dynasties and monarchies that were succeeded by the children all failed. Those that survived were nominal or for ceremonial purposes when they need not have to prove that they are duds. All they need to do is to talk about saving the environment or saving animals. When they have to prove their worth, it always failed. The other great assumption here is that politicians are damn good in identifying political leaders and can make political leaders. All they need to do is to have a tea session to decide who can be a politician who cannot. Of course they need to prove themselves first in their fields of expertise or are scholars to start with. If they are pedigrees or have blue blood, the tea session is only a formality. The results speak for itself. No further elaborations needed. Another assumption that is related to this tea session is how to qualify to be invited for tea? This assumption is that when one is good in his field or profession, can earn a lot of money, then that one is good to be a political leaders. If one cannot do well in his field, cannot earn a lot of money, academically unsound, not mentality unsound, one is not good. This assumption says a successful professional, be it doctor, lawyer, soldier, academics or govt scholars, or married to one of them, will be a natural to be a political leaders. In reality we know that people are gifted differently, some are good at one thing or something but not good at other things. A good doctor or lawyer or soldier does not mean he will become a good political leader. Anyone thinks this is untrue? Sure, there will be some doctors, lawyers, soldiers or professionals that would turn out to be good political leaders. Librarians, peanut farmers, movie actors, football club managers all can become political leaders. Soldiers too. The fact is that there is no straight forward correlation between one profession and another to become a good political leader. It is a farce to think this is a god given formula. It is worse to think that one can be a good soldier, good lawyer, good doctor, good academic and also a good political leader all rolled into one. It would be a biological fluke. The great philosophers were never great political leaders and great political leaders were never great philosophers. It is a desirable combination for a philosophical king. In reality, maybe one in 500 years or 5000 years. To believe in this assumption often led to lawyers, doctors or professionals who were damn good in their professions and making damn good money and thus demanding for the same money or more to be political leaders but ended up as duds and being over paid for what they are completely clueless as political leaders. A political leader cannot be made, and if made, often turns out to be anything but a political leader. Many great political leaders are self made, by the forces of history, to be there at the time of needs, to do the necessary and to be seen as great leaders. But then again it does not mean that no one can become political leaders, good or bad not an issue. Historically, many were made political leaders for all kinds of reasons and circumstances. Shakespeare said in the Twelve Nights, ‘Some are born great, some achieve greatness, some have greatness thrust upon them.’ Well at least he is talking about greatness be they born, achieve or thrust upon them. Some are anything but great. Think about the assumptions mentioned above and their applications and how effective or ineffective they can be. There is no one model to get a great political leader. And most political leaders that were great were not rich. Those that were rich were often kicked out from the seat of power, in disgrace.


Anonymous said...

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

Oh dear.
Does this mean all millionaire politicians will find it very difficult to go to heaven?

Anonymous said...

“Every month, when I receive my CPF statement, I feel so rich and the best part is, I know the CPF money won’t run away.”
A Famous Singapore Politician

Anonymous said...

“Contrary to public perception, the White Horse classification is not to ensure that sons of influential men gets preferential treatment. Instead it is to ensure that they do not get preferential treatment.”
- Cedric Foo

Matilah_Singapura said...

BTW it is Shakespeare's Twelfth Night.

In dynastic/ monarchy rule, the ruler who is not up to the task is often assassinated by one of the family. Problems are kept and dealt with "in-house".

Becoming a political leader and PERFORMING EFFECTIVELY as one are 2 different ideas. Dynastic rule has its strengths and weaknesses, as does democracy or any other human invention.

This is why many sons and daughters of the kings and emperors were GROOMED to rule. Similarly, in Singapore, there is the "minister mentor" system.

Also, dynastic/ monarchic rule evolved out of the CULTURE. It is always culture which determines what kind of political system the people are going to get.

Although I very much enjoy western culture and its individual liberties and freedoms, I would not recommend it for a place like Singapore---at least not yet. Singapore fairs very well under a Benign Dictatorship, perhaps even a dynastic one.

Singapore and Singaporeans need a strong government---even an interfering one, because the CULTURE is based on the supreme power of authority. Asian social hierarchy is like that: there is SOCIAL RANK, i.e. not everyone is "equal", nor are they considered "equal".

"Egalitarianism" is more a western idea. It will not work in most Asian societies, and it hasn't evolved out of the CULTURE like it has in most western cuntrees.

So my original point remains: to be effective as a leader in Asia, you need to be an Authoritarian Figure and rule, rather than GOVERN. Otherwise the whole thing falls into a pile of shit, and there is no progress.

