Political Commentary
An Open Letter to the Prime Minister
The following political commentary, my latest, was offered to and rejected by the local newspapers.
Dear Mr Prime Minister,
This open letter is a plea which, as a concerned Singaporean, I am making with some confidence, since at no time has your government been more sincere and earnest in inviting feedback to make our society an even better place to live in.
My plea concerns the long-standing issue of political openness. It had, in the more than 40 years of PAP rule, been a source of much unease in the relationship between the government and the people. Now and then, the unease would erupt in the open, with the people agitating (usually through permitted channels such as letters to the press, public forums, dialogues with members of parliament, etc) for a long overdue political opening up, and the government firmly, often sternly, reminding them of more important national concerns, such as bread-and-butter matters that affect the lives of everyone.
But despite the lack of agreement, there was reason to hope. For there were signs that the PAP leaders saw a political opening up as a necessary goal, even if a very disagreeable one, to be achieved sometime in the future, even if a very distant one. There was no escaping the fact that Singapore, being a permanent member of the free world of practising democracies, is open to international scrutiny. I recollect your PAP colleagues talking about the need to proceed cautiously in the controversial matter of political reform, the need to avoid the perils of “revolution”, by adopting the peaceful process of “evolution”, variously called “incrementalism” and “gradualism”, to emphasize the small, even imperceptible, but definitely forward-moving steps. The message seemed to be: “Be patient. In good time. When we are ready.”
Now I note with alarm that this is not going to happen. For the new model of PAP governance which, under your premiership, is shaping up to provide the definitive, final framework for government policy in the next 40 or more years, has no place or role for political freedom. There are two principal features of the model that provide the evidence to support this worrisome thought.
Firstly, the current nationwide campaign of sweeping change to transform Singapore into a world-class society able to hold its own among the best in an increasingly competitive world, pointedly excludes political reform. Such a conspicuous and complete exclusion has never been seen before. It bears the marks of a major policy decision, and clearly has a message to send out. Hence while business, technology, education, civic society, the arts and entertainment have undergone spectacular changes that are transforming both the physical landscape and the national psyche, the political domain has shrunk into a tiny backwater, stuck in the Dark Ages of neglect while a brilliant Renaissance is sweeping on. The few political clubs that had existed in the past have closed down, and no new ones are expected to appear. Even the very term “political reform” has vanished from the national vocabulary, like something too irrelevant, embarrassing or tiresome to mention.
Recently I asked some friends if they thought that the ongoing process of liberalisation might somehow reach even the isolated political precinct, and they would at last see what they had witnessed only in other countries or on TV — public assemblies, placard-waving street demonstrations, political satire in the media, etc. “Not in our lifetime,” they said.
The message sent out by the government is clear: We don”t need all these. Without the noise and unruliness of political activism getting in the way, we get our job done quickly, smoothly, effectively. Look at the mayhem it”s creating elsewhere.
The second feature of the new model of governance is the systematic use of fear to silence existing dissident voices and discourage potential ones. While there has always been a climate of fear under PAP rule, the new model seems to have developed it into a distinct strategy of control, making special use of an instrument that has come to be known as the “out-of-bounds markers”. These are rules which stipulate what Singaporeans can and cannot say should they choose to criticise the government. The effectiveness of the markers is derived from their being deliberately left undefined and unexplained, for two obvious reasons. Firstly, it allows the government to have its own interpretation of each case as it arises, to suit its purpose. Secondly, since no one knows when or whether the markers are being overstepped, everyone plays safe by practising self-censorship, which can be a more effective curb than direct censorship.
In general, the markers may be said to allow criticism only on the government”s terms, that is, only on subjects it approves, and only in a manner that does not undermine respect for its authority. In theory, then, any criticism can be construed to be a violation of the markers. In practice, the government not only tolerates, but encourages criticism regarding practical matters of day-to-day living, such as maid levies, safer roads, saving water, the CPF. But it responds severely to any criticism of government style or competence, creating enough fear for the critic to make quick and often permanent retreat.
Hence while the fear experienced by Singaporeans is by no means the kind experienced in a police state, it is still a palpable one, creating wariness and affecting behaviour, even in routine, everyday activities. There is much anecdotal evidence to suggest that it could become pure paranoia, as seen in the many coffeeshop stories about Singaporeans not wanting to talk too freely with taxi drivers who may be government spies, not daring to be seen with ex-political detainees or members of the opposition parties, in case of secret surveillance, not voting for the opposition in the general election for fear of being found out and losing their homes, jobs, promotions, etc. The most feared punishment is the defamation lawsuit which can result in permanent financial ruin.
And now, having painted this rather direful picture, Mr Prime Minister, I must go on to make an observation with something of admiration mixed with puzzlement. Your strategy of fear, questionable though it is, is being used to serve a purpose that is totally laudable. Not even your severest critic can doubt that your purpose is no more than the well-being and prosperity of Singapore. Indeed, the true starting point for an understanding of the “why” behind all your policies would the assumption of this commitment, and the starting point for an understanding of the “how” for their implementation would be that of a practical, realistic problem-solving approach. These two assumptions of commitment and pragmatism clearly sum up the entire PAP strategic framework.
In this particular instance of your use of fear, your pragmatic rationale must have gone something like this: It is our job as the government to give the people a good life; we will not be able to do so if we are constantly subjected to the disruptions that come with political activism; therefore we must get rid of the hindrance quickly by using the most effective means of all – instilling fear.
Hence the fear becomes, in a rather roundabout and paradoxical way, the it”s-only-for-your-own-good strategy of a caring parent. It is this paterfamilias role that softens the PAP image into that of a protective and thoughtful leadership, in stark and edifying contrast to the many corrupt regimes around, where fear is used for pure self-aggrandizement.
Moreover, as if to soften the image further by compensating for the use of an instrument that has brought anxiety to many and misery to some, you have, Mr Prime Minister, in keeping with what has been observed to be a generally kind and compassionate disposition, made tremendous efforts to reach out to all those in the society who are by no means enjoying the good life – the poor, the old and infirm, the unemployed, the handicapped, the mentally ill. You have certainly fulfilled your promise, made at the start of your premiership, to create an inclusive society where no one will be left out.
Material prosperity infused with warm humanitarian impulses — this is as good as it can get for any society. Singaporeans, enjoying life in arguably one of the safest, most comfortable and most prosperous societies in the world, and at the same time being constantly reminded to show concern for the less privileged, can only give wholehearted support to such a salutary model of governance.
Indeed, your new, unique model may have an appeal beyond its own shores. For in its ingenious blending of carefully selected elements from the democratic system on the one hand, and autocratic rule on the other, it may be just the model sought by new, fledgling democracies in Asia that have become disillusioned with the western model. The Singapore model must be the only one in the world where capitalism at its most liberal, comports well with autocracy at its most fearsome. Political pundits may see it as a desirable compromise model, whether it is called “benign authoritarianism”, “enlightened autocracy”, or “inspired paternalism”, and even recommend it as an alternative model worth emulating. Singapore, the small city-state once described by a much bigger neighbour as no more than a little red dot on the world map, will have reached prominence on the world stage when and if that happens.
Into this glowing picture, I will now have to inject a sombre note, running the risk of being a spoilsport (even an ingrate, for I came to Singapore from Malaysia forty years ago, and have been enjoying a wonderfully safe, comfortable and happy life since). I would like to draw attention, very respectfully, Mr Prime Minister, to a certain flaw in your model of governance, which could have serious consequences in the future.
