A dangerous National Day Pronouncement

The Singapore model for economic development and authoritarianism is The Model for the world to emulate. This is the first time some one so close to the establishment actually, formally, admitted the term authoritarianism as an intrinsic element of our political system. There is no denial and no need for denial any more. We are a good and successful authoritarian state. This is the gist of Chua Lee Hoong's article in the ST and a must read for National Day. And who can speak for us more authoritatively than a westerner by the name of John Kampfner, a British journalist writing for The Guardian. We have our endorsement from the liberal western world than this model might not be a bad thing. This is what Kampfner said, 'The model for this is Singapore, where repression is highly selective. It is confined to those who take a conscious decision openly to challenge the authorities. If you do not, you enjoy freedom to travel, to live more or less as you wish, and - perhaps most important - to make money....' The strength of this system is economic freedom, to be rich, to chase your material wealth and dream, and to enjoy your rich life freely. The only condition is not to challenge the authority. Repression against those who challenge the authority is the right of those in authority, and justified. Are Singaporeans really accepting this precept and willing to go down this path? Political challenge or offering an alternative political solution, an alternative team to run the country, cannot be a crime in any sense. In fact providing an alternative political solution must be enshrined into our system to encourage good people to challenge the system for the betterment of people and nation. But once we accept the precept that all political challenge can be lawfully and rightfully repressed or suppressed, we are in for a very dangerous slide down to a dictatorship or an authoritarian state. Is that what we want? Some may argue, like Chua Lee Hoong, that we are already an authoritarian state and we are progressing very well. The world is looking up to us as The Model for economic growth and uplifting the livelihood of the people. We are on the right path. Really? How much is Chua Lee Hoong's position of an authoritarian state a reflection of the thinking of the political elite? Is this her position or the position of the elite and they are giving notice to the Singaporeans, that this is the real stuff and this is what we gonna be? In a separate article Tommy Koh wrote about the role of the legal profession and urged them to be passionate for justice and against injustice. If we are to accept repression against political challengers, do we need to consider or think about justice and injustice? Is political repression an injustice to be fought against?

A silly article written by a 'westerner'

It's not my Beijing! Where's the charm and chaos gone? What charm and chaos that this foreigner is talking about her Beijing? Oh, it is about the shabby apartment complex across the street, about bare-bottomed babies, horse draw carts and chickens pecking the sidewalk...that's the real Beijing to this foreigner. And it is regrettable that all these real things were gone and Beijing is now 'unnaturally sanitised and stiffly coiffed, with much of its frenetic grittiness and earthy charm falling victim to zealous organisers who want a flawless event(Olympic).' To this western, Beijing should be as old and charming, and downtrodden as it was for centuries, and the flavour preserved for the visitors to savour. The new Beijing is unreal and disgusting. This is the stereotype view of what a westerner would write or want to see of most Asian cities, the slums and the centuries of neglect, and stuck in time without progress. To be specific, the writer is an Asian wearing western lenses and thinking like a westerner. The article is in Today.

God is beyond reproach

If there is anything, the best position to be in is god. God is the master of everything. He owns everything and controls everything. He dishes out punishment as he deems fit, according to his fancy or which side of the bed he wakes up. Basically, he calls the shot. And the best part of it, he is beyond reproach. It is always someone else fault. He is faultless and above all things. Nothing can stick on him or his spotlessly white garment. Nice, very nice. Please bow and pay your obeisance.

Helping others versus helping self

We have heard that many scholarships were given to foreigners. Many did serve their terms before leaving for greener pastures. Many also decide to stay. Do we have any statistics to show how many we have sponsored and how many are staying or have left. After so many years we should have enough numbers to decide whether it is a worthy or worthwhile investment. We also need to balance the amount of money given to foreigners and the amount given to our own children. Are we giving more, in numbers of scholarship to foreigners than to our own?

The Hollywood clowns!

And there are plenty of them, trying to make meanings out of their dumb decadence lifestyles with an abundance of money and nothing in the head. And Richard Gere came out as one of them. He saw our Ambassador Chan Heng Chee in her beautiful cheongsam in a party in Washington. And he went after her saying 'Oh Ambassador, we must talk about Tibet.' To this clown, every Chinese woman in cheongsam must be from China. Our Ambassador plainly told him that she was from Singapore and walked off. Poor dumb ass stood there trying to figure out what is the difference between China and Singapore. He may not have heard of Singapore at all.

Childcare not for profit!

ERPs not for profit. Childcare also not for profit. Are we going mad? We privatised govt organisations and statutory boards to make them efficient and profitable. And in order for them to exist, they must make profits. Even charitable organisations are thinking of making profits, or at least some of those running them. And here we have the childcare operators saying that making profits is not their main priority. So what are they existing for? Shall we rename them as charitable organisation and give them the IPC status? These operators must be so embarrassed about making profits and became so defensive about their business. Why don't they bluntly quote some big shots saying that it is important to make profits. They can't be fools running a business for nothing. Or maybe there are some kinds of saints. Maybe they are right. All the organisations do not make profits as their priority. It is just incidental. They exist for more noble reasons.

Another ungrateful aid recipient

Singapore and Singaporeans have been emptying their savings to help the unfortunate victims in the tsunami, in earthquakes and typhoons. The public even donated $660,000 to the Nepalese conjoined twins and a team of doctors and nurses ran a marathon operation practically for free to separate them. Now Singapore and the surgeons are being accused of breaking our promises and being irresponsible. Dr Basant Pant, a Nepalese surgeon, accused Singapore for starting the operation and not completing the job. Hahaha. This is what we deserve for being too hasty and eager to help the desperadoes. It is our duty and responsibility to finish the job and raise more funds for it. Actually Singaporeans will do it enthusiastically if the surviving twin, Jamuna, returns for her next operation. And Dr Keith Goh will willingly complete what needs to be done. But for what this Dr Basant had said, and pointing the finger at us, it has left a very bad taste. Do we owe them a living? Do we need to bother about what happens to a Nepalese child? Do we need to empty our pockets to help this child? Do we need to be accused of being irresponsible and trying to be good samaritans? I think we should tell this Dr Basant Pant to shaft it and take care of his own people and their own problems.