And how your lawyer forces me to say it, doesn't really make a difference. And that is the crux of the matter in the defamation saga involving the socio-political website TR Emeritus. The case hinges on interpretation or perception rather than facts and there is no basis to "prove" it one way or the other since there is nothing to prove.
Those who were disposed to interprete the appointment of Mdm Ho Ching as head of Temasek Holdings as alleged cronyism will continue to do so. Net net, the legal action would not have swung public perception of the matter one way or the other at all. Net negative, would be the further reinforcement of public perception on the ruling governments' heavy handed use of legal means for its own ends.
That Mdm Ho Ching was appointed "on merit and through proper process" is not sufficient evidence that alleged cronyism was not a factor. If it were so, then there would be no case of cronyism EVER anywhere because such a reason can always be used. In this particular case, we were not apprised of the selection criteria for the post, who were the other shortlisted candidates (if any) and why they did not make the cut. Mr Dhanabalan, sir?
Late last year, there were complaints that some foreign middle managers of a certain 'kind' have been adopting tactics to force out local Singaporeans from their jobs and replacing them with more of their own kind. I'm sure such foreign managers would be much heartened by the outcome of this case as the "on merit and proper process" reason would be an excellent cover for their actions and this case would serve as legal precedence for their defence.
More pertinently, the recent spate of legal actions on websites hosting allegedly defamatory postings beggars the question: Just how were these postings brought to the attention of the individuals who then decided to institute legal action? I would hate to think that our still very highly paid public servants are spending time on the taxpayers dollar, trawling through websites looking for postings that might besmirch their good standing.
Even with the help of a certain famous web search engine to filter out relevant postings, it will still take considerable time to go through each posting, and as we all know, search results can return thousands of hits. Are state resources being diverted to track such postings? I think Singaporeans are entitled to know this.
As PM Lee himself said, there are many (more important) issues on the national agenda. The government having dropped the ball on many issues would do well to keep their eye on the right ball. The spectators are already murmuring with discontent at the poor play. Let's hope they do not get riled enough to swarm the pitch. By then, it will be game over.
Wednesday, 22 February 2012
Sunday, 19 February 2012
PM Pulls a Shanmugam Who Pulled a Durai
By calling out the lawyers on a website to remove an offending post on alleged cronyism in the appointment of his wife, Mdm Ho Ching as head of Temasek Holdings, is the PM signalling a shift in the government stance on greater openess in public discourse?
An earlier heavy handed approach towards a blogger's racist comments had the unintended consequence of heightening instead of lowering intolerance which came to a head when one of the ruling party's own was caught making an 'insensitive' posting on his Facebook account.
More to the point, does this latest legal action actually change any public perception on the matter? Surely, the PM was well aware of the optics on the issue of his wife's appointment given his initial reluctance to accede to it. That he finally agreed showed that he had weighed the options/consequences and decided that it was an acceptable risk. So why the apparent umbrage now especially since he himself had said that there are many other issues on the national agenda right now (when commenting on the by-election issue in Hougang)?
This is an old issue that the current legal action will only serve to re-awaken. Most Singaporeans likely didn't even know of the website in question until this action caused it to be splashed on the front page of the local newspapers. Leaving it alone and it would have quietly faded away as mere rantings of some rabid blogger with a bone to pick before moving on to the next topic du jour.
But now that it has been brought forward and center again, perhaps it would be best to settle it rationally once and for all. Perhaps Mr Dhanabalan could explain his decision to appoint Mdm Ho Ching. What was in her background (academic and work experience at that point in time) that made him feel that she was the best person for the post? Did she have an outstanding verifiable track record in the banking/investment industry? Would Goldman Sachs/Lehman Bros/Morgan Stanley etc... have headhunted her for a similar top level post in their company? Would Temasek consider hiring someone else with similar qualifications/experience she had at that time for the same post TODAY?
It is early days yet but I wonder what the unintended consequences for this action will be.
An earlier heavy handed approach towards a blogger's racist comments had the unintended consequence of heightening instead of lowering intolerance which came to a head when one of the ruling party's own was caught making an 'insensitive' posting on his Facebook account.
More to the point, does this latest legal action actually change any public perception on the matter? Surely, the PM was well aware of the optics on the issue of his wife's appointment given his initial reluctance to accede to it. That he finally agreed showed that he had weighed the options/consequences and decided that it was an acceptable risk. So why the apparent umbrage now especially since he himself had said that there are many other issues on the national agenda right now (when commenting on the by-election issue in Hougang)?