The flaw is in the government”s assumption, indeed its unshakeable belief, that the excellence of leadership will continue well into the future, well beyond the earthly lives of the present leaders and the leaders who come after, because of a special continuing process of self-renewal that it has so carefully and painstakingly built into the model. By this process, using the most stringent standards, promising young men and women are selected, tested and trained for leadership, so that the core principles of hard work, discipline and incorruptibility laid down by the party founder Mr Lee Kuan Yew, can be preserved for all time. Since the corollary of good leadership is trust and support from the led, there will be a strong and enduring government-people relationship through the generations, ensuring the permanent well-being of Singapore. Hence, if the PAP aims to be a government in perpetuity, it is only because of this highest of goals.
Here”s where this idealised picture falls apart: it ignores the inevitability of change through time. Twenty, thirty years down the road, there is certain to be a change in quality in the leadership. And it will be a change in the direction of decline, simply because in a globalised world of rapid, overwhelming change that has greatest impact on the young, the original core PAP principles and values will steadily lose their influence and may even disappear altogether. The future PAP leaders will therefore be very different. As I have often pointed out in my commentaries, in the worst-case scenario, a corrupt leader could appear on the scene, and get away with it, because of the ingrained, unquestioning trust of a fearful, overdependent people. Recently, during the question-and-answer session at a ministerial forum at Nanyang Technological University, Singaporean students mainly stayed silent, leaving foreign students to ask questions of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.
However, it will only be a matter of time, in this era of increasing and intense global exposure, before we see a change in the attitude of the younger generation. For one thing, they will not feel the same gratitude for the good life, as their parents and grandparents; for another, they will be less deterred by the climate of fear. This is because the impulse for political freedom is a very powerful one, being an innate driving force in human nature, seen in every society, in every era of human history. No matter how much it is suppressed, diverted or ignored, it never goes away, but eventually asserts itself in one form or other. Young Singaporeans, at some point in the future, will realise that no amount of material prosperity can compensate for the denial of this basic human right, and will feel the need to strike out to claim what is rightfully theirs.
It is illuminating, Mr Prime Minister, that in your current dialogues with college and university students, they are less interested in what you tell them about the challenges of economic and social development, than in your thoughts and intentions with regard to the issue of human rights, public debate, public consultation, alternative voices, etc. Among them must be individuals who will be the future”s tiny minority of rebels, such as the wildly creative artist ready to defy conventions, and the ferocious non-conformist with political leanings, ready to challenge the establishment. It is a pity that your model has a place for the first but not the second, for surely true progress in society depends on the nurturing of both. And it would be the greatest pity of all if the young political rebel soon lost heart, got absorbed into the majority, and concluded, like them, that compliance with the powers that be, made for a more comfortable life. Fear, whether it results in people yielding in submission or lashing out in resentment must be the most damaging force in society.
I had begun this letter with a plea. It is an earnest plea to consider what can be done to remove this fear, for only then can the process of political reform begin, to lead eventually to what every society needs for resilience and the capacity for renewal– a continuing core, even if only a tiny minority, of alert, savvy, skeptical, dedicated and above all, unafraid citizens who can be relied on to be the movers and shakers. Indeed, no nation can be called great unless it can claim such a citizenry which transcends all governments. The greatest legacy of the PAP may, ironically, be in the creation of a society that no longer needs it.
Mr Prime Minister, the reality is that this process of political education and nurturing can only be initiated by you and your colleagues. For other parties, such as the media and the educational institutions lack the necessary clout; in any case, they would prefer to look to you to set the tone and direction. A political opening up in Singapore — a real one, not the tokenism of a Speakers” Corner — is the work of many years, and would require much honesty, patience and perseverance. But if you and your colleagues begin the process with the same resolve, energy and intelligent planning that you have brought to the many economic and social challenges of recent years, it will be the most promising start indeed.
Yours respectfully,
Catherine Lim
November 5th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Outstanding piece of writing.
“The greatest legacy of the PAP may, ironically, be in the creation of a society that no longer needs it.”
An quote that appeals.
November 5th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
I love this article of yours. Thank you.
November 5th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Catherine,
As a citizen Thanks for your efforts. I hope he (they) will listen!
November 6th, 2007 at 1:36 am
respect.
November 6th, 2007 at 5:52 am
[...] Catherine Lim’s site: An Open Letter to the Prime Minister The following political commentary, my latest, was offered to [...]
November 6th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
I am struggling to determine the differences between the content of this letter vs. other letters you have wrote. In addition, what are the specific call of action for the Prime Minister in terms of political openness?
November 6th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Catherine, although your name is well-known, i’m afraid the government will just put you in the same ranks as Mr Brown, having little or no effect on the intended outcome.
November 6th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
A pre-requisite of controlled change is stability. I offer that this stability is absent as Singapore is undergoing a period of radical economic re-invention and “re-demographication”.
Some desire a renaissance (rebirth), in the hope of a better society. That desire is admirable and it is well that as a society, there is still an element of social conscience.
I believe that the change will come in due course. Now is perhaps not the best of time.
November 6th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
I’d have to agree with the papers that rejected your letter – there’s really nothing new in this.
But that doesn’t mean it’s not relevant and important. It serves as a timely reminder, and perhaps encouragement, that we should continue to hope.
November 6th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Change will come about once MM is no longer around.
November 6th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
That was what I thought. That change would be ushered once the Dear Founder is not around.
But now I fear, that the the majority of the motley crew we have in Office has already largely imbibed Party Values and will press on in their materialist beliefs.
November 6th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Thanks for speaking what most of us would think twice about even “mumbling”. But then, would it make any difference?
November 6th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Thanks for writing that. Whenever i come home to Singapore (from overseas) i am so happy with the standard of living and the goods and services that i can get for a reduced price.
But after 2 weeks, i feel stifled. Not only by society, but by the government. It’s hard to describe an undercurrent of irritation and general frustration at the badly written and censored newspapers and media, but it’s there.
One day, quitters like me shall return. And we shall return when there is freedom (and decent political comedy on the telly)!
November 6th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
I think most Singaporeans are having the Stockholm syndrome. They genuinely think that the fear that the govt instills is good for them. We will never be a great nation if our people are more than willing to sacrifice the intangible yet precious rights for material gains. I believe the govt is constantly being “encouraged” by the attitude of the people in giving them fear and rule with iron fists. Why would I change if my behaviour is much appreciated by the majority? There is zero incentive to change. It an egg and chicken situation, and the govt is definitely not the first to solve that mystery for you.
November 6th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
I love Singapore so much but i am leaving it to live in Australia where even if i am a “second class citizen”, at least i know i will have a say in my own future. I wish I could say that the future will bring good news for the political climate of Singapore, but even i scoff at the notion and i know change will be a VERY long time to come. The Lee-dership is strong and our culture is taught the value of tradition and obedience, not innovation or revolution. The surface upgrades this country has gone through is just a smoke-screen, nothing has changed and nothing will. Sad, but what can you do? Nothing most likely.
November 6th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
I disagree with the papers that because this is nothing new for the papers, it should not be published. It is precisely because this is nothing new and yet there is little change to the system, that all the more the papers should have the moral obligation to the society to publish it.
I must thank you. It is people like you who have provided me with insightful comments on our nation’s politics.
November 6th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
perhaps it is better for the papers not to publish, for it serves better to illustrate your point on openness. perhaps.
November 6th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
I do see a big change coming in the present political lockdown here …in a few decades or less. A momentous event of global proportions will compel all societies, not just S’pore, to curtail their materialistic pursuits to seek a New Balance apart from the golden calves of GDP, budgetary surplus and economic growth – for whose sake the present ‘business-friendly’ climate here is maintained. This irresistible event is called Global Warming.
