Political Commentary
A challenge for the future: Democratising the Lee Kuan Yew model of governance?
What would a future Singapore look like, say, fifteen or twenty years from now? I would like to claim the creative licence of a writer to come up with some tantalizing future scenarios!
An intriguing starting point would be what I have described elsewhere as the special and unique Lee Kuan Yew model of governance for Singapore. It is so successful that today it can be said to be a major Singapore export. For notice how eagerly countries as diverse as China, India, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam, seek Mr Lee’s advice on their various economic projects.
A brief description of the model could be something like this: Its goal—total economic success. The kind of leadership needed—a completely efficient, hard-working, disciplined and above all, incorruptible government. The means by which such a government can achieve the goal—any means, even measures unpopular with the people or denounced by the outside world as undemocratic, as long as they get rid of the obstacles in the way. The most detested obstacle—political opponents who dare challenge the government openly and stridently. The most effective strategy against them—the use of fear to break them completely. And the most fearful tool of all—the defamation lawsuit reducing the opponent to permanent financial ruin. Mr Lee has rather proudly described what he calls his ‘knuckleduster’ approach, and has famously declared that he would rather be feared than liked.
This model of governance, useful for the rough early years when Mr Lee had to come down hard on Communist sympathizers, unruly trade unionists, racist newspaper editors and triads, must today seem like a relic of a bygone age. In its utter disregard of human feeling, it must be repulsive to the modern sensibility.
Yet it will be around so long as Mr Lee is. One reason is the enormous respect his colleagues have for him, reinforced by Singapore’s still prevailing Confucianist culture of deference to authority. But the primary reason must be this: a 100 per cent proof of the model’s effectiveness, seen in the unfailing, resounding re-election of the PAP over 4 decades. Nobody can argue with that kind of success. No wonder then that the model has become deeply embedded in the collective PAP psyche, to be faithfully transmitted down the line of succession, the political equivalent of DNA.
In the post-Lee Kuan Yew years, therefore, there will be no possibility of a democratization of the model. Rather, the quandary facing his successors will be this: how to keep the model intact but change its appearance to fit in with the temper of the times, in other words, how to update, repackage and give Lee Kuan Yew a makeover.
Actually, this has already been done, through an overall softening and humanizing of the PAP image. Mr Goh Chok Tong, the first successor, had chosen as his slogan a ‘kinder, gentler’ society and Mr Lee Hsien Loong ‘an inclusive society’ where no one will be left out. There have been numerous public campaigns to emphasize ’solidarity’, ‘bonding’, ‘identity’, words non-existent in the Lee Kuan Yew vocabulary.
While a softening of style is not difficult, a softening of stance towards political opponents is a different matter. Clearly the younger leaders want to continue to use the knuckleduster, but with the caution and subtlety necessitated by the times, and not the brute forcefulness unacceptable to a new generation of voters. This difference in approaches has led to conflicts within the party, as was evident in the James Gomez incident in the last General Elections. Mr Lee, suspecting Mr Gomez, a member of an opposition party member, of trying to pull off a nasty, malicious trick on the PAP, had wanted immediate exposure and punishment, whereas his colleagues, aware of public sympathy for the opposition, had clearly disagreed. Post-Lee Kuan Yew, free of such conflicts, exactly how cautiously and subtly will the leaders use the knuckleduster?
Here are two predictions. Firstly, the infamous defamation suit will be quietly dropped. So too the blunt, bellicose language, as when Mr Lee severely told Singapore women that but for the PAP, they would be foreign maids today. In a politically correct age, his successors would have to mind their language. In the last election, when the Prime Minister in an unguarded moment, talked about ‘fixing’ the opposition, the word provoked an uproar and he had to hastily retract it.
Secondly, the leaders would have to mind the outside world as well. In his time, Mr Lee was not bothered, and was openly critical of the democratic system. Indeed he would have had no qualms about doing away with it altogether if was in Singapore’s interests to do so. In fact, in 1984 when the PAP suffered unexpected losses in the elections, he appeared on TV livid with rage and said something about abolishing the one-man-one-vote system.
But his successors can’t afford to antagonize the free world because of Singapore’s increasingly closer ties with it, in virtually every area, from trade to education to environmental issues. As long as the western model of democracy keeps its shine, and it is still doing so pretty well—witness that even the odious regime in Myanmar claims it has ‘a roadmap to democracy’—Singapore leaders have no choice but to keep out of sight the authoritarian component of the model, sometimes even appearing defensive about it. This happens whenever they are asked to comment on those international surveys which, while regularly putting Singapore among the top three for economic success or business friendliness, invariably place her only a little above North Korea and Iran when it comes to press freedom.
But no matter how skillfully the leaders disguise the knuckleduster, they will retain, even enhance its extremely valuable function of creating fear. How will they do this?
Actually, a strategy of stunning ingenuity is already in place. What it does is simply to alter the fear to fit in with the times. Thus the raw fear of the old knuckleduster that had affected only a small group of political dissidents, has now become a larger, more generalized and more subtle fear, that affects the entire population—the fear of losing the good life. In a culture so deeply attached to material wealth, the fear of losing even a little of it through behaviour displeasing to the government, is enough to keep a whole society on its toes. Countless are the anecdotes of Singaporeans not voting for the opposition, for fear of losing that coveted government-subsidised flat, of academics not speaking up for fear of losing that coveted promotion. If it is true that fear carries its own momentum and generates its own self-correcting mechanisms, there must by now be a great deal of self-censorship in the media, the educational institutions, the arts.
It is surely a most pleasing thing to the PAP leaders that political control can turn out to be such a neat and handy by-product of economic success. By this time they must have totally convinced the people that a political opening up leading to chaos leading in turn to the flight of investors leading finally to economic ruin, is not an option for a small city state with no natural resources. By thus casting opposition politics in the role of the ultimate and supreme national enemy, the government is rewarded with two outcomes: firstly, opposition representation in parliament will remain at its present abysmally small number, and secondly, political dissent will be stifled at source.
Furthermore, because this fear of losing the good things of life is essentially a middle class fear only, far removed from the stark terror in police states, there is a third welcome outcome: the PAP leaders can turn to their foreign critics and say, ‘Fear? What fear? Do you see anyone in jail?’ For a while, they were politely inviting the critics to come visit Singapore and see for themselves.
There is no doubt that the future will see further finessing of the knuckleduster to adapt even more precisely to the society’s changing ethos. Barring any unexpected external catastrophe, the future of Singapore in the next 10,15 or 20 years, can be reliably extrapolated from this present stable state—the government’s dominance on one side and the people’s compliance on the other, each feeding off and reinforcing the other.
But can it last? Suppose, say by 2030, there has emerged a new breed of Singaporeans, young, bold, fearless. Suppose they form a new opposition party that is refreshingly different from the PAP in being more charismatic, adventurous, idealistic. Suppose that after half a century of PAP leadership, fatigue sets in and Singaporeans yearn for that magical thing called change. Among the restive young, the prospect of liberties never experienced before must be exhilarating. Such is the seductive power of change that even the older generation might be tempted to vote in a charismatic opposition party despite perceiving it to have just 60% or 50% of the famed PAP efficiency.