This is an old issue that the current legal action will only serve to re-awaken. Most Singaporeans likely didn't even know of the website in question until this action caused it to be splashed on the front page of the local newspapers. Leaving it alone and it would have quietly faded away as mere rantings of some rabid blogger with a bone to pick before moving on to the next topic du jour.
But now that it has been brought forward and center again, perhaps it would be best to settle it rationally once and for all. Perhaps Mr Dhanabalan could explain his decision to appoint Mdm Ho Ching. What was in her background (academic and work experience at that point in time) that made him feel that she was the best person for the post? Did she have an outstanding verifiable track record in the banking/investment industry? Would Goldman Sachs/Lehman Bros/Morgan Stanley etc... have headhunted her for a similar top level post in their company? Would Temasek consider hiring someone else with similar qualifications/experience she had at that time for the same post TODAY?
It is early days yet but I wonder what the unintended consequences for this action will be.
Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Shades of NKF Saga Deja Vu?
The temperature of local politics has ratcheted up by quite a few notches in the past few days. First we had news of Foreign Minister Shanmugam's lawyers sending a letter to local blogger Mr Alex Au to remove a comment on his blog about alleged improprieties in Mr Shanmugam's personal life. In the NKF saga of a few years ago, lawyers were similarly involved in squashing rumours of financial indiscretions. As it turned out, those rumours were not without basis in fact. In this case, Mr Alex Au may yet be similarly vindicated in future.
Until that report in the local papers, not many Singaporeans likely knew that Mr Shanmugam had divorced and then re-married again recently. Just yesterday, the opposition Worker's Party sacked Mr Yaw Shin Leong from the party and hence parliament for just such alleged improprieties. Given the recent events in Mr Shanmugam's marital status, I think it would not be unreasonable for the public to be given irrefutable evidence by Mr Shanmugam (or through his lawyers) on the timeline of events that led to his divorce and re-marriage to exclude the possibility that the alleged improprieties could have been the cause.
In todays highly interconnected world, flooded with camera phones, it is increasingly difficult to conduct affairs outside of public view. Sooner rather than later, some service staff be it a waiter or receptionist somewhere will catch on to it. Denial backed up by lawyers is good only if truly innocent. If not, it will merely expose oneself to greater potential for blackmail from the publicity. It would be an untenable situation for someone in public office to operate under the constant condition of potential exposure or blackmail. Affairs after all always have to involve some other party. If the alleged affairs were carried out overseas and hence potential blackmail originating from foreign sources, the implications are doubly dire.
In all this, the PM, with all the instruments of state available to him (CID, ISD, FSB etc...) must be aware of the true state of these allegations. If not he is not doing his job and those that are supposed to apprise him of such matters would CERTAINLY not be doing their jobs. Perhaps PM Lee could come out and make the definitive statement on the matter knowing full well that he is staking not only his reputation on the line, but also the potential survival of his government as well. The question is does he have enough confidence in his ministers (and his sources of information) to do it?
Conspiracy theorists might suggest that Mr Yaw might have been the victim of a possible sting operation like that carried out on Julian Assange of Wikileaks or Dominique Strauss Khan formerly of the IMF. If indeed it is a sting operation to 'fix' the opposition, the blowback from it could well be the mother of all unintended consequences. By the time this saga of Mr Yaw's sacking ends, it may well be necessary to hold more than one by-election. It would be the only reason I think, that would justify postponing it.
Until that report in the local papers, not many Singaporeans likely knew that Mr Shanmugam had divorced and then re-married again recently. Just yesterday, the opposition Worker's Party sacked Mr Yaw Shin Leong from the party and hence parliament for just such alleged improprieties. Given the recent events in Mr Shanmugam's marital status, I think it would not be unreasonable for the public to be given irrefutable evidence by Mr Shanmugam (or through his lawyers) on the timeline of events that led to his divorce and re-marriage to exclude the possibility that the alleged improprieties could have been the cause.
In todays highly interconnected world, flooded with camera phones, it is increasingly difficult to conduct affairs outside of public view. Sooner rather than later, some service staff be it a waiter or receptionist somewhere will catch on to it. Denial backed up by lawyers is good only if truly innocent. If not, it will merely expose oneself to greater potential for blackmail from the publicity. It would be an untenable situation for someone in public office to operate under the constant condition of potential exposure or blackmail. Affairs after all always have to involve some other party. If the alleged affairs were carried out overseas and hence potential blackmail originating from foreign sources, the implications are doubly dire.