Notice how often GW is now figuring in the speeches of MM and PM? It confounds almost everything they have believed in and worked for.
As AL Gore put it succintly, do we really have a choice between “treasure” or “the Earth”?
November 6th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Even the papers won’t publish this sort of “free speech”. It just shows a state of DESPOTISM at its best!
November 7th, 2007 at 12:14 am
thank you, catherine, for making a good point. the papers may not publish. but the govt’s reading all the same. (in the same way they read mr. brown, perhaps) but its not about reading. its about listening, really.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Excellent !!!!
November 7th, 2007 at 12:52 am
Aiyah… if you so passionate about this, take up GCT’s suggestion, join a political party (or stand as an independent) and contest the elections lor… see if the real Singaporeans care or not about these stuff.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:57 am
Well, I feel that the whole article is rather boring and it has been to done to death.
I find it laughable that all those people who claimed that they loved Singapore and yet left for another country that has “more freedom”. If you really love Singapore, shouldn’t you stay behind and try to change the political climate? And in what way do other countries provide you “more political freedom”?
I wouldn’t mind some political satire but demonstrations? Forget it.
I wouldn’t attribute the lack of people speaking up to fear but rather to complacence. We youngsters have no fear in speaking up, we do not speak up not because there is no avenue, rather most of us feel satisfied about the situation we have now.
PS. Do we really want more “freedom”? We have seen how chaotic countries with more freedom can become. And, about something closer to home, the education system encourages more freedom nowadays and I can tell you, the students are getting more unruly especially with their parents’ freedom to feedback and complaint to the government.
November 7th, 2007 at 1:00 am
Miss Lim, how much SPH shares you own? Write so cheong hey letter still expect them to publish in full. I am sure if they chop it, you will complain it is censorship right? You were in that business so you should know how it works, no?
November 7th, 2007 at 2:58 am
Excellent piece as always Catherine
It’s SPH’s loss that they didn’t publish it.
Dylan
November 7th, 2007 at 3:00 am
Actions speak louder than words. Singaporeans love to queue. They just need something worth while to queue for.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:17 am
I disagree. I struggle to understand why a need for demonstrations. Look, how much had migrated Singaporeans benefited for being able to speak out openly? A peace of their mind?
Only one issue pointed out by Miss Lim is agreeable: as gradually the ‘original core PAP principles and values lose their influence or disappear’, lead by the younger generation, defiant and opposable, turmoil may one day truely come. That i say is the real fear.
November 7th, 2007 at 9:08 am
I don’t know who Mr Brown is. But I know who you are Madam. I have also read many of your articles and have great admiration for your craft. I want to be one of the first to wish you welcome.
November 7th, 2007 at 9:12 am
I do know who the brotherhood is and their leader has told me just to tell you, it is indeed a rare honor and privilege to have such an esteemed figure grace blogosphere – if they do not publish, it is their lost and our gain. TQ
November 7th, 2007 at 10:24 am
I disagree with Christy. People who care more about SIngapore are the ones who have left as they have felt that they would have taken up arms or held demonstrations etc. Singapore does not tolerate this and so these people have taken the road less travelled.
I am sure that these people are also the kind of people who lend a helping hand to fellow Singaporeans who come over to their new land they now call home. They reminiscience about Singapore, read about Singapore daily, but know deep in their heart that Singapore would not have given them the freedom that they are experiencing now.
Freedom means different things to different people. To me it just means a safer and more comfortable life. I am now a Singaporean having left my country to come across here, as this place gives me the freedom I crave, basically a great environment to stay in. Safe and Stable.
But the recent hikes in prices have seen my savings corrode. And i realise that I have to look for a new home, where I can save and survive.
Christy is you are from the upper class, i am sure you are well taken care of. Good Luck!
Simply,
Henry
November 7th, 2007 at 10:48 am
I am very impressed by your openness, even though I’m just a student, this is something i feel very strongly about and I do hope that your letter will at least make a baby step in the progress
November 7th, 2007 at 11:38 am
With due respect to Ms. Lim, I really cant see the need to expend so many words on the obvious. Why not be sharper, shorter, and pack a punch. Also some of your conclusions are a bit suspect.. Basically you are arriving at conclusions that people can be sympathetic with but do not make a compelling argument.
For example
As I have often pointed out in my commentaries, in the worst-case scenario, a corrupt leader could appear on the scene, and get away with it, because of the ingrained, unquestioning trust of a fearful, overdependent people. Recently, during the question-and-answer session at a ministerial forum at Nanyang Technological University, Singaporean students mainly stayed silent, leaving foreign students to ask questions of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.
Umm no. People can adapt remarkably fast. There is no doubt that Singapore governance qua governance is remarkably corruption free and in this environment its pretty hard to have a corrupt leader. So the worst case scenario becomes MORE and not LESS likely with opening up. The correct perspective, in my humble opinion is to argue that this tradeoff is worth making.
Given that LKY is a demi-god (for good reason) it would remarkably rude for a local to ask questions that are even bordering on critical. You need less imposing figures to model such behavior first.
Those who cant deal with restrictions or constraints on freedom leave.
Those who can stay (with a few exceptions, those who have made enormous sacrifices to stick to their guns). Singapore is a great place to live in provided you make compromises. The vast majority of the populace is fine with these compromises as are expatriates who are here for the short or medium term.
It’s as simple as that.
To give credit where it is due.. You do use the word “Fear” which is the opposite of “Love”. While some amount of fear is no doubt functional, there seems to be too much of fear and too little love in Singapore.. Sooner than later I hope the citizens of this small country will figure out a way to have more love and less fear.
Why not wear T-shirts with the slogan “More Love, Less Fear”?
November 7th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Very good points. Hope they will be able to take note of what you have said, and that there will be changes.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
I must agree with some of the comments here that the article could have been sharper and to the point. Because of this, it lacks the punch to bring home the message. Still, a well thought through article – interesting read but what next?
November 7th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Hello Catherine,
My name is Darkness. May I welcome you to blogoland. I don’t much care for politics, so I cannot really comment on that area, but I know your work very well and I would like to say that it’s indeed a rare privilege and honor to have such a prestigious figure grace this place.
I do hope you will continue to write and post here as I believe it will benefit many to learn from such a luminary literati and as always the privilege is always mine.
Again, I hope your stay in blogosphere will be memorable one.
Meanwhile I remain yours sincerely, Darkness. 2007
[Com-Sat / Primus / Sardonyx Front / Comm: 8892 - 2007]
November 7th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Lionfish.
A rather lengthy piece of social and political commentary, though it packs a punch!
Changes will take place eventually, but not in the foreseeable future. Not necessarily for the better also.
November 7,2007. Lionfish.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Outstanding… The average Singaporean tends to be overly sensitive about what others think. Such a trait may have its own merits, but very often prevents us from being more than we are.
I’ve been hearing so much from my foreigner friends, or even strangers, that we Singaporeans need to speak up. “Us gwai-lo are taking up many management positions in Singapore, not because there are no talents in Singapore; I have taken every effort to promote my Singaporean colleagues, but the people above me will only notice those that speak up.”
Let’s look towards a more open and liberal society.
November 7th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Brilliant letter! Thank you Cat for speaking up for people like myself who believe we need more people who dare to speak up on issues affecting our tiny nation. Hope our PM take note of your concern who represent (I think) many like myself who want a fairer ruling party and to give room for opposition to represent another spectrum of our society.