What will happen then? Will the PAP leaders be put in a corner? Will they feel compelled, in order to save Singapore, to bring out the knuckleduster and start a new cycle of Lee Kuan Yew-style political suppression?
Here’s a bold surmise. Picture this scenario: help comes from an unexpected quarter—China. For years, China has been in the ascendant—economically, politically, militarily, culturally. It has opened up to the world in the fullest possible embrace of capitalism. It has spent much time and money courting smaller nations, particularly those in Africa. It is well on the way to taking over the superpower status of the United States now in decline. It is ready to offer the world an alternative to the western model of liberal democracy, now discredited. Its model is distinguished by its non-ideological, pragmatic and very benign nature, for the goal is no more than creating wealth for the people through competent leadership. Political scientists scramble to find a new name for this exciting innovation,coming up with not-so-elegantisms like ‘managerialism’ or ‘communitarianism’. But China decides to call it ‘The New Democracy’, in a shrewd demonstration of continuity with the past, and readiness to lead for the future.
Where decades ago, the Soviet Union had disastrously tried to open up before the proper structures were in place, making the mistake of allowing glastnost to come before perestroika, China astutely makes sure it’s got the order right. Part of its perestroika is retaining the old mechanisms of control. Its model is thus a skilful blend of two historically opposed systems—autocracy and democracy, and hence is not unlike the existing Singapore model. Indeed, China graciously acknowledges that the inspiration had come from the tiny city state. For back in the 70s Deng Xiaoping paid a visit to Singapore, was shown around by Lee Kuan Yew, and must have been so impressed that he took back ideas which resulted in the eventual remaking of China. While little Singapore had been in no position to tell the world that the so-called autocratic Lee Kuan Yew model was really the most democratic in creating wealth and a middle class, China, the new behemoth, makes this claim with every confidence and flair. It attracts a large following. It proudly ushers in a new era in history. When China and Singapore thus stand side by side on the world stage, the Lee Kuan Yew legacy will be celebrated in a way that he could never have dreamt of.
I did warn about a writer’s imaginative excesses! We can also be hopelessly, incurably idealistic and romantic, continuing to believe in those intangibles and abstractions called freedom, human rights, the human spirit, etc. which have no place in the realpolitik of the China-Singapore model but which thankfully are provided for in the still existing system of liberal democracy. This system is by no means perfect but it is history’s best shot at achieving justice in an imperfect world. For even if the real-life practice of democracy is dismayingly far from the ideal, as is indeed evident everywhere, the very presence of the ideal means that there can be international disapproval and redress. But remove it, declare its demise, and there will be a rapid backward slide to the old abuses that it had tried to correct in the first place.
The futuristic China-Singapore model of governance, despite its glow, lacks this sacrosanct quality of the democratic model. For instead of the premise that since leaders are likely to abuse their power, the necessary checks and balances must be given to the people, the China-Singapore model has it the other way round: the leaders themselves are good enough to be entrusted with the checks and balances. Clearly, the model will only work in the hands of righteous, impeccable leaders such as Plato’s philosopher-kings or Confucius’ rulers carrying the mandate of Heaven. But as we all know, in the real world there is a depressing lack of such. A Deng Xiaoping or a Lee Kuan Yew may never come our way again. After them, such a model could be disastrous.
If man does not live by bread alone, a nation does not survive in the long term by material prosperity alone. I’m going to risk being churlish and say that as long as Singapore’s leaders do not pay heed to the fundamental needs of the human spirit, they can never be called wise, only clever, and as long as the nation they lead is admired only for its material achievements, it can never be called great, only successful.
February 25th, 2008 at 2:13 am
Catherine, I have always been a fan of your fiction writing, and am mightily pleased to see that your astute perceptions and inimitable flair are being used to shed some light and debate on our political sphere. I am very intrigued with the notion of a younger more charismatic opposition party rising up to charm a nation of jaded voters down the road – it seems to me that such a scenario is already being lived out in the United States, where the young and charismatic Barack Obama, in his campaign for change, has taken a nation of voters, disillusioned with the system currently entrenched, by storm. Although Hillary Clinton might arguably be the more efficient and experienced politician, as the PAP would most certainly be in your scenario, perhaps voters would rather sacrifice some efficiency for a breath of fresh air. And while one might argue that the middle-class Singaporeans, content in their material comfort and well-being, would be apathetic towards such change given the good life they currently enjoy, the fact that Obama’s voters have cut across both racial and economic divide is a compelling indication that even when people are materially comfortable, the promise of change from a government that has stopped heeding their voices is a promise people are willing to take a risk for.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Good people all both far and near, Pray, lend me now your ears; If but you find the song unclear, It had me some ten years.
In Sing Town there was once a man, The place his very name, Who refused to stray out his den, So brought his people shame.
The rough and tough they sent to coax, Our man budged not an inch; He thought it was but all a hoax, Th’knowing which was a cinch.
One pair of man’s best friend was sent, Thus, to lay siege on he, The one of them a hide unkempt, Th’other mad pedigree.
The one told tales deplorable, And how to work the hind; The other a fab’list moral, Yet was not without sin.
In the noise and death and half-rhyme, One could discern indeed, ‘Twas for more than an hundredth time, The whelp it was was bit.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
I really think its time that our PAP government has really to think hard before they ever start employing big-bully tactics against any of our opposition members or any section of the community. What really pisses me off is their total disregard for the Rule of Law as well as having no respect for our very basic human rights as if we Singaporeans have given them the absolute right to govern us in any manner that they deem fit.
With hindsight, I think the following examples of past events should not have occured at all, what more in a country where its leaders constantly professes to the whole world that the Rule of Law in this country will be greatly respected :-
1) banning of protests held by any member of the public. 2) banning of political films made by Martyn See. 3) banning of a cycling event organised by Workers’ Party. 4) banning of a outdoor picnic organised by a gay group. 5) banning of a jogging event organised by a gay group.
The continued banning of such non-violent events only reinforces the perception that our PAP government is actually insecure in obtaining people’s vote and would not hesitate to resort to any unfair tactic in order to silent any opposing view to be heard.
So my advice for the PM is that if some day you want to lose your seat to the opposition, please continue in your efforts to fix the opposition.
February 26th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Alan Wong has succinctly described part of the Singapore Political History in his post above which I certainly share.
As for the future, I do not foresee any Singaporean able to successfully bring about any political change. Let us say the iron hands of the Present Leaders will come down on any opposition and that is just the first premise. The next step that it will take to ensure that it remains in power as it had done in the past, is to make sure it cripple the Oppositions before any election takes place.
Any Singaporean, who believes that ‘our’ namesaked democracy could enable future oppositions to replace(oust) the Present Leadership, is but wishing against hope.
