It is always very pleasant talking or listening to a
diplomat if he is worth his salt as a diplomat. A diplomat is one that is
trained to say all the nice things and all the right things to make his
listeners happy and go away nodding their heads in agreement, at least when it
is public speaking. Of course they have plenty to say jokingly and
diplomatically as well in private. Since they cannot make anyone angry with
their flaws, they make jokes of their flaws to laugh together without anyone
knowing that it was a criticism.
Tommy Koh wrote a diplomatic piece on Sat 3 Jan in the ST about
his 3 wishes for the New Year. First, ‘to enjoy peace and stability,
prosperity, with equity, unity with tolerance, safety with vibrancy and freedom
with responsibility…to believe in and practise our core values of hard work,
integrity, meritocracy, compassion, racial and religious harmony, gender
equality, freedom from corruption and open economy and open minds.’ His second
wish is for Asean to continue to be successful and his third wish is for peace
in Asia and the Asia Pacific. I would not touch on these
two.
No one can disagree with Tommy on all these motherhood
statements as they all sounded right and correct and pleasant to the ears. The
question, what was Tommy Koh trying to say? I hazard to make a guess of what he
really wanted to say or was saying but not saying, or saying indirectly. If he
would to say this frankly and directly, would he be saying, don’t take peace,
stability and prosperity for granted. There is no equity, no unity, no
tolerance and more is needed. And there is a question of safety with vibrancy
and an issue of freedom with responsibility. He followed by saying we are not
practising our core values of hard work, integrity, meritocracy, compassion,
racial and religious harmony, gender equality or at least we need to work very
hard to make sure these are not eroded in the future. And also to ensure that
we are free from corruption, continue to be an open economy and have an open
mind.
Tommy also reminded everyone that we did not start from a
poor fishing village or have nothing, no assets, no talents to begin with. He
said, ‘we do have three assets: a strategic location, a natural harbour and an
intelligent and hard working people.’ Now is he saying that we should not be
telling the world that our people are daft and lazy? Our success is a like a
miracle and only can come about not with lazy and daft citizens. Then where
have the hard working and intelligent Singaporeans gone? Why are we praising
and welcoming jokers who cannot make their countries like ours and praising
them sky high as super talents to help us to be better? Won’t these jokers be
bringing us to the levels of their home countries?
Tommy then turned to say the not so nice thing that is very
uncharacteristic of a diplomat. How can he be quoted to be saying, ‘Singapore
is, however, not perfect. There are areas in which we can and should do better.
(Anyone listening?) I am disturbed by the inequality in Singapore.
We have one of the highest Gini coefficients in the world. I am unhappy that
many of our children are growing up in poverty. About a third of our students
go to school with no pocket money to buy lunch.’ What a revelation!
While he was speaking frankly, he added, ‘I am worried about
the growing number of the elderly poor. Many of them are in poor health and
have inadequate savings,… living in loneliness,… or abandoned by family and
relatives.’ And his other hopes, ‘A politically mature society…which the
vanquished are gracious in their defeat and the victors are magnanimous in
their victory.’ How more frank can one ask from a diplomat? And he also hoped
that Singaporeans would not be too money minded and materialistic. He warned
that Singapore
‘is in grave danger of becoming a market society.’
Tommy would not have said these if he is not worried about
the trends of development today. Things can be real bad if these concerns are
not addressed. But who would listen to the messenger of bad news, even if he is
a polite diplomat that no longer could ‘tahan’ being reticent and had to let it
off his chest? The only misgiving is that the believers would not see anything
wrong in their beliefs and the shepherd would be plodding along happily leading
them on the ‘right’ path to paradise, diplomatically speaking.
A few wise men are speaking up. Would they be whipped for
being incorrect or undiplomatic?
Kopi Level - Yellow