Shambolical sagas awaiting closures

The two sticky sagas that were the preoccupations of Singaporeans for all the wrong reasons are still alive and awaiting a proper closure. The avoidance of giving each of them a decent burial is unacceptable and shows an arrogance of power or an escapism, that given time they will fade away and forgotten. I am referring to the way the national table tennis coach was given a miss from the Coach of the Year Award that many feel he rightly deserved and the role of educating children on sexuality. In the Liu Guodong case, a little grace and magnanimity, a little humbleness, would have gone a long way. What happened and dragging the issue for so long is pride, personal pride and pride of an organisation. For such a happy event, the winning of an Olympic silver medal to become a political tussle and the victim, as seen in the eyes of the public, was Liu Guodong, is regrettable. This impression will not go away by keeping quiet and not facing the issue. If from the beginning there was a little graciousness, a little forgiveness, there could have been a happy ending despite the little mishaps along the way. It may be a little late now, but still not impossible to have a good closure. Until then, officialdom appears to have won, but in contempt of public feelings. Why is there no proper closing of the sexuality education saga? Until today, some sectors of the population, some organisations, still think that they have the right to invade into the role of parenting. And they think that whatever values that are good in their eyes should be taught to other people's children. And yes, they think they are the guardians, the beacons of light for the education of the young in controversial values like pre marital sex and homosexuality. And parents should shut up and leave it to them to do the job, to bring up their children. And none of them has expressed any remorse in overstepping their roles and violating into an area that is not theirs in the first place. To some parents, this intrusion is unwelcome and offensive. Your lifestyle is your lifestyle, your own choosing. What is good, what makes you happy, is based on your own subjective morals of the good life. Other people have their own versions of the good or normal life and patronising them or chastising them that they are wrong smacks of sheer arrogance. Parents, working with the MOE, should reclaim this right to educate their children in the values that they believed in. No group is superior and have the superior values to think that they should be the right people to do this job. This message must be made loud and clear. The MOE should also put in place a system that will not allow individuals or groups to hijack the education programme to push through their private agendas, to implant a new set of values to the young in violation of the official objectives. So far no one seems to have done this and the cane has not been used. Would there be an inquiry on how it could have happened? We need a closure on this.

The warming up after the thaw

Singapore's relationship with Malaysia was mended and set in order during the premiership of Badawi. After several decades of Mahathirism, when relationship between the two states went on a roller coastal ride, of extreme highs and lows, but mostly lows, it took Badawi several years to thaw the thick ice built by his predecessor. The last few days we have played host to Najib in a much friendlier atmosphere with great promises of more cooperation and cosying up to each other in economic and international affairs. Badawi took a brave stand to dismantle the crooked bridge that was more a hindrance than an improvement in facilitating communication of goods and people through the causeway. If it was allowed to replace the causeway, it would become a major obstacle course for the people trying to cross the Straits of Johore. It is near impossible to think of walking across as conveniently as what they are doing now. Najib has more or less driven the last nail to this bizarre concept of a crooked bridge. The possibility of a widen causeway, the most logical and economical option, is now on the table. But a bridge still must be built and Najib offers a more logical and sensible proposal, a new bridge to the east of the causeway to facilitate and promote economic development and growth to a neglected region. The south eastern corner of Johore offers huge potential for development and tourism. Both the widening of the causeway, a new bridge in the east, are practical proposals that will surely be met with equal enthusiasm from the Singapore side. Throughout Najib's visit, the undertone of the message coming through is one of a very careful and pragmatic man wanting better cooperation and relations that will benefit the people of both countries. Najib is looking into a new future, taking off from a stronger foundation laid by Badawi instead of going back in time to a creaking structure of Mahathir. From the reactions of the Singapore side, my assessment is that Najib will be a welcomed PM to build better ties, and his proposals will be taken up seriously. He is the best bet to continue the work of Badawi and for the two countries to mend ties and move forward together. The question is whether the Mahathirism that is still alive in many of his cabinet members and in Johore will allow Najib to open up a new era of cooperation and mutual prosperity between the two countries. Have the bad blood been cleansed? If not, Najib would need a major blood transfusion exercise to clear his administration before he can move forward with his new vision and style of govt. The future of better ties is much more brighter. The thaw is now warming up. This is a great moment to seize for both Hsien Loong and Najib to quickly move forward and dismiss the past to history.

A brilliant strategy gone awry

The concept and strategy to invest in some of the biggest financial institutions by GIC and Temasek were a brilliant move. These financial institutions are the strategic centres in the movement of funds across the world, and proxies to the world economy. Having an interest in them, a controlling stake, is akin to the days of the British Empire when they controlled all the strategic sea ports. If GIC and Temasek were successful in this endeavour, we would have transformed ourselves as the controller and master of the world financial system. Unfortunately things did not turn out as planned. I can superficially see three possible reasons for the disastrous loss of billions of our savings. 1, it could be professional incompetence. But this is unlikely to be acknowledged as everyone involved in the plans are professional trained and experts in their fields. And they must have done their due diligence. 2, and very obvious, is the blinded trust of the American system and corporate chiefs. We looked like bright eyed little children in awe of the Americans, and believing in everything they said and did, thinking that what we see would be what we get. And we bought cart loads of rotten eggs. Then when the smell came forth, the Americans came with more baskets of rotten eggs, and we bought again, trusting them completely. Now we knew that the system was rotten and the salesmen were crooks, selling rotten eggs without telling us so. 3. The third reason is providence. When the mandate of heaven is passe, no matter how brilliant and able our people are, things will go wrong, and go disastrously wrong. Man proposes, heaven disposes. Having said that, the concept and strategy are still sound and should not be forsaken just because of the failure. With the experience of all the bunglings, we could be wiser in making our next move. Of course, hoping at the same time that providence is kinder and in our favour.

So, it is Aware's fault?

Eng Hen has spoken and that Aware's programme can only be reintroduced after it has regained the public's trust. That settles one part of the issue. The second part is how the Aware programme was allowed to be taught in the way it did for so long, and actually accepted as normal without anyone from the MOE raising an eyebrow? In fact the initial reaction from MOE official is that there were no complaints or the noises put up were groundless, unjustified emotions. Who gave the go ahead or why was there no ongoing assessment and auditing to make sure that the content was safe or acceptable? If not for the hooha, the programme would still be taught to the children without anyone getting wiser. Would there be a review and an explanation on this second part of the issue? Are the confidence and trust in MOE affected by this slip? Or MOE is totally free of blame, nothing to do with it?

HDB to build more 2 and 3 rm flats

Is this progress or regress? Or are we telling the Singaporeans that My endearing home is a 2 or 3 rm flat? Of course not. My endearing home is a freehold landed property, 20,000 sq ft, in district 10 or Sentosa. 2 and 3 rm flats are for the losers. In fact all public flats are for losers. the 2 and 3 rm flats are for those who can't even buy a 4rm flat. How many can afford to buy a 4 rm flat these days when the price is $300k to $400k or more? In my time, a single income family, a young graduate with 3 or 4 years working experience could even buy a 5 rm flat. Today, with 2 incomes, two graduates would have problems buying a 4 rm flat. Is the life of Singaporeans getting better? Of course, depending on who you are asking.