In a few years later, Singapore may have as much as half of its’ population comprises of foreign talents. On the other hand, many better educated and successful local born Singaporeans would have left for other shores. The average Singaporeans will be those left due to their inabilities to go elsewhere as well as those who simply choose to stay. I will say that there are many loyal Singaporeans and many who care not about politics.
Having said the above, I like to gamble to say that there is possibility that political changes in Singapore maybe be triggered by external factors. And another remote possibility will be that the Ruling Party changes its’ tack in dealing with the Citizenry.
February 26th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Hi, like to add a concluding sentence, that the Ruling Party may change its’ tack with the Citizenry. But it will never change it(tack) for opposition political parties.
February 29th, 2008 at 4:04 am
Hi all,
May I say you’ve become political, and not profoundly so.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:32 am
There are two ways to get out of this quandary:
Use yr vote wisely – vote them out or cut themdown to 51%.
Vote with yr feet – migrate! send yr children overseas for studies to anchor in a new life!
February 29th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Catherine, you seriously need to get up to speed on your knowledge or get someone like that darkness chap from the brotherhood press to give you a 101 tic-tac-toe on politics.
I dont mean to come across as rude or brusque. However, Catherine, you just come across as incredibly shallow and silly to a thinking audience.
It would have worked in the undergrad forum, but in a post-grad facility, I don’t believe there was much lee-room for beliefs.
I was one of those who saw you live. Do take this positively, I mean well.
March 1st, 2008 at 10:00 am
Grossian,
I think there is much irony in your statement about undergrad and postgrad attitudes.
For in your critique, you do not reference any examples from Catherine’s text.
Instead, you have chosen to attack her.
If anything, I think you should be directing the “shallow and silly” label at yourself.
March 1st, 2008 at 9:08 pm
I’ve been quietly writing, commenting and mainly dissenting the status quo in S’pore from an Objectivist-Libertarian-Anarcho Capitalist perspective.
I often place my “Liberty” compass on S’pore and am occasionally “happy” when the reforms conform to the respect for:
1 Individual Liberty
2 Private Property Rights
To me it is unimportant that S’pore becomes “more democratic”. What IS important to me is that THE SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUAL gets the respect he deserves as his “natural right”, and the right to own any property, legally acquired policed HEAVILY by the Rule Of Law, readily upheld in the courts.
“Democracy” is nothing but mob-majority rule, and it s threat to individual sovereignty and the right to legally aquire and own as much property as one’s talents and abilities would allow. I therefore support FREEDOM—which means individual freedom. Democracy is a “nice addition”, but let’s get it right and start respecting The Individual first.
March 3rd, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Who is that ‘darkness chap from the brotherhood press’? Sounds like an intriguing fellow.
March 3rd, 2008 at 4:21 pm
MS,
The legal rights you’ve alluded to exist in the statutes, just that in practice they’re accorded only to privileged individuals.
March 10th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Bravo! This is an excellent commentary! The concluding paragraph really does sum up LKY’s bittersweet, somewhat pathetic legacy. In the end he will die a bitter, vengeful man, forever regretting that fate dealt him a rotten hand; the best he could do was to completely take over a small island and remake it completely in his image. He tried, of course, for bigger things – he tried to take over Malaysia. When rebuffed, he famously wept on TV. But he carries this grudge to the grave. For the next four decades Malaysia and Singapore relations have suffered.
LKY does not realise that what makes a great leader are character and compassion, ideals that are foreign to someone who recommended Machiavelli’s The Prince to his son as required reading for politics. When future histories of the world are written, he may be no more than a footnote, while truly great leaders like Gandhi and Aung Sung Suu Kyi will continue to be remembered, admired, even loved, by future generations.
March 17th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
From: Jufrie…posted on Samboy Kopitiam comment please!
cell:9062715 email: prospersingapore@yahoo.com.sg
new dawn in Malaysia? in SG many new dawns have come and gone. but we slumbered on. didn’t we? never mind the PAP the oppo must extricate ourselves from time wrap we are in. too many are living in the past. ..self censorship is the worse curse in oppo. it is time to look at ourselves as a microcosm of society. internal debates must be part and parcel of our growth. just look at the public contest between Obama and Hillary…intolerance like Tokselehon’s detrimental to growth. In any case the datok title is useless, feudal and obsolete.
so what now for the SG oppo future? God forbid if it should be stuck in the tikam tikam mode. Malaysian Hindraf and NGOs didn’t play a small part in their new dawn, remember! unfortunately Tikam tikam circus is still embraced by big sections of oppo. these people like the Tok should come down this Saturday 15 March at 1pm for the street protest against rising cost of living. assembly point: funan centre.
political formation: one of the biggest issues underlying the future of SG pol culture is the lack of space and resource for pol formation.even the MM admits that the Cabinet lacks combat experience. thanks no doubt to the GRC system etc. soooo what more us ordinary mortals. which is why robust and rigourous debates must be encouraged on the internet. and self censorship taboo.
so far university academics and the media have recognised that as election strategies go …..the oppo by- election strategy (BEES) which worked in 1991, bringing in an unprecedented 4 MPs ….is probably one of the very few innovative ideas that has come out of the present day oppo people. but as usual it was treated as nothing more than a tikam tikam good fortune. soooo there was complete disregard of the rationale behind the BEES. it was meant to buy the oppo, political formation and preparation time. with an understanding that the perceptive electorate is justified in fearing a “freak” result whereby first timers get to topple an experienced govt. the 4 MPs then refused to see beyond their noses, to share work to monitor the various Ministries….as a shadow Cabinet. much less build a movement outside parliament. not even citizens’ groups were built within oppo constituencies. in fact Ling How Dong categorically said to reporters, “we are just individuals”.
sooo the current hoohah against so called self appointed PAP guardian angels in the shape of the approved oppo like the wayang puki must be seen in a wider context. what is the use of having all the sam vellus in the world to represent you? our approved oppo is no less a giant of a stumbling block. ….might as well not be there.I have said that repeatedly in public. they don’t deserve to be there in Parliament. the process of getting Sam V out of parliament has resulted in a phenomenal increase in Indian representation in Parliament(15) and State Assemblies(heck of a lot). well above their national average population figure. soooooo get them PAP approved MPs out. no love lost. more oppo will get in.
March 17th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
my cell: 90627615(corrected)
March 20th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Hi Poh Imm, I am from Kulim, St Anne’s Convent, and I don’t know if you can remember me, but I was your classmate. I’d like to talk to you, so give me a call at 63485921.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
I suppose I’d write something similar as well later in my new blog. Actually, PAP as any other parties in this known world would, needs to know how to gain worthy support.
MM’s leadership is derived from his fights with the communists, and starting with his righteous services to the people. PAP’s role to be able to take care of the population and rid evils (at least in appearance) was a sharp contrast to the pompous but useless British colonial masters.
The colonial masters themselves ain’t that gentlemanly as well. In a China saying: 唪里有压迫唪里就有å弹。It’s only a matter of time.
When I was in China, I was told that China can’t follow Singapore’s style of governance in order to avoid a revolt. China people obviously understand the risks. In China, messes like the Tibetan situation now are highly possible, and many were covered but happening.
