This kind of attitude must come to an end sooner or later. Though the trend is changing, that the govt had admitted that they did not have the monopoly of ideas, the other truth is saying otherwise. The political leaders are still shafting their ideas and policies down the throat of the people. They are still saying that one party govt, or the ruling party, is the only party that can run this country for the good of the people, forever. Opposition parties, multi parties, will ruin this country.
They cannot accept that there are better educated and talented people outside the ruling party and in the opposition parties. What is seen is only the surface. There are many able people that will come out when the time is right, to represent the people to run this country for the people.
The cries of over population by foreigners are simply ignored. We will think what is best for the people, and we will do it, like deaf frogs. This has not changed. More foreigners will be coming. So what can you do about it?
The policies of paying political leaders crazy will not be changed. The policies of making the people pay dearly for their homes, cars, transportation, will not be changed. There is no other better ways.
The policies of holding on to the people’s savings, increasing minimum sum, increasing Medisave, raising withdrawal age, increasing CPFLife, will be there no matter how much the people are complaining. There is no regard to how the people feel about their money being kept away from them. The govt think that it should be done, it is done.
And the political leaders will keep calling the people daft. Only the political leaders are bright and know best for the people. And the people, the daft Singaporeans, cannot do anything about it. They will continue to be daft and continue to vote the ruling party to rule over them, to decide everything for them, in their version of ‘for the good of the people’.
This will go on and on, as long as the people accept their station in life, to be taken for granted, as daft.
7/28/2011
Rise of Asia Forum – A summary
I attended this forum last night at the NUS Alumni House. It was quite a pleasant evening with good weather and good company. The session started off in pretty good mood with Viswa Sadasivan, the NMP, in the chair, and throwing a dig at Kishore, reminding him of his reputation as an apologist for a dictator. Kishore’s friendly replied was to remind Viswa of his whacking by the dictator.
This kind of talk must have astounded the audience but not all got the message. A young foreign student later told the forum that he was reminded to be careful when he opened his mouth in this country. Kishore reassured him that both he and Viswa would not be arrested after the forum and so there was nothing to fear really.
The main gist of the forum was how, after 60 to 70 years of independence, the Asians are still lacking confidence to think like Asians and have to speak and write with a western agenda behind their writings and ideas. And the Europeans still think that it is their right to dominate the world in all fields when their colonial past have long been resigned to history.
If one is to read the Asian media, one cannot go away without reading one sided articles coming out from the desks of CIA or other American and European intelligence agencies. And the stupidity of it all is that the Asian media probably have to pay for such craps. And these western paid writers are filling the pages of Asian media, writing about the impending demise of the rising Asian countries, corruption and collapse of their economies and polities. They forgot that the American and European economies are already in the abyss. The IMF Chief was not anywhere to twist the arms of the American President or the Presidents of the PIGS countries to sign on the dotted line for financial reform like they did to Suharto, in glee.
But last night was all talks, talks of an Asian cultural renaissance, from Asians growing up in a diet of roti prata, nasi lemak and char kway teow. Not the kind of Asians that were fed with hamburgers and have a head full of baked beans.
Would Kishore take it one step further, with his intellectual and political influence, to rein in the media and make them report Asia by Asians, seen from Asian eyes, and the thoughts and views of Asians? Or would nothing be changed and more bacon and eggs are being fed to the empty Asian minds, daily, by the unthinking ‘western’ Asian media?
The rise of Asia, if it is to be, must be comprehensive and not just economics. The colonial hangover must have been long gone, gone with the wind, and the Asians should be sailing in a new wind, the wind of Asia, be confident to speak out their minds with their own agenda, not the hidden western agenda that is crystal clear to even the dullest Asian mind. Would Asia rise? This is will depend greatly on the Asian renaissance, of a complexity of people growing out of the ruins of western colonisation of the Asian minds.
This kind of talk must have astounded the audience but not all got the message. A young foreign student later told the forum that he was reminded to be careful when he opened his mouth in this country. Kishore reassured him that both he and Viswa would not be arrested after the forum and so there was nothing to fear really.
The main gist of the forum was how, after 60 to 70 years of independence, the Asians are still lacking confidence to think like Asians and have to speak and write with a western agenda behind their writings and ideas. And the Europeans still think that it is their right to dominate the world in all fields when their colonial past have long been resigned to history.
