More LKY legacies falling

I wrote about the meritocracy legacy of LKY at the verge of being dumped by including race as a key factor in the election of the EP. Under the present criteria, though very, actually extremely elitist, it still has the hallmark of LKY in it, ie meritocracy. The EP will be chosen on merit and elected by the people. No tokenism. The likely proposed changes to the criteria to include race as a key element soundly denounced the ideal of meritocracy, that does not need to be elected base on merit but on race. Several minority bloggers have spoken up against this compromising change that would not look good when a minority candidate is elected under a different and unmeritocratic rule. They expressed their objections to such a patronising move. How strong is this view from the minorities against or in support of the changes has yet to be determined but it sure irks the minority elites as was seen in a CNA programme.

 

What is certain is that this meritocracy legacy of LKY will be the first to fall and not the last. In last week's ST there was an article by Kor Kian Beng on how Singapore walked the tight rope in a balancing act between the two super powers, China and the USA. In the article he quoted LKY saying that Singapore must not choose between the two super powers. Singapore should be neutral in their conflict. And Singapore might host Chinese military facilities as well after offering such facilities to the Americans. That was another hallmark and legacy of LKY. A wisdom only fools should disregard.

 

Vivian Balakrishnan and Chan Chun Sing have both been quoted that Singapore's position between the two powers was and is neutral, Singapore does not take sides. This was the position of Singapore in the past. Has this been changed recently over the South China Sea dispute?

 

Hsien Loong took pains to explain Singapore's position at the National Day Rally not for no reasons. China is fuming and has lodged protests to the govt on Singapore's pro American stand, read as anti China, after several govt officials made statements that were obviously unfriendly to China. Singapore's role within Asean on this issue, the favourable comments on The Hague ruling, freedom of navigation, etc etc mirrored the American positions to the chagrin of China. And the Americans are using military facilities in Singapore to conduct provocative manoeuvres in the South China that further put to question about Singapore's neutral position between the two super powers.

 

The big question, is Singapore really neutral or has Singapore taken side with the Americans, abandoning its policy of neutrality? It is not just what the Singapore govt and its officials were saying but what Singapore has been doing in recent times that would be judged. And only China and the USA know and matters whether Singapore has taken sides.

 

If Singapore has taken side, then another legacy of LKY is going down the drain. The next question to ask, are these legacies obsolete, outlived their usefulness, or they were wrong in the first place and have to be dumped, LKY legacies or whatever? How many more of LKY's legacies or wisdom would be ignored, challenged and buried away? How many people have the audacity to think they are wiser than LKY and dare to show disrespect to his legacies, to put them away, barely one year after his demise?

 

Was there a call to protect and preserve his legacies?

 

PS. I understand there are people that would pui when LKY’s name is mentioned. Let’s be objective about this. Not all his legacies are bad and some are critical to the continued existence and well being of this little Red Dot. Abandoning the good stuff indiscriminately would be an unforgiveable sin, an injustice to the future of Singapore and the millenials.