I saw this sticker on the top right hand corner of the ST
today. I swear my eyes were not deceiving me. My first thought, goodness, this
is deep trouble. I have written a few articles questioning whether Singapore
would be in deep trouble. But this has nothing to do with Singapore.
It was about Kishore. There are only two possibilities, between the devil and
the deep blue sea. Is he growing stupider by the days? Or is he going senile?
Who does not know how to love Singapore
if they are being paid by the millions and have all the riches in the world to
last a few generations? Actually no need so much lah. Anyone who has the wealth
of Kishore and be in his position would make loving Singapore
so easy.
Kishore went on to explain how dirty Singapore
has become and how Singaporeans can make it clean by loving Singapore.
Here he unintentionally disclosed a little of his mental state. He claimed that
the dirtiness of Singapore
is the fault of Singaporeans. He didn’t even know the real cause. He made a
farcical assumption that even a child in school would have told him off. For
every two persons here, one is a foreigner. In fact if we include all the new
citizens that are here for less than 10 years, it is likely that 60% or more of
the people in the island are foreigners. So blaming Singaporeans for dirtying
the island is a no good reason. And expecting Singaporeans, now a minority, to
clean up the littering of foreigners, and Singapore
will be clean is nonsensical.
Kishore went on to talk about happiness, about promoting
Singaporeans to be like Lat and how the rich should help the poor Singaporeans.
And he indulged in the same crap that if Singaporeans laugh a lot, even living
in a pigeon hole they can be. When he quoted the experiment on how animals got
unhappy and ate up each other in confined space I thought there is still some
sanity in him. But he has proven beyond any doubt that senility is catching up
with him. And I told myself, if he keeps on this way, I would write to the ST
to publish his articles in the juvenile section.
But on reflection, reading the whole article all over again,
he is getting to be like me, so innocent and appearing so naïve in what he
wrote. Actually there are deeper messages in what he said other than the little
distractions to lower the guards of his readers. His cartoonist part, about the
ability to laugh at our ourselves and the names that he quoted, like Mahathir
as a good example, and the names of people for people to ridicule, like Tommy
Koh, Chan Heng Chee, Ho Kwon Ping and Gerard Ee. Look how clever he ‘eh lar’
the more meaning names to avoid saying the wrong things? This part shows that
he is sane after all, and very smart by not suggesting himself to be the
cartoonist’s joke.
His most important message in the whole article is in this
phrase, ‘If our deeds do no match our words, we do not love Singapore’.
He said this in the beginning of the article and to make sure the readers get
his message and did not think he is really going nuts, he repeated this again, ‘Many
of us say we do so. Here again, the one question is: Do our deeds match our
words?’
Think about it, ignore all the rubbish that he spun in so
many words. The gist is, ‘Do our deeds match our words?’ This phrase alone said
what is bothering him about Singapore.
And it is not about his $2 contribution to Sinda every month. He would not give more or would want to stop
contributing.
Kopi level - Green