If one is to read the Asian media, one cannot go away without reading one sided articles coming out from the desks of CIA or other American and European intelligence agencies. And the stupidity of it all is that the Asian media probably have to pay for such craps. And these western paid writers are filling the pages of Asian media, writing about the impending demise of the rising Asian countries, corruption and collapse of their economies and polities. They forgot that the American and European economies are already in the abyss. The IMF Chief was not anywhere to twist the arms of the American President or the Presidents of the PIGS countries to sign on the dotted line for financial reform like they did to Suharto, in glee.
But last night was all talks, talks of an Asian cultural renaissance, from Asians growing up in a diet of roti prata, nasi lemak and char kway teow. Not the kind of Asians that were fed with hamburgers and have a head full of baked beans.
Would Kishore take it one step further, with his intellectual and political influence, to rein in the media and make them report Asia by Asians, seen from Asian eyes, and the thoughts and views of Asians? Or would nothing be changed and more bacon and eggs are being fed to the empty Asian minds, daily, by the unthinking ‘western’ Asian media?
The rise of Asia, if it is to be, must be comprehensive and not just economics. The colonial hangover must have been long gone, gone with the wind, and the Asians should be sailing in a new wind, the wind of Asia, be confident to speak out their minds with their own agenda, not the hidden western agenda that is crystal clear to even the dullest Asian mind. Would Asia rise? This is will depend greatly on the Asian renaissance, of a complexity of people growing out of the ruins of western colonisation of the Asian minds.
7/27/2011
Rise of Asia Forum - Tonight 27 Jul 7.30-8.30pm
The key speaker for this talk is Professor Kishore Mahbubani. The topic is whether Asians believe that Asia is on the Rise. The talk is taking full advantage of technology and is beamed across the world. Singaporeans, Asians and the rest of the world can plug in to the forum by a simple click of the mouse and watch the whole process in the comfort of their homes. They can also participate by voting or posing questions to Kishore.
Both links are on the top right of this page. It will be interesting to see how well participated such a forum can be with audience across the globe. The power of the internet is at play.
I will be making a trip to the NUS Alumni House for an on site experience.
Both links are on the top right of this page. It will be interesting to see how well participated such a forum can be with audience across the globe. The power of the internet is at play.
I will be making a trip to the NUS Alumni House for an on site experience.
Notable quotes by LKY
“If Singapore depends on the talent it can produce out of three million people, it’s not going to punch above its weight. Lee Kuan Yew
We were 1m, then 2m, then 3m before we added all the foreigners to 5m. When we were 1m and 2m, we were already producing the talents that built the foundation for our economic miracles. We were producing talented Singaporeans even then. Unless those were not talents, then we are just slapping our own stupid face.
Now we are 5m. Did the increased population with foreign talents, throw out any great talents? The only foreign talent that is worth mentioning is Olivia Lum of Hyflux. The rest were plain employees, sitting on their fat asses and get fat pay which any Singaporeans can also do so given the chance. Many of the CEO positions can easily be filled by Singaporeans and you will not see any difference in performance, maybe even better.
The three local banks were built by Singaporean talents. Without local talents there would not be any big local banks to think of. SIA, SMRT, Creative, Singtel were also locals. Not sure about Temasek and GIC. The hospitals with their specialists and state of the art equipments were mainly run by Singaporeans and Malaysians. By the way, I think Singaporeans have never regarded the Malaysians as foreigners historically.
Did we produce lesser talents when we were 1m and 2m than we are now? There are some great talents in R and D, imported. But these are instant trees. Would their offsprings be more talented than the offsprings of coolies and labourers, washerwomen and salesmen? What about the risk of offsprings from fake papers and fake talents?
If we can produce talents before, when we were 1m and 2m, I don’t see why we can’t produce talents when we are 3m. The bigger the population, the bigger the pool of genes, but not necessary will produce better talents. Many small countries are producing more talents than bigger countries with bigger populations.
Today we are punching above our weights by individuals who were produced during a time when the population was a million or less.
We were 1m, then 2m, then 3m before we added all the foreigners to 5m. When we were 1m and 2m, we were already producing the talents that built the foundation for our economic miracles. We were producing talented Singaporeans even then. Unless those were not talents, then we are just slapping our own stupid face.