March 25th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Interesting. Very conclusive. But the LKY style of governance have already started to change ever since GCT took over the reigns of governance. Many people describe GCT as a seat warmer, but he did start the process of liberalisation.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:46 am
To democratize the LKY model of govt:
1) You have to pass the bill or amend the constitution to give room for a less-restrained mass-media to develop. The media must exist as a coexisting third party and a channel for democracy to flourish.
2) You need to have someone to remove the inertia to change. Normally the PM/Head of state will lay the path for change gradually just like Lee Teng Hui in Taiwan. It’s very unlikely to occur when the Lee family is still in control and power. That means during Lee Hsien Loong’s reign, don’t expect much to happen. If he wanted to liberalize the country, he could have done it while he was working his way up. The possible time-frame is therefore about 20-30 years later.
3) When Singapore realize that it can no longer only rely on stability for prosperity, it is time to push for changes. The LKY model is built to stabilize the country on the expenses of people. That was a good trade off because this allows us a huge competitive advantage in the turbulent SEA region. If Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand can improve in all aspects and threaten to lure away the investors, Singapore will start to lose its attractiveness for the investors. When this happens, we need to change to adapt.
Ironically, it is the external environment that determines the fate of Singapore’s governance. No one can say for sure what’s going to happen but being the pragmatic lot, Singapore will only react if there is a real threat to our country’s prosperity. Those pushing for changes without the backdrop of huge deterioration of the people’s livelihood, will only have their voices appear as background noises.
just my 2 cents bean
March 27th, 2008 at 2:25 am
If one has eaten m&m chocolates before, one would realise that all that talk about it not melting in your hands is utter nonsense. If your hands are wet, you will still get a mess, period. What’s the connection to your commentary? PAP can paint any rosy picture it likes but there will come a day when the climate of change dictates that the rosy picture evaporates to reveal the true state of affairs in Singapore. How? A pair of hands grappling with each other to handle the chocolates, turning wet with sweat. Now imagine a divided, post-Lee dynasty PAP. Get the picture? Only PAP can destroy PAP, and we can already see the signs, albeit consumed with some bitter pills prescribed by Dr Lee. Chocolates anyone?
March 28th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
The “restive young” who have seen the world would come back with ideals and impressions of liberalism which may not be applicable when transplanted to the local context.
Are Singaporeans ready for democracy? As we all know, years of conditioning have made us complacent and apathetic.
Even in free America, it is puzzling how the electorate’s choices defy logic and reason. Many online discussions are mere outlets to vent frustrations, sometimes incredibly immature and wet blanketing, rather than offering constructive ideas and intellectual debate.
The rules of the game are set by the powers and can be tweaked and changed to suit certain political purposes and intent. Stretch them a little, they would still be considered “legal” and “constitutional”. It is still “democracy” in form even though it is lacking in spirit.
With so many people wanting to vote with their feet, it is not very hopeful that any meaningful changes will come about in the near future. As for the rest of the masses, chasing the Singapore dream of materialism will continue to preoccupy their time and energies to really care about such estoeric ideals.
March 28th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Great nations are able to weather storms of internal strife and external threats. Compared to the original LKY model,there have been some positive changes. But politics has not reached the maturity where the incumbent government for decades is prepared for level playing field to compete with the opposition. Sadly, this will only stifle good ideas and discourage good men from serving the country.
http://oneworldtalk.freeforums.org/portal.php
March 28th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
No offence, but while the article is well written,the opinions expressed are hardly fresh.
Do not underestimate “people power”. The reason why the PAP gets to stay i power is because people allow them to. Historically, no matter how suppressed a people was, when enough proved enough, they would revolt. PAP has by and large been able to deliver what most people want.
Somebody mentioned Obama. It’s early days whether he’ll become the next president of the USA. Even if he does, only time can tell whether he’ll be an effective one. The thing with the USA is that they can survive whatever political turmoil a period of ineffective leadership may bring and bounce back in no time. Not so Singapore. Yeah, you’re going to say oh that’s the PAP line, but I happen to believe that this is the case.
Like many others, I’d love to hear more opposition voices in parliament, but not any Tom, Dick and Harry, please. They have to be of comparable quality. Somehow, we tend to be go easier on opposition candidates. It seems as long as they oppose the PAP, we love them, regardless of their caliber. The PAP are harsh on them, but that’s because they feel they’re not good enough. And to be harsh on them, they have to have something for them to pick on and exploit. Look at Chiam and Low, they’ve been in parliament forever.
March 30th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
After reading your article (in fact I read all your articles and speeches), and after reading all the above comments, I can’t help but come to my conclusion:
If I hope to see changes, then I will have to wait until I get old and probably hopeless. Therefore, why the hack should I stay in this place while I am still young?
That is my conclusion and my heart shall follow my brain.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Dear Catherine,
Are you Singaporean or Malaysian ?
I am Indonesian and admired Mr. Lee Kuan Yew. Singapore is truly fortunate to have a person of integrity, honest, dedicated, trustworthy, and ready to give his life for the advancement of the country. He is very courageous and not looking for fame and honor ! He is rare species indeed. The ONLY Asia stateman who is respected and admired world wide by other Leaders. Even Mr. Deng Xiao Ping also learn from him.
A quote from Sun Tzu sum up his quality ” The general who advances without coveting fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only thought is to protect his country and do good service for his sovereign, is the jewel of the kingdom “
I do not believe that the singaporean government instilling fear to their the citizen politically or economically instead they provide safety and security and equal opportunity for its people to prosper. Of course if one up to no good then they would fear the consequences..and they should be punish for the benefit of the society as a whole..maintain peace and harmony.
I have seen gradual changes with the government to cope with change of society and world. Mr. Lee Kuan Yew himself is the advocate of change..but change according to one country…one can not generalized the pace of change for every country..lok at what happened to soviet union. Godd and clean government must remain the same. In fact, the government is taking a very long view with leadership change and economic outlook for the benefit of the people..they have done a great job.
Of course to critize is easy and there will always be people with negative thinking and/or others being sponsored by third parties to cause havoc in the country.
I have many Singaporeans friends who has been to Indonesia and other asean countries and feel how fortunate they are. No one or no other county is perfect only God is perfect.
To sum up : “Find fault with thyself rather than with others” Tokugawa Ieyasu
“Spend your life lifting people up not putting people down”. —H. Jackson Brown-
Cheers..
April 1st, 2008 at 3:43 am
Jeez Ajis,
I think you said it all: you’re not Singaporean… do you at least live in the country? I especially like that bit about “equal opportunity for its people to prosper”. Didn’t you hear about that hoo-hah about some PAP minister’s daughter and her elitist views?
As for “safety and security” I’m sure you’ve heard about golden cages.
Criticism CAN be easy but I think that Ms. Lim advocates a positive alternative: CHANGE.
Now let’s see when we preening canaries can get over the colour of our plumage and bust out of that cage..