In all this, the PM, with all the instruments of state available to him (CID, ISD, FSB etc...) must be aware of the true state of these allegations. If not he is not doing his job and those that are supposed to apprise him of such matters would CERTAINLY not be doing their jobs. Perhaps PM Lee could come out and make the definitive statement on the matter knowing full well that he is staking not only his reputation on the line, but also the potential survival of his government as well. The question is does he have enough confidence in his ministers (and his sources of information) to do it?
Conspiracy theorists might suggest that Mr Yaw might have been the victim of a possible sting operation like that carried out on Julian Assange of Wikileaks or Dominique Strauss Khan formerly of the IMF. If indeed it is a sting operation to 'fix' the opposition, the blowback from it could well be the mother of all unintended consequences. By the time this saga of Mr Yaw's sacking ends, it may well be necessary to hold more than one by-election. It would be the only reason I think, that would justify postponing it.
Sunday, 5 February 2012
Hi Ho Silver! Channeling Dr Goh Keng Swee (again!)
Ex Mentor Minister Lee Kuan Yew asks for Singaporeans' understanding on the need to bring in more immigrants, to the tune of about 30K a year (this is apparently a more politically acceptable figure compared to the recommended 60K). He is likely mistaken in this.
Apparently, they are ALL meant to look after aged Singaporeans. At this rate, we should soon have one caregiver per elderly Singaporean. (Hopefully, the government will be footing the bill.) Unfortunately, this isn't the case. Most of them will be employed in other sectors of the economy. It is rather disingenuous of Mr Lee to use the issue of eldercare to justify bringing in yet more foreigners into an already crowded Singapore.
Yes, we will have an aging population problem. But what would Dr Goh Keng Swee have done? We need just look at how he solved the problem of Singapore's defence. Nearly one half of each cohort, the girls, at present gets off scot free doing nothing while the other half goes off to serve two years of military service. About the hardest thing these girls may have to do at present is deciding which body part to sextext to their friends. I think their time can be put to better use. Yes, it is time for our young women to step up to the plate and do their part for National Service.
If barely educated young women from our neighbouring countries can be recruited and given a few weeks training at most and then are expected to look after our elderly either as maids or helpers at nursing homes, then our much better educated young women can surely be expected to do the same or even more and do a better job of it.
Just as NS is supposed to be a rite of passage for our boys to (hopefully) mature into young men, a similar program to train the girls in eldercare as well as childcare would do likewise and transform them into responsible young women. Their families would also benefit to have someone trained in these areas when their parents grow old or when they have children of their own.
We do not depend on legions of foreign men to beef up our armed forces and I see no reason why we need legions of foreign women to look after our elderly or young children. We already have systems in place from NS that can be repurposed to manage such a system for the girls. If the core team of permanent staff (the equivalent of regulars in the SAF) is paid equally as well (as army regulars), I'm sure there are more than enough Singaporeans happy to fill that role.
Other than paying the girls allowances at least on par with that for the boys in NS, and maybe a little more for caregiver uniforms, there are very little other costs. There is for example, no need for the girls to be housed in army like barracks and there is no need to equip them with expensive items like weapons.
This is a very doable system just waiting to be implemented. Why the minister for health/manpower has not considered this is quite puzzling. If cost is an issue, I'm sure we can kibble a fair bit from the Defence budget. The SAF can do with fewer expensive toys to basically fend off for practical purposes, make believe enemies. The problem with an aging population on the other hand, is a real enemy almost at our gates. If we were to tally up the social and political costs as well from using the aging issue as an excuse to import yet more foreigners, I'm quite sure the balance would tilt in favour of this suggestion of NS for the girls.
So, if Dr Goh Keng Swee were still in cabinet, given the choice of importing foreign labour or NS for the girls, which do you think he would choose?
Apparently, they are ALL meant to look after aged Singaporeans. At this rate, we should soon have one caregiver per elderly Singaporean. (Hopefully, the government will be footing the bill.) Unfortunately, this isn't the case. Most of them will be employed in other sectors of the economy. It is rather disingenuous of Mr Lee to use the issue of eldercare to justify bringing in yet more foreigners into an already crowded Singapore.
Yes, we will have an aging population problem. But what would Dr Goh Keng Swee have done? We need just look at how he solved the problem of Singapore's defence. Nearly one half of each cohort, the girls, at present gets off scot free doing nothing while the other half goes off to serve two years of military service. About the hardest thing these girls may have to do at present is deciding which body part to sextext to their friends. I think their time can be put to better use. Yes, it is time for our young women to step up to the plate and do their part for National Service.