Now we are 5m. Did the increased population with foreign talents, throw out any great talents? The only foreign talent that is worth mentioning is Olivia Lum of Hyflux. The rest were plain employees, sitting on their fat asses and get fat pay which any Singaporeans can also do so given the chance. Many of the CEO positions can easily be filled by Singaporeans and you will not see any difference in performance, maybe even better.
The three local banks were built by Singaporean talents. Without local talents there would not be any big local banks to think of. SIA, SMRT, Creative, Singtel were also locals. Not sure about Temasek and GIC. The hospitals with their specialists and state of the art equipments were mainly run by Singaporeans and Malaysians. By the way, I think Singaporeans have never regarded the Malaysians as foreigners historically.
Did we produce lesser talents when we were 1m and 2m than we are now? There are some great talents in R and D, imported. But these are instant trees. Would their offsprings be more talented than the offsprings of coolies and labourers, washerwomen and salesmen? What about the risk of offsprings from fake papers and fake talents?
If we can produce talents before, when we were 1m and 2m, I don’t see why we can’t produce talents when we are 3m. The bigger the population, the bigger the pool of genes, but not necessary will produce better talents. Many small countries are producing more talents than bigger countries with bigger populations.
Today we are punching above our weights by individuals who were produced during a time when the population was a million or less.
Two party system will ruin Singapore
This is LKY’s view. In his one dimensional experience with Singapore, he can only see goodness in one party system and badness in everything else. I could up his ante by claiming that dictatorship is even better, without contention, with a dictator or emperor calling his shot, everything can be done at his beck and call. Super fast and super efficient, for good or for bad.
Really, every system is good and every system is bad. It all boils down to the goodness of the leader. A dictator or emperor can be an excellent leader and can bring progress and greatness to the country and people, provided his intention and goals are benevolent.
Historically the goodness of such leaders was often temporary as they soon got intoxicated by power and their own egoistic pride that they could do no wrong or they were gods. There have been many such examples when the leaders could not see glaring mistakes of their own. They will believe only in themselves and their self serving logic.
We have seen that, and have paid for it. All men are fallible and corrupt to a matter of degree. A one party system can be good but can also entrench corruption and misdeeds of the leaders. And in such a system it is very difficult to dislodge them and undo their wrongs. To make matter worst, one party rule or its dictatorial equivalents are often run by strong men that makes removing them even more difficult.
Two party and multi party systems have their strength and weaknesses as well. But given leaders with good intention, from both sides of the coin, it can be a more amiable system, more compassion, less brutal and brash in policy making. In a mature society where the leaders of both sides are made up of honourable men and women, knowledgeable and wiser, all striving for the good of country and people, and not self serving, it can be much better than single party system that often failed to check itself and its own abuses.
Single party or multi party systems are just systems. It is the leaders that make them good or bad. We have seen how a single party system can be good and also can be bad. It is not the panacea or the only panacea for good governance. It is as flawed as the leaders running it.
Really, every system is good and every system is bad. It all boils down to the goodness of the leader. A dictator or emperor can be an excellent leader and can bring progress and greatness to the country and people, provided his intention and goals are benevolent.
Historically the goodness of such leaders was often temporary as they soon got intoxicated by power and their own egoistic pride that they could do no wrong or they were gods. There have been many such examples when the leaders could not see glaring mistakes of their own. They will believe only in themselves and their self serving logic.
We have seen that, and have paid for it. All men are fallible and corrupt to a matter of degree. A one party system can be good but can also entrench corruption and misdeeds of the leaders. And in such a system it is very difficult to dislodge them and undo their wrongs. To make matter worst, one party rule or its dictatorial equivalents are often run by strong men that makes removing them even more difficult.
Two party and multi party systems have their strength and weaknesses as well. But given leaders with good intention, from both sides of the coin, it can be a more amiable system, more compassion, less brutal and brash in policy making. In a mature society where the leaders of both sides are made up of honourable men and women, knowledgeable and wiser, all striving for the good of country and people, and not self serving, it can be much better than single party system that often failed to check itself and its own abuses.
Single party or multi party systems are just systems. It is the leaders that make them good or bad. We have seen how a single party system can be good and also can be bad. It is not the panacea or the only panacea for good governance. It is as flawed as the leaders running it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)