Authoritarian rule has its downsides---it DISCOURAGES individual spirit, like dissent, creativity, critical thinking and innovation. It fosters "sheep" rather than rugged individualism. But no matter. A wise Benign Dictator understands that all choices are trade-offs, and that politics and leadership must align with CULTURAL EXPECTATIONS.

So embrace the authority lah. It is good for you---it'll keep you in line, so that the cuntree is peaceful and law-abiding which makes it safe and awesome for people like me to come along and PLAY :-)

Anonymous said...

If the opposition is not ready to be govt and hence majority voters are very scared to vote for them in a GE, why should the ruling party politicians need to attend any politician course, u tell me lah?

Anonymous said...

Singaporeans, minus the new imports, have developed and changed over the last 50 years to be a very congenial people, non violent, law abiding, and very conscious of social security and social norms. The aggressive, hungry and violent immigrants of the past have faded away after a quick few decades of affluence.

Singaporeans are no longer rogues that would take to the streets to burn cars and loot. Singaporeans are ready to for a more civil and legalistic western form of democracy, rule by laws, and treasure law and order.

Singaporeans do not need thugs and gangsters or so called dictators benign or generous or what shit, to rule over them. Singaporeans have evolved and progressed to become a new people, albeit too authority fearing and dismissive and too docile for their own good.

The sad thing about Singaporeans is that they would be swallowed and eaten up by the rash, aggressive and scheming foreigners in their midst. The newcomers are different, of different made and would not be the same for another half a century.

Would Singaporeans survive in their company?

Anonymous said...

The Sinkie opposition leaders badly need to attend a course on how to be ready to be govt.

But then hor, other than PAP, who has the credentials to conduct such a course? And surely PAP will not conduct one for the opposition, tio bo?

Or maybe "fixing" the opposition is the PAP's way of conducting it? And if the opposition still didn't learn, then they deserved to be "fixed"? Hahahahahaha

Anonymous said...

"Would Singaporeans survive in their company?"
Anon 10:49 am


Please lah, even without the rash, aggressive and scheming foreigners in their midst, the Sinkies will also not survive in the long term lah.


Simply because the Sinkie fertility rate is below replacement level!!

Hence the best way, and the only way, is for Sinkies to copulate more in order to save themselves and their country!!!! Hahahahahaha.

Matilah_Singapura said...

@ 1249:

>> Singaporeans are ready to for a more civil and legalistic western form of democracy, rule by laws, and treasure law and order.

I doubt it. Anyway when the time comes it will EVOLVE from the changed CULTURE.

>> Singaporeans have evolved and progressed to become a new people, albeit too authority fearing and dismissive and too docile for their own good.

Exactly. Western style democracy cannot function with docile and authority fearing people. In EVERY peaceful western democracy, when the political situation calls for VIOLENCE and HOSTILITY, it is meted out swiftly by the people themselves. You cannot have PEACE, if you are unwilling to do violence or be hostile (to send a message) when there is no other option.

For e.g. in the USA (freest place on earth), citizens will strap on their sidearms and attend rallies protesting govt. policy. No one draws their weapon, but everyone will show up with their "open carry" in full display. Best part: the police defend the right of the citizens to wear their weapons in public.

Singaporean culture is still decades away from understanding this idea, or the idea on which it is founded: INDIVIDUALISM---what it means to be an individual---the rights, the responsibilities, the place in the social order, the definite requirement to be an active citizen.

So until the culture changes to reflect the above, I hold the opinion that a Benign Dictatorship is the best option for Singapore.

Being "peaceful" and respecting the "rule of law" doesn't equate to being DOCILE. When a govt becomes intolerable, it is left up to the people to do WHATEVER IS NECESSARY to save their cuntree.

Sorry Singapore, you guys are not there yet.

Matilah_Singapura said...

Freedom comes with maturity and responsibility. It is being PEACEFUL but send a clear message of "don't mess with me".

If you had a rally/ protest in Singapore like this, I guarantee some people are going to get shot.

It is even safe enough to bring your baby along with your weapon.

Like I said, it is the CULTURE which determines the politics. In an INDIVIDUALISTIC CULTURE, everyone respects everyone else.

Singapore, not ready yet lah!

Anonymous said...

Who would be good candidates to lecture on government and how to rule a country?

Anonymous said...

Like I said, it is the CULTURE which determines the politics. In an INDIVIDUALISTIC CULTURE, everyone respects everyone else.
Singapore, not ready yet lah!
March 15, 2015 11:18 am

Is it more accurate to re-phrase as follows:

Like I said, it is the PAP culture which determines the politics. In a non-PAP CULTURE, everyone respects everyone else.
PAP, not ready yet lah!

Anonymous said...

Who would be the good candidates from PAP to lecture on government and how to be good politicians?