The wooden story revives

‘I was a block of wood. So? It was the truth.’ This story is immortalised in the Men In White book. How many political leaders would take such a comment in a public address standing up? Chok Tong did, standing 6 ft 4in tall. And he not only admitted that he was wooden, he could joke about it too. That is the kind of leader we have and the people love him for it. His ministers continued to support him. He is the most likeable PM so far. And because of the public dressing, he became a better man, more uninhibited and improved on his public image and public speaking. In other words, less wooden. And he got LKY to thank for. In LKY is another quality of leadership unseen anywhere. His lecture is always well regarded by friends and foes. Chok Tong became a leader and his own man and accepted the comment though stunned for a while. Recently we have another grateful recipient of his lecture in Parliament. After his robust reply to newbie NMP Sadasivan, the latter was thankful, like a student attending a lecture in the university once again. And we can see him learning and gaining from it and become a better man in the future This is the unique quality of LKY. He can tell anyone off and the recipients felt very grateful for the lesson, for he meant well. ‘He’s not a man to slam you for nothing. He was never personal.’ Said Chok Tong. Imagine another leader coming out and make such a comment on anyone, the reception is not going to be the same. There were several instances, some in Parliament, and I don’t think the recipients were grateful for the dressing down. Maybe some PMs may learn this trick from LKY and make public assessments of his cabinet ministers in the future, if he is LKY calibre. Anyway, what’s wrong with being called wooden when there is real substance. The number one golfer’s official name is Woods, Tiger Woods. And no one is disturbed by that name. Who knows, the next headline when Tiger wins another tournament may be ‘The Wood is on top again!’

"Affordable" in inverted commas

The ST reported on the new launch of another condominium in the Gillman Height site and the "affordable" prices that are being offered. A 2-rm 75 sq m unit is priced at $700k or about $1000 psf. When words are bracket by inverted commas, it is clear that the meaning is suspect. Affordable or affordability is now a misleading term, depending on who is using it and the listener. It used to be the belief that when something is said often enough and repeated loud enough, people will come to accept it as the truth. Unfortunately these two words have developed into some kind of ill repute. People no longer believe in them. What if affordable is mixed up with heavy subisidies, with willing buyer willing seller, with market pricing? How believeable and affordable can it be? Could the people uttering affordable really and sincerely believe in what they are saying? I do. Anyone who cannot afford to pay $700k in their lifetime(two incomes) for a roof over their head is unfit to live in paradise when people could easily earn $1m in a year. There is a spurious outpouring of unhappiness over the usage of the word afforable and the basis or formula use to define what it is in the ST forum today. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. We do not know how many letters have been sent to the ST before a few were printed. And the angry cries in cyberspace would probably not be heard, so not counted. As long as the affected people chose to keep quiet, the few voices heard would be read as too little to warrant any serious attention. Unless the voice is loud enough, spoken often and with more anger, no one is going to listen and people will conclude that 'see, no protest, so no problem'. The affordability index is so perfectly calibrated that the people are happy with it. And the properties, private and public, are selling like hot cakes. The demands are evidence to prove that it is right. Does anyone ask how many of the visitors in property launches are paid to be there or how many units are actually booked by the agents themselves to give the impression of strong demand? And how many are booked by speculators?

Myth 209 - Fiction of succession planning

We are renowned for our ability to plan a head. And corporate succession planning must be a piece of cake. Failure to work out such a simple plan will be sorely felt and seen as simply incompetent. Or is there a better expression, inability to plan, forget to plan, dunno how to plan, or simply no time to plan, but pretend that it was all planned? We have seen many several CEOs departing and then we hear a big announcement, the organisation is searching around the globe for a successor. And the process will take another few months or years. What is succession planning? Didn't the CEO has someone standing by that can take over should he gone missing? Or our organisations are so dearth of CEO potential that whenever a CEO departs, someone outside must be brought in? This has been the case, it seems. All the bullshitting about succession planning are now laid bare for all to see. There is no succession planning, or there is no one within the organisation that is fit to succeed the CEO. What a pathetic state of affair!