If barely educated young women from our neighbouring countries can be recruited and given a few weeks training at most and then are expected to look after our elderly either as maids or helpers at nursing homes, then our much better educated young women can surely be expected to do the same or even more and do a better job of it.
Just as NS is supposed to be a rite of passage for our boys to (hopefully) mature into young men, a similar program to train the girls in eldercare as well as childcare would do likewise and transform them into responsible young women. Their families would also benefit to have someone trained in these areas when their parents grow old or when they have children of their own.
We do not depend on legions of foreign men to beef up our armed forces and I see no reason why we need legions of foreign women to look after our elderly or young children. We already have systems in place from NS that can be repurposed to manage such a system for the girls. If the core team of permanent staff (the equivalent of regulars in the SAF) is paid equally as well (as army regulars), I'm sure there are more than enough Singaporeans happy to fill that role.
Other than paying the girls allowances at least on par with that for the boys in NS, and maybe a little more for caregiver uniforms, there are very little other costs. There is for example, no need for the girls to be housed in army like barracks and there is no need to equip them with expensive items like weapons.
This is a very doable system just waiting to be implemented. Why the minister for health/manpower has not considered this is quite puzzling. If cost is an issue, I'm sure we can kibble a fair bit from the Defence budget. The SAF can do with fewer expensive toys to basically fend off for practical purposes, make believe enemies. The problem with an aging population on the other hand, is a real enemy almost at our gates. If we were to tally up the social and political costs as well from using the aging issue as an excuse to import yet more foreigners, I'm quite sure the balance would tilt in favour of this suggestion of NS for the girls.
So, if Dr Goh Keng Swee were still in cabinet, given the choice of importing foreign labour or NS for the girls, which do you think he would choose?
Sunday, 22 January 2012
Passion No Enough
When the Committee to Review Ministerial Salaries finally released its report, the PAP held a huddle session exclusively for its party members ahead of its public release. This is wrong. This is a national issue in which all Singaporeans have a stake in and if there was to be a private preview, then it should be open to the elected members of the opposition as well. I'm surprised that the opposition MPs did not pick up on that. Perhaps they were too excited about their own counter proposals with which they hope to show up the work of the Committee.
Be as it may, I do not think anyone really disputes the need to pay our elected representatives a reasonable salary. Despite all that has been said about it being a privilege to serve, there are obvious sacrifices that have to be made. Anyone contemplating a political 'calling' to say otherwise would be naive at best (and likely not having the intellectual chops for government office) or at worse, outright lying, in which case, they should NOT be in government office at all.
It is necessary for anyone to look out for their own interests. Nobody will do it for you otherwise. The problem is deciding to what extent and to what degree. Our political leaders are people too and like people, susceptible to greed. Like the little kid sneaking cookies out of the jar being tempted to pilfer more over time until Grandma catches them in the act and smacks their hand, they will keep awarding themselves bigger and more benefits over time. The last electoral defeat was like Grandma smacking the hand.
Benchmarking ministerial salaries to a portion of the top 1000 earners in Singapore is as good a proposal as any other realistically viable scheme. I would think that few would dispute the importance and responsibilities of our ministers when compared to these 1000 individuals.
Put yourselves into the shoes of these ministers for a while if you will. You spend time and energy coming up with policies that allow business tycoons to prosper, make billions in profits and show off their multitudes of young mistresses while you have to live the life of a pious monk...(at least in public) You can't even queue up for property launches so you can flip them for a quick profit. Neither do we want to see a minister queuing at the Yishun Toto outlet hoping to strike it rich. We can do without the added competition :) We need to pay them enough that they are not distracted and can concentrate on doing what needs to be done in the interests of the nation.
It would be good if it can be otherwise. In over 5000 years of Chinese civilisation (as people are fond of quoting), they have managed to produce only one Confucius, only one poet who was sufficiently disappointed about his country's state of governance to commit suicide. I don't think we can find enough of such individuals here in Singapore.
So, this review of ministerial salaries is timely and a necessary move to rein in compensation that have recently swung too far in favour of these individuals that have been put forward as our betters. Whether it will help to improve or maintain the political status quo of the ruling party is the wrong question to ask. The question is can the ministers deliver the results expected of them? If not, even if they volunteer to work for free, it will not make a difference. The motion to accept the recommendations of the ministerial salary review committee has passed. If the May 2011 elections were to be held now, would the results be any different? What do you think?
