Possible soldiers of the two contentious camps

Soldiers of the world unite. This is the time for the mother of all battles! What battle? The battle of mothers and mothers to be, and mothers that would not be, will be fought this week end. As both camps rally their forces, the battle cry can be heard across paradise. Tension is in the air. The claims and calls for civility are unlikely to be respected. What will be the likes that will join the two armies for battle? The new exco is likely to draw its soldiers from the conservative camps, including its Christian brothers and sisters. Members from all walks of life, all colours and creed, and religions, who oppose the liberal theme of homosexuality are likely to join their rank. On the other corner will be the old exco, their liberal members and associates, the gays and lesbians, and those who believe in an all inclusive society, and the advocates of a more liberal way of life. They will be supported by those who believe in more tolerance and acceptance of diversities, of how people should live their lives freely. By Saturday, the citizens of paradise will know which side is able to garner more supporters, and which value will prevail for Aware to stand for. And who knows what will happen should it be a 50/50 split. Then there will be a deadlock. Would the combatants be able to control their emotions not to tear at each other? Wow, it will be great to be there. Jack Neo, this is great material for a Singapore movie. And the content is of a very serious nature. The way of life and the way forward to the future.

Rebel without a Cause

What are they fighting for? Are they fighting for an ideal, or they just 'chion' blindly because someone asked them to do so? We have two parties fighting. The new exco's agenda is very clear, clearer than anyone with eyes but cannot see. They are fighting against homosexuality. Period. The old exco, what are they fighting for? To reclaim their seats because they were ousted from an association they built and owned? Or are they fighting the new exco for their anti homosexual cause? I read Constance Singam's letter in the forum and it posted another angle. The new committee 'does not represent Singapore's racial and religious diversity'. So, is it a racial and religious issue now? That the new exco must have an acceptable racial and religious mix. Is this in the constitution? Wait a minute, Constance also agreed with Vivian that religion should be kept out of petty politics. Where are they heading? Many people are going to 'chion' in the EGM. Some with eyes wide open, some wide close. What are they fighting for, may I ask again? It is nice to fight for an ideal and die for a cause. It is quite silly to fight for no reason, fighting without a cause. Or is fighting a new exco for the way they budged in to take over an association a worthy cause? Hey, they won the election legitimately. Or is the new exco unworthy because they did not have the right racial/religious mix? What is the right racial/religious mix? Under whose definition or whose terms? I think it is better to fight for something more tangible, like money. What is it in for me? How much? People running charity organisations are demanding hundreds of thousands to do so. Monks and priests are asking for equally huge sums to lead the sangha and congregation. These are more real, more useful cause to fight for isn't it? Interesting proposition?

So much over petty politics

Why are so much effort and resources been devoted by the media over petty politics? The amount of effort put in by journalists and reporters to cover this issue is truly impressive, as good as covering a general election. So much talents were put to good use to follow and research on the squabbling and then to write serious articles on the happenings. Someone should follow up by aggregating the reports both in TOM and cyberspace and there should be enough material for a book. Perhaps a best seller.

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?