It is my fear that absolute power can corrupt absolutely.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:02 am
Since politics seems to be giving you frustration, consider the following passage:
The small country with few inhabitants, Creates labor-saving devices without using them, Makes the inhabitants willing to repeat death without moving away. Boats and vehicles are present, but none are taken. Top troops are available, but none are deployed. This makes inhabitants return to use of the rope. Food is plenty, clothes are beautiful, residences are safe, desires are content. Neighbor states look at each other, and the different animal sounds are heard together. However, inhabitants are disinterested in crossing borders, even till death.
If you want to discover more, I will be glad to reveal more. Don’t let language imprison your mind.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Ms Lim clearly has her heart in the right place. I do agree that there must be more avenues for Singaporeans to voice out their opinions. The recent debate on s377a is a good start, although we could do with less vitriol.
I’m, however, concerned with statements like the following:
“Recently I asked some friends if they thought that the ongoing process of liberalisation might somehow reach even the isolated political precinct, and they would at last see what they had witnessed only in other countries or on TV — public assemblies, placard-waving street demonstrations, political satire in the media, etc. ‘Not in our lifetime,’ they said.”
I’ve always been puzzled by fellow Singaporeans who employ reductio-ad-Americanism in their arguments. In other words, “America has it, therefore it must be good”. Raise your hands if you’ve heard such arguments. Sooner or later, one side is bound to raise the case of “that’s they do in America/UK/France”. This always confuses me to no end. If the arguments were strong in the first place, why is there a need to pander to the fact that “other countries are doing it”. This is the direct opposite of reductio-ad-Hitlerum (see Wikipedia for more elaborate explanations).
Ms Lim certainly did not explicitly mention any country in the above paragraph but the insinuation is that placard-waving, public assemblies, demonstrations are a sign of democracy and since democracy is good, such phenomena must be desirable. That seems to be stretching the point a little too far. Political satire is definitely ok, but do we really want mass placard-waving and demonstrations? What do they achieve? What have they achieved in Western countries?
In my 5 years of stay in America, I had never felt any freer than when I was in Singapore. Sure, I stayed away from my parents which allowed me a far greater degree of social freedom but that’s besides the point. In short, I can’t find anything that I might conceivably want to do which the US allows but which Singapore forbids. Let’s not kid ourselves: people want to work in western countries because of the money. Even after returning from US, my friends were confused as to why I chose to return. To them, the pay in US is so much better, and that is their primary point of concern. Not freedom, not political liberty, not social liberty, but green pieces of paper.
I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with love of money. We love money. Our government loves money. But let’s not be idealistic about the motivations of people who left Singapore. There were those who left because of NS, because of the compulsory second language, because of overcrowding etc. I’ve never heard of anyone who migrated because of a stifling political environment.
I also strongly suspect the “stifling climate” that people experience is due to overcrowding and not due to media. Of course, we can disagree and a conclusion will never be reached even if we argue till the sun goes nova.
That being said, I must applaud Ms Lim for the outstanding piece of work. We do need more avenues for debate indeed. And I agree 100% on the point about fear. I think government-instilled fear is definitely unnecessary, and in this respect I disagree with Machiavelli.
Finally, as others have said, the article could have been much shorter and more concise. Ah, but it’s too easy for us to criticise and so hard to write a well-reasoned article…
November 8th, 2007 at 12:28 am
Hi,
I feel that we should not generalise that the Singaporean students kept silent during the Ministerial forum at Nanyang Technological University because they are fearful of what they really want to say. I feel that the main reason is because our conservative culture and peer influence.
I feel that there are too many wants to be achieved. The government has so far done a lot to achieve as many of our wants. However, many people (especially the wealthy, the educated young generations, the experienced older generations) are not satisfied with all these efforts. Please do try to put yourselves in the government’s position and realise that they are under much pressure from people such as Mdm Lim, yourself, and many unsatisfied singaporeans.
Singapore is a small dot on the world map. Sometimes, in my personal opinion, it is the firm policies, or fearful policies as mentioned, that made us soar great heights as a small nation. Every one of us should learn that the comfort we are in now is not to be taken for granted. No policies can be flawless, just like nobody in this world is perfect.
Don’t make yourselves unhappy for not being able to satisfy your many wants. Be contented that we do not face war, famine or hunger.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:22 am
Jacelyn, I would agree with you, but while enjoying and appreciating the fruits of the labours of our parents is important, it is of even greater importance to put in the effort to preserve those fruits.
Ms Lim’s arguments for political freedom are precisely for that purpose, and not about pandering to people’s urge to vent their frustrations. With no disrespect intended, her arguments are truly old hat, but it’s nice to see them spelt out with such eloquence and mastery of the language.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
[...] Catherine Lim: An Open Letter to the Prime Minister [...]
November 8th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
I hope Singaporeans put their heads where their hearts are. We see a few brave hearted Singaporeans stand for elections, but unfortunately, we as a people are easily distracted by the bread and butter issues raised by the rulling party. We’d rather go for the tried and tested than for the new. We should be looking at the elections on our terms and not on terms set by any party in the elections. We do not want trouble in our neighbourhood, but we cannot expect change to come from JB or Batam.
Like what Ms Lim has mentioned the first step is the removal of fear.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Well CL has certainly started ppl talking and thinking. As she said, it looks like a “promising start.” I came across this:
http://dotseng.wordpress.com/2007/11/07/letters-from-a-distant-country-called-%e2%80%98catherine-lim%e2%80%99/
I believe it adds color to the discourse.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
I agree this is a well written piece of article. I think it would have created more impact if Ms Lim would include in her plea some constructive suggestion of modeling an ideal political environment.
Maybe for a start, explain precisely (other than allowing total freedom of placard waving and street demonstrations), the definition of political freedom or openness that she is pleading for. Or what could be done to remove the “fearâ€. Or will removing the fear of repercussion of irresponsible mud slinging be good for the development of a ideal political environment?
I think the request that for the ruling party to also nurture (quote) “the ferocious non-conformist with political leanings, ready to challenge the establishment†which is equivalent to a prospective opposition, is unrealistic.
Frankly, to me a layman, bread and butter issue appease, I vote base on such issue not for a first world political freedom that doesn’t exist.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
I am enlightened but at the same time disturbed…it is hard to deny Ms Lim’s argument, but it is still difficult to believe it…or may I say I sympathize with Ms Lim but deep down I hope that she is wrong…something really needs to be done, but we cannot sit around and wait for our leaders (like we hav always been) to start doing something.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
placard waving and street demonstrations? do you remember the Odex saga, where a group of 8 “demonstrators” were doing a photoshoot of anime figurines carrying placards and the police sent in 4 riot vehicles? i would be inclined to call that instilling fear… for want of a more extensive vocabulary, of course.
another thing that bothered me about it was how local papers refused to carry the story. its not dissimilar to the grey areas that Catherine Lim mentioned, where people aren’t sure if they have run afoul of a out-of-bounds-area..
if the act was criminal, why wasn’t it reported in the local press? people ought to know exactly what the law requires of us.. otherwise… we’d necessarily self-censor? and that would be a problem… wouldn’t it?
i’m not sure if it is even meaningful to discuss political openness without a free press. whether deserved or not, the ST does carry moral authority and if you want to meaningfully engage with the populace just blogging might not be enough..
November 8th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Well voiced indeed: )
am a student currently studying overseas, while i love singapore as my home, i’ve grown to dread heading back to our soul-less city.
Singapore is not a society- society being a place where people interact, people with different ideas, different beliefs, different dreams, different lifestyles.
Singapore is a gleaming, well-polished economic (hi-tech might i add)machine, with shiny steel-less steel wheels and clogs without individual thoughts besides fulfilling their purpose, and expecting that monthly oiling aka pay checks. there is no place for parts that does not fit into the general scheme of operation.