The reassurance Singaporeans needed

Catherine Lim's question to LKY during the dialogue at the LKY School of Policy inadvertently led to the revelation and reassurance of the resilience and ruggedness of our political system and govt infrastructure. This will be PAP's legacy and achievement for the people and country. In his reply to Catherine, LKY assured her that in the event of a freak election result that threw out the PAP, the army will not move in. The second assurance is that we have an excellent checks and control system underpinned by our elected President system and this will protect the country's reserve from a scoundrel govt. Feeling better already. The other assurance that was implicit is that our political system will withstood any changes of govt, and even if an opposition comes into power, the political system and govt will continue to run. It will be tragic if after operating a govt and political system for 45 years the country will turn into turmoil just because a new political party is elected into office. A democratic electoral system and govt must be designed for govt change, peacefully by the electoral proceses. And PAP has ensured that the system holds. This is just like succession planning. An organisation must be able to continue to run when the leadership is changed and not collapsed. Any responsible CEO must always prepare the next man to step into his shoe should he need to vacate the position for any reason. Sadly, many big organisations are failing in this area. And when the top guy falls, there will start running around looking for a successor. What a joke. Back to the resilience of our govt and political system. With the assurance given, does it mean that the electorate can now be confident to go ahead and elect a new party to power? Does it mean that the system will still work and will not collapse? The assumption of course is that the electorate is also smart enough not to elect a bunch of idiots or scoundrels to form the govt. Assuming that the opposition parties are able to put up a slate of professionals, I mean professionals and respectable individuals, no need scholar calibre, and they be elected to govt, will the change be just a normal process without big upheavals? Japan has done that and its system is holding, it is not collapsing when a new and inexperience team of politicians are taking over. We will have to see whether the strength of our system is real or a myth when that day comes.

Proud to be a Malay Singaporean

This is an article by Khartini Khalid who is pursuing a master's degree in international relations at The Fletcher School, Tufts University. The Fletcher School is renowned for International Relations courses and to be there is itself an accomplishment. I can understand why Khartini felt proud, as an individual and as a Malay Singaporean. She has proven that the Mahathir Myth that Malays are less equal than other racial groups wrong. Khartini told the story of her research project which took her to a Malay village in Negri Seremban. In those few days she discovered how different the Malays in Singapore were from the Malays in Malaysia. The social and political space they live and operate were distinctly different. In Malaysia, different races still live in their own communal quarters while in Singapore, the official policy is to mix the people to avoid a concentration of races in their respective corners. Malaysia and Singapore race relations have developed from these different footings and we can be proud that racial tension has eased off in our case but remains more or less the same in Malaysia since 1969. The whole social/economic and political system in Malaysia revolves around race and Malay dominance, and a govt that promotes superiority of a racial group. In Singapore, racial equality is in our constitution, though an aspiration, nonetheless, the govt takes tremendous effort to prevent race biased tension among the people. Which is a better system is subjective. But one point I like to comment on is that our system will fail miserably if the govt goes about promoting and protecting the interest of one racial group or the majority against the interest of the minority. In fact the govt takes pain to play down on the dominance of the majority group and will come down hard on the majority should it try to exert too much influence or disadvantage the minority. This is the crux of our successful formula. All things being equal, the majority must take a step back to accommodate the minority. The reverse is true in Malaysia and this has resulted in the majority exerting more and more pressure on the minorities with implicit support from the govt. The latest issue of the stamping of the cow's head during a demonstration and the govt playing down the infringement as a non issue is a case in point. Such blatant disrespect of the minority sensitivity will not be tolerated here and the govt is likely to come down hard on the guilty party. We have taken different paths in our social, economic and political development of our people. Only time will tell whether ours is a better or poorer model for the people.