The Yodas will not go away

This is what I have heard over the last few days. Singapore needs the Yodas to continue to prosper. What it does not say, or also say, is that the new leaders are just as hopeless since the day they took over the country. And they are just a bunch of never grow up babies, inept leaders that need the Yodas to hold their hands forever. But who are saying such things? It seems that there are plans to institutionalised the forever presence of Yodas in our system. Come on, let’s not run down our A Team as if they are really a bunch of good for nothings. They are men and women in their prime, with many years of experience running the country. They are fathers and mothers in their own right. No longer sucking pacifiers while in bed. How many of you really think that we need the Yodas to be around forever? How many of you endorse the Yoda system? The Yoda system is not exactly bad. It retains the oldies for their experience, talents, fading memories and wisdom as resource for the younger generations. But they must not think that their views, values and ideas are forever relevant. Some may be obsolete or outdated or dysfunctional. The other part I find it unpleasant is the mismatch of cost and gratifications. The Yodas are awfully rich people. While the rest of the workers are getting pay cuts and smaller pay checks as they aged. The Yodas are demanding more or expecting more when their contributions are getting lesser. Sometimes I wonder why they need so much money when they can't do much with them. The gist is that they can contribute and enjoy the glory and power, but don't add to the cost of upkeeping and maintaining their presence. For those who do not know what is the Yoda system, it is about a system of elders, like the Jedi master in Star Wars, hiding in the cave to live for several hundreds, undead, but very powerful.

Our history book is flawed.

I happened to meet this unhappy father who was disgusted with the untruths told in our history books taught in schools. He explained that today, the history books said Lee Kuan Yew is the father of modern Singapore and he won the independence for Singapore. What's wrong with that? Presumably his history book told a different story. He said in his days, Lim Yew Hock was the one who won independence for Singapore. I am not sure how many people read this version of history in school. I did not and neither did I know of anyone with this interpretation of history. I was telling myself, hey, I must have been taught wrongly as a history and PS student. I told him that the British only gave Marshall self government and a table next to the staircase for his office as Chief Minister. Marshall was so insulted that he protested and subsequently resigned. Lim Yew Hock became the next Chief Minister with internal self government. Not independence. We broke from the British by becoming part of Malaysia in 1963 but gained full independence from Malaysia in 1965. Now he was not happy and not convinced with my version of our history. He threw up his credential as a Constitutional Law expert and that his facts were right. Lim Yew Hock was the one who won independence for Singapore. Self government is independence. I don't know how many Singaporeans are still living with this version of Singapore's history?

An issue of tolerance or inclusiveness?

I was out the whole day and have just rushed through the news. And Aware is still hogging the limelight as if nothing else matters anymore. And I must say that this saga is getting more interesting with more exciting angles coming into focus. We are now seeing the apathetic and disinterested Singaporeans coming forward to say, hey look, this is not the Singapore that we want and we want to change that. We do not want to see the social mores of this island going down into the gutters. Is this good or bad? One angle is that we do not want any particular interest group, be it racial or religious, to come out and impose its values on the general population. Are the activists in the new Exco of Aware pushing such an agenda or moving into such a direction? For the time being they are not. The govt is beginnng to show its concern with this development. So far it is only commenting on tolerance and be respectful of other people's views and choices. Nothing alarming yet and it does not see Aware presenting itself as a moral authority to replace the govt. As long as the contentious issues are kept within the association, the govt may just want to leave it alone to tackle its own problems. But should the govt detect anything more serious in nature than some individuals wanting to exert their influences in a social club, it may be forced to take a stand. We are seeing membership shooting to a level never seen before. Alarm signals will be raised the moment the govt sees its role in maintaining religious harmony and an authority on social behaviour being compromised. Andthe uneasiness will come forth once the membership each party could muster reaches a dangerous level. For the time being it is just a show and nothing serious. And the govt will be seriously in trouble should it see any interest group trying to usurp the govt's role in establishing certain decent social behavious. When a group like Aware starts to take on a bigger role, we can expect fireworks.

Demand for news that you pay for

Reading news in cyberspace is free and thus one cannot demand what should be written. But one still has a choice of choosing what one wants to read and which blog or forum to go to. In the case of commercial media, one pays for the news and has a right to demand on what to read or stop paying. Are the commercial media delivering to the consumers what they paid for? I would want to read more about the family of Mas Selamat and how they are coping with his disappearance. I would also like to know about all the big earners, not just the CEOs, but the chairman, board of directors, the top 10 senior executives of high paying organisations. Would the media do some justice by serving their paid customers better with news they want to read and not news that are mountains made out of mole hills? I accept that what is important and readable is a personal preference. And for people who desire to read saucy news and gossips, they know which media to go to. And for those who want something more serious in nature, they too know which media to pay for. These choices are similar in cyberspace. There is a wide spread of blogs with different agendas to feed the big variety of readers, gossips, rumours etc all for free.

Storms in a sick society

The storms are here and to stay. For more than a week, the public are being exposed to the unfortunate sagas of the monk with expensive taste and love for materialism, and the increasing tension between groups of educated women clashing over values of gays, lesbians and Christianity. The best part is that these will be here to stay. No one is questioning what religious people should be or expected to be. And now there is a new interpretation that modernisation, materialism, moneyism are all acceptable norms in religion. The other battle is about tolerance to defiant lifestyles versus traditional or conservative values. Someone asked me if liberalism is equivalent to conservatism, to allow, accept with enthusiasm, or to let live without kicking a row. While the storms are brewing, the celebration or revelation of such tussles as part and parcel of modern life is a sure sign that the society is sick. And while there is no sign of how these sicknesses will be addressed and put right, we shall not be consumed by these raging storms and forget about the bigger issues that we have been talking about and feeling bitter or unhappy about. The old issues of billions of dollars lost, the outrageous high cost of living that are stuffed to the people must not be forgotten while we watch the battles that are going on.