I afraid Catherine, that i’m more pessimistic that you are, most singaporean do not care, they are narrow-minded, conservative, and self-involved if not selfish, and happy as long as they can get their bread from ‘breaktalk’ and ‘crystal jade’ and deck them with plasmas and ipods(butter). like we could possibly expect otherwise, after all we(wheels and clogs) are factory moulded off eliti ..ack*hem . . i mean meritocracy.
ok sorry about that HUGE generalisation, there are pockets of selfless people in spore too. it was particularly heartening to hear about ’straight’ people, the ones i heard about being NUS students getting people to sign that 377 repeal, fueled by belief in a liberal, equal and fair society.
though i remain rather disillustioned, yes, a more liberal environment is a first step towards not tolerant - which is an over-used cliche and politics loaded placebo, but a ‘real’, open-mind, accepting ‘human’ society.
If anything, we(sporeans) are so ’spoilt’ today only because the government has done a great job. Spore being one of the ‘greener’ states because all our conservation efforts are centrally implemented, our economic success speaking for itself. still theres also so much more to life. rather than being setting the environment so your(spore’s) children become a single track product(albeit successful), maybe its time to expose them to the world, and embrace the varying forms of success they achieve (coz no parent would see their children as failures no matter how badly they do), and perhaps even you(the state) might be surprised at what we might come up with : )
November 8th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Even though our political situation is stifling, but at least everyone is equal. Look the aborigines in Australia, the minorities in Malaysia and other countries. Do you think there is equality in those countries? At least here i will not be discriminated because of my colour.
November 9th, 2007 at 12:09 am
Thanks for this letter.
It’s unfortunate that under the policies and rules by the present Singaporean rulers, the sense of being Singaporean is eroding at a high rate. A consequence that Singapore will suffer in years to come. I love Singapore, but I despise the MIW to the core.
November 9th, 2007 at 12:23 am
Thank you.
November 9th, 2007 at 2:24 am
‘In my 5 years of stay in America, I had never felt any freer than when I was in Singapore.’
I can think of few larger indictments of Singapore’s political ‘freedoms’ than that line.
For a Singaporean to not even realize that there are greater political freedoms than letters to a government owned newspaper, and a ’speakers corner’ next to a police station, is truly disappointing.
Can that poster seriously not think of any other ways that people can express their opinions to their own government?
One last point. Is it possible to request that people working for the Singapore government state that in their posts?
November 9th, 2007 at 9:10 am
o@@ps, left heaps of typO(-error) on my posting, was just typing what was on my mind. Do excuse me for the spelling and grammatical errors: )
November 9th, 2007 at 11:32 am
shall Singapore have a “Campaign to Award the Public Service Start to Cat Lim”
November 9th, 2007 at 11:40 am
This is just my opinion, they (the machinery) just want to dismiss CL, bc with her reminding all of us 1+1=2, the machinery cannot tell us it was 1×2=2. Thats what they want to do force the version into our brains. However, I am glad the intellectuals are rejecting that account and they are finally beginning to shift through the past to reclaim our present and future.
We may still have hope after all.
November 9th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
I have many things to say, but I believe the BP said it all better than I can ever express in words. No wonder they are the No.1 in the Alumini circuit. Tq Ms Lim, without you being there, I don’t believe things would have come this far.
(hats off)
November 10th, 2007 at 1:35 am
First of all, I am firm believer in chance favoring the prepared mind.
In relation to this article, I would liken this to playing second fiddle in an industry versus being an industrial leader, where you are more able to fine-tune your definition, strategy and outlook as you preempt and forecast the effects through careful observations of countries that lead the way. case-in-point, a mature democracy that is America or the England.
Democracy and free-press is a universal concept, granted. However, with any ideology and precept, is open to interpretation. This nascent democracy that is Singapore has accomplished many milestones that many countries could only dream of.
The number of years of independence and by extension, our experience with democracy is limited either by the dearth of comtemporary Asian peers to benchmark off of and our inherently brief democracy. I believe that Singapore’s government is still searching for it’s true identity within the international community, be it, what it means to be an Asian democracy or it’s chosen economic niche.
Singapore’s democracy has two opposing areas of concern, constantly vacillating between its eastern roots (i.e. greybeard, didactic) while simultaneously espousing western values of liberation and freedom. Given enough time and appropriate place, the government will eventually discover a sweet spot in the role it plays in the lives of its citizens.
It’s a personal mantra of mine, to take things slowly (and this it will differ based on personal preferences) to let things come to us, evaluate all angles, cover your bases, manage your risk before finally coming to your best (not necessarily perfect) solution and from observations, I believe the government is taking this approach.
In essence, not now/yet is not equivalent to never.
Lastly, I would state that, I am a believer in Singapore and we as a nation have come a long way but we are young and vibrant so let’s take some time, gain a lil’ wisdom before we commit.
November 10th, 2007 at 2:17 am
I support what is being written in this open letter. Quite obviously, from some of the replies shown above, this political stultification has taken place at all levels in Singapore. There has never been a struggle for rights and it has never been ingrained or etched in the people. The most challenging of this is how many Singaporeans are able to leave the comfort zone from a paternalistic government and take responsibility of their own lives and future?
Some say this is not the time or it will happen in the future… I dare say more people will slip into this dangerous, self-/external- imposed stultification of the mind, soul and spirit.
Many say there is hope and many are looking for salvation in other countries or in other mouthpieces (like u) but lack the courage to speak up or stand up. Thus i applaud u. Without courage and independence of the mind, there is no hope.
November 10th, 2007 at 2:53 am
thank you for remembering. may in the future to come, there be many timely reminders like these to come. but nevertheless, like Nietzche, you might have come too early .
November 10th, 2007 at 7:39 am
I don’t think there is any place in this planet where there is such political openness or freedom most self-proclaimed liberal long to see.
Many would point to the West, especially the US as a model of democratic, a place for freedom of expression, but wasn’t it apparent that many in US were against going to war? And what happened after all the protest, demonstrations and placard waving and when all avenue of denouncing war were exhausted?
THEY WENT TO WAR ANYWAY!!
And in Indonesia, just not long ago, waves after waves of demonstrations, street protest and placard waving took place, and most ended in mayhem and riot, the commoner suffered, only a handful of politicians gained from chaos created, and did they really make good, clean and democratic government?
Yes, freedom of speech, yes enjoy your placard waving and street demonstration, yes they allowed it, but who is listening, and in the end who gained?
Politics is politics as the word itself implied: my cheap Webster desk dictionary describes it as “the science or art of government†or “the use of intrigue in obtaining power or controlâ€, my mini Collins define it is as “person’s belief about how a country should be governed.†and the American Century Dictionary call it “activities concerning seeking power, status, etc.†None talk about liberation, freedom and openness.
Selfless, open, accommodative politician or political party who are fair and impartial, who willingly nurtured and generously sharing their power with their opponent can only be found in fairy tales.
Call me selfish and narrow-minded, I will still be happy with a government which ensure peace and order, solve bread and butter issue and provide shelter. Political freedom? Well if there is, it’s a bonus.
November 10th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Dear Hi There, you wrote in response to my claim:
“I can think of few larger indictments of Singapore’s political ‘freedoms’ than that line.
For a Singaporean to not even realize that there are greater political freedoms than letters to a government owned newspaper, and a ’speakers corner’ next to a police station, is truly disappointing.”
I’m hardpressed to wonder whether you’re misunderstanding my statement because of a severe lack of comprehending capabilities, or intentionally presenting a strawman argument as a convenient form of attack because of intellectual dishonesty.