Be as it may, I do not think anyone really disputes the need to pay our elected representatives a reasonable salary. Despite all that has been said about it being a privilege to serve, there are obvious sacrifices that have to be made. Anyone contemplating a political 'calling' to say otherwise would be naive at best (and likely not having the intellectual chops for government office) or at worse, outright lying, in which case, they should NOT be in government office at all.
It is necessary for anyone to look out for their own interests. Nobody will do it for you otherwise. The problem is deciding to what extent and to what degree. Our political leaders are people too and like people, susceptible to greed. Like the little kid sneaking cookies out of the jar being tempted to pilfer more over time until Grandma catches them in the act and smacks their hand, they will keep awarding themselves bigger and more benefits over time. The last electoral defeat was like Grandma smacking the hand.
Benchmarking ministerial salaries to a portion of the top 1000 earners in Singapore is as good a proposal as any other realistically viable scheme. I would think that few would dispute the importance and responsibilities of our ministers when compared to these 1000 individuals.
Put yourselves into the shoes of these ministers for a while if you will. You spend time and energy coming up with policies that allow business tycoons to prosper, make billions in profits and show off their multitudes of young mistresses while you have to live the life of a pious monk...(at least in public) You can't even queue up for property launches so you can flip them for a quick profit. Neither do we want to see a minister queuing at the Yishun Toto outlet hoping to strike it rich. We can do without the added competition :) We need to pay them enough that they are not distracted and can concentrate on doing what needs to be done in the interests of the nation.
It would be good if it can be otherwise. In over 5000 years of Chinese civilisation (as people are fond of quoting), they have managed to produce only one Confucius, only one poet who was sufficiently disappointed about his country's state of governance to commit suicide. I don't think we can find enough of such individuals here in Singapore.
So, this review of ministerial salaries is timely and a necessary move to rein in compensation that have recently swung too far in favour of these individuals that have been put forward as our betters. Whether it will help to improve or maintain the political status quo of the ruling party is the wrong question to ask. The question is can the ministers deliver the results expected of them? If not, even if they volunteer to work for free, it will not make a difference. The motion to accept the recommendations of the ministerial salary review committee has passed. If the May 2011 elections were to be held now, would the results be any different? What do you think?
Thursday, 12 January 2012
To Pond or not to Pond. Where is the question.
Much has been said and very little useful action actually done with regards to this problem. The experts have been called in, those in the hot seat have covered their collective asses from further responsibility. After all what more can they do? Pick up changkuls and start digging?
There are two ways footpaths can be built. One (the usual way) is to let the urban planner dictate it. The other way is to let the path users decide. They will create the bare earth track through constant use and that is the path that should be paved over. Which do you think is the better way?
Nature has shown which parts of Orchard Rd it wants to flood. And it has done so repeatedly. Why fight it? If any water retention ponds are to be built to manage the occasional flood, then that is where it should be built.
Liat Towers and Lucky Plaza are old buildings with no architectural features worthy of conservation. Just demolish them. Straight of, problem solved. No more shopkeepers will be affected by floods EVER. Orchard Rd as it is is already over supplied as far as retail space is concerned. Removing some will help stabilize rents for the remaining malls and increase business for their tenants. A win-win solution.
Landscape the cleared area into green spaces. Plant a few nutmeg trees around the ponds as a nod to Orchard Rd's historical origins and maybe even make it into a tourist destination or at least something to point out to from the Hippo bus tours.
If the residents of Rochor can be moved en masse out of the area for MRT/Road development, I don't see any obstacle to doing this. With the flooding problem, the government should also be able to acquire the land at much lower prices too.
Perhaps someone living in the constituency that Orchard Rd falls under should write a letter to their MP or the Minister in charge. It's amazing what a single letter can do in certain cases. Just ask Mr Allan Tan. Doing just that, his MP, Mr Chia Shi-Lu managed to pre-emptively grab some KTM railway land to convert into carparks...
There are two ways footpaths can be built. One (the usual way) is to let the urban planner dictate it. The other way is to let the path users decide. They will create the bare earth track through constant use and that is the path that should be paved over. Which do you think is the better way?
Nature has shown which parts of Orchard Rd it wants to flood. And it has done so repeatedly. Why fight it? If any water retention ponds are to be built to manage the occasional flood, then that is where it should be built.
Liat Towers and Lucky Plaza are old buildings with no architectural features worthy of conservation. Just demolish them. Straight of, problem solved. No more shopkeepers will be affected by floods EVER. Orchard Rd as it is is already over supplied as far as retail space is concerned. Removing some will help stabilize rents for the remaining malls and increase business for their tenants. A win-win solution.