April 1st, 2008 at 5:11 pm
VV I do not live in Spore but i have been to Singapore since I was a child…so I know what is like living and working there. If a non Singaporean can admired your government and its leaders..then you should be proud of it.
Perhaps you should experience staying / living in Indonesia then you would appreciate what you have there, perhaps became a bit appreciative what the Government and Mr. Lee & his colleques had done for the country.
Just wondering why you call yourself a preening canaries in golden cages. You can be an eagle..why not. “you can if you think you can” (Dr. Norman V. Peale)
Change is easy if for oneself. But the business of Government is not only change but importanly to ensure that it will benefit the country and the people as a whole. what is the use of change if it will bring calamity to the people and the country…like Mr. Lee said..are you willing to pay for the price and accept the consequences ? you can not turn back the clock.
Trust your Government and your Leaders..they have the interest of the people at heart. Be patient. They are there not for popularity and not doing things just because some people voice out something…
April 4th, 2008 at 1:19 am
Caherine,
Can you show the proof that the Government of Singapore using fear to govern ! This is a very very serious allegation.
If you can not show the proof then it seems that you are just another popularity seeker and in fact you truly do not have the interest of the people of singapore a your heart other than just eloquent writing…much ado about nothing.
in the name “freedom†and “democracy†based on your personal view..you just tried to accused the government and PM without a fact that they ruled by fears.
You are getting older and older and still do not get it. Be like wine..taste better as it became older.. not sour. Face it..you are a novelist but not political analyst or political commentator
If you seriously think so and get your fact right then by all means challenge the government in court or on debate on TV instead of just trying to be a popularity seeker. Perhaps, this is why the government or PM dismissed you just another problem child..not worthy of attention. It seems that they are very correct to do so.
In addition, since you are very bitter with Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, challenge him now..he is no longer PM though now MM. You did not dare to challenge him when he was in PM office instead you made critical commentary to Mr. Goh Chok Tong when he was PM in 1994..
Just to remind you and others, this is what Mr. Lee Kuan Yew said about you
†Let me put this. Supposing CATHERINE LIM was writing about me and not the prime minister (Mr. Goh Chock Tong) …SHE WOULD NOT DARE, RIGHT ? because my posture, my response has been such that nobody doubts that if you take me on, I will put on knuckle-dusters and catch you in a cul-de-sac…anybody who decides to take me on needs to put on knuckle-dusters. If you think you can hurt me more than I can hurt you,try.†Lee Kuan Yew, the man and his ideas, page 126.
What do you say to view of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew ??? So if you dare go after the man.
This is what the great statesman said about the business of government and his view on the press/media.
“My colleques and I have the responsibility to neutralise their intentions (if the press/newspaper stir up sentiments over issues of culture,language, and idealogy). in such a situation, freedom of press, freedom of news media, must be subordinated to the overriding needs of the integrity of Singapore, and to the primary purposes of an elected government.†Lee Kuan Yew,speech on international press institute, june 9, 1971.
“Singapore domestic debate is a matter of Singaporeans. We allow American journalists in Singapore in order to report Singapore to their fellow countryment. We allow their papers to sell in Singapore so that we can know what foreigners are reading about us. But we can not allow them to assume a role in Singapore that the American media play in America, that of invigilator,adversary, and inquisitor of the administration. If we allow to do so, they will radically change the nature of Singapore society, and I doubt if our social glue is strong enough to withstand such treatment†Lee Kuan yew, speech to the American Society of newspaper editors, April 4, 1998.
Further lesson on freedom and democracy…please read Mr.Lee books to see the rationale of the great statesman.
Take care.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
LKY,
This is not the way to read people or their books. If Catherine is a Singaporean, she can and should engage in debate of domestic nature.
MM is refering to a Catherine Lim who challenges for the sake of challenging, or just… being enemy for the sake of just being enemy. Do you think MM is someone who’d give you a punch if you earnestly tell him that the seat he’d have chosen was actually ready to break and he should choose another?
The senior statesman does listen, that’s his habit. Sometimes when you read paragraphs… it’s just not enough. You have to try understand him, and his position. But of cos, the grandpa here could be too stubborn at times. Then you’d have to try to make him see your points… Of cos, I myself have to be prepared for the worst whenever I bring something up. We are all just humans.
MM is a western educated. Between gentlemanly exchanges, I doubt he’d just throw in the knuckleduster just becos you don’t agree with him, or even argue with him. He’s good to personal friends, he loves his wife and is proud of his kids. He was a fighter with such a character. He is influenced heavily by happenings of his time.
He is serious no doubt, but if we do have the intention of goodness, why do I or anybody need to fear of his knuckleduster more than his (momentary) misunderstanding towards us. He’s a fighter, not a lunatic. He is suspicious, but if you are good, eventually he’d be on your side… I hope.
No one is perfect.
And stop impersonating him, LKY.
That’s something you should n can stop doing.
April 6th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Dear Catherine,
I believe that even if the US weaken as a superpower, its legacy will remain because of the foresight of the people behind the Marshall Plan post WWII. This unique structure allows China to be a responsble international player despite not achieving liberal democracy (Same for Singapore)
It will be interesting to se if China as a superpower will outlast Great Britain’s. The GB’s blend of superpower involves colonising resource rich countries to feed its industrial needs, and at the same time, forcing the same colonies to buy its industrial output. What is the characteristics of China’s supremist strategy? What is often forgotten is the rise of India. As a democracy, it does not have to shout its success to the world, but my graphs are showing that India is outperforming China in several key economic areas.
Hopefully, India will be able to make up for the loss of US influence, and keep China in check.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
In the 4 decades I have spent on this planet 2 have been in Australia, one in the USA and almost one in Singapore. I am not a citizen here but I do pay taxes. I feel compelled to add to this debate because I have lived in these places. My wife is Singaporean as is my son and step son, so it is fair to say I have a vested interest in the politics here.
I must say I am astounded by the debate. It seems implied that the relatively recent internationalisation of Singaporeans education brings with it the right to protest (aka democratic freedom of speech.) Maybe it does, but protest without logical and well thought out alternative is just noise. The US is seen as the pinnacle of democracy and I am dismayed that highly educated Singaporeans can not weigh the pros and cons of the current US election campaign against their own system of government. If they do so, I can not fathom how they could come to the conclusion that theirs is the lesser of the two. The effectiveness of each incumbent government in the US is measured in days. The political observers give the president 100 days to accomplish something, anything, after that relatively little progress is made. I have not studied this but there seems to be a number of studies, book etc that try to validate it. I have no desire to study this. So in each 1461 day term 100 are fruitful. I deduce from my own observation that the remaining 1361 days are spent; thanking their past campaign contributors, lobbying future campaign contributors, justifying why they did or did not propose, ratify or amend a law, endless discussion with opposition voting members on how to word something so to best get it passed, i.e. trying to maintain some semblance of the benefit to its citizens it had when first tabled, lobbying for re-election, explaining why they are at war, discrediting the opposition, even when an idea by them may be the perfect solution, oh while I am listing please check the dictionary definition of filibuster and tell me why it has a place in governing in the best interest of the people. I won’t go on
Let me preface this next part by saying that I never met a Singaporean politician, I have never read any of the famed memoirs, although I do plan to, and I have nothing to gain by my post beyond the satisfaction of being able to have a small say on the issue (did I allude to freedom of speech in Singapore, yes it’s a reality.) An “altruistic politician” is a very rare, indeed, almost impossible thing to find, it could in fact be an oxymoron. As with most new comers my early days here did contain some scoffing at what seemed to be incredible controls by the government over its people. I have come to realise through discussion with locals and living here that your government has done everything and anything it can to enhance the day to day lives of its people, its people’s future and to ensure that subsequent generations enjoy the same benefits. It certainly appears that LKY was and is altruistic in governance. I do however feel government may have given a little
It is quite obvious that when one says government herethey imply LKY and family etc, and I think that from an outsider’s perspective it is abundantly clear that the government has relentlessly pursued the success of Singapore with complete disregard for their own individual benefit. Your government is devoid of corruption, it is beyond reproach and until there is confounding evidence to the contrary, why should it have to waste valuable time defending itself against an unquestionable track record?