My point is simple: that while political freedom is available in US, I was neither inclined nor inspired to do it as I could see that placard-waving and demonstrations had never resulted in any positive change. It has not helped the US in avoiding the Iraq war, in revamping their health care, in improving their education for children or in battling against commercial tyrants like the RIAA. In fact, I’ve not met a single Singaporean who’s done such things in the US – they stay there for the monetary and job opportunities anyway.
We all want freedom. But even in western countries there are limits – there’s a popular adage “freedom of speech does not mean you can shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre”. In the 90s people who wear electronic breadboards on their T-shirt as an expression of love to engineering would scarcely have batted an eyelid, but some months ago an MIT student was arrested because of it. So standards of freedom are changing in Western countries also, so the above-mentioned limits are far from universal.
The question is: what kind of limit shall we impose? Why should we let other countries impose their limit on us?
November 10th, 2007 at 10:53 am
(cont’d)
As I said before, we do need more openness, but let’s not blindly clamouring for the kind of freedom that other countries have. We decide on what limits we can tolerate. Let me repeat that I think the recent debate is a good start, although the physical threats on Ms Thio were a sad end (personally I’m on the repeal side, but I believe strongly in civil debate).
I’m also saddened to hear people who’re “pro-freedom” attempting a blanket attack on people who’re on the other camp (What other camp? We’re all just concerned about our country, but more on that later) as brainwashed. To be fair, no one is blatant enough to use such a banal term, but the insinuation is always there.
“You disagree with me? You think we don’t need more freedom? Meh, you’ve been so conditioned to think that way by the PAP, that you can’t even see the need.”
Hands up those who’ve seen the argument in one form or another. Some are more eloquently expressed than others, but under the guise, their flesh and blood remain the same. Once again, argument by association.
Finally, Hi There said:
“One last point. Is it possible to request that people working for the Singapore government state that in their posts?”
I might have been oversensitive, but I sense that the question was targetted at me. My reply is that I work for a private company which is affiliated to the government, but I’m acting in my private capacity in the comforts of my home.
Ironically, before I went to the US, I was one of those clamouring for more freedom. I honestly believed that demonstrations would help a society get rid of its ills and move on to greater heights. It was my five-year stay in the US that opened my eyes. I saw greater press freedom but less truth in media (except the New York times), greater political freedom but less social freedom (in my neighbourhood, no one would be foolish enough to take a walk after dinner), excellent universities but absymal primary and secondary education. And so on.
So instead of being brainwashed by PAP, it was actually the reverse. Before my stay in the US, I was brainwashed by the western media in believing that political freedom triumphs all. During my stay there, I saw through their lies and misdirection.
November 10th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Alfred:
You wrote:
I saw greater press freedom but less truth in media (except the New York times).
So you prefer having one source of information – The Straits Times, to provide you their ‘truth’?
Press Freedom gives many sources of information, and you decide for yourself which one is most credible.
November 10th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
“public assemblies, placard-waving street demonstrations, political satire in the media, etc. ‘Not in our lifetime,’ they said.”
Ok….Indonesia and Malaysia and Phillipines have all these….so are they politically more open than we are? hmmm…
November 12th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
As a reader of ur works, i have to let you knwo that this generation of singaporeans have become apathetic. (At least me) It no longer matters wat happens here anymore. All we need ot know is when is our paycheck coming so that i can plan my next holiday away and outta this country
November 13th, 2007 at 3:48 am
‘My point is simple: that while political freedom is available in US, I was neither inclined nor inspired to do it as I could see that placard-waving and demonstrations had never resulted in any positive change.’
First of all, while you may claim to have studied in the US, you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of country.
Back to your main point. Foreigners in Singagore are also not inclinded to wave placards. Few foreigners, in any country foreign to them, care enough to protest. Its not their country.
The real problem that is discussed here is whether Singaporeans can make their political feelings known, in Singapore.
You have implied that Singaporeans are as free as people in the US (or many other countries), to confront their government.
Please list for us the phrases that people in Singapore have been sued for and bankrupted for saying, by the government.
Seriously.
Nothing personal, but I think that is the last we will see you in this thread.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:35 am
Thanks for the commentary alfred. I am on your side.
Miss Lim, you seem to be making the point that “public assemblies, placard-waving street demonstrations, political satire in the media,”, are indications of a mature democracy. Surely this it too simplistic.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:06 am
Well, maybe Madam Lim wants attention that’s all and our stupid Govt and newspapers refused to give her the occasion to busk in the glow of publicity?
November 16th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
You are very most welcomed Darkness. I have heard so many wonderful things about you. Do take care.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
[...] From Catherine Lim’s site: [...]
November 20th, 2007 at 12:50 am
[...] letters” lately than I care to remember. Even the doyenne of Singapore Lit has set up a website for such a [...]
November 20th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Exhibition- ‘Education-at-Large: Student life in Singapore from 1945-1965′
Those who bemoan the apathy of today’s youth need only look to Singapore’s student movement of the ’50s & ’60s for examples of active social engagement. Enamoured by ‘New China’ and fired up by new-found nationalist fervour in the aftermath of WWII, students in Singapore played an active role in nation-building.
The Tangent, through the collection of artifacts and oral history interviews, attempts to piece together the lives of secondary school students in the post-war years. Besides The Tangent, participating students from various local schools have also made innovative attempts in narrating colourful stories of their old alumni.
Exhibition- ‘Education-at-Large: Student life in Singapore from 1945-1965′
Date : 10/11/2007- 09/12/2007 Opening Hours : 1200 – 2000 Venue : SMU The Gallery, School of Economics & Social Sciences ( Junction of Orchard Road/Prinsep Street; opposite YMCA Building)
November 26th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Dear Ms Lim,
I understand that you have allowed The Online Citizen to publish your article on their blog.
In case you don’t know, The Online Citizen is managed by Choo Zheng Xi, an active grassroots leader from the PA, Ephraim Loy, a YPAP member and ex-ST journalist Yeo Toon Joo.
Many netizens suspect TOC of being a part of the PAP cyberteam’s grand scheme to manage the internet.
I strongly urge you not to lend your support to them in the future as it may affect your credibility and tarnish your good name as a result.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:15 am
[...] big THANK YOU to all of you who took time and trouble to respond to my article ‘An Open Letter to the Prime Minister’. Also a somewhat sheepish SORRY for having made you plough through reams of the stuff, much of [...]
December 9th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
To Jacelyn, in reply to your statement on :’Please do try to put yourselves in the government’s position and realise that they are under much pressure from people such as Mdm Lim, yourself, and many unsatisfied singaporeans’, yes i have put my self in the gov position; yes i know they are under pressure. but they do not deserve my sympathy. I don’t believe that we pay them to sit on their arse. If they can’t do the job, replace them quickly before Singapore falls.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Hi Catherine
You could be a shining beacon to our opposition parties as well as our nation. You are right that ‘lee kuan yew’ model would not hold in another 20 years later. A ‘personality-centric’ political system has been proven in history that would not hold. We need to ‘reform’ our political scene.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
I also disagree with Christy. I am leaving Singapore in 2008. Not everyone wants to enter politics to try to change Singapore. Just look at Catherine Lim, she isn’t a politician too. I believe Singapore needs to change but I don’t think I can change Singapore and I cannot wait for this change to happen for I fear it will take more than 50 years. I don’t want to wait that long to experience the life I want to live.
Lee Kuan Yew is 84 this year. I believe he could be around for potentially another 25 years tops. His influence in the government will always be felt as long as he is around. Maybe he did a lot of good for our country in the past and present but I believe we do not need him any more. To move forward as a country, we need to be independent from our “father”.
