All the hype about nothing

Not exactly nothing, but about 400 women in Aware. That is all the members in the association and the whole country is aroused. The main media went to town with something like 6 pages devoted to the association and recent happenings after non stop daily reportings of the grab for power. And even DBS has to come out in public to rebuke its senior staff for the gumption to accept the appointment as the President of the association. It is only an association of women for god sake, not an association of witches and vampires that could turn the country upside down or cast a spell on anyone that is considered enemy. Have we gone overboard over a none issue? Oops, sorry ladies, it is big issue.

Tea Party protest

The Americans are organizing a nation wide Tea Party protest against the govt of Obama for high taxes and high spending. For the size of America, the protest could easily reach out to millions of Americans and millions will be on the streets or assembling in public areas. Just imagine what would happen when they turn violent and go rioting? They will be out of control and there will be damages to properties and lost of lives. A highly dangerous thing to do. But the protest will go on in America like another Sunday church gathering. And very likely there will be no rioting except for a lot of noise and the people letting off steam in a boisterous way. Compare this with the dangerous cycling event that the WP was trying to organize in East Coast Park. Unimaginable. We were so lucky that such an event was not allowed to be staged, or else it could become dangerous to public safety and security. Now why are Singaporeans so dangerous and not allowed to assemble in groups of 4 or more? Basically Singaporeans are still a bit wild, irresponsible, reckless, a bit uncivilized or primitive I supposed, prone to violence, very typical of unruly Asians. Better if they can be caged for their own good. It will take years before Singaporeans will become civilized, to be like the Americans and be allowed to stage peaceful protest in the public. Singaporeans need to be educated to be peace loving and responsible. We need to learn a lot from civilized countries like the US. One day we will be civilized and will be allowed to stage peaceful protest. One day, but this one day will not be here sooner or in the foreseeable future. The thought of letting Singaporeans on the loose is so frightening. Don’t even think of it.

Are we capable of thinking for ourselves? II.

The example of the public demonstration in Thailand has been quoted as a bad thing. How could the people demonstrate in the streets, destroying public properties and hurting people, disrupting the economy and breaking down public order and security? Think for a moment, why did all these happen? At face value all these are bad, no doubt. But without understanding the background to what is happening to Thailand and how the Red Shirts were forced into the streets, one will be making a false or wrong judgement on the people and event. Violent demonstators! Guilty, no good, lock them up. Beat them up. Let me post a hypothetical case, say an event happening here in the future. A President Bum is installed at the Istana. He is not happy with a popularly elected PM and his cabinet. He incited the army generals and some groups to wear Yellow Shirts to demonstrate in the streets. He eventually forced the popularly elected PM and govt out of power and installed his own men as PM and govt, without the people electing them. Should the people then demonstrate in public about such an abuse of power or a violation of the democratic system of electing the govt? And if the people do demonstrate, is it bad, is it wrong? Or should the people just accept everything that has happened, do not break the law, do not demonstrate and disturb the peace. Peace and public security are paramount and under no circumstances should people be allowed on the streets. What you think?

Are we capable of thinking for ourselves?

This is the perpetual question that Singaporeans should be asking themselves. Or would they bother? The recent incidents of the Aware election and the Red Shirts in Thailand are two cases that we should be pondering. Or should we let others tell us what to believe, what is good, what is right and what should the way things should be? Let me start with the Aware case. The public was being bombarded with the following positions. The new committee are unknown, no track record, no experience, dunno what they are capable off, and more importantly, they may be up to no good. The only talents and acceptable people to run Aware must be the old horses. Only those who have been there have the right to be there or the right people to be there. Anyone who wants to fit in must be of the same mould or be acceptable to the old horses. A very familiar story. Why can't the public give the new committee a chance to prove themselves, the benefit of the doubt? Why can't the new committee ended as the better team eventually? I am not making any judgement on them without seeing what they have done. They may have different views, values and different ways of doing things. Are these really bad? Do we want to accept that there is only one way, one set of values, and only one group of people possess all the rights and goods and virtues that there is no talent left outside this group to provide a better alternative? Is change always bad? I remember some eminent people said that change is the essence of life. No change no progress. With change, there will be disruption and readjustment, but not necessarily bad. Give the new committee a chance. Give the new talents a chance. Or we have already prejudged that they have no talent? The fact that they could wrestle control from the incumbents proved that they are good and mean business. At least they are able of outfoxing the old talents in their own game.

Aware's new chief from DBS

The new committee of Aware is headed by a VP from DBS, Josie Lau Meng Lee. The team looks very able and respectable. Why is it that so many comments have been made which in a way have pronounced them guilty or with ill intent? Why is it that people only think of the negative, that these people are up to no good? Guilty before proven! Anyway, looks like Josie may not be able to continue with the appointment as the President of Aware. An official statement from DBS in Today said, 'DBS Bank requires all employees to obtain approval before running for or taking on an external appointment,...It had informed Ms Lau prior "to the Aware election" last night that, although the bank supported her involvement in Aware as council member in her own personal capacity, it was however "not supportive" of her intent to run for president of Aware, a spokesman told Today late last night. "We believe that as a VP in DBS, she already has a challenging job with many responsibilities and the role of president would demand too much of her time and energy."' This is a very reasonable position to take. No matter how talented a person is, wearing two hats or too many hats will definitely affect the quality of work of the person. How could anyone really think that he/she is so talented to wear two important hats, let alone 5, 10 or 20 hats? It will only dilute their attention to what they can do to each job.