Democracy for some strange reason drags with it the phrase ‘checks and balances.’ Firstly the possibility of checks and balances only exists when the people are more divided in their voting preferences. If they are more aligned then the government may have the majority when it comes to passing legislation. Which means one of two things good laws get enacted because of little unnecessary resistance or laws are enacted which appear to benefit the masses but make the grade due to the future political capital it may bring. Yes, I am a sceptic. When the checks and balances exist due to the electoral divide good laws get held up until enough compromise has filtered in that it distils the spirit of the originally tabled legislation or until it becomes politically beneficial to get it enacted. It is for this very reason that the issue of health care in the US will most probably never be properly addressed and will remain top three on the each candidates focus list for time immemorial.
The Singapore government appears to look, listen, discuss (internally and I suspect with industry and possibly academia these days) proposes, implements, monitors, and adjusts plans it believes will be of ongoing benefit to the country and therefore its people. It is looked at from offshore as a corporation, meaning it pursues profit and has little interest in being an indebted nation. I strongly suspect the CEO’s of the world’s top ten companies envy its track record not to mention their shareholders.
In Catherine Lim’s article I did find common ground in her last paragraph as I too think what Singapore lacks is soul. I do feel a definite lack of community spirit, of charity of the kind I am used too and a distinct lack of artistic expression for arts sake and frankly feel the country would benefit from an increased awareness of this. This is indeed an interesting topic in itself.
If there is one criticism I have of the Singapore government it is the apparent insistence of projecting a democratic process. There are better and more appropriate terms and if used I think it could promote a healthier debate from the people, specifically those who study abroad and believe they are bringing good ideas back home. The hardness of LKY has been referenced a number of times in this debate generally from the perspective of fear. I challenge those who do not like the status quo to raise to the government strong, viable alternatives to the current system. I do not believe western democracy is the answer. I do not think those who propose it have seriously weighed the perceived benefits of “checks and balances†against the Singapore government having to move from at full time government to a part time government/ part time justification of its candidacy. Let’s mention Obama again, it matters little what he thinks he can achieve nor what the people hope he can achieve, the US political system decides how successful he will be and he has four years to do it in. It would be lose-lose if you asked the government here to change its focus from the long term benefit of the country. The face of the Singapore government leads me to believe that you would get an all ears audience with the MM or whomever you wish to speak to if you do have a good alternative, one that is thought out practical, forward thinking, and beneficial to the long term goals of the country. Don’t just ask for change and leave it there, propose something. If you want to be an opponent then have an alternative. I do suggest though you don’t spend your valuable time looking for alternatives. As a foreigner I can see from the outside and I think you have it great, your standard of living is phenomenal, you want for nothing, the government won’t let you go with out, you are safe and you are respected. I recommend the wonderful energy you have be better spent looking how to tweak and improve the current system, not changing it. Yes there is definitely cause for the every day person to wonder what happens after he goes, but don’t worry too much as I am sure he started thinking about that decades years ago. I better stop.
April 15th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Elfred, It seems you just did not get it. I am a great admirer of LKY and believe he and his team had done great things for the country and its people..in fact for south east asia countries.
I am just fed up with catherine for trying to find faults in the LKY and the government..thats why I quoted the great statesman.
I totally agree with djf above…that is a very rationale writing. instead spending time finding faults (unless they have diferent agenda) ..if you are sincere why don’t you channel your energy like what djf said above “I recommend the wonderful energy you have be better spent looking how to tweak and improve the current system, not changing it.”
well done djf ..finally I found a sensible writing with great practicality…not just much ado about nothing. Salute.
Cheers,
April 15th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Elfred, It seems you just did not get it. I am a great admirer of LKY and believe he and his team had done great things for the country and its people..in fact for south east asia countries.
I am just fed up with catherine for trying to find faults in the LKY and the government..thats why I quoted the great statesman. Of course the great statesman hear and listen if you have better solutions and dismiss people without any substance unless you challenge / defame him.
I totally agree with djf above…that is a very rationale writing. instead spending time finding faults (unless they have different agenda) ..if you are sincere why don’t write for the better like what djf said above “I recommend the wonderful energy you have be better spent looking how to tweak and improve the current system, not changing it.”
well done djf ..finally I found a sensible writing with great practicality…not just much ado about nothing…talking freedom and democracy as if they know so much about it. Salute.
Cheers,
April 16th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
The divide, rule and tikam(stabing) by Maurice neo choon aik within the opposition block is more dangerous than lky pap.
BEES, 3 corner fight like the ones at gombak 1997 GE are some of the tactics of him and suggested by him in the Sammyboy’s threads.Vulgarities are his main thrust.Just look at his thread and you soon realise that he is infact anti opposition’s growth.
Funny,it does not go down too well with forummers either.
So,my question is,why is he tikam members of the opposition.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
‘They don’t deserve to be in Parliament,said Jufrie.
Jufrie also does not even understand as to why many opposition members including it’s leaders did not go to street protest against rising cost of living.
Are they also approved oppositions by pap as to what he suggested?
Look at him.
Is he detrimental to the opposition’s growth?
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:46 am
Hi everyone,
I am a German, so I do not know how qualified I am to take part in this discussion, but I have had a long interest in S’pore and have some dear S’porean friends whom I met in Berlin. As I understand Ms Lim, she did not say that the PAP is creating fear, is using fear or the like. But she pointed out that there IS some fear with some people, and that has to be taken seriously. When an opposition leader says, S’pore is ruled by fear, it does not necessarily mean that your leaders want this, but it does mean that the feeling is there, and it might be a good idea to try and find out (by means of a survey maybe) what or whom people are afraid of and why. Then the subject can be dealt with. As to the remarks about the US, I doubt whether everybody in the West sees them as the big great model for democracy. I personlly like their idea of freedom of speech (I once heard President Bush say in this country you can say what you like, even suggest UBL for the Nobel peace prize), on the other hand this ‘freedom” has negative sides, too. There are Nazis in the US, there are strange cults, anything goes … For us in Germany particularly the freedom for the Nazis is not very nice … Over here, Sweden and Switzerland are sometimes considered good models. There is no perfect democracy anywhere, I do not think, but it is certainly nice to be able to vote and elect leaders, who see themselves as responsible to their people, cos if they do not perform well they will not be elected again. We sometimes say our leaders (in Germany) serve “by the grace of the people” which is what the Greek word “democracy” means, and if we have the impression one chancellor does not govern well, we elect another one (BTW Ms Merkel said once “I want to serve Germany” and it came across as genuine so she was elected.