Today I had a debate with 2 friends. They do not understand why I need to make myself angry by caring about all the bad things that government does to make the lives of average Singapore citizens harder. I care because it affects my life and I feel like I am being treated like an idiot. The way the PAP behaves shows that they do not have the slightest respect for most people in Singapore. I cannot look into a mirror and say “I am a free man” as long as I am living in this climate of fear.
It depends on what you want in life and what you value most. As my friend told me, “As long as I make my money and the economy is improving, I don’t care what the PAP does”. If you’re like my friend and most Singaporeans, then you should just suck it up and deal with whatever nonsense the PAP throws at you.
December 16th, 2007 at 5:42 am
All said and done, Vincent’s post is the most succint summary of the comments posted here.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:47 am
Hey Singaporeans, I’m from a so called democratic country. You must come there to see how democracy is. Anywhere in the world, democracy means(in practice) the freedom to blow the bladdy jaw of your neighbour. Be proud of your country and your leaders. Be proud to be in a state where there’s no right to speech or protest as you say. Only because of your govt. policies, you can stand still and have a Singaporean dignity. Love your government! I wish I had something similar one in my country
December 19th, 2007 at 5:41 am
How many people can think and write like you, Ms Lim? How many people in Singapore are the “tan jiak” class?
I am sure when the society consists of MORE people like you, then the PAP bubble will likely burst on its own. Then they will be ‘bo bian”. However till then, even if PM Lee is willing and he agrees with your suggestion of the threat Singaporeans face, he will not do anything about it now, because majority Singaporeans are happy and willing to be governed in this way now. Make money, eat sleep and shit happy.
It is too much work to use the brain and think. Only “richer” people in Singapore are afforded the luxury to think and question the PAP. The rest are just struggling to make ends meet.
The hands of the PM is also tied, unfortunately not really by his father, but rather by the level of success achieved by his father. He has set the standards, and eating Ikan Bilis and Rice is just not enough for most Singaporeans now.
Put yourself in his shoes, will he cater to a “few” intellectuals and forgo the majority of “hawker class” Singaporeans?
I think not. You may have been living in your condo, expensive restaurants to really know the grounds. We are not yet ready, perhaps we can start somewhere, but then who can then control these floodgates once they are opened? Can you guarantee the livelihood for 90% of the Singaporeans, whom you are “fighting” for? The ideology sounds good, but it is pragmatic for Singapore?
I would love to buy your words and agree with you fully, but there may lie different models and different ideas behind why the “reform” is slow or seems to be unmoving. There are dangers in the higher echelon of powers? Conspiracy amongst the governments of SE Asia? Likely.
Greetings from Switzerland. They know who I am.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
[...] culture in Singapore. It is in this light that I agree fully with what Ms Catherine Lim said in her open letter to the prime [...]
December 21st, 2007 at 12:29 am
I hope reforms are not likely to take in the form of demostration, waving placards or blocking the street.
Catherine, you have written well, but it sure takes time and patient to read and understood what are you trying to say, none the less, everyone had their grunt, I wishes to add some of mine…
I love Singapore but sad, the Govt Policies had become even harsher than before, whenever, a change is announced these days, it’s not so much like seeking consultation, bluntly, it seems more like, “I am telling you, it’s OK even if you disagreed, the changes will happen with no regards to how much people complain…
Those chosen to enter politics to collect “political Milage” enter in a very safe way, from a common man in the street, placing those chosen canditdates by blending into GRC, which require numerous number of “Certified talents”. Common man in the street wishes to see the next election, more GRCs will be dezone into singular wards, to encourage more opposition to contest. Not sure, if it will ensure more freedoms, but sure like to see more wards taken by oppositions.
Increasing the Pay of Certified Talents by the Govt, they say it’s a must, they say it’s good, they want their pay package comparable to those top earners of private sectors, if one had not join the rank of certified and branded as “PAP-ist”, could it be true that every talent can really earn more than what they are drawing now? Most probably, they could be sulking and complaining like any common man in the street…Gheez, r they really such a good catch?
Changes in CPF Policies, and practically forcing or order all commoners to buy Insurance Policy for one to grow very old(something like pay at not so old to start drawing when one’s very old like 85). Doesn’t seem to see any consultation, it’s like “drilling” into people’s mind, disgree as you may, must buy is the order of the day, like it or not, it’s going to happen, with no regards to whether people like to buy it or not. If only if everyone had been well taken care of like LKY, the percentage of those who will survive above 85 should increased…look at those posted in the newspaper, those above 85 are really a rare catch.
Govt tells the Old, older and oldest, they have to work and work, achieved via pushing back the retirement age, and delaying the withdrawal of CPF, sound very noble, work will keep one healthy and occupied, so as not to think too much un-unecessarily, they even willing have the law change to ensure older people can be employed, but the truth is, when ones old, you have to degrade yourselves…to earn lower salaries, to work those low skills job, the govt did not say so, but if value as what implied by them to pay talents high salaries, then one must know, one’s who old or even older are not classified as valuable as those who are the younger one, even your CPF contribution had to take a steep dive to prove the point, unless of course, if you happen to be those who been selected as a talent in his or her earlier life by the Govt. Wonder if the true agenda behind many campaigns and sweet talking, comes with a goal in mind…”Gheez Old people are really a burden, they should not in anyway hurt the Govt annual profit report” and forecast, older folks are afterall expanable. Whenever the Govt talks about giving money, many are very, very happy, praise the Govt to the sky, wow, so good where to find?…well, did anyone realize, that so little bits taken from them, ironically, We the Citizen of our lovely Singpaore are throwing back “Peanuts(a.k.a make famous by NKF)”, feel like the interest is worst than those charge by ‘Ah long”
I wishes more could pray and pray, hoping miracles will happen, and den…mush better oppositions will appeared and get elected, and probably changes the ratio of those “Pap-ists” to prove the point, that not all things need to happen through those certified talents stamped by the “Pap-ists”, who hold us Singaporeans to pay their ransom, and force to whatever Policies and rules as decided by them.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:23 am
Dear Catherine,
thank you for another kind piece reminding us that we’re not supposed to be aspiring to be the most souless city in this world.
Unfortunately, I do not believe that we will have evolutionary change towards that society you dream about. Sadly, by stifling all political efforts towards creating a better society, there will come a day where all that pent up energy (if any is left), will be suddenly released, in a manner that is so uncontrollable that it creates a negative impact in its urge to right the wrongs of old.
Where will we end up after that day? nobody knows. SG is a box of very dry tinder politically. Dried for 40+ years. Which spark will set it off?
truly, not a future to look forward to, but if history has shown, oppression always meets a violent end, and in turn, creates a even more extreme form of oppression by the victors over the old oppresion. Where will we all end up?
KianWee
E.o.M. [not advocating revolution in any means, just warning that it could happen, but ruthless suppression of the "People's Action Figures Party" rally/demonstration... suggests that our political overseers are ever ready to hit the panic button and call out the riot police]
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:12 pm
hi, why not send this article with your experience of this being rejected to another country’s press?
December 23rd, 2007 at 11:24 pm
[...] Very powerful content deliverance. Article commentary was rejected by local newspaper.. sadly.. catherinelim.sg » An Open Letter to the Prime Minister Dear Mr Prime Minister, This open letter is a plea which, as a concerned Singaporean, I am making [...]