Landscape the cleared area into green spaces. Plant a few nutmeg trees around the ponds as a nod to Orchard Rd's historical origins and maybe even make it into a tourist destination or at least something to point out to from the Hippo bus tours.
If the residents of Rochor can be moved en masse out of the area for MRT/Road development, I don't see any obstacle to doing this. With the flooding problem, the government should also be able to acquire the land at much lower prices too.
Perhaps someone living in the constituency that Orchard Rd falls under should write a letter to their MP or the Minister in charge. It's amazing what a single letter can do in certain cases. Just ask Mr Allan Tan. Doing just that, his MP, Mr Chia Shi-Lu managed to pre-emptively grab some KTM railway land to convert into carparks...
Sunday, 8 January 2012
From 4 legs Good to 2 Legs Better
In George Orwell's novel Animal Farm, after the animals overthrew their human oppressors, the pigs who took over the role of running the farm eventually took over the characteristics of their former human masters as well.
And so it is in the realm of human affairs and history has borne this out again and again. It is almost like a self-fulfilling curse, a perverse form of Maslow's theory if you like. The ideological basis that spurred the movements that won independence from colonial masters soon fade away and the people find themselves yet again under the yoke of oppression, only this time from their own kind.
Singapore unfortunately, is no exception. The first generation of leaders fired by the ideals of self determination and control of our own destiny, identified themselves with the people and achieved independence. It was us (the leadership AND people) against them.
In the course of time, this link was broken, almost sub-consciously. This shift in stance from the inclusive us (the leadership and people) to a more corporatist we, the leadership (business owner) and you the people (customer) was so subtle that no one actually noticed it. The 'ape' that walked on all fours had finally evolved into the human walking on two feet. The inclusive political leadership had evolved into a confrontational one.
And this is the evolution of statehood that we find ourselves in today and all the troubles that we face flow from it. The change in stance may have been subtle, but the consequences are anything but. The pioneering leaders may have been prepared to risk everything just for victory, the leaders of today (if you can find them) have very different ideals.
The Mao suit must not only be fur-lined (on the inside), it needs to come with a chauffeur driven limousine. Surprisingly, this isn't the problem. In a meritocratic society, people accept the realities of rewards commensurate with ability and responsibility, even if grudgingly.
The problem is the confrontational link between the leadership and the people. It need not be this way. The stance needs to be re-oriented back to the inclusive us (leadership and people). The present leadership does not appear to even realise this, much less being able to fix it.
Even Mr Lee Kuan Yew, without the counsel of his former colleagues may not be able to fix this, but try he should. Failing which, he may well suffer the fate of President Suharto, living long enough to see all that he and his colleagues have toiled (successfully I might add) fall to pieces.
And so it is in the realm of human affairs and history has borne this out again and again. It is almost like a self-fulfilling curse, a perverse form of Maslow's theory if you like. The ideological basis that spurred the movements that won independence from colonial masters soon fade away and the people find themselves yet again under the yoke of oppression, only this time from their own kind.
Singapore unfortunately, is no exception. The first generation of leaders fired by the ideals of self determination and control of our own destiny, identified themselves with the people and achieved independence. It was us (the leadership AND people) against them.
In the course of time, this link was broken, almost sub-consciously. This shift in stance from the inclusive us (the leadership and people) to a more corporatist we, the leadership (business owner) and you the people (customer) was so subtle that no one actually noticed it. The 'ape' that walked on all fours had finally evolved into the human walking on two feet. The inclusive political leadership had evolved into a confrontational one.
And this is the evolution of statehood that we find ourselves in today and all the troubles that we face flow from it. The change in stance may have been subtle, but the consequences are anything but. The pioneering leaders may have been prepared to risk everything just for victory, the leaders of today (if you can find them) have very different ideals.
The Mao suit must not only be fur-lined (on the inside), it needs to come with a chauffeur driven limousine. Surprisingly, this isn't the problem. In a meritocratic society, people accept the realities of rewards commensurate with ability and responsibility, even if grudgingly.
The problem is the confrontational link between the leadership and the people. It need not be this way. The stance needs to be re-oriented back to the inclusive us (leadership and people). The present leadership does not appear to even realise this, much less being able to fix it.
Even Mr Lee Kuan Yew, without the counsel of his former colleagues may not be able to fix this, but try he should. Failing which, he may well suffer the fate of President Suharto, living long enough to see all that he and his colleagues have toiled (successfully I might add) fall to pieces.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)