Sorry to be so long. Greeting to sunny S’pore
from
Wolfgang
April 24th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Dear Mr Wolfgang,
Thanks for your thoughts. We appreciate.
It is good to make the elected person to serve “by the grace of the people”. The big problem in Singapore is that most of us don’t get to vote. So how can we elect the “elected” person?
From 1966, when I reached the eligible age to vote, until the last General Elections in 2006, I only voted twice. (We have General Elections every 4-5 years.)
You will ask me: “Why?” The answer is:
We have an Elections Department (ED) that is not independent. It is directly under the control of the Prime Minister’s Office and the PM has the full authority to instruct the people in the ED what to do. As such, the system and mechanics of elections keep changing every time the elections come around – e.g. the electoral boundaries of each constituency are redrawn, an ever-expanding group-representation (GRC) is implemented to replace individual representation, and obstacles are put up to make it very difficult for more people to want to come out and stand for election against the ruling party. As a result, opposition political parties become very weak and we have limited choices of capable opposition candidates to fight against the ruling party. Therefore, most of the constituencies have walk-overs and those who are eligible to vote simply have no chance to vote at all. This state of affairs goes on and on for the last 40 years. As such, I managed to vote only twice in 40 years.
What can we do when the power that be is so powerful, yet we can do nothing about it, accept to complain and complain, at the risk of being black-marked for life?
From: A Fearful Singaporean.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:30 am
Catherine,
Thanks for a most prescient article, and while I have to agree with some of your commentators that not all your points are new, the way you presented it sure was entertaining.
I was taking the time to read all the comments, and they were certainly heartfelt and I can understand where they were coming from until I got to those by our foreign commentators. While they of course have the right to fair comment, the lack of true insight left a bad taste in my mouth and so I desisted from continuing to read them. I just would like to quote this to them:
<>
Please don’t hinder a people’s struggle to democracy. I agree that there is no perfect place in this world, but please don’t hinder us from trying to make things better. Please don’t foist your opinion on us like it’s god-given self-evident truth, there’s more than meets the eye here. Your countries have the benefit of hundreds of years of recorded history, you have now built a civilization, a culture, a common history for your people, foundation stones for what is called a nation, while Singapore is in the history of the world a young baby.
LKY’s, indeed the PAP’s, success can only be truly established when in a hundred year’s from now, Singapore is still existing. There is a need to build something sustainable (from 3rd world to 1st in 30 years, the cracks are showing, see UN’s GINI index), something that can grow and evolve (reference the lament on lack of creativity which would inhibit this evolution), and not like fireworks, brilliant for its 30seconds, and gone forever. I wish us luck and political diversity and maturity to be able to sustain the next 100 years.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:32 am
The quote which disappeared was
Ah, it’s all very well for you to speak like that, but we have to live in this country – A Passage to India, EM Forster.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Dear Jamie and dear Mr. “fearful Singaporean”,
my apologies if I offended anyone speaking from abroad. This was not certainly not my intention. On the other hand, like I pointed out, I am not completely ignorant about Singapore. And does it not sometimes help to read about an outsider’s view? “Hindering people in their struggle for democracy” would be the least thing I wanted to do, believe me. May I point out one thing to you, Jamie? You said, quoting EM Forster, “we have to live in this country”. Do you? There is an old saying: “Change it, love it, or leave it.” It is your choice: Accept the good sides and put up with the rest, try and reform, however long it may take and however hard it may be … or leave the country. You people have all it takes: Education, know how and a command of the English language. The world is open to you. And if you have tried hard, you are not a “quitter”. Different from our country (at least East Germany) there are no walls to keep you in. There may be psychological pressure, but that can be overcome, can it not? You decide.
Best from Wolfgang
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Catherine, you’re cool.
The time will come when Singaporeans will have had enough. Now is a time when no one “dares” to speak out or face, you know who. However,
When the general is gone and laid to rest. When there are ashes scattered and candles lit. When tears are shed but none really weep. When a statue is placed and none look. The people will emerge for fear has left.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Taking a leaf out of Ms. Lim’s book, a tongue in cheek “worst case scenario” for Singapore in 30 years…
“decapitating” brain drain sets in primarily due to frustration caused by the continued prevention of the liberalisation and democratization of Singapore. Press freedom remains non-existent and all foreign news agencies save for Reuters and Bloomberg are banned. After much public debate and feedback, it is now statutorily illegal to have a public gathering of more than 2 people. One needs to apply in writing to the Ministry of Security for an internet connection. A key leader of the main opposition “New Reform” Party has trumped up criminal charges brought against him for sodomy and suits brought for defamation and tax evasion. [He is however a Catholic priest]. The opposition leader is sentenced to 10 years imprisonment by the District Judge who, in the course of the trial, asked 84 questions of the main prosecution witness (the altar boy) and thereby managed to extract the allegedly incriminating evidence. On his appeal, it is increased to 20 years hard labour. [However, in a twist of fate, he escapes (through the front gate) from a high security detention centre and manages, despite a 5-year islandwide ISD led search, to hide himself in Bukit Timah Nature Reserve, where incidentally, he lived happily ever after]. The affluent upper middle class, most of whom had the foresight to build nest eggs in their motherlands of India and China, have in the past 5-10 years pressed the eject button and returned, thankful, among other things, that they had been forced to learn their mother tongues.
In an effort to continue attracting FDI to Singapore, wages continue to be artificially depressed even though cost of living and inflation rise unabated. Trade unionism is banned and the minimum wage bill put forward by the New Reform Party for the 67th time is yet again thrown out. Somalians, Liberians, Rwandans and Ethiopians flood in as the next wave of cheap labour. Always ready to take advantage of any situation, the STB establishes a new tourist attraction, Blacktown, coined by a senior government official, a scholar no less, to promote African culture. The Genie co-efficient continues to rise rapidly and a rising number of Singaporean women become domestic maids, cruelly and ironically fulfilling a warning administered years before. Whole families in the lower middle classes decide to uproot and leave. They try their luck in other SEA nations as they are refused citizenship in their motherlands because of insufficient financial status. In a try on, a group of Singaporeans led by opposition leaders cheekily bring a class action suit against the Queen in the High Court of England on grounds that they were abandoned by Her Majesty to a dictatorial regime. The Queen, advised by emminent QC no less, immediately commences third party proceedings.
local population continues to shrink as no. of births drops. Population continues to age, many senior citizens are abandoned by their families and forced onto the streets. Maintenance of Parents Act prosecutions rise causing deep resentment, especially among the many dinkies (double incomed no kids). The degeneration of the family as an institution sets in.
foreign mercenaries, who remain officially known as “foreign talent”, and now increasingly of Eastern European origin, continue to flow unchecked into the country, hoping to reap quick material success by whatever means. They eventually exceed the local population in number. The government starts a campaign “The Speak Russian Campaign” to encourage locals to learn Russian and integrate. Prostitution and illegal moneylending are rife, particularly in the IR(C)s, where 90% of the available floor space is devoted exclusively to gambling, the remaining 10%, set aside for tacky food courts and go-go bars. Happily though, the entrance fee is just S$2 for each IR(C) located in each and every of the 14 GRCs across the island. Sentosa becomes an exclusive, walled enclave, with 24 hour security, primarily for the rich expatriate community and high ranking government officials. There is increasing coffeshop talk of Sentosa becoming a sovereign city state. An independent ministerial committee is eventually set up to gather public feedback from the expatriate community.