December 31st, 2007 at 10:46 am
Erm…as like my nick….great length of comment…too bad din have the time to read it…btw do u think by writing this will change the situation which had been in its form for the past 20 odd years? Singapore is a good enuough society whereby we still got a job…no trying to be Pro-PAP where pple label me as such when i mentioned that Sg is better than Thai or elsewhere. Dun compare…Try to live in where u r born in. If not, that’s too tough, LEAVE. 生ã¾ã‚ŒãŸå›½ã«æ„Ÿè¬ã®æ°—æŒã¡ã‚’ æŒãŸãšã€æ„見を言ã†ã¹ã‹ã‚‰ãšã€‚
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:58 pm
I think its a serious allegation to assert that this Govt instils fear in Sg people. Its all in the mind. If you have something to say, say it but be prepared to be rebutted. That’s all. Loving Sg and taking care of the country is like taking care of your own family and loved ones. If you have an accusation to make about my family, be prepared to back up your accusation with proper evidence. Otherwise I have to consider how I can protect my family name and reputation.
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:07 am
Donna Derrico Pic…
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read….
January 6th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
[...] writer Catherine Lim also took to the Internet in 2007, when her open letter to the Prime Minister was rejected for publication by both The Straits Times and TODAY in September. She explained in her [...]
January 10th, 2008 at 4:41 am
Dear Catherine, I am proud of having known you – and impressed by your persistency. Not very much seems to have changed since the 90´ies! Finn
April 1st, 2008 at 11:09 am
Dear Catherine,
“The pessimist complains about the wind, the optimist expects it to change, and the realist adjusts the sails”. —Barbara Johnson-
It is a pity that from your political writing there is just so much hatred in you. I am intriqued to find more about you.
I Hope you would answer questions below to give us further insight of your thinking: 1. Are you Singaporean or Malaysian ? 2. Do you consider yourself a true Singaporean or other Nationalities ? 3. Do you live and earn a living in Singapore or other countries ? 4. Why do you hate Singapore Government and Mr. Lee Kuan Yew so much ? 5. What the Government and Mr. Lee have done to deserved all of your negative feelings and/or negative assumptions towards them ? Mind you the Government represent the people of Singapore. 6. Why do you consistently tried to being so negative and perhaps indirectly might cause harm to the country (singapore), the Government, and especially to Mr. Lee. 7. What have you done / your real contribution to benefit the whole people of Singapore other than just being a critic ? Have you done something positive for the people and the country ? To quote from Kennedy “Ask what you can do for your country not what your country can do for you”
Speaking of fear. From your wrting, I suppose it is your own personal fear. Perhaps you can not find peace and always in fear because instead of being positive you channel your energy into being so so negative that perhaps you fear the Government might do something to you ot other things might happen to you…perhaps you feel insecure in a secure country like singapore. And it seems you tried to bring your own personal fear into political arena. The people who tried to find faults in Singapore and Mr. Lee will sings song of praises to you and will make use of you wether you realise it or not. At least they found A singaporean (if you are Singaporean) willing to the “works” for them..they will be happy. All they to do ..further encouragement.
I am not so sure if one can become both a good novelist and also being a true political commentator. Fareed Zakaria, is a good political commentator not a novelist though he writes very well. He focus on his subject and carry someweight when writes or speak of it.
I wish that an eloquent writer like you would chanel her full energy in a positive way so that it may contribute positively to lift up / positive benefit to the people of Singapore.
Lastly, to sum up, I will leave you with a quote from Mr. Lee Kuan Yew “ You start off with idealism, you should end up in maturity with a great deal of sophistication giving a gloss to that idealismâ€
Catherine you can do so much better in a positive way.
“t takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently”(Warren Buffet)
Take care.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:49 am
You have given so many quotes but to me they do not tell the real situation on the ground.
Do you know that we have the highest migration rate per capita in the world? If all that you have said and quoted are the clever truth, my question to you is - then why are intelligent Singaporeans emigrating en masse?
Surely this increasing emigration is a fine example of the real ground scenario. That Singaporeans are really unhappy and gloomy about their prospect as citizens of this Lee family controlled country.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
“I think its a serious allegation to assert that this Govt instils fear in Sg people. Its all in the mind”
Oh come off it, lets be honest with ourselves and admit
-we do fear being sued by MM Lee,PM Lee and other ministers
-we are scared to vote against PAP even if we dont like them, because if we work in the civil service or have business connections with government we are afraid to be found out.
It’s the invisible mental fear that has been instilled on many Singaporeans, myself included when I was working for Government company for 20 years!
Why do you think there were, and still are, many lawsuits brought against opposition politicians? Whether those people deserve to be sued is another matter, but its all really a regular mesasge for the mass. “It can happen to you too!”
“You say something wrong, I dont ask for an apology first, I simply sue you till you stop talking bad about me!”
This serves 2 purposes, one is silencing critics and oppositions and secondly, creating a mental fear among the population.
Like Catherine said, its not the fear of being dragged away in the middle of the night to be physically tortured but more a mental reminder not to talk to speak out against Government. The invisible fear.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:34 am
am very proud of you, Catherine!
Your article in the Straits Times, 8 July 2008 (page 21) is simply heartwarming.
You are one of my role models. Am honoured that you attended my poetry recital (hosted by the late Ms Louise Cheng, Music Teacher extra-ordinaire) back in 1987.
July 21st, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I’m proud of you Catherine. Whether you’re Singaporean or Malaysian is already immaterial in this case. Your concern about the political climate in Singapore clearly shows of your affinity to Singapore. A very nice piece of work written. Luckily you’re not a politician or else the govt would haul you up in court to answer libel charges.
Kudos to Catherine!
Let’s all not lose hope, I believe everything will change. Just a matter of time and opportunity.
August 10th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
I have one question here. Why we need to plea when the Government suppose to be the Public Servant to serve our needs?
September 4th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Well done. Still unheard, at least not to the poor, semi-educated…
Citizen at large are those of middle to lower income, many which are too busy making a living. Elitist will not be bother with politics if they are left out of the crunch of the political system.
Price hike? Inflation? Low birth rates? More Immigrants? Higher medical care? What else?
Did all these hit us hard enough? No, is my answer. These will not be a big enough driving force to revolutionise our political system.
Our education system since beginning has make Singaporean very robotic. We are still in the comfort zone of PAP, only that now we have more whiners. No, I not referring to this plea article.
Political Openess in Singapore will only happens if Singapore are more mature. We are still not there.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:55 am
GOOD ARTICLE!
yes.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Hi Mdm Lim; I am your ardent admirer. Pls keep up the gd work. I remember when I was in school more than 20 yrs, u came to my school to give a talk. I still remember you as if it was yesterday. Mdm Carmee Lim invited you then.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Dear Cat,Like you I crossed the causeway 50 years ago and made a home for myself and family,unlike you I am no literati nor intellect as I only have a secondary education, I dare say majority of our generation i.e. 50s,60s & 70s are similar in education level.We were able to work hard and provide for our families to have a better life and education through a govt.that is stable and clean.The sacrifice of freedom of speech so to speak and a feeling of fear of the unknown is the norm than.Yes, today we have reach a standard of living others envy or talk about and I am still staying in my three room HDB flat that I bought for $7,000.Most neighbors my age are still around and will be till we expire.The younger generation with their new found wealth and education are able to chase the 5Cs or whatever that makes them tick today.Just remember that we are nothing but a little red dot with nothing but sheer grit to survive in a sea of green.Should this reddot fail,the literatis,intellects,rich,skilled and the young highly educated will just leave including you Cathrine I am sure.Where will my generation and the not so highly educated i.e. the ordinary people go to????
November 10th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Cat, further to my comments.Should our little reddot fail,we may be absorbed by our neighbours and live a life where freedom of speech,religion and culture would be totally out of the question and kowtowing to sorry to say Idiots in the civil service and the police.
February 28th, 2010 at 2:59 am
I never thought you guys had it rough over there, an investor friend of mine is thinking about leaving and go and live in Singapore.