Eventually, an economic depression hits the world. Singapore, a fragile (non) nation, sees a mass exodus of its foreign population and a collapse of its services-based and casino driven economy. Poor Singaporeans are unable to stem the tide.
a long jealous and covetous neighbouring country tries to take over Singapore by force but fails at its first attempt because of a strategically inept seabourne invasion. A Sino-Indian led UN steps in and agrees to demands for the annexation of Singapore on condition that certain races (and all residents of Sentosa) are unharmed. Sentosa is renamed Mona-Lee City and is declared on the year of our Lord 2059 to be an independent sovereign city state after much public feedback and debate. Many refugees are forced to leave in bumboats bound for neighbouring Vietnam.
Singapore and its remaining population returns to an era of colonialisation after almost 100 years of self-rule. As a symbolic act of change management, the new rulers of Singapore tear down all HDB flats and insist that locals must live in Kampongs.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Catherine should just join politics instead of hiding being blog.
May 11th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Catherine, i think you just contradicted yourself somewhere nearing the middle of the writing, when you talked about how the PAP has already started softening their style but in actual fact will continue to be hardlined and treat political opponents with complete fear as during Lee Kuan Yew’s time. Examples that you brought up prove that PAP is softening their stance or in substance as well, and that democratisation is happening slowly but surely, at least from the what it seems now, though i would say the govt is still in a powerful position to stop this process without facing serious political lashback.
May 11th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Wolfgang has a point: Switzerland with five languages and cultures and no resources has had a successful democracy and economy for hundreds of years. Sweden has a successful democracy, economy and socially friendly society. Fear is not necessary. Perhaps LKY has been lucky that his citizens are confuscians and ready to trust undemocratic, elitist authority, even authority that corrupts the courts with defamation cases, the press with censorship and friendly media owners, the councils with apartments and the universities with appointments. Those of us lucky enough to grow up in twentieth century liberal democratic societies enjoyed prosperity freedom, peace, social security, opportunity and respect among citizens unparallellend in the history of the world. Our Western forebears fought hard and made many sacrifices for them. We the inheritors took it easy. We imagined that liberal democracy’s mechanisms were self fulfilling, that they ensured the state of our society. However, we now see that neocon, elitist, crony capitalist dictatorships can corrupt and rule liberal democratic societies. It seems that instead of Asia importing democracy, the Bush US, Howard Australia and Thatcher Britain have imported the LKY model. Elites, like LKY’s cronies, pretend that there are no other honest and talented citizens to replace them. There are endless numbers of such good people. You citizens need only participate and support them. Democracy is not mob rule away from you. It requires the earnest involvement and participation of every citizen. May I suggest you read “Hidden Agendas” by John Pilger and other books by him about the manipulation of liberal democratic mecahnisms by LKY-type elitists and interests in Western countries. Eternal vigilance, citizen involvement and sacrifice are vital, every day, if each citizen loves his liberty and demands honest government.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Catherine,
First of all, I am neither a loyalist of PAP nor a fan of yours.
I found your comment was presented so conveniently, that inconveniently I still would like to share with you my thoughts. If you would post your best ever art work or writing, none will believe that it will be an immortality art piece, which is free of imperfection and flaws. It is always easy and convenience to criticize other’s work, but not being able to volunteer yourself to solve the problem.
Deng Xiao Ping, the China paramount leader once said:” It does not matter whether it is a black cat or white cat, it will be a good cat only if it can catch a mouse.†Since you have so many opinions and ideas about improving our Singapore’s political system, prison cell management etc, why don’t you come forward to offer yourself in front of the electorates to show that you are the saviour, capable and be willing to save them from the traumas and authoritarian. If you don’t, either you sense you are incapable or unwilling. Please keep your mouth shut. Don’t behave like an Indian chief, echoing the ideology (Democratic) from the west, but not being able to comprehensively compromise and balance off its pros and cons and thus give us a better life.
Cat, Cat, tell me are you a good cat? Can you help us (Singaporean) to catch a mouse to prove that you are a good cat?
For being an author of many books, we can not disagree that you have a great command of the English language, but when I read your politically motivated article, it is so hollow and only makes you seem like a 16 year old school girl earnestly seeking an eternal love, and unfortunately, mistakenly reckoned that love can supplement your hunger for a piece of bread
Good bye, Cat.. a black cat or a white cat?
May 28th, 2008 at 11:13 am
I have lived here long enough to understand that PAP has no wish to give up its powers. And it is upon this basis that Lee Kuan Yew and his son rule.
No matter how the debate rattle, the simple truth is any opposition that is seen as a threat PAP will use lawsuits to instill fear on opposition politicians.
I was very pro-PAP in my younger days, you know how easy a young chap gets convinced by PAP propagandas and peer influences. I was even a sports organiser for my Community Center.
I gave up my strong and seemingly unshakable stand for PAP only recently because I am beginning to see the real light of things happening here. I dont like what I am seeing and experiencing as an ordinary financially struggling elder Singaporean.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Catherine
I just want to add that I wish there were more Singaporeans like you who dare speak on the lack of political liberty in Singapore.
Thank you for your brave words and realistic commentaries
August 13th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
whether in the future there will be a new breed of ‘opposition’to take on the authoritatarium and capitalism goverment, will not resulted in a peaceful scenerio, chances of opposition suffers. History will be repeated. The end of any goverment is when the gap of wealth widen and the poors are being deprived of rights, that when the mass will start to revolt. And it is always the cases of the children of the ruling party going about with an dominant attitude and oppressing the mass because of their upbringing of getting whatever they want. And we won’t live to see it happen nor wish to see it….Anywhere Thank you Catherine for your foresight which there is only a few like you has the courage to put fore your view that concerns the future generation,the rest is up to them..you has done a graet deal.
January 21st, 2010 at 2:29 am
hi i one of those being monitored or in a way ” tortured ” ostracised and harrassed by the system by the PAP boys
my named is mr pang any wanted to share by sms to 8355 3074 or email avideiok@gmail.com